Airline paying more for fuel because of waistline

Misfit

Lawful neutral
Airlines paying more for fuel because waistlines are expanding | News.com.au

PEOPLE weighing more than average should pay more for their airfares than slimmer passengers, a former Qantas executive says.

Tony Webber said airlines were paying more for fuel because the average weight of the population had increased, the Herald Sun reported.

The extra fuel needed cost about $472 a plane, he said, and additional weight of passengers affected airlines' profits.

"It's just a fact, and the thing is airlines consider these things when deciding how much fuel to put on the plane," said Mr Webber, former Qantas chief economist.

"I think it's discriminatory that people who watch their weight actually have to pay a higher airfare because of people who are overweight."

Mr Webber, who runs a consultancy company, suggested a system where people would pay a charge for every kilo they weighed over a set certain weight.

At the same time, lighter people would pay less if they were under the limit.

While no airline has flagged such a policy, Mr Webber said some must be considering it.

"I definitely think some low-cost carriers will contemplate breaking up their charges or get people to stand on the scales with their baggage," he said.

But such measures would also open check-in staff to abuse from heavier people.

It would also thwart airlines' attempts to streamline the check-in process and reduce long queues at terminals.
 
I think airlines should be able to price their services however they see fit. And in this case the discrimination wouldn't even be arbitrary or bigoted, it would make good business sense. Carried weight significantly contributes to airlines' fuel costs, which costs represent a significant part of their operating costs.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I think airlines should be able to price their services however they see fit. And in this case the discrimination wouldn't even be arbitrary or bigoted, it would make good business sense. Carried weight significantly contributes to airlines' fuel costs, which costs represent a significant part of their operating costs.

I think government should give us cheap oil, less wasteful regulation and a jet compatible airport in towns and cities so that I am never further than maybe 30 minutes from an airport that had GV's sitting around that will take me straight to all sorts of other little airports all over the country thereby serving me as a customer instead of a box. And I want it cheap and I don't want some government functionary feeling up my junk nor making me take my shoes off.

The hub system can stay and serve the boxes and the cattle. I want quality and I want service, damnit.

:buddies:
 

migtig

aka Mrs. Giant
I think it's a bogus excuse. The airlines as a company can charge whatever they want, but instead of blaming fat people how about folks who carry on a small country in their two carry ons. Or how about blaming fuel prices. The economy and lack of folks traveling. Etc.

I recently returned from a cross country trip. Full plane each way. Was an early boarder each time so I was able to see each and every person that got on the planes. Had a layover in MN with flipping of seats. I did not see one obese person the entire time.
 

Rael

Supper's Ready
Not only heavy people, but light people who carry excessive baggage drive up operating costs. I think they should charge a by-the-pound rate which includes the person and the person's baggage together. That'd be fair fare. Just picture the ads...


"This week, Southwest is offering a .39/lb special from NY to Miami, no hidden fees or taxes..."
 
Not only heavy people, but light people who carry excessive baggage drive up operating costs. I think they should charge a by-the-pound rate which includes the person and the person's baggage together. That'd be fair fare. Just picture the ads...


"This week, Southwest is offering a .39/lb special from NY to Miami, no hidden fees or taxes..."

I think it's a bogus excuse. The airlines as a company can charge whatever they want, but instead of blaming fat people how about folks who carry on a small country in their two carry ons. Or how about blaming fuel prices. The economy and lack of folks traveling. Etc.

I recently returned from a cross country trip. Full plane each way. Was an early boarder each time so I was able to see each and every person that got on the planes. Had a layover in MN with flipping of seats. I did not see one obese person the entire time.

Along the lines of what Rael said, what would probably make sense (and be 'fair' in light of the justified concerns) is to charge based on the total weight passengers were asking the airline to transport for them - i.e., their own weight plus that of their luggage. There could be a flat base fee (lower than current ticket prices) and then a rate applied to total weight taken on board. If you want to carry more stuff to California, you can pay for it rather than having it - in big picture effect - subsidized by the people who are only asking to have themselves transported.

To the part I bold-ed: That's fine. They can blame fuel prices, but doing so doesn't accomplish what they're trying to accomplish. Merely assigning blame doesn't address the issue for the airlines. Regardless of the underlying reasons, transporting heavier people and more luggage increases operating expenses for airlines. It's reasonable that they might want their pricing to reflect that reality. If there were a practical way to charge (eat-in) buffet go-ers based on how much they eat, it might make sense for restaurants to do that as well.
 

Peepaw95

Member
Top