Will Overweight Travelers Be Charged More?
If you're flying - and your baggage is overweight - you get charged more.
Body weight does not factor into the equation - but will that soon change?
New Zealand's Independent Financial Review is reporting that "obese travelers are costing airlines tens of millions of dollars each year in extra fuel and one agency is predicting carriers will soon start charging overweight flyers extra."
A weigh-in of 8,000 passengers found that body weight had increased from 89kg to 93kg (196lbs to 205lbs). This equates to 1.56 metric tonnes on a Boeing 747.
The CEO of carrier Air NZ predicted the following:
...there will come a time when rather than taxing overweight people, airlines will offer trim people discounted tickets as a reward for keeping weight off the plane. (source - note: there is an interesting audio discussion here about the issue.)
There is an argument to this: Have airlines been trying to cram more people on planes over the last few decades?
More like this in Media Watch
43 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- On-Off Fasting: Does It Work?
- 400 Calorie Fix
- 5 Factor World Diet
- Quick Giveaway: Powerhouse Weight Loss Game
- FORUM
- Low Carb Atkins Diet- Tips to Cut the Carbs.
- How Can I Gain a Healthy Weight and Keep it?
- How Do I Eat Healthy at University?
- Starving Myself and Exercising, But Not Losing an Ounce?
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
Is there anything much more embarrassing than being told, "we're going to charge you more for the flight, because we need extra fuel to carry you"?
ReplyWeight and balance are critical in aviation! The industry need to find a reasonable solution to this problem. I suspect the answer will be to make all the seats bigger, carry fewer passengers, and charge more per ticket.
ReplyI don't think everyone should be penalized by having to pay more. Larger people should have to pay more, because its certainly not fair that thinner people have to pay more to compensate for people who can't even take care of their own bodies. It's your fault if you can't control yourself, other people who can shouldn't have to pay for your problems.
ReplyI think there should be a base fare for everyone, and then a charge based on the total weight of the passenger and their luggage.
Also, there should be a section with larger seats that are more expensive, not first class but just larger. If you are super obese and don't fit into a regular seat you would need to get a larger seat so as not to spill over onto other people's seats. The larger seats could also be available to other people who just wanted more room and were willing to pay the extra cost.
It seems mean to make larger people pay more, but it's very frustrating to sit next to someone on a long flight who takes up part of your space.
ReplyI flew to Australia at Christmas time and paid $400 for a baby who doesn't get a seat, and gets $2 worth of baby food for her meal. If she and my hand luggage weigh less than the weight limit, do I get my $400 back? I only weigh 50kgs, the average man weighs about 100kgs I'm guessing, so is mine half price?
These questions are why this is never going to happen. And if you start charging people for being bigger, you had better factor in the fact that they deserve bigger seats, bigger meals, and take height into account too.
ReplyI totally agree with Melsky. Someone's size is their responsibility, and it's very uncomfortable to sit next to a very large person on a long haul flight. Having larger seat available would help, but how many people would pay extra? Or could they be forced to?
There's just another incentive to lose weight :)
ReplyI can see it now: doctor's office-type scales at the airport, with the cut-off to pay extra being 250 lbs. The person at the ticket counter makes anyone "in doubt" step on the scale (kind of like carding anyone who looks younger than 21, somewhat subjective). That policy would certainly motivate the masses to lose weight, if they didn't want to pay extra to fly to Disney World.
ReplyHelen brings up some interesting questions. Will women on average be charged less than men? Will short people be charged less than tall people? Also, will a bodybuilder, who may be very heavy for his height but still have a six-pack, be penalized?
ReplyInstead of 'smoking' and 'non-smoking' sections we'll have small, medium and large sections!! That should do the trick!
ReplySorry Ryan, no bringing your own beer onto the flight!
Reply"We'll have small, medium and large sections ..."
We do now, at least on longer flights: economy, business class, first class. Part of the price difference is for better food, but it's mostly for space.
Southwest handles the problem pretty well. They require the purchase of two seats if you can't fit into one. Some people claim that the airline applies the rules somewhat arbitrarily because individual staff just go by eyeballing passengers. But the alternative would be to figure out some sort of objective test, which would involve scales and width measuring devices at the ticket counter.
