Hi, you know I always thought that there would be an airline who would love to charge passengers due to weight, but are not allowed to due to obvious discrimination issues.


Maybe if Hawaiian weighs for weight distribution, it could set a precedent?


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/fu ... li=BBoPOOl

I wasn't clear if this was only at Samoa.

They should weigh passengers.

If your BMI is over X, then you need to pay for 2 seats (and go at the window) out of respect to the other person in your row.

edit: Hmm, maybe needs to be more refined than just BMI. A small fat person isn't going to intrude the same as a 6' 4" fat person.

ahmetdouas wrote:

Maybe if Hawaiian weighs for weight distribution, it could set a precedent?

Tiny Samoa Air introduced this in 2013.

http://www.ibtimes.com/samoa-air-pay-we ... ss-1506042

"Samoa Air Pay-By-Weight Scheme Hailed A Big Fat Success"

mariner

I think nobody can reasonably object to charging people more if they take or use more of a certain service or good. XXXL clothing is probably more expensive too.
The problem in aviation is that the price goes up 100% instantly.

The man from the article has a point, what has suddenly changed in the safety situation or requirements that necessitated this policy change?

enilria wrote:

I wasn't clear if this was only at Samoa.

Only Pago Pago was mentioned in the article so.....

I'd have no problem if airlines had some kind of formula, for your person weight and luggage weight combined, and then charged excess if you exceed a certain threshold. BMI could come into the equation. If below a certain threshold you could have more checked luggage weight.

What would 100KGs in weight cost the airline in fuel over a 12 hour flight?

A petite Asian lady weighing 45KGs with 25KGs in luggage is going to cost the airline less in fuel than a fat 150KGs guy with only 10 KGs in luggage, especially on a several sector trip including a long haul sector.

I think somebody who weighs less than X should be allowed more weight in luggage up to a certain limit, than somebody who already exceeds X.

I had to laugh about 10 or so years ago when I checked in for a UA flight to LAX from SYD. The luggage of the Asian family checking-in next to me was a few KGs over weight and they were told to remove some items from each bag to get the weight down. That entire family of four probably weighed slightly less combined than the next guy in the queue alone!

They're weighing a specific route for weight & balance issues. Many people in that region tend to be large.

Amiga500 wrote:

They should weigh passengers.

If your BMI is over X, then you need to pay for 2 seats (and go at the window) out of respect to the other person in your row.

edit: Hmm, maybe needs to be more refined than just BMI. A small fat person isn't going to intrude the same as a 6' 4" fat person.

Lame. BMI is a heavily flawed, archaic measurement. Nor could the industry ever getaway with charging more to somebody who is 6'4", 220 lbs. vs. 5'8", 130 lbs. What other industry does this?

If you intrude into somebody else's seat, then yes, you should pay for two.

777Jet wrote:

I'd have no problem if airlines had some kind of formula, for your person weight and luggage weight combined, and then charged excess if you exceed a certain threshold. BMI could come into the equation. If below a certain threshold you could have more checked luggage weight.

I agree it should be a person and luggage weight combined.

Of course not all people can control their weight. And for those that can't and fly it's a guaranteed lawsuit down the road along with the appropriate ADA changes in the United States. That's why I think airlines have been very reluctant to pursue this idea. It's pretty inevitable what will happen.

Given exit, bulkheads, galleys, toilets there should be a place for a few seats that are 25% and 50% wider without sacrificing total number of seats. Likewise a few seats should have a little more legroom. Such seats should be available, on priority basis, to those who have weight or height needs for them, and should be priced 25 or 50% more. As a matter of courtesy if the plane flies with empty seats the extra charge reversed. Decent and minimal customer service is not giving free things, so much as providing needed service, AND without inconveniencing other passengers.

izbtmnhd wrote:

777Jet wrote:

I'd have no problem if airlines had some kind of formula, for your person weight and luggage weight combined, and then charged excess if you exceed a certain threshold. BMI could come into the equation. If below a certain threshold you could have more checked luggage weight.

I agree it should be a person and luggage weight combined.

Of course not all people can control their weight. And for those that can't and fly it's a guaranteed lawsuit down the road along with the appropriate ADA changes in the United States. That's why I think airlines have been very reluctant to pursue this idea. It's pretty inevitable what will happen.

