Airline Begins Weighing Passengers For 'Safety'

New submitter Lopsemily writes to note that passengers on Uzbekistan Airways may face a new pre-flight check: In a recent statement, the country's flag carrier announced it will weigh passengers and their carry-on luggage prior to flights to determine how much weight they'll be adding to the plane. 'According to the rules of International Air Transport Association, airlines are obliged to carry out the regular procedures of preflight control passengers weighing with hand baggage to observe requirements for ensuring flight safety,' says the airline's statement.

Comments

Just starting now?

[MagickalMyst]

Seriously, has this ever been a problem?

When was the last time that a plane had to make an emergency landing or a flight delayed because the plane simply weighed too much due to obese travelers?

This looks more like a precursor for charging extra fees for tickets based on a person's weight... kind of like charging extra for bandwidth usage or bottled air.

Re:Just starting now?

[irussel]

Part of the problem is that airlines are cramming more seats into each plane. However the real limiting capacity for carrying people/cargo is not # of seats, its weight. Too heavy, then the plane needs extra runway to reach a higher speed just to get off the ground. Even if it does get off the ground, it may not stay that way for long if weight limits are exceeded.

Then there's the fact that we have more obese travelers. So yeah, not surprised its becoming more of a problem. And technically, weight and balance calculations are required before each flight.

Re:Just starting now?

[jfrorie]

Worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Just starting now?

[MagickalMyst]

+1

Re:Just starting now?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

A precursor"?

A world first: The "Samoa Air System" of pay by weight 'Pay only for what you weigh'!

Welcome to the fairest system for payment of carriage of anything by air. The world is now aware that charging by weight is the fairest way of paying for carriage. Whether its people, baggage, freight or anything which we might want tot take or consign by air.

At Samoa Air we will do our best to ensure that every passenger is afforded the same level of comfort and travel throughout their flying experience. We want to bring back Air Travel as an enjoyable experience, where you, and your baggage will always travel together. No more excess fee's are charged and no more discrimination, because as we know: A kilo is a kilo is a kilo!

Re:Just starting now?

[holmstar]

And technically, weight and balance calculations are required before each flight.

Absolutely. Aircraft weight and balance is very important. These calculations also determine how much fuel to carry. Sometimes while in flight pilots will report unexpected fuel burn, difficulty climbing, that the plane is nose or tail heavy, and request an audit of what was loaded onto the plane (baggage/cargo). Also, if you've ever been on a plane that's relatively empty, you may notice flight attendants spreading out the passengers so that they all aren't in the front, or wherever.

Re:Just starting now?

[TheCarp]

I call bullshit, because if they are cramming so many people onto a single plane that the weight of the passengers matters to safety, then the problem is 100% the airline cramming too many people on the plane. The weight of the passengers shouldn't matter by a very wide safety margin.

Re:Just starting now?

[FatdogHaiku]

Can't you get all the info you need by building sensors into the landing gear, if they're not there already. Weight change at each wheel set should give overall balance and total live load... they already know what the static load is so it's people, luggage, and fuel that vary.

Re:Just starting now?

[Ol Olsoc]

Seriously, has this ever been a problem?

The only time I ever experienced any issue was when I was travelling with a lot of needed equipment. This would be on a relatively small plane. I travelled heavy, and they needed the weight info so they could balance the load. Around 200 to 300 pounds. I paid extra since it was the equivalent of taking another person. On the larger planes, it wasn't as important, but still kinda heavy.

note: on one flight out of our local airport, I was travelling heavy. A very heavy fellow got on the plane, and the stewardesses very discretely changed his seat to help balance the load. But that was then, before it was important to be as rude as possible to customers. We got a balanced load, the heavy guy got a better seat, and everyone was happy.

The stories I could tell about the days when travel by air was fun, the airline employees were polite and nice, and you didn't have to worry about your little girl or grandma being groped.

This looks more like a precursor for charging extra fees for tickets based on a person's weight... kind of like charging extra for bandwidth usage or bottled air.

Exactly this. In my example above, once they weighed my travel cases - because it isn't obvious what they weighed without weighing them, the Stewards could easliy estimate the passengers weight, and adjust as needed. The idea that a 747 or big Airbus would be in danger because of the weight of carryon luggage is ridiculous, and in a few years, ticket prices will probably be done by weight. Rude, and pointless, merely insulting as many customers as possible.

Re:Just starting now?

[Penguinisto]

Could be worse... it could be that they're weighing everyone in order to determine whether or not to fully fuel a plane up before it leaves.

Re:Just starting now?

[KeithJM]

It's pretty common in smaller flights (think turbo prop planes) that are only partially sold to have to shift passengers around for weight balance. It's not so much the total weight, but the location of weight in the cabin can definitely affect flight characteristics of the plane.

Re:Just starting now?

[holmstar]

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain such sensors are not normally equipped. In theory, yes, sensors would be a useful tool to confirm actual weight and balance just before departure, but they still need to plan for expected weight. With short turn-around times weight and balance has to be planned, so that the airline knows in advance how much fuel and cargo to load, and where to load it.

Re:Just starting now?

[drinkypoo]

note: on one flight out of our local airport, I was travelling heavy. A very heavy fellow got on the plane, and the stewardesses very discretely changed his seat to help balance the load.

Well, I should think so. He would have had to have been very heavy for a non-discrete seat change to have had any measurable effect.

Re:Just starting now?

[wired_parrot]

Yes, obese passengers have caused air crashes before. The most infamous one I can think of was a Cessna Caravan 208 that crashed in Pelee, Ontario. The findings of the report showed that the average passenger weight was 240lbs in that flight, whereas the airline was using an average weight for men of 188lbs at the time, which contributed to the aircraft being over 500lbs than estimated. This is a bigger issue with small aircraft, where your weight margin is much tighter.

Also note that passenger weight doesn't only include his body weight - it also includes all his carry-on belongings and clothings. Which is another reason a party of hunters with heavy winter clothing and hunting gear can weigh significantly above average as in the above crash

Re:Just starting now?

[DrXym]

Even if it weren't a danger to the flight, it's still an imposition that other passengers end up paying in their fares for the cost of the (wasted) fuel.

Re:Just starting now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eagle Commuter Airlines March 21, 1980 flying a piper chieftain, engine failure on takeoff, could not climb due to being over gross weight and the CG 3 inches aft of limits. 7 of 10 died.

Charter flight, Feb 2, 2005, flying a Challenger 600 with a CG forward of the forward limit failed to rotate and overran the runway at Teterboro, injuring 11 onboard and 2 people in a vehicle and 1 in a building it struck.

Fine Air 7 Aug 1997, DC-8, Aft CG and inappropriate takeoff trim setting caused the aircraft to pitch noseup, stall and depart controlled flight on takeoff. all 4 onboard died.

Those are just CG problems. Here's a list of gross weight problems. http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=CGO
I can't find on the tablet the one in which a commuter had an engine failure and rolled over due to an excessively aft CG due, entirely, to fat people.

