• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fatties to pay more to fly?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bigystyle84 said:
I can be offended if I want to be dude. It's not selfish. I have many larger friends and family that fly a lot and my opinion is just as valid as yours.

No I don't have a "smurf" account, it was a joke, thanks for noticing.
Click to expand...

Do they fit in one seat?

That's the problem, if they don't fit in the seat. They take up their seat, and their fat asses squish over to your side. Those types need to be banned if they don't buy two tickets, which means they should be paying more for their ride compared to a normal passenger.
 
Last edited:
It takes roughly a gallon of jet fuel to move 100 pounds on a domestic flight, so the cost difference would be around 5-10 dollars. Now add in the costs associated with weighing each person and the business you'll lose.
 
Mermaidman said:
It doesn't make sense. The problem is that air fares are seldom dependent on the airlines' non-labor costs to operate the aircraft.

If airfares were dependent on operating costs, then why do I pay more for non-stop direct flights than flights with layovers? 😡
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that increase cost. Are you suggesting that weight doesn't have anything to do with fuel costs? Hmmm...

There are other costs, such as labor costs. However, that isn't why a non-stop flight costs more. Non-stop costs more because people are willing to pay more for it. Nobody likes stops, or layovers. Non-stop flights, or flights with quick layovers, cost more because they are worth more to the customer.

Edit: let me add that it states in the article that an extra kg of weight will add fuel costs of $3,000 over the course of a year. That is why one airline eliminated its life vests from under the seat.
 
Last edited:
MixMasterTang said:
It takes roughly a gallon of jet fuel to move 100 pounds on a domestic flight, so the cost difference would be around 5-10 dollars. Now add in the costs associated with weighing each person and the business you'll lose.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to specify how much weight people should be charged. Just that if they don't fit in the seat, they get charged a second seat automatically. If there is no second seat available on the plane? They are removed, no refunds. Simple.
 
DrunkenSano said:
There's no reason to specify how much weight people should be charged. Just that if they don't fit in the seat, they get charged a second seat automatically. If there is no second seat available on the plane? They are removed, no refunds. Simple.
Click to expand...

Hey I am all for that and some airlines do have this policy, but the people talking about paying per pound have no idea what they are talking about.
 
lxskllr said:
Why couldn't you be weighed while you're getting radiated by the TSA? You have to stand there getting your asshole checked anyway. There's no reason you can't stand on a scale.
Click to expand...

So you want to completely re-arrange every major airport in the US? Also - the TSA is incredibly slow to adopt any kind of hardware so getting them to agree on a scale would take 2-5 years and cost a shit ton of money. Furthermore you want the TSA to integrate their weighing with all the airlines? Do you really think the TSA could do that efficiently or cost effectively?

What about inbound international flights on a domestic carrier? Are we now going to force TSA agents to be at every international gateway city to the US so the TSA can weigh the passengers? Or are we going to make foreign security responsible to relay weight too?

Besides - it would still absolutely increase wait times. Not all airports have scanning equipment that makes you pause. Often times I am able to walk though a metal detector and pick up my items with no stopping to be nekkid scanned. If I have to wait for a weight to show that will increase time. Might not be a lot but lets take DTW for example:
Handles around 90,000 people a day and 3/4 of those do not go through the full body scanners (rough estimate as the full body scanners are at about 1/4 of the security lines). So 67,500 people need to wait longer to get weighted. If that takes 3 seconds each you end up with an additional 56.25 hours of wait time a day. And that would be with an incredibly fast scale and with everyone knowing what to do - which never happens

Sheep said:
This. The ignorance in this thread is strong. The airlines aren't going to give up ANY money from anything whether it's luggage fees, the inevitable restroom fees, or charges for skinny or fat people.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll see widespread restroom fees form the major airlines - at least anytime soon
 
MixMasterTang said:
It takes roughly a gallon of jet fuel to move 100 pounds on a domestic flight, so the cost difference would be around 5-10 dollars. Now add in the costs associated with weighing each person and the business you'll lose.
Click to expand...

You are saying it costs $10 extra to fly from Seattle to Spokane? How about LA to NY? Those are both domestic flights.

How much would it cost to weigh people? They already have scales in every airport... Please link to a cost-benefit analysis.
 
MixMasterTang said:
It takes roughly a gallon of jet fuel to move 100 pounds on a domestic flight, so the cost difference would be around 5-10 dollars. Now add in the costs associated with weighing each person and the business you'll lose.
Click to expand...

If this is true, why does it supposed cost $3000 for 2lbs in a year? Even 10 flights a day 365 days a year is 3650 flights. $10 per 100lb is $0.10 a lb. Worst case numbers are off by an order of magnitude.
 
I haven't read the entire thread, so not sure if something like this has been mentioned...

How about several different size seats, each with a progressively longer seat belt. Big people will have to buy and pay for a larger seat that they can fit into it and latch the belt. Or someone who wants more comfort can buy as big and roomy a seat as they are willing to pay for.

If you are tiny and can fit into a compact seat, in a row with an extra seat or two squeezed in, then you get to fly for less.

But this would never go over with the airlines. Their goal is to fly the same number of passengers/weight as before but charge more to do so. It's not like charging fatties more to fly will save the skinnies a dime.
 
MixMasterTang said:
It takes roughly a gallon of jet fuel to move 100 pounds on a domestic flight, so the cost difference would be around 5-10 dollars. Now add in the costs associated with weighing each person and the business you'll lose.
Click to expand...