It isn't the lawsuits, it's just unprecedented and really unnecessary.

How do you measure?

"Fly IAD - LHR for only $399!" ***
* price is valid for passengers weighing up to 130 lbs; for passengers weighing more than 130 lbs., a $1 surcharge is added per pound.

Reality is, people come in different sizes and different shapes. You pay the same for size 28x30 jeans as you do for size 38x34. There's no reason for an airline to charge more for somebody who's 6'4", 220 lbs. than somebody who is 5'7, 125" lbs.

Much like how people who wear size 48x30 pay more for their jeans, airlines should charge for oversized passengers who spill into another seat. But weight is a deceitful metric, and there's no good way to measure it. The industry needs to have a pair of mock seats, much like the mock luggage racks, but place them discreetly within the airport (say, a private office). That's about the only sensitive way to do it.

compensateme wrote:

What other industry does this?

The shipping industry, for one. UPS, FedEx, and pretty much every freight company in the world price their shipping services based on distance and weight. It's perfectly reasonable for airlines to do the same thing. Whether it's an actual "per pound" charge based on the weight of the person and luggage at check in or a flat fee up to a certain weight and a fat surcharge over that weight, it's about time for fatties to start paying more.

compensateme wrote:

What other industry does this?

What other industry is as sensitive to customers' weight and volume?

Now go away and get on a treadmill

izbtmnhd wrote:

Of course not all people can control their weight.

Not the airlines' problem.

izbtmnhd wrote:

And for those that can't and fly it's a guaranteed lawsuit down the road along with the appropriate ADA changes in the United States.

If you want to ship a baby elephant, you'd expect to pay less than for shipping a full sized adult.

IPFreely wrote:

The shipping industry, for one. UPS, FedEx, and pretty much every freight company in the world price their shipping services based on distance and weight. It's perfectly reasonable for airlines to do the same thing. Whether it's an actual "per pound" charge based on the weight of the person and luggage at check in or a flat fee up to a certain weight and a fat surcharge over that weight, it's about time for fatties to start paying more.

The shipping industry applies to parcels, not people.

Amiga500 wrote:

What other industry is as sensitive to customers' weight and volume?

Now go away and get on a treadmill

I have absolutely no idea what your point is here (nor does the latter statement apply to me) but I picture you as some 300 lb. troll stuffing a family sized bag of chips down this throat as you write this...

compensateme wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

What other industry is as sensitive to customers' weight and volume?

I have absolutely no idea what your point is here

Its not complicated. If you can't grasp something so simple I'm out.


But I did have chips for lunch, and now fancy some crisps... so I'm away to stuff my face for a bit anyway.

I am sure the good folks at Spirit and Ryan have thought of doing this...

The big people who pay for 2 seats should start demanding a bigger lav for their big ass...

i love how people immediately go defensive and claim "how do you know it's not medical condition" when in fact many of those, if not an outright majority, are entirely brought on by the person themselves.

Weight balancing is actually crucial to flight safety, so weighing them for safety reasons is entirely justified. On the other hand, if they intend to charge more, that's a very slippery slope.

People come in all shapes and sizes, so the airlines should monetize all of it! Tall people should pay more to have an emergency exit or bulkhead so their knees don't bother the people in front of them. People with long hair should be required to buy the seat behind them so their hair does not get in front of the TV. People with kids should be forced to buy at least one buffer seat between them and everyone else. While we are at it, the one person who raises the window shade on a long haul flight when everyone else has it down should be fined, with the proceeds split among other passengers. And let's not forget that people wearing perfume or cologne should be denied boarding and forced to buy a new ticket.

izbtmnhd wrote:

I agree it should be a person and luggage weight combined.

In theory yes, but luggage weight doesn't actually vary that much among passengers and the airlines already charge by bag. Also, the weight per bag is capped. So, you can have maybe 15 pounds of bag weight variance before you get to excess bag fees in the real world. A person can vary by 300 lbs from a child to a large adult, all at the same price.

777Jet wrote:

What would 100KGs in weight cost the airline in fuel over a 12 hour flight?

Very little, maybe $20 RT at most. I suspect this is more about the lawsuit that EK just got hit with about the adjacent passenger overflowing into their personal space. It is a combination of people getting fatter and airlines reducing seat size at the root of this.

compensateme wrote:

If you intrude into somebody else's seat, then yes, you should pay for two.