Re:Just starting now?

[unencode200x]

Note that I do not have a pilot's license but I have maybe 550 flights in the last couple years and deal with aircraft (mostly smaller turbines) a lot. Yes, you don't want to be heavy over the tail especially. In a worst case it could cause a stall. You want weight distributed as evenly as possible and, if you have to choose, be heaviest around the wings on most aircraft.

Re:Just starting now?

[Midnight Thunder]

When was the last time that a plane had to make an emergency landing or a flight delayed because the plane simply weighed too much due to obese travelers?

There's probably some other unknown reason why they are doing this.

One reason I would imagine is due to passengers shifting weight from checked-in baggage to their carry on or themselves. Combine that with trying to reduce fuel costs and you find yourself with airlines wanting to eliminate as many of the unknowns as possible. Carrying extra fuel just in case also adds to the fuel cost, since that weight must be accounted for in extra burn.

The risk with too much over-optimisation is that the risk of failure increases if any one of the values is slightly off. The truth is, it is almost impossible to have all the variables accounted for, especially once the plane is up in the air and subject to external factors.

Re:Just starting now?

[TrentTheThief]

I don't think so. The balance they're working towards is the balance of a plane in the airstream not on the ground. If they could somehow rig a suite of weight sensors for the wheel trucks, they 'd get something, but whether simply duplicating those readings would indicate a properly loaded aircraft, I can't say with certainty. You'd probably need to have many sets of readings to deal with the various configs each aircraft would possibly have: Number of seats, exact fuel distribution (there are multiple tanks and pumping systems), etc...

As other mentioned, the reason they're seeing this issue is the trend towards smaller seats and stuffing in more passengers to fill them.

Re:Just starting now?

[Bodero]

It's not just weight, it's also balance - where the center of gravity of the plane is. Without that, you can be within the limits with regards to weight, but off-balance. This video is an example of what happens in that scenario (cargo was not properly tied down).

Re:Just starting now?

[debrain]

Seriously, has this ever been a problem?

There have been a half-a-dozen incidents of planes overrunning runways on takeoff or otherwise crashing because of the difference between the expected average weight of passengers and their actual (obese) weight, most notably Obese passengers could have caused plane crash, May 2003, aka Air Midwest 5481.

Further reading: The true costs of heavier passengers: Part one

Re:Just starting now?

[bobbied]

Seriously, has this ever been a problem?

YES!

This is a common issue in commercial AND private aviation. Weight and balance is *critical* to flying safely and as load factors increase and aircraft sizes decrease it becomes very necessary to be more and more accurate. Let me explain why this is.

First is total weight. Aircraft are designed to handle a maximum takeoff and landing weight safely. The calculated performance numbers for the aircraft are based on it's weight. Now for a 777 another 100 lbs might be unnoticeable, but for a C150 I can assure you it is. Being over weight affects take off performance, necessary runway lengths, maximum rate of climb, and stopping distances on aborted takeoffs. It affects landing configurations, cross wind tolerances, and breaking distances. If you are in a position where you are depending on the performance of the aircraft, safety demands that you not be overweight.

Balance is next. Balance has to do with where the center of gravity is on the aircraft. The CG must fall within a very narrow range for both efficiency and safety's sake. If the CG is to far forward, it makes the nose heavier and you must apply downward force on the tail using the elevators to keep the nose up. This extra force creates drag and adds to the amount of lift the wings must create to stay in the air. All this creates drag and lowers efficiency. The problem though is you cannot just move the CG way to the aft or you make the aircraft unstable. If the CG is too far aft and you stall the aircraft cannot be brought out of the stall and will crash so for safety, you need the CG forward. The area between these two points is usually pretty small compared to the length of the aircraft and actually gets smaller as you approach the maximum operating weight.

So why does how much people weigh matter? Quite simply because you cannot exceed the maximum weight of the aircraft, and with today's tendency for people to be a bit porky makes it very easy to get overloaded. Plus, if you have an uneven distribution of porky people between front to back. Moving 100lbs of weight forward might be the difference between living or dying in a stall.

So yes, passenger weight matters, especially at high load factors where we are operating at or near the maximum ratings of the aircraft. And, now that people are weighing more and more, it matters more and more.

Re: Just starting now?

[bobbied]

No, usually they pull the lowest cost ticket holders off first... I've had my luggage left behind a number of times for weight and balance issues, even had to leave carryon's behind once when taking a really small (8 seat) flight that was completely sold out.

Re:Just starting now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, has this ever been a problem?
When was the last time that a plane had to make an emergency landing or a flight delayed because the plane simply weighed too much due to obese travelers?

US Airways 5481 and 21 dead people would beg to differ. In the US we use standardized averages that hadn't been updated in decades. The plane was only 400 to 1000lbs overweight and it killed everyone. You need to learn how weight effects the center of gravity of an airplane. It a calculation ALL pilots do an ALL aircraft before takeoff. Ever fly with a private pilot in a single engine and have him ask what you weigh? That's a responsible pilot doing his pre-flight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/18/us/crash-that-killed-21-appears-tied-excess-weight-maintenance-error-officials-say.html

There's a fantastic Air Crash Investigations Episode on the event I highly suggest you watch. Weight becomes a more acute issue the smaller the plane is. I even got bumped to a first class seat on a cross country flight because it was empty and the flight attendant said the pilot wanted to balance the plane.

The pilot of 5481 was a hero, she steered the plane away from a packed hanger full of maintenance workers. The crash could have been far more deadly.

Granted there was also a maintenance issue with the tail that was repaired incorrectly but the ultimate factor was weight.

Re:Just starting now?

[Noah Haders]

on several recent Southwest flights they the plane was "weight capped" so they had to waitlist people even though there were empty seats. sux. I would say charge the large passengers more, but then I would be charged more...

Re:Just starting now?

[pjt33]

And for what it's worth, underestimating weight can also be hazardous.

Re:Just starting now?

[myowntrueself]

And technically, weight and balance calculations are required before each flight.

Absolutely. Aircraft weight and balance is very important. These calculations also determine how much fuel to carry. Sometimes while in flight pilots will report unexpected fuel burn, difficulty climbing, that the plane is nose or tail heavy, and request an audit of what was loaded onto the plane (baggage/cargo). Also, if you've ever been on a plane that's relatively empty, you may notice flight attendants spreading out the passengers so that they all aren't in the front, or wherever.

Thats why they don't let all the fatties sit on one side of the plane and instead balance them out on either side.

Re:Just starting now?

[myowntrueself]

Even if it weren't a danger to the flight, it's still an imposition that other passengers end up paying in their fares for the cost of the (wasted) fuel.

Think of it as a subsidy for fat 'Murcans

Re:Just starting now?

[Spazmania]

technically, weight and balance calculations are required before each flight.

Correct, however any airline operating so far in to the safety margin that they need to weigh passengers is, well, really unsafe.

