Call for airlines to charge passenger 'fat tax'

[oz_mark]

Call for airlines to charge passenger 'fat tax' | NEWS.com.au

OBESE airline passengers should be forced to pay a "fat tax" to cover the cost of transporting their excess weight, according to a controversial proposal by health experts.

Calls for the tax - which would be determined per extra kilo, in the same way as excess baggage - come as obesity rates and fuel prices surge to new highs in Australia.

[....]

Budget airline Jetstar has fitted extra-wide seats to cater for the expanding size of customers, who have the option of buying two seats, or upgrading, if the space is too small.

I guess the last bit is one way of looking at StarClass.....

 

[kyle]

All of us who are underweight, unite! We want refunds!

 

[Evan]

It would be funny to see but not very fair way of helping fat people, after all i have some friends that are over 100kg when in training and non of its fat ! So does this make them unhealthy.
And do you think they would have different weights for men,woman,tall,short,asian,islander etc, or should be be based on BMI ? but it is funny to listen to people's ideas.

And where are these extra wide seats Jet* is putting in ? sounds like a marking spin almost.

E

 

[littl_flier]

Very valid point Evan. But as someone who is reasonably skinny and light weight, I can see some sense (if very little) here.

If I'm 30kgs less than the person next to me, should I be able to take 30kg's more luggage?

Like that's going to happen.

 

[Skoogle]

Obesity Society chief Dr Tim Gill... suggested installing a few extra-large economy seats on each flight to cater for obese passengers.

Would these be the Frequent Eater seats?

Travellers already have options for bigger better seating. If airlines would enforce width limits of passengers, than Y seating would be more comfortable for all.

 

[moa999]

So can the size 6 girls site 12 abreast and pay half the price.

 

[Evan]

So can the size 6 girls site 12 abreast and pay half the price.

On some Japanese planes/flights , well almost
Outside of Asia i can tell you i don't know many size 6 girls.

E

 

[JohnK]

Not again! :shock:

 

[Flying Fox]

Maybe the airlines should have a total passenger limit, ie. everyone gets 150kgs.

If you weigh 100kgs you get 50kgs of luggage, if you weigh 75kgs you get 75kgs of luggage and if you and your bags weight more than 150kgs you have to pay the excess luggage charges.

 

[simongr]

Oh joy - social engineering through taxes on people who fly - do we fliers have targets on our backs at the moment? Have we always been easy prey for wacky ideas and victimisation?

 

[oz_mark]

Have we always been easy prey for wacky ideas and victimisation?

I believe so.

 

[albatross710]

I've always assumed that the airlines make assumptions on the average weight of their passengers and the expected weight of their baggage.

I do recall in the distant past circa 94-95 that on a single Qantas flight they individually weighed all of the boarding passengers. We stood with cabin bags on the scale and our weight was noted. I've always just thought that they were checking their weight assumptions.

There is nothing worse that sitting in the boarding area and seeing a larger person. The worst thing that then happens is the thought "I hope I'm not next to them". Sure enough the jinx is set and I end up spending the flight wedged bewteen two of the larger travellers.

 

[oz_mark]

I've always assumed that the airlines make assumptions on the average weight of their passengers and the expected weight of their baggage.

I believe they use an average for the passengers, but I expect that this may be out of date. I think it s more off an issue for some of the light planes.

 

[Evan]

There was some posts on this in another thread about the weight QF used and it was rather high, seemed that people agreed it was a good figure to use.

I have seen them re-seat people in the smaller planes just to balance load.

E

 

[QueenCaroline]

As a size 6, I'm not heavy enough to weigh in on this debate.

 

[markis10]

I believe they use an average for the passengers, but I expect that this may be out of date. I think it s more off an issue for some of the light planes.

Civil Avation Regulation 235 refers in this regard and until a little while ago the FAA standard of 77kg was used for all calculations for all aircraft. The CAA then released an advisory publication in 1990 that gave a better average weight standard based on aircraft size from 7-9 passengers where the make average is 86kg to 500+ where the average drops to 81.2. More info here: http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/235_1.pdf

 

[oz_mark]

There was some posts on this in another thread about the weight QF used and it was rather high, seemed that people agreed it was a good figure to use.

I have seen them re-seat people in the smaller planes just to balance load.

I don't remember the thread but I guess QF would have a sizeable safety margin in it. I think my readings were based on some US research that put the blame for some light plane accidents at underestimating the weight of passengers.

 

[Hvr]

I do recall in the distant past circa 94-95 that on a single Qantas flight they individually weighed all of the boarding passengers. We stood with cabin bags on the scale and our weight was noted. I've always just thought that they were checking their weight assumptions.

Remeber doing this when arriving in MEL from MNL in 93.

 

[spiggy_topes]

...and here was I thinking 'widebody' referred to the aircraft...

 

[stryker]

Have we always been easy prey for wacky ideas and victimisation?

I must say that I do take exception when an airline charges me extra for a few Kg's over on my luggage, when a fat/obese person (who weighs twice as much as me) whose luggage weight is within limits is not subject to any additional charge.

IMHO I am subsidising such people, and I have no wish to do so.