ReplyThis did happen to a friend of mine. He was traveling to a certain place and since he was overweight, he had to pay 2 tickets.
ReplySo it's just because weight is more?
I disagree with the statement of someone that larger people should have to pay more. My boyfriend, at 6'4 and with a large frame, is going to weigh more at his slightest than I would even if I were obese. It's not fair to charge someone for something like that.
The two seat thing, or larger seat thing... that makes sense to me.
Claiming it's because of weight on a plane, less so.
It doesn't affect my pocket, I'm sure, but still strikes me as discriminatory.
ReplyI successfully refused to pay an excess luggage charge a couple of years ago on the basis that the landwhale in front of me weighed more than me and my luggage put together. I absolutely support higher charges for the obsese.
ReplyI hear you jb - I think it's very unfair that a slender person such as myself should have to pay through the nose for an extra couple of kilos of luggage when there are people who weigh 50 kilos more than me paying less because their luggage is within the limits.
ReplyHey, I'm in favor of that. I'm 5'1" and never in my life have I had an advantage for being short - I can't reach stuff, I'm more likely to get mugged on the streets, and research says I won't even have as much success professionally because of my height. If that allows me to pay less because at 128lb (58kg) I'm pretty heavy for my height, but in a plane where the average passanger weighs 204lb (93kg), I'm a lightweight. Add to that the fact that I pack very light when I travel, and I'd be happy to have the first advantage I've ever had from my genetics.
Sure it is discriminatory against giants, but think of it like affirmative action. Everywhere else, the world is stacked in their favor.
ReplyI think that it's a great idea to have a base price for everyone, then offer incentives for lighter weight people plus luggage. In other words, when I step up to the counter, I can request a discount if the total weight of me plus my luggage is under a certain set limit. Since I cost the airline less to transport, I ought to receive a reward for it. That way, people are not discriminated against for being heavier, but rewarded for weighing less and/or packing light.
ReplyIn the above comment, I probably should have typed "IF I cost the airline less to transport ..." since I'm not sure that I would!
Also, I've had the experience of paying either 50% or 66% of a basic fare for my infant, who did not receive a seat. I understand that he/she should pay if he/she has a seat, but not otherwise. If my above plan were implemented, then an infant without a seat could be included in the overall weight of me plus luggage plus infant plus stroller. Definitely NOT going to qualify for a discount! :)
ReplyAs I think about it, I'm visualizing a large scale set into the floor by the check-in counter. I move onto the scale, carrying my luggage (perhaps with infant, etc., or with laptop and whatnot) with me. The weight shows the total, and no one knows what I myself weigh.
ReplyThat's odd...I thought infants (those under 2) are free on airlines if they are going to be in your lap?
We traveled a lot with our son while he still qualified as a lap infant, but always bought him a seat because it was discounted (50% off the adult fare) and would have even if it wasn't discounted because it's a lot safer for him to be in a seat not in our arms or on our laps!
Almost every time we traveled the gate agents were surprised we had purchased a seat for him (a ticket apparently spits out for an infant traveling even if they don't have a seat) and twice had flight attendants assume we needed to check his car seat with his stroller for the flight...only to realize he had his own seat on the flight and we'd like some assistance with anchoring his seat in place for the flight.
Back to topic - I think the idea of scaling fares based on weight (person + luggage) still does not resolve how to manage those who are taller and will naturally weigh more than someone shorter, or a man's weight versus a woman's weight, or any other combination of scenarios such a scheme sets up.
The airlines already have revised their formulas to account for heavier weights of average people, AND have reduced the per checked suitcase allowance from 70-pounds to 50-pounds to accomadate the differences and fuel requirements.
Many have instituted policies that if, even with the belt extender, you cannot buckle your seat belt, you need an additional seat and need to pay for it, and enforce their policy on that basis...some have less objective means and eye-ball passengers and make decisions based on visually perceived overweight and need for more room and enforce policy on that subjective criteria.
