Greaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 4 Posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
Little over a month ago, some of us debated the possibility of charging 'overweight' passengers more to fly. I believe MOBflyer stated "I don't really think so. You pay for the services rendered. It costs more for passenger X, so their fare is higher. A system could be worked out to exclude those without self-inflicted medical weight problems. So long as an exclusion was present, I don't see any grounds for a suit." Now that we've seen check-in costs, as well as food service costs, when/should we see weight costs? Instead of previously suggested $1/pound over 180, should be based on a person's Body Mass Index. Perhaps if you are a couple of points over the average, you would be charged the cost of extra fuel to haul the extra weight? I don't see how it's discriminatory, since the performance of the flight/service depends on the weight of the passengers. I don't believe, however, that they should give cheaper flights to people below the BMI, to prevent health risks associated with below-average body weights. Just think about it, you have 2 5'9" (average height in the US) men; one is 150 pounds, the other is 300 (not improbable). It would cost the airline so much more to shift the extra 150 pounds across the sky, especially considering you really have 2 passengers paying for what really is 3 150 pound passengers. Even if the second person weighed 250 pounds, that's still the weight of an adolescent! What do you think?
Sandager From Denmark, joined May 2007, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1760 times:
I too don't believe this will ever happen.
However should it be introduces by some carrier they will have to reimburse "underweight" passengers too. If you say A you will have to say B....... it has to go both ways.
Kstatepilot From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1701 times:
The actual fuel costs for this wouldn't be much. For the CRJ trip I flew last night, the release stated that for 1,000 pounds of fuel that we tankered we burned 36 pounds. That is only 6 gallons. If one person is 100 pounds overweight that will cost .6 gallons. less than 3 dollars...
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1677 times:
Yes the airlines should do something, but if anything it should be to charge them for an extra seat. Nothing makes me more mad than when i pay for my 16-17 inches for the same price the person next to me did and they are taking up about 7 of my inches. It's annoying and uncomfortable for me. Now i have nothing wrong with the actual person but it is rediculous that they can be sitting on my seat as well making me severely uncomfortable, and i'm a small person and airline seats are already pretty small so i can move over some but not when i'm in the middle of two people then it makes it uncomfortable for two people. I have a feeling charging for a person's weight would create a massive backlash but they are already made to buy a second seat at times but it needs to be more strongly enforced.
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2990 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1651 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
And exactly which BMI do you use? SI? US? Adjusted SI (aka BMI prime)? WHO? (no there isn't ONE). And how are you going to calculate it fairly? You would ticking off little people no end cause the BMI is skewed for them badly, you would let 7'6" 300lbs fly with no extra charge.
Put simply BMI has NO basis in being used for anything airline passenger based. It is a GENERAL guideline for body type and height vs weight. People like me with heavy bone mass will get VERY ticked very fast (im 6'4, and my IDEAL weight corrected is 240lbs, according to simple BMI it is 180... 60lbs/25% difference... funny that). PLEASE enough with this BS about passenger weight/charges, they will not, should not, CAN NOT HAPPEN.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.