Plot twist: the RIAA becomes accountants for the airline industry and start using Hollywood accounting. Rebrands the whole problem as fuel piracy and ticket prices rise by 800%. Airlines now lose more money than ever, despite every available surface of the plane being covered with ads.

This uncomfortably small bathroom brought to you by Kay Jewelers.™ Every mile-high kiss begins with Kay!

©/® Copyright 2000-2013 Kay Jewelers, a division of Sterling Jewelers, Inc. 375 Ghent Road, Akron, OH 44333
Click to expand...
 
Apple Of Sodom said:
You are saying it costs $10 extra to fly from Seattle to Spokane? How about LA to NY? Those are both domestic flights.

How much would it cost to weigh people? They already have scales in every airport... Please link to a cost-benefit analysis.
Click to expand...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/sec3charts.pdf

The last 20,000 pounds of payload requires an extra 5,000 pounds of fuel to maintain a constant range of 3,300 nautical miles. (In other words, starting from a 100,000 pound payload, we add 20,000 more pounds to get the marginal difference for the 120,000 pound maximum payload. The chart shows that the extra 20,000 pound payload adds 25,000 pounds to the gross weight, therefore an extra 5,000 pounds of fuel was required.)

So, if a passenger has a total weight of 200 pounds, including baggage, that would require 50 pounds of extra fuel which is around 7.5 gallons at current prices that is under $25 dollars for 200 pounds going 3300 nautical miles.
 
Last edited:
ADDAvenger said:
Or we could keep the current scheme and have a people sizer by the counter, like we have carry-on sizers. Instead of a box approximating your carry-on allowance, it would be a chair of the right class with lasers on the sides. If you can't sit in that chair without breaking a laser, you buy a higher class ticket, buy two seats, or you gtfo.
Click to expand...

aww I thought the lasers trimmed you to the right size. 😛
 
Paladin3 said:
I haven't read the entire thread, so not sure if something like this has been mentioned...

How about several different size seats, each with a progressively longer seat belt. Big people will have to buy and pay for a larger seat that they can fit into it and latch the belt. Or someone who wants more comfort can buy as big and roomy a seat as they are willing to pay for.

If you are tiny and can fit into a compact seat, in a row with an extra seat or two squeezed in, then you get to fly for less.

But this would never go over with the airlines. Their goal is to fly the same number of passengers/weight as before but charge more to do so. It's not like charging fatties more to fly will save the skinnies a dime.
Click to expand...

They already have them.

They are called first class or coach. 😉
 
I have never read so much stupidity in one thread.
But let's play along. If your ticket is going to be dependent on your weight than the accommodations on the planes had better be proportional to the price and make every passengers equally comfortable. No more one size fits all seats. Each plane will have to be outfitted with small, medium and large size seats both in first class and economy. It's only logical, the heavy passengers who will pay more will expect the same level of comfort as the smaller person.

No airline will ever implement a system like this because it would not be profitable. What if on a fluke, all passengers on a flight are skinny. Some will have to be seated in the medium and large size seats but will not be paying more. This is a money losing proposition and to add insult to injury, there are fewer seats on the plane now because of this new system. Airline is losing money, period.

Stupid stupid stupid. Obviously the OP's Norwegian "economist" is no airline executive.
 
What if there are 2 fat people that each take 1 and 1/2 seats. Would they each get charged for 2, or could they share 3 and each only pay 1.5?
 
Jeff7 said:
If they really want to save money, let's go whole-hog on the "people are cargo" thing: Get small tubes, somewhat along the line of those super-compact capsule hotel rooms in Japan, slip people into those shipping containers, and then sedate everyone on the plane. Everyone stays mostly unconscious, they're stacked efficiently so they will take up little room, and hopefully no one will even need to get a drink or use a bathroom.
Travel in a Style.


Style®: Your #1 human shipping container manufacturer. Now with minty-fresh-scent sedative add-in!
Click to expand...

This.
Is.
An.
AMAZING.
Idea.

Holy shit. OK OK it might not work too well for short haul flights, but I would LOVE to have this for those long 18hour flights.

You get to lie down, nap for the whole trip, not having to deal waiting in line for the bathroom, a shitty meal, and pathetic excuses for "in flight entertainment."

Seriously... Where do I sign up.
 
Jeff7 said:
The question ends up being: Are the people you are transporting to be viewed as passengers and paying customers, or are they mere cargo?


If they really want to save money, let's go whole-hog on the "people are cargo" thing: Get small tubes, somewhat along the line of those super-compact capsule hotel rooms in Japan, slip people into those shipping containers, and then sedate everyone on the plane. Everyone stays mostly unconscious, they're stacked efficiently so they will take up little room, and hopefully no one will even need to get a drink or use a bathroom.
Travel in a Style.


Style®: Your #1 human shipping container manufacturer. Now with minty-fresh-scent sedative add-in!
Click to expand...

That is how they did it in The Fifth Element 😀
 
Jeff7 said:
The question ends up being: Are the people you are transporting to be viewed as passengers and paying customers, or are they mere cargo?


If they really want to save money, let's go whole-hog on the "people are cargo" thing: Get small tubes, somewhat along the line of those super-compact capsule hotel rooms in Japan, slip people into those shipping containers, and then sedate everyone on the plane. Everyone stays mostly unconscious, they're stacked efficiently so they will take up little room, and hopefully no one will even need to get a drink or use a bathroom.
Travel in a Style.


Style®: Your #1 human shipping container manufacturer. Now with minty-fresh-scent sedative add-in!
Click to expand...

uhh....WHY DON'T THEY ALREADY DO THIS? this is so much better than sitting next to loud kids in economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top