Re:Just starting now?

[srmalloy]

If you had sensors on each landing gear, you'd be able to make a CG calculation based on the pattern of weight distribution across the gear

Re:Just starting now?

[alvinrod]

The weight of the passengers shouldn't matter by a very wide safety margin.

And you base your claim on your extensive knowledge of the engineering of aircraft or flight experience?

Seems that you would be wrong. Dead wrong.

Re:Just starting now?

[jfrorie]

Read further...

"It was determined that neither problem alone would have caused the loss of control, which explains why it departed Huntington, West Virginia safely."

Further down....

As a result of the weight issues discovered, the FAA planned to investigate and potentially revise estimated weight values, something that had not been done since 1936. Air Midwest used an average weight of 200 pounds (90.7 kg) per passenger after the accident, but the NTSB suggests that airlines use actual weights instead of average. 70% of small air carriers still use average.

Weight issues affect control surface authority. In this case, it was a contributing factor and relevant enough for the FAA to change it's guidance.

FYI, Private Pilot, ASEL. And in the aircraft I am certificated for, weight is quite relevant. Ditto for the small carriers.

Re:Just starting now?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would have been relevant had the cause not been incorrectly installed elevator control cables and improper QA.

Your reading comprehension needs work, dumbass.

The cause was the COMBINATION of the aircraft being loaded excessively AND the control travel being limited by incorrect adjustment
of the turnbuckles. Had only one of these two conditions existed the aircraft MAY have been able to fly safely. But the combination
of the two conditions meant that all those aboard the aircraft were doomed. It should be noted that the pilot in command did make
a noble effort to avoid crashing into an area which was likely to contain more people and this speaks well of her expertise.

Re:Just starting now?

[ne0n]

Last flight I took a 400lb greaseball was blocking 3/4 of the aisle, spreading his way like a giant fried egg into his wife's seat too. Safety hazard is putting it mildly, that guy couldn't have moved quickly if his life depended on it and he'd block anybody else with his bulk if a real emergency happened.

Hamplanets should pay per weight and if they use the space of 2 seats, make 'em pay for 2 seats. Fatties take more fuel to move and cause everybody else discomfort.

For an extra serving of justice they should always be seated next to the screaming baby owners.

Re: Just starting now?

[Dunbal]

Wait, they make you miss the flight because of weight, but leave your bags on the flight? Are your bags massless?

Re:Just starting now?

[mspohr]

I once checked in for an overseas flight and they said it would leave either on time or two hours later. They said that if not many people checked in, they could eliminate a stop for fuel on the way so they could leave later. Ended up leaving on time and stopping for fuel in Hawaii. I was personally happy about that.

Re:Just starting now?

[mspohr]

I was once denied boarding on a (small) jet because too many people ahead of me in line had checked in with too many bananas.

Re: Just starting now?

[bobbied]

No, they made my bags stay behind.... I got to go and they promised to send my bags on the next flight... Of course this was pre 9/11. Now days, I believe that bags and passengers go together by rule.

Of course, the really funny thing for me was that all that was in my bag was a suit, shoes and a change of underwear and they said I could carry what I needed out of the bag. So I grabbed literally everything in the bag and collected the empty bag the next day on my way home.

Re:Just starting now?

[operagost]

Virtual +1 for "hamplanets".

Re:Just starting now?

[stooo]

in 1928 the aircrafts were at the limit with weight:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/ges...

Re: Just starting now?

[jd2112]

Soon the airlines will, like the women's fashion industry, assume that the average person is an 80lb size 0 and they will expect everyone to conform to those unrealistic standards our past for multiple tickets based on how many multiples of this you weigh.

Re:Just starting now?

[sjames]

So one link about an itty bitty propeller plane and another that indicates no material risk existed (because it was within the safety margins as GP said).

Re:Just starting now?

[morphotomy]

Because the scales in the landing gear are going to remain accurate after being slammed into the ground constantly as part of their normal operation.

Re:Just starting now?

[burne]

Seriously, has this ever been a problem?

Yes. Exact weight of passengers and cargo is needed to estimate the amount of fuel needed to get from A to B. To prevent fatal fuel mishaps the traditional approach was to carry plenty excess fuel. But fuel might be expensive in the airport you're starting from, and carrying 20 klbs expensive fuel to a destination where fuel is much cheaper isn't smart business. Weighing passengers, obese or not, makes for more accurate margins and thus less wasted cash.

And the bottom line is what it's all about these days.

Re:Just starting now?

[FranTaylor]

technically, weight and balance calculations are required before each flight.

Correct, however any airline operating so far in to the safety margin that they need to weigh passengers is, well, really unsafe.

really why bother doing any sort of extra safety at all because we all know that airplanes are always perfect and can operate with no safety margins

Re:Just starting now?

[AK Marc]

Nope. The two numbers that matter for the calculations are total weight and Cg. Both can be assessed by on-plane measurements at the landing gear, or scales in/on the ground. Rotational inertia and other things would matter at the precise distribution of weight, but that has no effect on level flight (and minimal on the maneuvering), and level flight is the key thing they are trying to optimize.

As other mentioned, the reason they're seeing this issue is the trend towards smaller seats and stuffing in more passengers to fill them.

The practice has *always* been to weigh and balance the plane. I've been on 737 in the US where the crew moved the passengers, based on cargo and uneven passenger loading. They have *always* done weight calculations. It's just that the margin of error and estimates make them mostly moot. But they are calculated for every fligth (unless you are Aaliyah, or any of the many celebrities who died in a knowingly overloaded plane, though they likely did the calculations, but still flew knowing it was overloaded).

Re:Just starting now?

[mjwx]

Seriously, has this ever been a problem?

For western jet airliners, no.

For shoving 40 people into an old turboprop that only seats 30, yes.

The last and only time I was weighted for a a flight was when taking a helicopter to an oil rig and they were trying to shove as many O&G workers onto one heli as possible and rig workers are rarely "small boned".

This looks more like a precursor for charging extra fees for tickets based on a person's weight.

As well as being able to cut corners on the amount of fuel you load.

Re:Just starting now?

[mjwx]

Part of the problem is that airlines are cramming more seats into each plane. However the real limiting capacity for carrying people/cargo is not # of seats, its weight. Too heavy, then the plane needs extra runway to reach a higher speed just to get off the ground. Even if it does get off the ground, it may not stay that way for long if weight limits are exceeded.

I thought of that, but I had a look at the fleet of Uzbekistan air, they're not even using the typical 2 class maximum for the A320-200 or 757's that make up most of their fleet.

I suspect they're attempting to cut on fuel costs by getting a more accurate estimate on the actual plane weight.

Re:Just starting now?

[gl4ss]

actually there was a problem once because they had not updated average weights.

however.. this is uzbekistan. maybe they defaulted to people weighting 40 kilo or something before.