Personally, I see it this way - if someone is so large they're encroaching on my paid space, then they need more room...if they're not spilling over to my space, live and let live.
I usually upgrade these days to get more leg room anyway, so haven't had to deal with the spillover passenger in a long time.
What I'd prefer to see is a standardization of price for a flight - I hate the idea that some passengers paid 50-80% less than others on the same flight and often bought their tickets on the same day or within days of each other!
ReplyI had a Dean who once said to me.."We need to be GOAL oriented, if one is problem oriented they just move from problem to the new problem. If one is GOAL oriented many of the 'problems' never have to be faced in the first place." The reduction of OBESITY is the GOAL! None of this stuff existed to any significant degree before the self made supersizing of people!
ReplyGoals are great - in face, I'd say critical - but goals without solutions to the real problems and/or obtacles that will be faced along the way, leave "goals" alone simple folly.
ReplyI agree with Helen. So If there's a 6'4" large build fit male who weighs much more than I do, even though I have about 50 pounds to lose, he doesn't have to pay more, but I do? And there are a few people who don't have control over their weight. My sister, for example, had a problem with her thyroid that took over a year to get diagnosed. Over that time, she slowly gained pound after pound while trying to increase her exercise and continue to eat healthy to counterbalance it, all to no avail. Now that she's on the proper meds and such, the weight is coming off quickly, but should she be penalized because her doctor was a numbskull who couldn't diagnose her properly?
ReplyConsidering the fact that obesity is more prevalent among the poor, wouldn't such rules target people who are least financially able to shoulder the extra cost?
ReplyI don't see where discrimination is playing a part here. The cost of the gas it takes to carry you is not based on your color, not based on your gender; it's based on your weight! If you're shipping something in the mail, let's saym it doesn't matter what's in it, but how much it weighs!
ReplyThe fact that it's costing more to fly is the airlines' problem, not their customers'. It's been known for YEARS that obesity is a growing problem (no pun intended), yet the airlines need quit blaming their customers for their problems. The airlines are the ones who decreased the seat size so they could cram more people in and sell more tickets.
Could it be that the price of oil is going up so their fuel costs would be increasing anyway? Could be that corporate greed has grown out of control in the world and Big Business cares about nothing but the bottom line? Could be that air traffic has decreased tremendously since 9/11 and airlines have been steadily losing money? Nah...if that were the case, then they couldn't blame the problem on their customers!
I think Dr. J hit the nail on the head:
ReplyBut if a person isn't spilling into a seat next to the person next to them - that is physically not requiring another seat, then why should it matter what any one person weighs?
So the airline can profit on someone weighing more?
That what it boils down to - the airline making more money, not you who may be lighter than another saving more.
The airlines totally know just how much fuel they need - full plane or not - they've already reduced baggage allowance per person by 40-pounds (2 bags, 50-pounds each; down from 70-pounds each)....they've reduced potable water on-board, removed cooking stations, trash compactors and other assorted equipment that used to be related to food service that's no longer used....they removed trays with food and replaced it with snack bags (if you're lucky)....they've limited the number of canned and bottled beverages on the plane, removed pillows and blankets....they've even reduced the amount of contingency fuel reserves on planes - dropping contingency load from an additional hour of fuel to 30-minutes of extra fuel....they've set routes more directly to use less fuel, programmed in-flight computers to optimize speed and even do things like taxi on one engine now and turn engines off at the gate instead of keeping them on.
It's not to save you or me money - it's to increase their profits (and I don't have a problem with that, they are a business and in the business to make money).....but don't think for a minute it actually costs them more to transport you or me - even if we're obese - it doesn't....what it does do is eat into their profit potential because they can't load more cargo onto the passenger planes (highly profitable by the way) at hit maximum weight for take off....because that is the goal these days - pack the plane with as close to the maximum weight as possible AND maximize all potential revenues along the way.
