Fair to be paying for an overweight passenger?

[Jack_OC]

What they should really do is charge customer based on total weight. As someone who is a fit and healthy 75kgs it drives me insane that I could get charged for an additional 5kg in baggage yet someone who weighs 120kgs doesn't have a problem.

If you're 75 kg and travelling with 28 kg of checked luggage (5 kg over the minimum allowance), I would say you are travelling with more weight than the majority of others. I weigh more than you, and indeed more than the average person (I'm just under 90 kg), but I rarely travel with any checked luggage. So are you saying that you should have to pay more than me, given that you are travelling with more weight?

 

[Quickstatus]

This is completely off topic

 

[Jack_OC]

This is completely off topic

Off what topic?

 

[Quickstatus]

Apologies - I saw a velocity thread title.

Lets make it really user pays:
Ring the flight attendant bell $$
Use the onboard toilets $$
Dont eat everything given to you resulting in increased disposal costs for remnants $$
Boarding pass rather than online $$
Checked luggage resulting in baggage handling $$
Causing medical diversion $$$$$$$$$
Using the onboard magazine sudoku $

Processing fee for requesting a fare credit for not using included weight $$
Passenger weighing charge $$

Should I get a refund for not drinking alcohol onboard?.

 

[Jack_OC]

Apologies - I saw a velocity thread title.

Oh yeah - just realised this has been separated out from another thread!

 

[ermen]

Intellectually and mathematically, agree with OP. User pays is a very "chicago school" concept. And insofar as we can discourage "subsidies" , it would lead to more economically efficient outcomes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics)

But from a behavioural economics perspective, it would probably be a disaster (eg why is Uber surge pricing hated so much?)

And if you think about it - i wonder how much incremental $$$ can be saved, versus the cost of implementation.

Also from an airlines' perspective, there may not be nett savings overall - given they should presumably set weight (and therefore fuel costs) based on a curve, which would be quite accurate over a large sample size. Implementing such a scheme would just a transfer of wealth from a obese passenger, to a skinny passenger (on an aggregated basis), with no nett benefit to the airline.

Now where it gets interesting, would be a case where skinny self passengers self select to fly this airline. In that case, the lower fuel bill may / may not be passed onto the consumer. BUT, if it is passed on, there still won't be a net profit increase to the airline.

 

[bean]

Re: User Pays

Tall passengers don't HAVE to pay extra for anything. Passengers pay for a seat w/ optional extra based on fare class etc. The basic seating is the same for everyone in cattle, besides optional seats for extra coin.

You aren't discriminated against because you're tall, if YOU want to increase your comfort, YOU are welcome to invest in an optional extra. If a passenger in Aus currently fails to fit in their seat, there is not much that can be done (unlike the US where the passenger is made to buy a second seat) - maybe that is what you truly seek.

What you are describing is effectively impossible to implement in Australia at this point. Beside from the publicity suicide, Australian Consumer Law and Anti-Discrimination Law both stand in the way of your grand plan.

I'm also pretty sure neither Virgin or Qantas will want to make the first move in this regard - even if these laws were relaxed.

Please explain how charging someone based on a total weight aspect is discriminatory? It's not. Costs to the operation of the aircraft are directly related to weight. You have an option, take less baggage or pay a price, just as you do now. Only difference is the true total weight is taken into consideration. But please don't kid yourself it is discrimination-it is passing on costs, and in no way discrimates.

You have obviously never flown in a light aircraft. Passengers can and are weighed as weight and balance is critical.

God I wish people would accept responsibility for their own actions and stop playing victims.

 

[bean]

If you're 75 kg and travelling with 28 kg of checked luggage (5 kg over the minimum allowance), I would say you are travelling with more weight than the majority of others. I weigh more than you, and indeed more than the average person (I'm just under 90 kg), but I rarely travel with any checked luggage. So are you saying that you should have to pay more than me, given that you are travelling with more weight?

in your described scenario yes.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: User Pays

Sounds like lightweight passengers are being portrayed as victims.

 

[bean]

Apologies - I saw a velocity thread title.

Lets make it really user pays:
Ring the flight attendant bell $$
Use the onboard toilets $$
Dont eat everything given to you resulting in increased disposal costs for remnants $$
Boarding pass rather than online $$
Checked luggage resulting in baggage handling $$
Causing medical diversion $$$$$$$$$
Using the onboard magazine sudoku $

Processing fee for requesting a fare credit for not using included weight $$
Passenger weighing charge $$

Should I get a refund for not drinking alcohol onboard?.

Why is the concept such a stretch for you? I'm amazed people seem to be so offended at paying for their fair share.We already get charged to book flights on the phone, to use credit cards, to purchase alcohol etc.

As someone who can drink quite a bit I have often pondered if it's fare that I drink $100 worth of alcohol on a business class trip whilst the person next to me drinks Coke? They are subsidising my drinks!

And many of the concept you have described above are already in place with the likes of Ryanair.

 

[OzEire]

Clearly an issue weighing on our OP's mind. I'd like to throw my weight behind Ermen's sensible economic argument. Cost of implementation for such a scheme would outweigh its benefit, all fares would go up but slightly more for heavier pax, who would cease being customers en masse, resulting in lighter loads and slimmer profits. Shareholders would then weigh-in and airline execs could face serious belt tightening.