I was on a cheapo flight recently where they made announcements that you couldn't exchange seats without authorization (paying money) due to 'weight of the traveller mattering for the seat planning' (only problem: you could have paid money to reserve seats you wanted AND THE AIRLINE HAD NO FUCKING CLUE OF WEIGHTS OF ANY OF THE TRAVELERS. fuck, the airline in question had not even _seen_ the travelers before due to automated check in and the seats being set even before that). so that part was clearly bullshit.

Re:Just starting now?

[davester666]

Have you seen Americans? I think they only have 'all-you-can-eat' restaurants. And they must get full value for their money.

Re: Just starting now?

[mbeckman]

Many large transport airplanes have an on board aircraft weighing system (OBAWS) that, when the aircraft is on the ground, gives the flightcrew a continuous indication of the aircraft total weight and the location of the CG.

The system consists of strain-sensing transducers in each main wheel and nose wheel axle, a weight and balance computer, and indicators that show the gross weight, the CG location in percent of MAC, and an indicator of the ground attitude of the aircraft.

The strain sensors measure the amount each axle deflects and sends this data into the computer, where signals from all of the transducers and the ground attitude sensor are integrated. The results are displayed on the indicators for the flight crew as a "weight on wheels" value.

Re: Just starting now?

[mbeckman]

I'm a pilot and licensed aircraft mechanic. The weight and balance on the ground and in the air are the same thing. The two key values computed are the total weight as the center of gravity in inches from a reference datum on the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.

Re:Just starting now?

[petermgreen]

If they could somehow rig a suite of weight sensors for the wheel trucks, they 'd get something

If we assume the wheel trucks can be modelled as point supports (reasonable given the plane is much larger than the wheel trucks) then the forces through them would tell you the weight of the plane and the 2D location of the center of gravity. They would not tell you the height of the center of gravity.

If the fuel load and fuel tank arrangements are known it should be possible to predict how that center of gravity will move as fuel is drained.

I would expect that with most planes front-back balance is a bigger issue than top-bottom balance (because planes tend to be small top-bottom) or side-side balance (since the only thing carried in the wings is usually fuel which is easy to balance) so measuring gear forces would seem like a reasonable method of balancing to me.

Disclaimer: IANAP, this is theoretical musing, not practical advice.

Re:Just starting now?

[nut]

You're going to get a fairly poisson-shaped distribution of heavy to light people forward to back, left to right, etc. With the number of flights we have in the world today, there are going to be times when the weight distribution in a plane is accidentally very unbalanced. The airlines need to be able to weigh individual people if they want to be deterministic about that.

Re:Just starting now?

[StatureOfLiberty]

This acceptable region where the balance point must fall also changes with weight. So, the more the airplane weighs, the smaller the difference between the forward and aft limit of the center of gravity.

The cg is also important on the ground as well depending on the airplane. The KC-135 tankers I flew on had a tail stand and had it for a reason. Even CGs that allowed flight might not keep the nose wheel on the ground. We didn't shut down engines until the tail stand was in place as the thrust help keep the nose wheel down. There are stories of crew members stepping off the ladder and the nose wheel coming off the ground. Hence the procedure with the tail stand.

We always kept fuel in the forward body tank (beneath the front of the aircraft) to keep this balance point foward. There were times that a fuel gauge malfunctioned and the end result was the CG was not where it was thought to be. We took off one time with more fuel in the foward body tank than we thought. It was pretty scary. Things like this can kill people.

Re:Just starting now?

[NotThisMind]

There was a crash on a small airplane because of weight feature in an ACI episode (not the only contributor to the crash, but small airplanes face this problem) Maybe things now are more strict in terms of safety and stuff, but this is an issue principally with small airplanes, i can't believe that comment is at the top.

Re:Just starting now?

[guruevi]

I am not a flight engineer but if these issues crop up during the flight due to excessive passenger weight, couldn't they just burn more fuel from one wing than the other until the weight balances out. In the end, passengers are 'on average' equally weighted so unless there is an entire group of Weightwatchers on one end and a bunch of Vegan Hippies on the other side, the statistics will take care of that.

Re:Just starting now?

[RockDoctor]

When was the last time that a plane had to make an emergency landing or a flight delayed because the plane simply weighed too much due to obese travelers?

On an absolutely regular basis. People get bumped from flights in my experience on a weekly basis. (That's for a typical route of 4 flights per week, 18 seats per flight, with a commonly "large" workforce and most having to carry 20+ kilos of workgear and personal gear on each leg of the trip.)

Which is why all people checking in are weighed along with their baggage, before taking the baggage for the search (nothing flies without being searched), and that has been the case for nearly 20 years.

You general public travellers get it easy.

Re: Just starting now?

[perih60]

i apreciate the info , but still think it would be faierer to weight the passangers , especialy considering a seat is only 22 inches wide , and someone who can afford to eat 4 times the calories needed , should pay for my part of the seat they are using

Re: Just starting now?

[mbeckman]

Then perhaps we should charge people with annoying personalities more too.

Re: Just starting now?

[perih60]

i appologise for annoying you

Re: Just starting now?

[mbeckman]

I never said you annoyed me. Please don't put words in my typewriter.

Annoying people are just another class of humans that infringes on the happiness of the Normal. Annoyed should pay for that deficiency iPod their ticket. Tall people, though, should get a discount, since they weigh more without impinging on their neighbors' happiness. So anyone sitting next to a tall person should pay a surcharge. Short people are getting away with murder though, since they can still be quite wide while remaining in the "normal" weight category. So they must automatically pay a height insufficiency penalty. When two shorts or two talls are in one row, a formula can be devised based on the number and sequence of people in the row and, perhaps, their IQ.

The thing about nitpicking is that there is no clear boundary between the asinine and the absurd. The world has enough of it already. It's unwise to add more.

Shite

[rmdingler]

I hope this isn't going the way of overweight baggage fees.

Honey! We'll be driving to Disneyworld this year.

Re:Shite

[Ol Olsoc]

I hope this isn't going the way of overweight baggage fees.

Honey! We'll be driving to Disneyworld this year.

In late 2002, I took my last commercial plane flight. Before I was due to take any more, the airline customer as the enemy policy really kicked in.

So despite my love of flying - I'm one of those nerds who insists on a windows seat - I gave it up, as it was becoming really unpleasant, and started driving everywhere.

Know what? North America is really beautiful. And I can get my flying jones taken care of on private flights. The commercial airlines just aren't worth it for what they do to you.

Re:Shite

[Technician]

Maybe they will figure people wedged in like cordwood leads to overloaded flights. Maybe we will get legroom back.

Re:Shite

[Ol Olsoc]

Agreed. You may technically travel faster in an airplane, but in a surprising number of situations, when you factor in how early you should arrive, time to get to the airport, getting through security, delays, getting out of the airport on the other side (including dealing with customs), and then the ride from the airport to your true destination, a car can beat an airplane.