The formula for calculating passenger weight and carry-on bags is:
Male over 12-years old
Summer = 200-lbs; Winter = 206-lbs
Female over 12-years old
Summer = 165-lbs; Winter = 171-lbs
Children 2-11
Summer = 75-lbs; Winter = 75-lbs
Infants 0-to-less than 2
Summer = 30-lbs; Winter = 30-lbs
With the exception of infants, these are all 25-lbs heavier than pre-2003 calculations and were adjusted after a couple of crashes where weight factored into the accidents of light aircraft.
So, take 40-pounds out of the checked baggage allowance (2 bags 70-pounds previous allowance, now 2 bags 50-pounds each allowance) and the airline is STILL left with 15-pounds more open weight to play with per passenger for cargo loading.
An example - the 747-8 is the largest plane made, it can carry a maximum 467 passengers, 18 crew - a total of 485 people potentially on board.....it's zero fuel weight is 610,000-pounds, its maximum weight for takeoff is 970,000-pounds...a coast-to-coast flight burns 9000-gallons of fuel that weighs 55,000-pounds...add in contingency fuel, another 1500-gallons and the plane is up to almost 675,000-pounds, leaving a little more than 295,000 pounds for passenger, luggage and cargo weight before the plane reaches maximum weight for takeoff.
Unless every person and their bags combined weigh more than 600-pounds - it doesn't matter what any one passenger weighs, the fuel needed is the same....the only difference is that if each person and their bags did somehow weigh 600-pounds, the airline couldn't transport paid cargo too, therefore their only revenue would be from a plane full of obese people all squished together (heavens knows almost 500 people that big couldn't all fly together on one plane).
So, my position remains, if someone is not encroaching on another's paid space, it shouldn't matter what any one person weighs.
ReplyI think that airlines should charge extra for body fat and not weight. I mean, I'm athletic and take care of my body and I'm 6'1" and weigh over 200lbs. A person could be 5'5" and weigh the same amount and be obese. Males weigh more than females. There are just too many factors. But you can eliminate this by charging more for higher fat %'s (obviously different rates for men and women because of the natural difference in fat %'s).
ReplyWell the problem with body fat percent is it would be discriminatory against other cultures. Not every culture deems the athletic muscular woman the ideal shape and if someone doesn't have it, that doesn't make them unhealthy. For instance many indian women have higher body fat percentages than would be acceptable by the common white person's standards. Does that mean they are unhealthy? All you need to do is take a look at the statistics and that is answered. It's getting ridiculous the amount of judging that is becoming acceptable in today's society. I'm not saying that a person who is spilling over their seat shouldn't have to pay extra, as they are actually infringing on someone else's space directly. But so long as their butt fits in that seat who cares what their body fat is or their weight. Just live and let live. You'll be a happier person for it, especially when the societal norms change and you become part of the patronized group.
ReplyEvery so often the question of air travel comes up on this blog or Rudd, or any of a number of other discussion forums and the debate is always the same - name calling, experiences of sitting next to someone fat, justifications for why fat people should pay more than skinny people who weigh the same. Then someone always throws in a line about how this may encourage fat people to lose weight.
And as a group, everyone loses sight of the fact that they may as well be storming the castle of the fat people with pitchforks and torches. "I sat next to a fat person and he spilled into my seat." "They're unhealthy and should pay more." "It's a choice."
Let's rewind. Airline travel sucks. It sucks at 100 lbs, really sucks at 200 lbs, and is beyond comprehension at 300 lbs. And it varies about the same sitting next to these people. It's terrible traveling with a child and even worse sitting near someone elses child. Sometimes you just sit next to someone who smells bad or have a couple making out 8 inches in front of your face.
We deal with a lot of inconsiderate crap while traveling. And that's not counting the airlines. So my question is: Why is all the other crap bearable, but obesity isn't? I claim that it's discrimination. Oh don't get me wrong, I don't want to sit next to a fat person on a plane either. But I don't want to sit next to lots of different people.
The added cost argument is an obvious one, but using it in this circumstance just shows your bias. We pay all the time for services only a few use. I'm a bit of a nerd. I'm always buying technical gizmos. And yet I haven't called customer service for any reason in years. I don't really like to pay to support people stupider than me who clog up the tech support lines at a call center rate of $15 an incident, but I do. We all do.
