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.

Re:Linear Cost

[slashkitty]

They should take into account volume as well. Next time I'm taking a crap load of helium balloons!

Re:sounds good

[X0563511]

Yes they are. "Step 2. Enter your details, including your estimated weight(s) of passengers and baggage"

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.

[jeffmeden]

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.

It seems like they're being penny-wise/pound foolish on this...

If Samoa Air were a normal international airline, you would be right. However, they are a regional airline with small prop planes, where individual passenger weight does make up a significant percentage of the total flying weight.

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.

[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.

[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: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.

Nice for child fares

[wile_e8]

As someone with daughter that just turned two years old, meaning we now have to pay for a ticket for her to fly, this sounds like a great deal to me.