I have no issues for the normal range of weight +/- but can sympathize with other threads where pax have lost a good portion of their seat room due to a 'person of size' sitting next to them. If the unit being sold currently by airlines is the 'seat' (versus a total weight package suggested by our OP) then loss of seat room is a genuine problem.

 

[bean]

Sounds like lightweight passengers are being portrayed as victims.

Victim is a bit dramatic. Should a truck and a car using the same toll road pay the same fare?

Should my land tax be the same as your irrespective of land size?

Should everything in life be equal irrespective of the actual cost?

 

[bean]

Clearly an issue weighing on our OP's mind. I'd like to throw my weight behind Ermen's sensible economic argument. Cost of implementation for such a scheme would outweigh its benefit, all fares would go up but slightly more for heavier pax, who would cease being customers en masse, resulting in lighter loads and slimmer profits. Shareholders would then weigh-in and airline execs could face serious belt tightening.

I have no issues for the normal range of weight +/- but can sympathize with other threads where pax have lost a good portion of their seat room due to a 'person of size' sitting next to them. If the unit being sold currently by airlines is the 'seat' (versus a total weight package suggested by our OP) then loss of seat room is a genuine problem.

Maybe, maybe not. I used to be 120kgs and my wife 45kgs. I found it absurd one time abroad where she was 5kgs over and we had to empty her bag and put her clothes in carry on despite me weighing 75kgs more than her. Crazy.

It's an interesting question though.

 

[Hvr]

Re: User Pays

Please explain how charging someone based on a total weight aspect is discriminatory? It's not. <snip>

Actually it is called 'indirect discrimination'.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12049
Indirect discrimination occurs when there is an unreasonable rule or policy that is the same for everyone but has an unfair effect on people who share a particular attribute.

Certain ethnic groups are heavier than others, therefore paying for a service based on weight would be considered discriminatory.

<snip>
God I wish people would accept responsibility for their own actions and stop playing victims.

I wish people knew the law before they posted and stopped playing god with their discriminatory attitude towards other people.

 

[oz_mark]

Re: User Pays

Must remember to take my Scottevest jacket off before I am weighed then.

I was just imagining a terminal full of scales to weigh people. Now, I realise that for the Scottevest folks, they may need to install a weighbridge

 

[Quickstatus]

Why is the concept such a stretch for you? I'm amazed people seem to be so offended at paying for their fair share.We already get charged to book flights on the phone, to use credit cards, to purchase alcohol etc.

As someone who can drink quite a bit I have often pondered if it's fare that I drink $100 worth of alcohol on a business class trip whilst the person next to me drinks Coke? They are subsidising my drinks!

And many of the concept you have described above are already in place with the likes of Ryanair.

Im glad you like the RyanAir model - you will feel at home there.
Next time I fly I'll be sure to raise my glass of Coke Zero (without ice) to you. You can then have more ice for your drinks.
With the subsidies in each direction the net effect should be zero but just to be sure, I bring my own toothpaste so don't use the lounge toiletries pack and BYOD so this should save some onboard electricity. I also don't like it too hot onboard so will be sure to request the cabin temp to be turned down a bit surely saving a bit more in fuel. If I do to the loo before checkin this should save some weight too. I also don't use the slippers and onboard PJ as the largest size is too small. This is a significant saving as I don't expect the airline to make one big enough - the streamlining of PJ production to 2 sizes only is a significant saving

Actually I don't get charged for using a CC on a certain airline as I get gift vouchers. Is this Ok?

 

[bean]

Actually it is called 'indirect discrimination'.


Certain ethnic groups are heavier than others, therefore paying for a service based on weight would be considered discriminatory.


I wish people knew the law before they posted and stopped playing god with their discriminatory attitude towards other people.

No it's not. It's charging people directly based on the cost of the service you are delivering. If you come into my restaurant and eat more food because you are one of these 'heavier' ethnic groups am I not allowed to charge you more for passing on the cost of the additional food you have eaten?

 

[bean]

Im glad you like the RyanAir model - you will feel at home there.
Next time I fly I'll be sure to raise my glass of Coke Zero (without ice) to you.
With the subsidies in each direction the net effect should be zero but just to be sure, I bring my own toothpaste so don't use the lounge toiletries pack and BYOD so this should save some onboard electricity. I also don't like it too hot onboard so will be sure to request the cabin temp to be turned down a bit surely saving a bit more in fuel.

Funny how every opposing view has resorted to extreme responses like this instead of having a intelligent discussion...

 

[supertrader]

I'd suggest there's a difference between a small aircraft and mainstream travel (e.g. what most of the population does). Not every obese person is that eay due to their overeating - people do have disabilities. Charging people based on weight within the Australian context would have issues due to the multitude of issues to do with discrimination. Google is your friend.

<redacted>

 

[supertrader]

No it's not. It's charging people directly based on the cost of the service you are delivering. If you come into my restaurant and eat more food because you are one of these 'heavier' ethnic groups am I not allowed to charge you more for passing on the cost of the additional food you have eaten?

Are you delusional? You can't charge people more or less based on their ethnicity; you charge based on your model (a la carte, buffet etc). If I go to your buffet, the service is a buffet, it has nothing to do with what I weigh. Dear lord.