But, some will say, weight is a choice and so fat people should pay more. This proves two things. The first is that those who say this probably use a lot of technical support. The second is that you don't read this blog or others like it. The research is becoming increasingly clear that obesity is not a choice. It's not even clear its a problem, except amongst good obesity fearing Americans (of which I consider myself).
Which of course leads into the punishment of fat people for their moral failings. That's what this is really about. And quite honestly, that's just stupid.
Reply
ReplyAnd how are they gonna measure body fat? Make people go into an MRI machine? In a water container (bioimpedance)? Make them strip to their undies and take calipers to them? Cause if you are saying "make them step on a Tanita scale, or hold those Tanita-like devices with their hands", that is wildly inaccurate. I always measure 12% more on those than in any other method, and it says I'm obese.
Good points, Mike R and Regina W.
Flying in a tin can sucks. Always. Because there are lots of things we have to put up with that we'd rather not have to. Penalizing fat people is just singling out a scapegoat. If they had to pay more it STILL wouldn't make any of the rest of the claustrophobic experience any better. And it probably wouldn't make my flight cost any less.
ReplyI personally like Amanda's suggestion that you along with everything you are bringing, including spouses and kids, get on a scale. Every passenger gets the first 200 pounds included (or whatever number they want to use) and the rest you pay at the airport.
This way, although I'm quite heavier then my sister in law, I would still pay the same as I'm a light packer and she enjoys bringing the corner of the house.
This would allow passengers to bring along whatever they wanted. You pay for what you take, just like when you go the to the bulk food places.
Weight is more fuel, more fuel is more money. A small person shouldn't have to pay for a larger one. If a larger person decided to buy a car, would they get upset at the manufacturer when they had to purchase more fuel then the thin person?
Same rule on a plane, heavier load, more fuel required.
ReplyAs I've already pointed out, the airlines have already eliminated 40-pounds from passenger weight with just their checked baggage allowance - even with the additional 25-pounds added to passenger & carry-on weight, that still leaves the airlines with 15-pounds they can load as cargo!
Additionally, the airlines have taken steps to eliminate massive tonnage from passenger planes - not because passengers are too heavy, but because cargo is a very lucrative item to add to the hold, and it adds weight - they've been busy, busy, busy, removing equipment and things once held as "basic" for passengers, like potable water in the holding tanks, blankets and pillows...even food service - as horrid as it was - has been eliminated on most flights, reducing again weight on take off...because they're filling the planes hold with cargo!
A couple of obese passengers do NOT suddenly add to the cost of a flight for the airline, or you or me...the 300-pounder is offset by the 100-pound 16-year old calculated at an adult weight....the 250-pounder is offset by the toddler weighing 30-pounds calculated as 100-pounds.
Hell a whole plane load of obese passengers don't even matter - nor all their luggage at maximum weight - or their carry-ons....as I said if somehow you managed to stuff every seat with obese people, their total weight with baggage pales to the weight need to hit maximum weight for takeoff...passenger weight is simply a small part of the total weight of a plane taking off and inconsequential on any plane except light aircraft.
Mike makes a good point - this topic only fosters perceived inequity - the idea we have to pay more because someone else weighs more on our flight...it's just not fair!
If I'm able to keep my weight normal and reasonable, then why shouldn't I get to pay less? Why shouldn't the sloth fatso stuffing their face not pay more? It's their fault - make 'em pay! Get 'em all and make 'em pay!
Does just the mere presence of an obese person, anywhere on an airplane, really cause this much discontent and absolute, black-and-white thinking?
To me that's a hell of a lot scarier than the obese guy sitting next to me on the plane!
What's next? Surely you can all think of lots of other great ways to "make 'em pay" can't you?
ReplyI don't think it has anything to do with the "make 'em pay" syndrome. By this rule, I would be paying more.
I don't think there is a witch hunt out there. I do think there is a obesity problem. We are on average 25 lbs heavier. Google average weight as described by CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r041027.htm
We are fatter, clothing costs more, fuel cost more, the equipment we require costs more. Try buying a scale that goes up to 400lbs for 30$, it's prety hard to find.
