Airlines to charge by Weight???

[csgohan4]

Interesting article here about an airline starting to charge by weight and thier rationale is some people feel that they are paying for half of the fare of the person sitting next to them.

Not sure about this and somewhat discriminatory. Some people can't help being obese, either through their genes, medical condition or mental health.

[kalniel]

I can just imagine the trade in diuretics prior to weigh in - and a chance to make extra water sales post check in

It does make for a nicely transparent fare system though - a simple scale for combined passenger/luggage and no faffing with extra charges. Hence it could never take on over here.

[TheAnimus]

Quality BBC journalism, glad too see the unique way the BBC is funded, allows it to provide such insight.

This is a tin pot little airline, which flies two planes, both of which are tiny.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-...402-2h495.html

A C172 seats 4 theoretically, in practice it can seat about 320kg of people and bags with full fuel.

The BN2A Islander can take 9 passengers, but in practice, it has about 700kg when you've got fuel in. So lets call it 75kg per passenger. Better than the C172 (loved by General Aviation for its low cost per trip) but not by much.

On these poxy little planes, it really matters. One or Two 'outliers' who are super fatty, and you are outside of useable limits.

Compare that with say the 737-3ER, which is very much loved by low budget airlines, that has a useable weight of about 180,000kg. Assuming it's given fully over to scum class, thats about 550 people. Add in a bit of fuel, lets half fill it (more than enough for most short routes, such as theirs) and we've got 100,000kg between 550 people. Or 175kg each roughly speaking.

So yeah, EasyJet don't need to worry about baggage weight just yet. In fact the weight really just creates issues for the ground crew and handlers, heavier bags are harder to shift so take longer, and airports charge more for them. Also packing them becomes more complex too, you can't stack em quite so high, you have to put them at the bottom. It really does create problems for them when they are not doing a simple freight service.

[Rob_B]

I think its great!

..Some people can't help being obese, either through their genes, medical condition or mental health.

To be fair though that's irrelevant, the single biggest cost to airline is fuel, heavier passenger+bags is more expensive that lighter passenger+bags.
An airline is not a charity, insurance companies charge more for obese people or people with medical conditions, car insurance is more expensive for younger/inexperienced drivers, a haircut with longer hair costs more than if you have short hair, a large bucket of KFC costs more than a small box even though the customers might not be full on a small box.

This is about costs of providing service. The question to be asked, ignoring the type of service/product is:

If the cost for providing 'X' is higher for customer A than customer B, should customer A pay more for that service?

[phil4]

Discrimination is very often similar to prejudice, ie. deciding on the outcome based one some "membership" of a "group", without giving recourse to actual perfomance in said assessment. Fairness in most ways is not about right or wrong, positive outcome or otherwise, but instead about treating each person by the same rules as the next.

As such while I agree that some people may have real problems, this is in my mind neither discrimination, nor unfair. Simply put, you all step on the scales, and what it weighs is what you pays.

Yes, I'd love to save a few pounds to save a few pounds, but on the basis that this isn't even just an arbitrary pricing measure, but one based on their actual costs, it seems perfectly sensible for them to do, and provided they do weigh each and every person, and apply the same rules, I don't even see as unfair or discriminatory.

[csgohan4]

what about those that weigh more because they are tall or are fit and work out??


If they are applying the rules across the board, then fair enough, but this will not be popular

[Rob_B]

They are applying it across the board which is why I'm fine with it.

Although I just did some back of an envelope calculations and figured it cost flybe $30 vs $22.50 to fly someone 2,500km based on some random figures I found and some generous rounding. So the question is will heavier people be charged more than the current price while everyone else stays the same or will fares also reduce?

[BobF64]

what about those that weigh more because they are tall or are fit and work out??


If they are applying the rules across the board, then fair enough, but this will not be popular

I believe they are, its weight of passenger + luggage, its not a "discriminatory fat tax" or anything.

In the early days of aviation, when everyone had small planes, passengers were weighed along with luggage, not for pricing, but for fuel calculations, so its not really all that new.

As for fairness, surely everyone paying what it costs for them is 100% fair?

[TheAnimus]

They are applying it across the board which is why I'm fine with it.

Did you see my post?

[Rob_B]

Did you see my post?