I agree 100% on this and I think the EK lawsuit is what did this. Airline attorneys all talk about things like this. They probably just had a conference or something and this topic came up from EK, so HA decided to do something before they got sued.

compensateme wrote:

What other industry does this?

The most apt comparison is clothing. Clothing costs more to be bigger, just like weight cost more to fly. Clothing is for a person, not a package and that is an apt comparison. I am seeing higher prices for XL and XXL pretty routinely now. I don't wear those sizes, but as I am looking I often see a different price and think it is a pricing mistake so I pay attention, but it's just more for the bigger size. I was just shopping for suits and the posted sign at the store said size 42 and up cost more.

Apart from the economics. HA can say it is a safety issue and win easily with FAA/DOT...and maybe it is a safety issue. A 300 pound person on the exit row is dangerous in that it will on average delay people from exiting the plane. Will the day come when we put handicapped passengers on the exit row window out of political correctness rather than safety?

If they want to fly their A330neos to London then they're gonna need to do this.

It's not a bad idea, some people are just too big to fly either for safety or for the comfort of fellow passengers.

enilria wrote:

The most apt comparison is clothing. Clothing costs more to be bigger, just like weight cost more to fly. Clothing is for a person, not a package and that is an apt comparison. I am seeing higher prices for XL and XXL pretty routinely now. I don't wear those sizes, but as I am looking I often see a different price and think it is a pricing mistake so I pay attention, but it's just more for the bigger size. I was just shopping for suits and the posted sign at the store said size 42 and up cost more.

Apart from the economics. HA can say it is a safety issue and win easily with FAA/DOT...and maybe it is a safety issue. A 300 pound person on the exit row is dangerous in that it will on average delay people from exiting the plane. Will the day come when we put handicapped passengers on the exit row window out of political correctness rather than safety?

Clothing costs tend to be the same, with the exception of "big and tall."

People come in all shape & sizes. If you're going to tell the 6'4" 250 lb. guy who lifts weights and is in great shape that he should pay more than his 5'7", 125 lb. counterpart, it just isn't going to go fly.

Charging morbidly obese people for two seats is something most people agree on. Charging somebody who is athletic, in-shape, and occupies just one seat extra because he weights 220 lbs. is just stupid. The additional weight he carries cost the airline less in additional fuel than the catered bottle of water the 5'7 125. lb. would go hysterical over if he had to pay for.

compensateme wrote:

Lame. BMI is a heavily flawed, archaic measurement. Nor could the industry ever getaway with charging more to somebody who is 6'4", 220 lbs. vs. 5'8", 130 lbs. What other industry does this?

BMI isn't flawed any more than height or weight are flawed. BMI is just a very simple metric. The use of BMI to draw significant conclusions about health is what is flawed. It can be used as a quick check to determine if further consideration to diet should be given (eg: your BMI is outside the normal range, I'd recommend a body fat measurement as a followup), but that's about it.

BMI is also completely irrelevant to aircraft balance. Individual weight is what matters.

I'm staying out of the debate about charging based on individual weight, which is apparently off-topic anyways. Hawaiian claims they're weighing in order to better control weight balance. Consider the range of possible scenarios ranging from (A) an ATR-42 flying the University of Hawaii football team to one of the other islands for a pre-season training camp, and they all want to sit together in the back, while a group of Japanese tourists all want to sit together in the front to (B) A random distribution of passengers on an A330.

Somewhere in between those extremes you cross the line into unsafe weight distributions, and you have to reseat people. Would you prefer the decision whether or not to allow that be based on the captain's judgement and willingness at the end of a long day of flying to boss around a group of rowdy young men, or based on actual numbers?

As far as I know, balance issues don't take anywhere near as extreme of situation as (A) above. I think it was on a 757 a few years back where we were delayed because when the crew did their takeoff calcs just using their generic numbers for average passenger weight, they realized they were off. First we waited while they shifted as much cargo to the forward hold as they could. Then we waited more when the next calc was still off, so they moved passengers in the back rows up to first class. That was back when United was still trying to turn themselves around - I gather their dated interiors did not inspire a lot of first class sales.

compensateme wrote:

Clothing costs tend to be the same, with the exception of "big and tall."

