Argument for Pay as you Weigh airfares

[trippin_the_rift]

I've been paying according to my height for years.

The tall tax isn't cheap!

 

[moa999]

Argument Against....

Whilst weight is a cost factor on an aircraft (slight increase in fuel needed to be burnt) the true driver of profit for the airline (and hence what they charge) is space...
The freight/checkin holds are packed tight, and the airlines try and fully utilise the belly space.
Whilst the airlines could individually measure each dimension of your luggage they instead use a simple max size cage and a weight system (one figure - much easier)...

Upstairs there is a lot of "dead space", an Economy seat taking up a space of 100cm by 50cm by 200cm (to roof) does not have much difference whether the person in it weighs 50kg or 100kg.... Underneath a space of that size probably fits 500kg of luggage. Thus the premium seats are that much more expensive because you are occupying that much more space.

 

[anat0l]

Someone should probably seek out the professor's paper to get the full story. As it stands, there is absolutely no discussion of the other issues besides just the weight (e.g. as seen on this thread, possible social / human issues). Doesn't help that the news article "abbreviates" all the findings.

At first glance, it's a purely academic argument without much other thought.

Whilst the argument of weight and fuel burn etc. is likely to be quite true, the implementation which includes passengers' weights is a lot more difficult than one thinks. Though, it might encourage me to get into shape if I want to keep my flying hobby!

 

[medhead]

The current system is a 'community' rating system, where everybody pays the same no matter how much someone weighs (to a point).

I would have no problems changing this, even though I would be at the heavier end, if all other 'community' rating systems were eliminated. Why should a couple pay the same for health insurance as a family of six? Three times the risk for the same premium!

I'm pretty sure that my family health insurance costs more than my individual health insurance. I'm not sure that a couple pay the same as a family of six.

I stand corrected, and before I read the article being discussed I thought the same - here's what it says:

Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management editor Dr Ian Yeoman said: "For airlines, every extra kilogram means more expensive jet fuel must be burned, which leads to CO2 emissions and financial cost.

Unless I'm misunderstood, the article's point was to no longer charge by "average" weight.
​

​

As I recall the story offers 3 suggested options, it then goes on to quote the paper as dismissing the first 2 options as too complex for airlines to implement. Even the last option remains complex, it involves offering a fare based on the average and then including a discount for below average weight and charging extra for above average weight. How does the airline price that, it is still going to be the same price. Remembering that the average is going to be based on the statistics of hundreds of flights. But then for each individual flight they are then going to bias the fares collected based on the profile of an individual flight while still trying to achieve the average. To what purpose? To make a few people feel a bit more fairly treated?

What percentile of flights will have all below average weight people and then risk making a loss because of the all the discounts they have to offer? How much extra will it cost to employ another dozen people to work the numbers so that the flights still work out to a profitable average.

What about loading fuel? I'm not sure how that's going to work. Check in cuts off 30 minutes beforehand. So then the pilots have 30 minutes to work out the fuel required and have it loaded onto the aircraft. Really this is going to be the critical step for the airline to actually achieve a fuel saving.

Then there are questions about how to collect the fare, as that is currently collected at booking and mostly via the internet (I'd guess). So do we have an honour system of passengers nominating their weight? How many on the boundaries are going to nominate a bit lower? Maybe the bonus is paid/collected at the airport. How? At what cost to check in efficiency? Perhaps the most efficient system would be via the Qantas cash FF card system, or the VA cash book system (or whatever it's called). Does that mean the paid back fees can only be used for future bookings? What if I want my cash money?

Sorry if I only have questions but that is the missing piece of the puzzle, as anat01 has mentioned. The news story only creates questions about the practicality of the suggestion. It certainly doesn't create a strong argument for pay as you weigh airfares

 

[stewiejp]

Sorry if I only have questions but that is the missing piece of the puzzle, as anat01 has mentioned. The news story only creates questions about the practicality of the suggestion. It certainly doesn't create a strong argument for pay as you weigh airfares

Couldn't agree more - and as I stated earlier, any airline attempting to implement such a system would not only be outraging a lot of passengers and "current affairs" programmes, but likely dicing with anti discrimination laws as well, at least in this country.

 

[JohnK]

.... (i wouldn't be surprised if we were getting taller too) ....
I would tend to agree with this statement.

 

[freepyjamas]

As a fattie or tallie, if I pay twice as much as a skinny or shortie, I want twice as much space. Or in my case, twice as much leg room

Based on the cost/space differential between Y, Y+ and J, paying twice as much will not entitle you to anywhere near twice as much space.

Anyway, as a non-fattie or tallie I'd be quite happy for Y seats to be big enough to comfortably accommodate the fatties/tallies, and I'd be quite happy for Y airfares to reflect this. We all pay more and we're all comfortable. This constant race to the bottom is leading us to treat people as cargo.. It's pretty distasteful.

