Samoa Air Rolling Out "Pay As You Weigh" Fares

cylonlover writes "Thrifty Samoans looking to take a trip may want to shed a few pounds before booking a flight with Samoan Air after the airline announced the implementation of a 'pay as you weigh' system. Unlike some other airlines that have courted controversy by forcing some obese passengers to purchase two seats, Samoa's national carrier will charge passengers based on their weight." They have a demo fare calculator for the curious.

Comments

Re:Fairplay

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. Because it costs the airline more to move 180lbs than it does 100lbs. Simple way of pricing tickets, you and all your luggage step on a scale and you're charged a per lb rate for your ticket. Very fair.

More person, more cost. Fine.

[fyngyrz]

I'm big, and this seems perfectly reasonable to me. Weight and size affects the cost of transport, and it may affect seating as well.

Though I have to say, if you charge more, but don't arrange for the comfort of both the larger persons and those that might be seated near them, you really aren't addressing the issue all that well. Pretending a seven foot tall guy fits in, or behind, or in front of, a seat designed for a five foot tall person (who apparently only has one arm, judging by the armrest configurations) isn't fooling anyone. Likewise, for widebody people, a seat designed for narrow hips doesn't cut it. If I sit in front of you, my head will be in your dinner plate if I recline at all. Well, ok, your peanut bag, anyway. If you sit in front of me, you're likely to find my feet right behind yours. This is part of the reason I no longer fly. The rest being accounted for by the TSA nonsense.

Frankly, I'm amazed that "regular" size people put up with typical airline seating. Outside of first class. That's something else again.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Put up with?" What's your alternative?

I certainly don't like the cramped quarters, the one armrest per person, the tsa cancer/molestation, any of it.

But again, what are you going to do?

If I'm in Washington and tomorrow I'm supposed to be in Chicago, what am I going to do? drive for 12 hours? sure I could do that, but at current gas prices, unless I'm driving something getting 60mpg, I'm not saving much money vs flying. Not to mention the time lost. assuming 2 hour flight, and an hour and change at the airport before my flight to account for security, driving takes 3-4 times longer than flying. If it's a business trip, is your company ok with you essentially not working on tuesday so you can get to chicago on time for wednesday's meeting (and then skipping work again on thursday to drive back). if it's your own vacation time, you cool with blowing two entire vacation days just for driving? and what if we're not talking 1/3 of the country like chicago to washington. what if we're talking DC to LA. That's a 5 day trip at 9-10 hours of driving a day.

ok, how about I take the train. I did that once, it took 23 hours. TWENTY THREE FREAKIN HOURS from leaving the front door of my house (at the time) in chicago to reaching my destination in washington. there were times the train was flying along at the awe inspiring speed of 30mph for hours at a time. Not to mention that it was the middle of August, the AC was broken (wheee 90' and humid even at midnight), and amtrak didn't care. "oh, yeah, we'll get right on that".

So no, I don't like flying, but what's the alternative?

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Joce640k]

ok, how about I take the train. I did that once, it took 23 hours. TWENTY THREE FREAKIN HOURS from leaving the front door of my house (at the time) in chicago to reaching my destination in washington. there were times the train was flying along at the awe inspiring speed of 30mph for hours at a time. Not to mention that it was the middle of August, the AC was broken (wheee 90' and humid even at midnight), and amtrak didn't care. "oh, yeah, we'll get right on that".

Last time I took a train it whooshed along at 300km/h all the way to Madrid (180mph in old units).

It's quicker than flying once you factor in the travel to the airport, airport security, boarding, etc. Much nicer, too. You get a big seat with a proper table (if you want one) and huge bathrooms.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[CohibaVancouver]

what are you going to do?

Vote for politicians who have the 25-year vision to fund and build an American high-speed rail network.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Opportunist]

Don't compare "socialist" Europe to "capitalist" US. It just ain't fair.

Sorry, but that's exactly what privatizing some sectors get you. Investing will happen when there is absolutely, positively no way around it (like, say, the thing falls apart and cannot pass even the laxest security controls anymore) and service will be just as good as minimally required to keep people from not using the system at all.

In a nutshell, I'd always prefer our "communist", train system. Yes, my taxes pay to no small extent for it and I hardly use it myself. Still, knowing that I'd be able to zip across the country for a fraction of the price of flying and knowing that this system is actually attractive enough for freight to clean the highways from trucks is enough for me to gladly pay for it.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Runaway1956]

Not in this country. No one has a vision longer than the next election. I mean, NO ONE! And, they don't have a memory longer than the last election, either. This is why we have no five year plans, ten year plans, 25 year plans, or 100 year plans. We have no plans, period. We just lounge around, taking it easy, bullshitting the world into thinking we're something great.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[mbone]

Yes, and a 747 might (in cargo mode) be able to carry several of the 9 passenger Britten Norman (BN2A) prop planes they actually fly (if the wings could be folded or detached). The smaller the plane, the more the weight matters.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[lgw]

Vote for politicians who have the 25-year vision to fund and build an American high-speed rail network.

Rail (in the US) is pork, and nothing more. We've already spent millions nation-wide on high-speed rail projects and gotten no actual trains out of it. The idea might seem nice, in principle, but in fact it's just a pretty scam.

Anyhow, in trains were popular, they'd just add the TSA to every train stop, and have TSA agents re-check your bags every hour just in case. You can't fix the TSA by making trains popular! The purpose of the TSA is to get people used to totalitarianism, so the TSA will be there wherever lots of people go.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[tlhIngan]

My issue is that the price difference per pound isn't going to be more than a few cents is it? Passenger weight is fairly insignificant compared to the weight of the plane itself. There might be standard 50 tons of people/luggage on a jumbo (250 lbs combined * 400 ppl). The 'heavier' people are going to add maybe a few tons, I'd guess 10 at most. So I'm betting that 10 tones is far less than a 5% increase in overall weight. So the increase in costs divided among the passengers is going to get pretty small pretty quickly.