I think you might think I'm talking about them applying it across all airlines? I'm not, just that this airline isn't discriminating on different 'types' of weight

My back of envelope calculations, feel free to pick at them as I'm sure they're probably out by a decent margin and make a lot of assumptions:

Embraer 195
63,900lb empty
28,600lb max fuel
Max range 2,593km (so I'm assuming that's an empty plane with a full tank)

Jet fuel is $3.20/gallon and weighs 6.7lb/gallon so the plane holds 4,250 gallons

So it weights 92,500lbs full of fuel and goes 2,593km using 4,250 gallons, thats 0.046 gallon/lb of weight = $0.15/lb

So a 150lb 'weight' costs $22.50 to go the 2,593km
200lb would cost $30

If I'm even remotely close then that means additional weight over the plane+fuel isn't even such a big deal (?)

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think you might think I'm talking about them applying it across all airlines? I'm not, just that this airline isn't discriminating on different 'types' of weight

Don't worry,they will find some way to up the price for you.



Airlines probably already have a rough estimate of what the average or median weight of the passengers they fly on a particular route is. Sure,there will be some very light ones and very heavy ones too,compared to the norm,but I suspect as a percentage of all the passengers these would be a lower number.

They thing is the airline in the OP probably is not making enough money,and instead of upping prices wholesale,they decided on this little PR trick. The airline is in Samoa which is not exactly a rich place too, so a large scale price increase would gain bad PR for them.

So,what they do?? They sell a weight based ticket price,making people "think" they can save money.

Except in reality I doubt it.

They can make their own definition of over average or median weight.

Say,if a bigger airline did such a thing. Say one of the routes costs £500 for a return ticket based on many factors.

I can see them selling in big words,"NOW,£480 due to our new weight based scheme!!*"

*cheapest ticket only elligible if you weigh 35KG or less and are under 4 foot in height and have a mustache.

Then you will find Mr Average or Median weight,will probably be paying £525 under the new scheme.

Thats even assuming they play honest.

Meh.

[Willzzz]

This whole discrimination thing is a joke right?

Sure extra weight may be down to genes or mental problems, so what? The cause is irrelevant.

It's like saying exams discriminate against stupid people.

[TooNice]

a haircut with longer hair costs more than if you have short hair

Random fact of the day: In Japan, the price is the same in most places (every place I've been).

On topic: I do feel that such system is more fair. I find that airlines are getting stricter with baggage allowance, and I do find it unfair that if I was to go over the luggage allowance by 5kg, I may end up having to pay an excess luggage fee, when in reality, I probably weight less than the average passenger by over 5kg.

[TheAnimus]

I think you might think I'm talking about them applying it across all airlines? I'm not, just that this airline isn't discriminating on different 'types' of weight

My back of envelope calculations, feel free to pick at them as I'm sure they're probably out by a decent margin and make a lot of assumptions:

Embraer 195
63,900lb empty
28,600lb max fuel
Max range 2,593km (so I'm assuming that's an empty plane with a full tank)

Jet fuel is $3.20/gallon and weighs 6.7lb/gallon so the plane holds 4,250 gallons

So it weights 92,500lbs full of fuel and goes 2,593km using 4,250 gallons, thats 0.046 gallon/lb of weight = $0.15/lb

So a 150lb 'weight' costs $22.50 to go the 2,593km
200lb would cost $30

If I'm even remotely close then that means additional weight over the plane+fuel isn't even such a big deal (?)

I think you missed the part about these tiny little planes.

Most C172s can only fit 3 passengers, and one of them has his hands on the stick. Their BN2A can only sit 9 SLF.

As a result a little bit of extra weight really matters. Most small airlines do this already, sort of, because most schedule ones don't fly such tiny little planes, they only do charter.

No major airline will bother with this, its too much effort, too hard to enforce, do you weigh at the gate, or at checkin? Think how big the lines would get.

Baggage as I mentioned is often charged by the port, not the airline, but true, they do take their slice of it.

The thing is, if you've got 550 people vs 3. Its a lot easier to deal with the distribution. Without going in to it too much people don't just all weigh the same weight, some are heavy, some are light, some are kids! If it all averages out to something reasonable, no problem.

Most commercial jet liners are not worrying about their weight limits!

Also your fuel example forgot to include the loss of the burnt fuels weight. It's even cheaper!

[peterb]

A friend of mine was flying to the States. Got to his seat on boarding to find the seat next to him already occupied by the passenger. However, in order to sit down, the passenger had to lift the arm rest and occupied half his seat.

He declined to occupy half a seat, and after some one-way discussion with the cabin staff (in front of said passenger), he was eventually upgraded.

Should the passenger have paid for two seats?.

[BobF64]

Should the passenger have paid for two seats?.

For fairness, yes, absolutely.

Its a finite and known amount of space, so its fair for everyone, all passengers should fit within the space available, or pay for more room.

That said, I dont think it should necessarily be the cost of 2 seats, after all, the ticket price includes other things that as 1 person, you wont be using twice as much of.