It's not a witch hunt, it's a fact. I work in the aviation industry, Cargo carrying isn't that lucrative. They fill up the space that's left over as to not lose money yes, but they aren't rolling in the money. But one normal passenger or a bunch of packages of the same weight ends up to be approx. the same cost.
ReplyI don't think there is a witch hunt out there. I do think there is a obesity problem.
I agree there is an obesity problem, but perhaps you didn't read the various incantations of "make 'em pay"...it's not fair...I should pay less throughout the comments:
1. Larger people should have to pay more, because its certainly not fair that thinner people have to pay more to compensate for people who can't even take care of their own bodies.
2. Someone's size is their responsibility, and it's very uncomfortable to sit next to a very large person on a long haul flight. Having larger seat available would help, but how many people would pay extra? Or could they be forced to?
3. There's just another incentive to lose weight :)
4. ...doctor's office-type scales at the airport, with the cut-off to pay extra being 250 lbs. The person at the ticket counter makes anyone "in doubt" step on the scale...[t]hat policy would certainly motivate the masses to lose weight, if they didn't want to pay extra to fly to Disney World.
5. I absolutely support higher charges for the obsese.
6. I think it's very unfair that a slender person such as myself should have to pay through the nose for an extra couple of kilos of luggage when there are people who weigh 50 kilos more than me paying less because their luggage is within the limits.
7. I think that it's a great idea to have a base price for everyone, then offer incentives for lighter weight people plus luggage. In other words, when I step up to the counter, I can request a discount if the total weight of me plus my luggage is under a certain set limit.
8. None of this stuff existed to any significant degree before the self made supersizing of people!
9. I think that airlines should charge extra for body fat and not weight.
Rationalized because...
"I mean, I'm athletic and take care of my body
Still think there isn't a "make 'em pay" syndrome rich in many of the comments?
These comments aren't about the idea of a second seat due to physical discomfort flying next to a passenger who is occupying space that is yours that you paid for...many of the comments are simply based on making someone who is overweight - whether they're spilling into another seat or not - pay more than someone whom is perceived as "taking care of themself" because they weigh less.
ReplyI do not believe this comment made by me fits your criteria of a negative comment!! I also stand by my belief to what the eventual solution will be. This is not my solution, just what I think the eventual outcome will be. Like insurance, it will be a shared cost.Reply
Let me see if I understand - "self made supersizing" - isn't saying, without directly saying it, that it's their fault they're obese?
Many of the comments smack of "make 'em pay" because it's their own fault, they lack control, they weigh too much, they aren't taking care of themselves...so unless "self made supersizing" wasn't implying they did it to themself, than I think it fits.
It sets up an "us versus them" belief that fosters a superior sense of self (us) because self is measured against another seen as inferior (them) because of an inherent defect in who they appear to be, without any consideration of circumstance, genetics or even that they may be working day-in-day-out to lose weight and have not yet reached a weight that "we" (us) believe normal and acceptable.
Quite frankly I was (and still am) just surprised at how prevalent this type of opinion is; I would have thought that with 66% of the nation overweight or obese, no one would lack empathy for the situation of another - all these folks expressing this desire to "punish-by-higher-payment" for a seat on plane...I have to wonder, are they only surrounding themselves with normal weight people?
What, they have no family or friends with whom they feel any empathy - who are overweight or obese - to connnect with and think, hmmm....is this really a good idea?
ReplyI really don't think most people care about who pays what. I think it's really all about not having the person next to you on a plane filling up half of your seat.
ReplyDid you miss the four times I qualified my statements? So you don't need to go back and find them, here they are:
1. Personally, I see it this way - if someone is so large they're encroaching on my paid space, then they need more room...if they're not spilling over to my space, live and let live.
2...if a person isn't spilling into a seat next to the person next to them - that is physically not requiring another seat, then why should it matter what any one person weighs?
3...if someone is not encroaching on another's paid space, it shouldn't matter what any one person weighs.
4. These comments aren't about the idea of a second seat due to physical discomfort flying next to a passenger who is occupying space that is yours that you paid for...
Reply