 

[dajop]

Would it be weight at check-in for flight? Or weight at boarding? After some time in the MEL or SYD QF FCL there could be a substantial difference

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

I believe Southwest, United and Continental already have such a 'customer of size' policy, however it more relates to the breach of the seating dimensions.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

So which airline is going to set up private booths for every check in desk so they can weigh people and also protect their privacy. I'd say none.

No one in the queue sees how much my bags weigh.
It is only the read-out that needs to be discreet and not the scale.

Pretty simple to have scales where the readout is only visible by the check-in agent and passenger...just as it is for bags now.

 

[AVC]

I have no problem with this far-fetched idea.

So long as my daughter flies for 25% of the fare, as she only weighs 25% of an average adult (whatever that may be).

But by this rationale, we should be paying for our luggage by the kilo too. It would make everybody pack light, that's for sure. Might have a negative impact on overhead space though, as some fliers would be striving to get the weight down, and maybe more PAX would be carry-on only

 

[alister]

Its not fair for taller people who, if on the same weight to height ratio as a shorter person, will weigh more. It also goes for luggage. My business partner is about 2/3 my mass and therefore even though we take the same gear on trips his weighs less. This idea would never work and its fine how it is. If you want cheaper fares then maybe its better to do away with costly FF perks like free lounge access?

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Think of the other benefits -

- the lounge would no longer serve hot dogs and booze (alcohol is empty calories my wife continually tells me)
- the lounges would fit gym equipment for us to drop those recently added calories (think of a plane load of DYKWIA BO reeking bodies)
- my family tix would cost less (as I'm the heaviest of all of us @ 100kg) so all the fatties would subsidise my family holidays
- we'd all be wearing thongs on-board (even in J :shock as shoes weigh far too much
- we'd all be wearing thongs on board as full undies weigh too much
- waifs with no checked baggage will actually bill the airlines

Now what other rubbish will we discuss today?

 

[samh004]

Can you imagine the outrage? Next they'll be flying people by nationalities or sexuality

They already do during Mardi Gras

As a fattie or tallie, if I pay twice as much as a skinny or shortie, I want twice as much space. Or in my case, twice as much leg room

If pax are going to be charged by their sizes, then the airlines should also provide seats that are suitable for those sizes.

This I think is the crux of the matter, if they started charging by weight then they'd have to improve the facilities, and they aren't going to do that.

 

[Foreigner]

Fat fliers DO pay more on Samoan Air | News.com.au Topical in news today.

 

[harvyk]

Just doing some back of the napkin maths, an "average" person, weighing 70kg (I think that's the figure that airlines use), comes in at 0.0176% of the total weight of a 747-400 at MTOW, even ramping that person up to say 130kg, that's still only 0.0328% of the MTOW of a 747-400 with a difference of 0.0152% of additional weight, that's hardly a massive increase. Yes if you have an entire plane load of people at 130kg, that will make a difference, but a couple of individuals your not really talking about a big change at all.

Now I can hear you saying "but baggage". Well with baggage, it has to be handled, someone has to pick it up and move it over to the plane. If a bag gets too heavy for one person to handle you now have to employ a second person to handle that bag which slows the whole process down, but since a person is so nicely called "Self Loading Freight" there is no "handling requirements" which differ from a lighter person compared to a heavier person. The only real time that there is a handling difference is in the case of the disabled pax, however those guys are usually pretty well protected from being charged a higher price thanks to anti discrimination laws.

 

[medhead]

Air Mid west flight 5481 crashed when over weight based on an average pax weight being 9 kg lighter than the actual average weight. (Wikipedia)

Average weight used after the crash is/was 90.7kg


With luggage I reckon 130kg might be close.

 

[harvyk]

Air Mid west flight 5481 crashed when over weight based on an average pax weight being 9 kg lighter than the actual average weight. (Wikipedia)

Average weight used after the crash is/was 90.7kg


With luggage I reckon 130kg might be close.

Yes, but that was a little 19 (now 18) seater, where an extra few kg for a pax will make a much bigger difference to the overall weight of the plane, compared to even a 737.

 

[medhead]

Yes, but that was a little 19 (now 18) seater, where an extra few kg for a pax will make a much bigger difference to the overall weight of the plane, compared to even a 737.

I'm giving you an indication of likely average weight. Not saying anything at all about weight and the crash and whatever else your implying with this post. Simple point 90 kg is a good indication of average weight regardless of aircraft. Everything you've written after yes is interesting but ultimately irrelevant to the purpose of my post.

 

[lovestotravel]

Can you imagine the outrage? Next they'll be flying people by nationalities or sexuality

Umm how is that even relevant ?

Weight costs the airlines $ in fuel
Nationality/sexuality doesn't!