Big and Tall is what we are talking about here, but I was saying that it now extends down to XL at a growing number of stores. I see this in Macy's and other mall stores not in the Big and Tall section. I was looking at jeans even and at around 38 the price goes up on some designer brands. You can say that is Big and Tall, but my point is that 38 waist or a 42 suit would not be considered Big and Tall before. I think the reason is that once they started having two price points to deal with the increase in larger people they said, let's get some extra revenue by extending it down to just XL which was never considered Big and Tall before.

Anyway, it's an apt comparison. More sewing, more material, more fuel...

compensateme wrote:

They're weighing a specific route for weight & balance issues. Many people in that region tend to be large.

Amiga500 wrote:

They should weigh passengers.

If your BMI is over X, then you need to pay for 2 seats (and go at the window) out of respect to the other person in your row.

edit: Hmm, maybe needs to be more refined than just BMI. A small fat person isn't going to intrude the same as a 6' 4" fat person.

Lame. BMI is a heavily flawed, archaic measurement. Nor could the industry ever getaway with charging more to somebody who is 6'4", 220 lbs. vs. 5'8", 130 lbs. What other industry does this?

If you intrude into somebody else's seat, then yes, you should pay for two.

The Clothing Industry.

http://fashion-incubator.com/why-larger ... -a-number/

The difference between big and tall clothing and a plane seat is that B&T clothing is just slightly more than standard sizing. On an airplane you are looking at doubling your cost for a second coach seat, or paying for first class. My post above was a joke, but in reality pax with kids, long hair, long legs, etc... can be just as invasive as someone who is larger. Do we stop with just fat people?

Also, what about aircraft type? I know a lot of people that fit fine in an A320 seat yet spill over on a CRJ.

Why did Southwest soften their stance on passengers of size?

It seems to me like weighing each individual passenger before a flight, if applied to every flight an airline operates would be unnecessarily intrusive, extremely bad PR, and would just require so much extra time at check-in which would require more check-in staff for each flight that it's a nonsensical idea. It's truly laughable.

Now, at certain airports where certain populations do, as a matter of fact, tend to be larger in size, for safety reasons it's fine although I sincerely doubt anyone is thrilled about it if only because of the potential to be a PR disaster. But otherwise... Really? I think if you saw 'pay by body weight' starting to roll out industry-wide you would see Congress act pretty quickly to stop it. I struggle to think of something that would be so outrageous to so many people so quickly. If you're a smaller person, your reward is more room in your seat, if that's not good enough then maybe just don't fly. I mean if the financial burden on you is so great (because let's face it, the price wouldn't be less for you, it would just be more for larger folks) that you deserve a cheaper seat for your "superior" genetics, then maybe just drive and also don't be around other people because you must be miserable to be around.

ahmetdouas wrote:

Hi, you know I always thought that there would be an airline who would love to charge passengers due to weight, but are not allowed to due to obvious discrimination issues.


Maybe if Hawaiian weighs for weight distribution, it could set a precedent?


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/fu ... li=BBoPOOl

Unfortunately, we have become larger and weight is an issue, not to mention its distribution.

enilria wrote:

In theory yes, but luggage weight doesn't actually vary that much among passengers and the airlines already charge by bag. Also, the weight per bag is capped. So, you can have maybe 15 pounds of bag weight variance before you get to excess bag fees in the real world. A person can vary by 300 lbs from a child to a large adult, all at the same price.

Fifteen pounds variance? Really? Every time my wife or I fly, our bags are 49.5 pounds plus or minus a few ounces.

Couple weeks ago in Peru, everyone who was boarding our Cessna Caravan had to be weighed and then assigned seats based on their weight to for weight and balance. Most of the helicopter tours in Hawaii have a surcharge beyond a certain weight. Physics doesn't change because one thinks its discrimination. Wether wide, tall or both, its your TOTAL Weight that matters. The plane is not going to burn more fuel for someone who is wider vs someone who is tall.

DSC00464 by B H, on Flickr

compensateme wrote:

Charging somebody who is athletic, in-shape, and occupies just one seat extra because he weights 220 lbs. is just stupid.

The only stupid in this thread is the refusal to understand the relationship between weight and costs.