Passenger weight (and distribution) is actually quite important, depending on the equipment.

Samoa airlines runs smaller aircraft - 12 passenger ones are common. The deal is that weight and balance are VERY important in ALL aircraft, but especially so on smaller ones.

The deal is, if you flew larger equipment with a hundred or more passengers, you can get away using standard weights for passengers (this varies by country - and the FAA has I believe been conducting a study to see how much they have to be revised for ever-growing waistlines). After all, the more people you have, the closer to the average they would be. The baggage carts aren't actually randomly loaded - they're weighed and loaded, and they're actually put on the plane in a specific order to keep CG in check and the plane balanced.

For a smaller plane, though, averages don't work too well - one big guy can throw your whole calculation off. Or if your passengers are all skinny.

So now you have a problem of weight and balance - if your plane is too heavy, it can be illegal to take off (you have to remove cargo and/or passengers). And these planes weren't made for super-heavy passengers - they were probably designed for standard weight people plus some baggage. Too heavy or too much baggage and you exceed designed payload, which means you either unload cargo and passengers, or take on less fuel (and there's an absolute minimum fuel that has to be carried per the aircraft design (Zero Fuel Weight - the maximum payload that can be carried with no fuel - the rest of available payload must be fuel). Never mind the necessary fuel to make it to the destination and required reserves.

And if your average passenger weight has wide deviations (as you would with only 12 passengers), then assuming the wrong weights could put your plane outside the CG envelope VERY easily.

A plane outside of CG is dangerous - it means the controllability is compromised as the controls may not have sufficient authority to overcome the out-of-CG condition.

So yes, the passenger weights do matter, and I wouldn't be surprised if seating order is changed once everyone's weighed to keep everything in check.

As to whether this is the right way to do it? Well, a lot of aviation administrations are starting to demand actual weights of passengers be used for smaller aircraft because MANY have crashed due to potentially out-of-average people being carried.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Albanach]

Why do Americans keep accepting this excuse?

The entire East Coast has a population density easily capable of sustaining high-speed rail if you looks at the density metrics from other countries that have it, yet it doesn't exist there either.

Sure, Chicago to Washington might not be the most populous route - though you could connect several large cities and reduce the travel time between them to under 2 hours which might be good for commerce. But it's not like there's high speed rail anywhere.

When the feds offered money for states to role it out as part of the stimulus, Republican governors rejected the offer in seconds.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Opportunist]

I was in the UK, and honestly I was shocked what the privatization did to your fine rail system. I was especially appalled by the famous London subways (and took a double take when I saw what they wanted from me to ride on it).

Anyone claiming that privatization leads to "better service" or "more competitive pricing" should take a good look there. Then try a few other, government owned and operated, public transportation systems around Europe. And then tell me again with a straight face that privatization is a good idea.

If he can, he might just be a politician...

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[atriusofbricia]

Actually, I was under the impression that high speed rails make MORE sense on long distance due to rather long acceleration and breaking distances trains have. Here they use the 250+ kph trains only for trips where the stations they actually stop at are at least 50-100 kilometers apart, the rest is serviced by rather slow (80-100 kph) local trains.

The thing you have to remember with the US is that there are large sections of the country where you can go and not see another person for weeks (or hours if you're moving fast enough). Not a car, not a house, nothing. So that high speed train would go out all that way and find no one who wants ride most of the time.

There are parts where it would make sense. Along the Coasts and down certain corridors currently served by Interstates. A line that follows Interstate 65 from top to bottom might do well. One that runs along Interstate 40 out west to Dallas might do well too.

The biggest thing that kills trains here though is a combination of relatively cheap cars with excellent roads and frequently cheap flights. You can fly half way across the country, from Kansas City to San Diego, for about 300 bucks round trip and do it in just 4 or 5 hours. No train will ever match that speed and even that cost might be a stretch. $400 will take you from New York to San Diego and back. 7 hours of travel time.

Unless airline prices spike stupid high why would we want to take a train which can't help but take at least twice as long, if not three times as long. Given it would likely take billions of dollars to build at this point for relatively little benefit.

Re:More person, more cost. Fine.

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I'll click my magic shoes together and make a large scale high-speed rail system appear in the US.

Here is a simple answer. Stop wasting money on wars all over the world, and put your unemployed people to work building those highspeed rail lines.
Added bonus to my plan is with all those people working, they will go out and spend their pay on goods and services, which will do a lot to get your stagnating economy moving.

Re:Fuel costs money

[Nemesisghost]

In the US, there's no way you could ever get away with something that discriminatory.

Not necessarily. The thing about discrimination is that you can get away with it, if you have reasonable cause to do so. For example, fire departments can and routinely discriminate against women. Why? Well, the job has a reasonable expectation that you will be forced to lift a certain amount(I believe it's around 75lbs) of weight up a large amount of stairs. For your averagely fit man, and even some below average, this is not much of a requirement. But the same cannot be said for most women. Women can still be firemen, but it requires more work.

Re:Fairplay

[Anonymous Coward]

The airline doesn't care whether you are "overweight", they care about how much fuel they need to get you from A to B. Your weight is relevent, your BMI is not.

Re:larger sits?

[Anonymous Cod]

You sir, are an asshole.

Re:Not too surprising

[omnichad]

Yes - it is considered attractive. It connotes wealth.