Oce upon a time, where I worked, we'd take the puddle jumpers to D.C. Then after a while, we figured out that getting to the airport at least an hour before the flight, then something over an hour for the flight, then an hour for getting the luggage and rental car, then driving to the meeting location, then figuring out how to drop the car off and get another flight back, and the expense of those puddle jumper flights - you could save a lot of time and money by just hopping in a car, driving the three housrs direct to the destination, then driving back. Only caveat was if the meeting left out near DC afternoon traffic hell. But you'd be stuck for hours in the rental car as well.

Even now, I often make trips to Florida. Yes, it takes more time, but is cheaper, and I have my own car to drive around, and no airport unpleasantness to put up with.

Re:Shite

[ceoyoyo]

And then they start making private vehicles check in at weigh stations.

I remember noting the passenger + cargo weight limit on a small car I owned. It was 600 lbs.

Anonymity

[itamihn]

I hope data is accumulated and presented summarised to the crew. Otherwise, some people may find it a privacy violation.

Re:Anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Could they cross reference this with employer wellness program data to determine which passengers may be likely to suffer in flight medical incidents? An emergency landing is costly both in terms of fuel and impact on the schedule. Preventing these passengers from boarding could save the airlines millions.

Re:Anonymity

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I hope data is accumulated and presented summarised to the crew. Otherwise, some people may find it a privacy violation.

"Hello, this is your Captain speaking from the cockpit! As soon as we reach cruising altitude, we'll be serving drinks and dinner. Except for the passengers in rows 7, 16 and 25. You guys are a bunch of fat fucks, and will just get water!"

Re:Anonymity

[cplusplus]

The funniest part about your comment is believing that airlines serve any sort of food without purchase required.

Meals and alcohol are still 'free' on most international flights... Pro-tip - Always request the Indian or Hindu meal when making your reservation (if offered). It's usually the best tasting airline food you can get, and goes well with the cheap beer/wine that's offered :)

Re:Anonymity

[bjdevil66]

I wonder if that's because of the stronger smells from the spices in that kind of food (olfactory senses don't work as well at higher altitudes).

Detail?

[Alioth]

There's no detail in the article - they may be doing this only for very small aircraft (the cited Samoan airline for example, is flying small 4 seat single engine aircraft where weight and balance is absolutely critical, and an unexpected fat passenger will mean necessarily having to leave someone or luggage or fuel behind).

For larger aircraft, standard passenger weights are used. However this can sometimes be wrong. A friend is a senior FO flying the MD-11, and his airline takes military contracts from time to time. One time leaving Hawaii they discovered they were carrying a full plane load of Marines armed to the teeth, although they didn't know that until they started coming through the door. He said the aircraft didn't climb as well as usual, and when he estimated their true takeoff weight, he reckoned they took off some 12,000 lbs overweight.

Re: Detail?

[holmstar]

All aircraft have a maximum take-off weight, and it varies with weather. A plane full of "average" people, including both Samoan wrestlers/Linebackers, and petite women generally is not a problem, unless it is particularly hot, or there is a lot of cargo. But a plane loaded fully with Samoan wrestlers/Linebackers could potentially put it over take-off weight. Also there's balance to take into account. It's bad for the weight to be concentrated in either the front or the back.

Re: Detail?

[Ol Olsoc]

All aircraft have a maximum take-off weight, and it varies with weather. A plane full of "average" people, including both Samoan wrestlers/Linebackers, and petite women generally is not a problem, unless it is particularly hot, or there is a lot of cargo. But a plane loaded fully with Samoan wrestlers/Linebackers could potentially put it over take-off weight. Also there's balance to take into account. It's bad for the weight to be concentrated in either the front or the back.

Umm, yeah. And they've been weighing and balancing people/luggage for the small planes for as long as I've been flying. Since I always flew heavy, with a lot of equipment, it was weighed and I paid extra for it, and sometimes a bigger passenger was discretely re-seated on the other side of the plane. Big planes, not so much of a problem.

That was from the mid 80s, the first time I flew with heavy luggage, to the last time.

Aerodynamics hasn't changed a lot since then.

Why is safety in scare quotes?

[nedlohs]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u...

Of course the quotes are in the original article.

Sounds good to me, why should people who don't have as much weight in their luggage or their stomachs have to subsidize those that do?

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Calydor]

Why should people that don't drive as much subsidize those that do through road taxes?

Why should people without children at the age to attend school subsidize those that do through school taxes?

Why should anyone pay for anything that does not directly benefit them?

Oh wait. Because that's how society works.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Joce640k]

If airlines charge $50 extra because your suitcase is 100 grams too heavy then they should weigh the passengers as well.

One or the other.... you can't have both.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Ol Olsoc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u...

Of course the quotes are in the original article.

Sounds good to me, why should people who don't have as much weight in their luggage or their stomachs have to subsidize those that do?

Sorry, you have to pay more under the smug asshole provision.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a big guy. 6'4", 275lb. I'm in good shape, but not a fitness freak.

I already have to pay more for food, clothing, living space, and furniture than you. That's if I can even find something in the right size.

I already pay extra to get a seat with enough room to actually fit my legs in; now you want me to pay again, because you don't want to "subsidise" me?

You know what? Screw you.

For thousands of years, the biggest, toughest, humans have thrown their weight around to get what they want. Little, petty, selfish stick insects like you wouldn't last five minutes even a few hundred years ago without someone stronger taking what's yours. But today we live in a civilised society, where the same laws and rules are supposed to apply for everyone. I like it here! But if you want to go back to the way things were then fine; I'll take my seat, put my feet up on yours, and swipe your luggage when we get off the plane.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Ichijo]

Why should people without children at the age to attend school subsidies those that do through school taxes?

That one's easy: to improve economic mobility.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Calydor]

Yes, I am European. Your point?

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[businessnerd]

Why should people that don't drive as much subsidize those that do through road taxes?

They don't. This is what taxes on gasoline are for. It is a usage based tax, though not the most accurate when you take into account the variation in vehicle fuel economy. Every now and then you do hear someone suggest that we tax based on actual miles driven (which I'm a fan of), but never seems to get too much traction. We all pay a flat "access" fee, though.

Why should people without children at the age to attend school subsidize those that do through school taxes?

Because contributing more tax dollars to the schools can mean better schools. The better the schools, the more desireable the community. The more desireable the community, the more your property (and everyone else's in the community) is worth. The more your property is worth, the more you can directly benefit from the sale of said property. Not to mention the intangibles that come with living in a more upscale community that you might actually appreciate. I guess that's the ethical egoist's rationalization at least. "Look out for #1."

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[myowntrueself]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u...

Of course the quotes are in the original article.

Sounds good to me, why should people who don't have as much weight in their luggage or their stomachs have to subsidize those that do?

Because this is the English speaking world where everyone should be very rightly scared all of the time!

Because terrorists, pedophiles, drugs, climate change etc etc.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[AmiMoJo]

They don't really charge $50 for being 100 grams over though, do they?