Why not charge by the kilo or pound? Advertise the fares by weight, JFK-LAX -- $1.25/lb - This Week Only!!!

When I worked at HA, we were told in training that if certain 767-300s (recently purchased from Delta and not yet refitted with HA's interior) flew to PPG, that NO passengers could sit in 3 center seats in the 2-3-2 configured 763 due to the floor not being able to support the weight.

As the # of 767s in HA's fleet shrinks, they may have no choice but to send some of the 763s with this restriction to PPG occasionally, and that rather than blocking off entire rows, it is easier to distribute the weight properly. As I understand it, the main restriction is that a max of 2 adults can sit in the 3 center seats.

When I was at HA I worked a HNL-PPG turn and the passengers were all very friendly and nice (and generally large)...even the Governor of American Samoa at the time was on the flight, and he was nice...even though he was in the middle of a "war" with HA at the time.

Its a simple fact that Samoans and many other Polynesians (Tongan, Hawaiian, etc) tend to be large (large does not necessarily mean obese)...just check out how many Samoans and other Polynesians are in the NFL.

-Aloha!

mham001 wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Charging somebody who is athletic, in-shape, and occupies just one seat extra because he weights 220 lbs. is just stupid.

The only stupid in this thread is the refusal to understand the relationship between weight and costs.

Why not charge by the kilo or pound? Advertise the fares by weight, JFK-LAX -- $1.25/lb - This Week Only!!!

Would we see a return of high end catering to try to attract high yielding passengers?

aloha73g wrote:

When I worked at HA, we were told in training that if certain 767-300s (recently purchased from Delta and not yet refitted with HA's interior) flew to PPG, that NO passengers could sit in 3 center seats in the 2-3-2 configured 763 due to the floor not being able to support the weight.

As the # of 767s in HA's fleet shrinks, they may have no choice but to send some of the 763s with this restriction to PPG occasionally, and that rather than blocking off entire rows, it is easier to distribute the weight properly. As I understand it, the main restriction is that a max of 2 adults can sit in the 3 center seats.

This is exactly the issue.

The 767 fleet is not consistent in engineering specification due to some being sourced second hand from DL as you mention. The floor of a few of them can only take the 'FAA's average customer weight' in a full cabin configuration.

HA, because of fuel use being noticeably higher on the HNL-PPG-HNL than expected, did a six month weigh-in of ALL passengers (including hand luggage) on the route. This trial period has just finished.

What they found was that each passenger (and hand luggage) averaged 35lbs or over 15kg's more than the FAA average which they had been basing their fuelling on. This will obviously change.

That's over 100kg's per row.

The other thing they found was that over each seven-seat-row Boeing's maximum floor loading would be exceeded with the new weight averages.

The net result is that each row will now have to have one child or an empty seat for safety purposes (hard landing or other traumatic event).

Hawaiian will take full responsibility for the seating arrangements to make sure the cabin is balanced and that families can be together. This new protocol does not apply to all HA's 767 fleet, but the airline will not know for certain until 24hrs before which aircraft will be used on the route.

NB. HA also did a weigh-in on its Korea route. The passengers there were well below the FAA average.

Regards
MH

mham001 wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Charging somebody who is athletic, in-shape, and occupies just one seat extra because he weights 220 lbs. is just stupid.

The only stupid in this thread is the refusal to understand the relationship between weight and costs.

Why not charge by the kilo or pound? Advertise the fares by weight, JFK-LAX -- $1.25/lb - This Week Only!!!

No, what's stupid is believing that there's significant fuel costs in carrying a passenger who's 50 lb. heavier than another. Like I said earlier, the cost to cater that bottle of water is a much larger concern (if you could call it that).

I'd love to watch some of these posters in a customer service position.

Motorhussy wrote:

aloha73g wrote:

When I worked at HA, we were told in training that if certain 767-300s (recently purchased from Delta and not yet refitted with HA's interior) flew to PPG, that NO passengers could sit in 3 center seats in the 2-3-2 configured 763 due to the floor not being able to support the weight.

As the # of 767s in HA's fleet shrinks, they may have no choice but to send some of the 763s with this restriction to PPG occasionally, and that rather than blocking off entire rows, it is easier to distribute the weight properly. As I understand it, the main restriction is that a max of 2 adults can sit in the 3 center seats.