You can be 100g under the limit with your carry-on, go through the check-in area where they weigh it and then into the duty free area. There you are free to load up on heavy bottles of booze and perfume, electronics, and assorted tat. No size or weight limits, unless you turn up at the gate blatantly taking the piss. They don't normally re-weigh your carry on at that point, or what you managed to stuff in your pockets for that matter.

It's a scam. Some airlines don't seem to care too much, others will rigidly enforce the rules. The latter are just trying to squeeze more cash out of you most of the time.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[businessnerd]

...and you will still spend more money on fuel than those who choose more efficient vehicles.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[mayko]

I always thought this was more about the baggage handlers having to lift heavy bags. After they charge you extra for an overweight bag they usually slap a "heavy" sticker on it - I believe airline worker unions require that those bags be lifted by two people.

I've never had them weigh a my carry-on, and they don't seem to have a problem with moving items from the large bag to a carry-on to get below the heavy weight threshold.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Idarubicin]

Why should people that don't drive as much subsidize those that do through road taxes?

They don't. This is what taxes on gasoline are for.

Actually, in the United States the largest share - roughly half - of the cost of roads comes from general revenues, not from user-specific taxes and fees. For example, in 2010, state and local governments spent $153 billion on roads. They collected $41 billion in fuel taxes and $13 billion in tolls and other transportation-related non-fuel taxes and charges related to usage. Another $23 billion was paid in vehicle licensing charges (your flat "access" fee). The remaining $76 billion comes from general revenues. (And then there's an infrastructure deficit - deferred maintenance, repair, and replacements - that isn't being paid for right now but is accumulating nevertheless. Right now we're something like $300 billion in the hole just for bridges which need to be replaced.)

So yeah, non-drivers are very much subsidizing the driving population. One can certainly make an argument that the overall economic benefit of having a functional road system is good for society as a whole, but don't for one minute try to suggest that drivers are actually paying their own way.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[nedlohs]

Why should people that don't drive as much subsidize those that do through road taxes?

Why should people without children at the age to attend school subsidize those that do through school taxes?

Please note both of those things are government services paid for with taxes. Many people do actually think such things should be user pays and many jurisdictions have moved towards various user pay systems for many government services. For example, where I'm from new roads are often partially funded via road tolls.

Obviously there are hidden costs involved.Food is delivered to your grocery store by roads even if you walk to and from it to actually buy things. Without schools there will likely be higher crime rates. Which is part of why "user pays" isn't going to be a good option all the time.

Why should anyone pay for anything that does not directly benefit them?

Because indirect benefits matter, which should be obvious really.

Oh wait. Because that's how society works.

Do commercial semi-trailers cost exactly the same amount to register as a motorcycle in your society? Do they pay for the same road tolls? Do large fries cost the same as small fries? Does a 5 lb package cost the same to post as a 200 lb package?

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[nedlohs]

How is that smug?

I own less than some people and hence carry less. I'm 210+ lbs of blubber set to have a heart attack any minute but not as overweight as some people.

Why is not having a problem with costs being reflected in prices smug? I also think that sending a 500 lb package via fedex should cost more than sending a 6 oz one. Why do you think fedex should charge the same those?

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Ol Olsoc]

\

Why is not having a problem with costs being reflected in prices smug? I also think that sending a 500 lb package via fedex should cost more than sending a 6 oz one. Why do you think fedex should charge the same those?

I'm envisioning people taking laxatives before a flight to shit their way to a lower priced ticket.

But do you actually think it will save anyone any money? I find it stretched credulity to think that an airline would implement something to make them have less profit.

Whhhhiiiiich is to say that since asses in seats is the most important thing, it stands to reason that the airlines would then want tubs o' goo.

And in the grand tradition of cheaper tickets, perhhaps the slender people who are chearged less ould be willing to fly standby? They re paying less, therefore the airline makes less money on them.

Once again, the airlines will not do something that makes them less money, so the decreased fuel usage won't factor.

Now aside from those possibly silly arguments, do you support buses and taxi's having a scale on them so they can charge more for fat people? Takes more fuel and resultant maintenance costs hauling those fatasses around. Or how about a restaurant charging more. Those seats are measurably worn out faster by fat people. Or there is no doubt some measurable effect on retail store flooring caused by fat people's shuffling across them than slender people.Therefore it is only fair that fat people be charged more for everything,

Once again, I drift into data based sarcasm. But it's based on the same logic.

Speaking of logic, here is a glossary of airline cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Dry stuff, but remarkable in that they don't have a fatass cost. A lot of cost calculations that are based on asses in seats, but no fatass cost.

Because charging a passenger more based on weight does not merely punish those weak assholes who cannot stop feeding themselves. It punishes basketball players, who weight a lot because of height. And what about people like the old professional wrestler, André Roussimoff, who suffered from Gigantism, topping out at 520 pounds - people with this condition just keep growing until they die - early .

So now if we have justified charging more by weight, which justifies charging more by a weight based unavoidable handicap - we now can start charging people for handicaps. You think it doesnt cost the airlines more to carry that person's weight and their wheelchair

Which of course isn't what I believe in at all. Asses in seats, asses in seats. That's what makes the airlines money. If a person doesn't actually fit in a regular airline seat, there is no problem with putting them in a seat their ass does fit into, and charging them the price that first class seat engenders

But just like buses, taxies, and trains - its incredibly rude and undignified to start charging people like that. And brands those who would do it as the same.

I've traveled heavy for work, when I needed to take a lot of equipment with me. - No problem with paying more, and I did.

And for those who have been claiming otherwise, I fit into and use a normal coach seat.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[nedlohs]

But do you actually think it will save anyone any money? I find it stretched credulity to think that an airline would implement something to make them have less profit.

Whhhhiiiiich is to say that since asses in seats is the most important thing, it stands to reason that the airlines would then want tubs o' goo.

And in the grand tradition of cheaper tickets, perhhaps the slender people who are chearged less ould be willing to fly standby? They re paying less, therefore the airline makes less money on them.

Heavier planes use more fuel. An airline would love to have light passengers with no luggage over heacy passengers with lots of luggage (assuming they are being charged the same), since they would have lower fuel costs and hence make more profit.

They aren't implementing anything to have less profit.

Dry stuff, but remarkable in that they don't have a fatass cost. A lot of cost calculations that are based on asses in seats, but no fatass cost.

Right because they use average weights at the moment. The proposal is to not use average weights but instead actual weights. Obviously you don't calculate costs on things you don't measure at the moment, after all they don't have magic wands to do so.

Because charging a passenger more based on weight does not merely punish those weak assholes who cannot stop feeding themselves. It punishes basketball players, who weight a lot because of height. And what about people like the old professional wrestler, André Roussimoff, who suffered from Gigantism, topping out at 520 pounds - people with this condition just keep growing until they die - early .