This is exactly the issue.

The 767 fleet is not consistent in engineering specification due to some being sourced second hand from DL as you mention. The floor of a few of them can only take the 'FAA's average customer weight' in a full cabin configuration.

HA, because of fuel use being noticeably higher on the HNL-PPG-HNL than expected, did a six month weigh-in of ALL passengers (including hand luggage) on the route. This trial period has just finished.

What they found was that each passenger (and hand luggage) averaged 35lbs or over 15kg's more than the FAA average which they had been basing their fuelling on. This will obviously change.

That's over 100kg's per row.

The other thing they found was that over each seven-seat-row Boeing's maximum floor loading would be exceeded with the new weight averages.

The net result is that each row will now have to have one child or an empty seat for safety purposes (hard landing or other traumatic event).

Hawaiian will take full responsibility for the seating arrangements to make sure the cabin is balanced and that families can be together. This new protocol does not apply to all HA's 767 fleet, but the airline will not know for certain until 24hrs before which aircraft will be used on the route.

NB. HA also did a weigh-in on its Korea route. The passengers there were well below the FAA average.

Regards
MH

How dare you attempt to insert FACT into a discussion! What a crappy, uninformed and sensational article that doesn't even attempt to come close to skirting the actual issue.

FWIW, there is only one ex-DL plane left in the fleet and it NEVER goes to PPG.

This of course is absurd, when you buy an airline tiket 11 months out & you then become pregnant & are nearing your third trimester, you are going to toss the lady off the plane or charge her more because she became pregnant? Please... What if someone has a surgery 6 months from their ticket date & is bed bound for 2 months recovering, has gained 30 pounds over that time because he can't move, he's penalized also?

I buy F because I like the space & yes because I'm a big guy, 6"4 & over a solid 220 lbs. If one is worried about spilling over sit up front.

RWA380 wrote:

This of course is absurd, when you buy an airline tiket 11 months out & you then become pregnant & are nearing your third trimester, you are going to toss the lady off the plane or charge her more because she became pregnant? Please... What if someone has a surgery 6 months from their ticket date & is bed bound for 2 months recovering, has gained 30 pounds over that time because he can't move, he's penalized also?

I buy F because I like the space & yes because I'm a big guy, 6"4 & over a solid 220 lbs. If one is worried about spilling over sit up front.

I can't tell if you are saying what HA is doing is absurd, or commenting on the hysteria upthread that isn't even related to what HA is doing. I'm so confused... maybe I'm getting old, but this whole social media garbage of making up a story where there isn't one is tiresome.

seat38a wrote:

Weight balancing is actually crucial to flight safety, so weighing them for safety reasons is entirely justified. On the other hand, if they intend to charge more, that's a very slippery slope.

We got weighed at LDH - QantasLink Dash8 -200. Stepped onto scales holding our carry on baggage. Maximum checked baggage is 14 kg (approx 31 lb).

The large notice stated that 'the flight is full and the airstrip is short'. The flight wasn't actually full (on that occasion), but I think it is standard safety procedure. Saying that we only did it on the outbound, not the inbound sector.

They definitely would have allocated seats accordingly.

azjubilee wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

This of course is absurd, when you buy an airline tiket 11 months out & you then become pregnant & are nearing your third trimester, you are going to toss the lady off the plane or charge her more because she became pregnant? Please... What if someone has a surgery 6 months from their ticket date & is bed bound for 2 months recovering, has gained 30 pounds over that time because he can't move, he's penalized also?

I buy F because I like the space & yes because I'm a big guy, 6"4 & over a solid 220 lbs. If one is worried about spilling over sit up front.

I can't tell if you are saying what HA is doing is absurd, or commenting on the hysteria upthread that isn't even related to what HA is doing. I'm so confused... maybe I'm getting old, but this whole social media garbage of making up a story where there isn't one is tiresome.

I was not clear, what I meant was the idea of making passengers pay per pound & the further nonsense that has ensued in this thread.

If one reads the attached article there is evidence that HA is relegating a single route for weigh ins, and having seen the check in line for this flight, I can understand why. It's not about charging per pound, it isn't about shaming those who fly the route, it's the large cargo & passenger loads that vary, many flying this route are very heavy people. It's a pure W & B issue.