So now if we have justified charging more by weight, which justifies charging more by a weight based unavoidable handicap - we now can start charging people for handicaps. You think it doesnt cost the airlines more to carry that person's weight and their wheelchair

Yes. It costs more to fly a heavier plane why shouldn't the people making it heavier pay for that rather than everyone pay for it? Doesn't matter if you are heavier because you are fat, or because you have wheel chair, or because you just happen to be tall.

Those handicapped people who are missing limbs are going to be lighter of course too.

None of which has anything to do with my actual complaint which was that it is in fact a safety issue and hence the scare quotes are stupid.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Ol Olsoc]

Heavier planes use more fuel. An airline would love to have light passengers with no luggage over heacy passengers with lots of luggage (assuming they are being charged the same), since they would have lower fuel costs and hence make more profit.

A bus with heavier passengers would use more fuel, a taxi would use more fuel. Doesn't it make sense that teh taxi driver and bus driver shouold carry a little scale, and then weigh each passenger and their luggage in order to deterine what each passenger pays before they get on the bus or in the taxi? The exact same principle applies.

Congratulations, we have passed 4th grade science. It takes more energy to move heavier objects. How much more is interesting. I have no idea how much more it costs to fly a 747 across the country with say, 200 extra pounds in it because of some heavier person. This is important to you, so you probably know.

Right because they use average weights at the moment. The proposal is to not use average weights but instead actual weights. Obviously you don't calculate costs on things you don't measure at the moment, after all they don't have magic wands to do so.

And in order to substitute actual weights instead of average weights, you throw away the entire system of booking as it is now, you will have no way of knowing what your price is until you step on the scale, at boarding, and for what? If they use average weights, it will average out. It's like a dumb game of what is better? Paying based on formulas that in the end, do the exact same thing, or coming up with some complicated plan that adds yet more unpleasantness to flying, and only satisfies fat shamers, and pay as you go absolutists?

And if we re going to get that absolute, and that worried about the cost of flying people around, shouldn't we adjust the cost based on the prevailing winds? When I'd fly from the east to the west coast, the time coming back could be an hour less, depending on the jet stream, and if we hit it. That's a whole lot of fuel saved. A whole lot more fuel saved than if that fat bastard sitting beside you was replaced by a svelte person.

Because in general, exactitude like that accomplishes nothing. It only introduces silly complications and expenses in the end. And if there is an actual significant weight, like my heavy baggage full of equipment, you pay, and you have paid for years and years - certainly at least since the mid-late 80's when I first started doing that. I paid roughly another person's ticket fo fly my working equipment around. A genuinely obese person now must fly first class when they need the extra space because they don't fit in a coach seat. They already pay more - they have no choice.

And none of this needs the added expense of new scales for measurements, calculating and adjustment of every ticket, the extra time needed for that measurement and ticket price adjustmentm, and not being certain of your final cost under a system that works already without it. There is a reason averaging works.

Yes. It costs more to fly a heavier plane why shouldn't the people making it heavier pay for that rather than everyone pay for it?

For the same reasons I gave above. You want to piss off people? This is a pretty good way to do it. Charge that little old crippled lady more because she needs a wheelchair - yup, that will go over well. You have an ADA problem right off the bat. Then you look like Cruella DeVille wanting her puppy jacket.

It will be like all the bad publicity even this Samoan move is getting, amped up by a hundredfold, just to eliminate average flyer weights, and complicate the living shit out of flying, and create a P.R. disaster, which is bad already. Yeah, that will work out well.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[goose-incarnated]

Why should people that don't drive as much subsidize those that do through road taxes?

Why should people without children at the age to attend school subsidize those that do through school taxes?

Why should anyone pay for anything that does not directly benefit them?

Oh wait. Because that's how society works.

Yeah. Can you please please please tell this to all those people who don't want to subsidise smokers in a pooled health insurance?

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[houghi]

I do not have a scale at home and I buy my tickets online. The last time I was on a scale at the doctor and I told him NOT to tell me. So what should I pay?

OTOH it is not farie that a 200KG person can take his 25KG luggage, but a 75KG person must pay extra for a 30KG suitcase.

But pricing is silly anyway. Many people on the same type of seat on the same flight booked at the same moment will still pay differently.
e.g. Brussels NYC Brussels is cheaper than NYC Brussels NYC. Some people used to fly NYC-London-Rotterdam and not take the last part of the flight, because it was cheaper than to just book NYC-London on the same plane with the same company.

Prices are crazy confusing. Even in Europe, where most pices must be shown all-inclusive, they tend to be unclear on what you pay till you get the bill from your credit card provider.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Joce640k]

They don't really charge $50 for being 100 grams over though, do they?

You can be 100g under the limit with your carry-on....

Please read that back to yourself. See how it sounds...

Why not set a limit to total weight?

[WoLpH]

I've never really understood the stupid luggage limits, I'm a fairly light guy so why do I have to pay more for a few kilos of extra luggage while the person next to me weighs 30 kilos more? It's never really been about the weight but just about adding costs... and this should have happened a long time ago ;)

Re:Why not set a limit to total weight?

[theycallmeB]

Its pretty simple: you load your own self onto the airplane, checked luggage does not. So until some airline decides to wade into legal minefield that would be charging passengers by the pound they will continue to charge one rate for each person who lugs their self aboard plus a surcharge for each bag the airline has to load.

Re:Why not set a limit to total weight?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a wonder RyanAir hasn't attempted this yet, if only for the publicity.

Re:Why not set a limit to total weight?

[Ol Olsoc]

I've never really understood the stupid luggage limits, I'm a fairly light guy so why do I have to pay more for a few kilos of extra luggage while the person next to me weighs 30 kilos more? It's never really been about the weight but just about adding costs... and this should have happened a long time ago ;)

Because you are looking at it with assblinders on. If you want to be charged only for your weight, have them build a box, plop your ass in it, and you can travel as freight. DIfferent people need to travel with different weights of stuff.

You are so worried about poundage, I want obnoxious people, people with bad breath, obnoxious children or people with babies to pay more. A very obese person already has no choice but to fly first class

People aren't freight. People are different sizes and weights. Some people are nice, and some are smug assholes.

Re:Why not set a limit to total weight?

[David_Hart]

Not a bad idea. Each passenger gets a free 200lb total encumberance allotment, whether that's human weight or luggage weight..

Except that this would open up a can of worms like sexism, etc.. Why should an average guy pay more for a plane flight with the same weight of luggage as an average woman? Like it or not, men tend to be heavier, even if they are at their ideal weight.

Of course, they could go with some sort of standard for height, weigh, sex, etc. and you only pay for the amount that you are over your ideal weight. But this, again, gets into privacy concerns because it would be recorded somewhere.

In other words, implementing a standard weight of passenger + carry-on just wouldn't work.

Re:Why not set a limit to total weight?

[Anonymous Coward]

If men actually weigh more, and it costs more fuel to move heavier objects by airplane, then men should pay more. That's not sexism, it's logic.

Re:Why not set a limit to total weight?