I've flown to Pago Pago from HNL a couple if times. It's a great place to visit and the community very friendly and welcoming. However, they tend to be large and I can understand HA's quandary. It is not unusual to see in Y a full airplane with many rows of six across filled with passengers weighing in excess of 200 lbs. If as explained earlier in this thread, for some aircraft it would be possible to exceed load limits for the flooring of the aircraft. Hawaiian could have turned away and hope that nothing happens. It seems they chose to be safe, rather than sorry. Good for them.

I just returned from PPG last week, visiting my American Samoan friends. My friends are embarrassed by their fellow countrymen being so obese.
Even the kids are getting that way. Half of the pax were obese, could not lower their trays. Polynesian Airlines weighs pax by the way.

ahmetdouas wrote:

Hi, you know I always thought that there would be an airline who would love to charge passengers due to weight, but are not allowed to due to obvious discrimination issues.


Maybe if Hawaiian weighs for weight distribution, it could set a precedent?


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/fu ... li=BBoPOOl

Booking my Mother-in-Law right now.

RWA380 wrote:

I was not clear, what I meant was the idea of making passengers pay per pound & the further nonsense that has ensued in this thread.If one reads the attached article there is evidence that HA is relegating a single route for weigh ins, and having seen the check in line for this flight, I can understand why. It's not about charging per pound, it isn't about shaming those who fly the route, it's the large cargo & passenger loads that vary, many flying this route are very heavy people. It's a pure W & B issue.

Gotcha. Unfortunately, if one reads the attached article, the reader is actually more uninformed than before. The article is a garbage piece that doesn't actually inform, but chooses to fluff instead.

Not that anyone around here will care to understand the facts, but here they are.

- HA conducts companywide fuel survey, finds PPG flight burn much more fuel than other flights
- HA conducts a subsequent weight survey by weighing passengers on certain flights, finds PPG pax weigh about 30 lbs more than average
- HA implements new policy only on PPG whereby seats are assigned at the airport, to control weight distribution throughout the cabin. Nobody is weighed any longer.
- Gov't dismisses the allegations that HA is being discriminatory in their practices
- Life goes on and people find something new to complain about

azjubilee wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

I was not clear, what I meant was the idea of making passengers pay per pound & the further nonsense that has ensued in this thread.If one reads the attached article there is evidence that HA is relegating a single route for weigh ins, and having seen the check in line for this flight, I can understand why. It's not about charging per pound, it isn't about shaming those who fly the route, it's the large cargo & passenger loads that vary, many flying this route are very heavy people. It's a pure W & B issue.

Gotcha. Unfortunately, if one reads the attached article, the reader is actually more uninformed than before. The article is a garbage piece that doesn't actually inform, but chooses to fluff instead.

Not that anyone around here will care to understand the facts, but here they are.

- HA conducts companywide fuel survey, finds PPG flight burn much more fuel than other flights
- HA conducts a subsequent weight survey by weighing passengers on certain flights, finds PPG pax weigh about 30 lbs more than average
- HA implements new policy only on PPG whereby seats are assigned at the airport, to control weight distribution throughout the cabin. Nobody is weighed any longer.
- Gov't dismisses the allegations that HA is being discriminatory in their practices
- Life goes on and people find something new to complain about

Thanks for informing us, I'd prefer to get my info from someone who knows vs a two paragraph article that was vague. This makes sense & again, I've checked in for PPG before on HA, I get it. I've been on commercial aircraft where they moved everyone to F, all 12 of us, on a TW M80 flight SEA-PDX.

ahmetdouas wrote:

Hi, you know I always thought that there would be an airline who would love to charge passengers due to weight, but are not allowed to due to obvious discrimination issues.


Maybe if Hawaiian weighs for weight distribution, it could set a precedent?


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/fu ... li=BBoPOOl

One of the Polynesian airlines has being weighing and charging passengers by weight for some time now. They have not had complaints as the population is larger size and proud of it. They interviewed passengers for an article and one noted that it's more fair as their kids get cheaper flights.They weigh them and the luggage before the plane is loaded so no one gets booted after loading as happened regularly in the past. Also on ATR's inter island they may need to do so for weight and balance issues due to the plane type and Polynesian lifestyle that values larger size people.