[bobbied]

I've never really understood the stupid luggage limits,

You do understand that aircraft have design limits for weight and balance right? Seems pretty obvious to me that there is a safety issue with how much stuff you throw onto or allow to walk onto an aircraft weighs..

Re:Why not set a limit to total weight?

[Kjella]

If men actually weigh more, and it costs more fuel to move heavier objects by airplane, then men should pay more. That's not sexism, it's logic.

The line between bigotry and applied statistics is thin and very blurry. For example here in Norway I've heard a lot of broad generalizations of why there's so many Swedes in the restaurant/bar/nightclub business and why there's so many Poles in the construction industry, claiming they have higher work morale, less sick leave and whatnot. But if you say anything remotely like that about why you wouldn't hire immigrants from certain countries, you'll have demonstrations and boycotts and be reported to the police for racial discrimination.

We're all individuals but we're all through statistics part of various groups with positive and negative connotations. For example, by being male I'm more likely than the average person to be a rapist, simply because there's so few females. Not that they don't exist, but statistics. So all other things being equal, would you like me or a woman to drive your wasted daughter home? It doesn't matter what I would do, it's what the "statistical male that you don't know" would do. It's hardly fair to me as I know myself but anyone else would have to go with the superficial.

Re:Why not set a limit to total weight?

[AmiMoJo]

The baggage size and weight limits are because the luggage handling system, the conveyor belts and trolleys and staff who have to handle them can't cope with extremely heavy or extremely large bags. The x-ray machine's aperture is only so wide, and there is only so much space in the cargo hold.

Well, at least that's the official reason. I'd love to know what the real limits were, as opposed to what the airlines set in order to get some extra cash out of you. I've noticed that the crap ones like BA only allow you to have one bag, while the good ones like JAL and ANA allow two bags, have bigger seats and charge the same price (for long haul anyway), so it's definitely just a choice they make.

Fill the plane to the absolute brim?

[captainpanic]

If you plan to cram even more seats into the plane, and then fill it up with passengers and luggage to its maximum take-off weight, then this is a good idea.

Most airlines have done some statistics, and make sure that in 99.9999% of the cases (*), the weight of all the passengers does not exceed the maximum take off weight. But that means they are typically not completely full.
If this airline wants to cram more people into its plane, they must accept that they will sometimes exceed the maximum weight. So, you check everyone's weight before, and it can occur that there is a seat available, but you still (in a way) overbooked the flight.

It can obviously also be an argument that 'now that we got the data anyway', we make the fat people pay more. But I somehow doubt that they will actually do that.

(*) I am not sure what percentage they use - that's a guess

Re:Fill the plane to the absolute brim?

[drinkypoo]

If you plan to cram even more seats into the plane, and then fill it up with passengers and luggage to its maximum take-off weight, then this is a good idea.

So are they actually getting anywhere near doing this? Last I checked, the answer was no.

Re:Fill the plane to the absolute brim?

[Idarubicin]

If you plan to cram even more seats into the plane, and then fill it up with passengers and luggage to its maximum take-off weight, then this is a good idea.

So are they actually getting anywhere near doing this? Last I checked, the answer was no.

I think the idea is that they would like to be able to do this. Air freight is a respectable chunk of revenue even aboard "passenger" aircraft. Maximizing that revenue would be desirable for the airline.

Of course, it's also not necessarily about getting to the maximum allowable takeoff weight. If you're underweight (and know by how much) you can carry less fuel, which saves weight, which means you burn less fuel for a given distance travelled. Cutting the fuel bill by a few percent gets into some real money.

Can't they just weigh the plane?

[Bongo]

Just saying.

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[JazzLad]

Works for Semi trucks ...

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[Chatsubo]

Weighing the passengers before they ever get close to the apron means it's one less thing you have to do once the plane is available. Remember that a lot of stuff , like check-ins, happen on purpose before the plane you're flying on arrives at the airport. Usually when the plane hits the ground the airline's #1 priority is getting the plane re-filled (in all senses) and back in the air... weighing would add significant time to that, and you can bet travellers would complain about the extra wait (pun intended) on the ground. Especially if an airport only had one set of the mammoth, hugely expensive scales you'd need to have.... and planes couldn't simply push back and head for a runway using the shortest path, they'd all have to go through (a) choke point(s).

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[Chatsubo]

Actually, it gets worse once you realise that you _are_ overweight and now have to taxi back, attach the walkway again, open the plane again, remove some people... find their baggage, remove that.... then taxi back to the scales....

I'll bet by that point even you would say: "Why don't they just weigh the passengers?!"

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[Ol Olsoc]

Just saying.

Shut up! This is Slashdot, and people have to make things way more complicated than need be. Flying's been around over a hundred years, and like - that pissed off nerd in Mom's basement knows weight and balance have never been addressed before. It's a wonder these slashdotters aren't all wealthy - they're so smart.

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[Bongo]

Actually I was hoping to be modded Funny, but people posted serious answers. The AC who said that, even if you know the weight, you can still have problems with balance, was interesting, so I learned something anyway :)

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[bobbied]

Just saying.

They do exactly this, but it's expensive... After any major overhaul, they actually put the aircraft on scales and weigh it to verify that their weight and balance calculations are what they expect. You have to jack up the aircraft to get the scales under it. It takes time and labor to do this.

It's easier, faster and cheaper to just weigh stuff as you load the aircraft and then calculate the affect this has on weight and balance.

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[bobbied]

Weight is about performance... How fast can you stop, climb etc which might affect safety... BALANCE though is all about safety. Have an AFT CG and approach a aerodynamic stall and it's going to be a very bad bad day for everybody.

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[Ol Olsoc]

Actually I was hoping to be modded Funny, but people posted serious answers. The AC who said that, even if you know the weight, you can still have problems with balance, was interesting, so I learned something anyway :)

If I had mod points at the moment, I'd have modded you insightful.

Especially since slashdotters are often long on knowing exactly how things work, and short on actual insight on how things actually work.

Every day, on every commercial flight, weight and balance are calculated and/or actually weighed. My shipping containers were weighed, and the load adjusted. People were shifted around once or twice to help balance. On teh larger planes, not as much of an issue, but the same rules apply.

And here in 2015, a lot of slashdotters are jut figuring that out, are instant experts, and the lightweight ones are figuring out how they are going to benefit, as if making the very lage fly first class isn't punishment enough for their perfidy.

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[Ol Olsoc]

often long on knowing exactly how things work, and short on actual insight on how things actually work.

And, oddly enough, some may have actually worked for a few years on such a system for a major aircraft company https://aerospace.honeywell.co...

So Identify yourself, and educate us.

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[FranTaylor]

Weight is about performance... How fast can you stop, climb etc which might affect safety... BALANCE though is all about safety. Have an AFT CG and approach a aerodynamic stall and it's going to be a very bad bad day for everybody.

weight is damned well about safety if you can't clear the trees at the end of the runway

Re:Can't they just weigh the plane?

[bobbied]

Weight is about performance... How fast can you stop, climb etc which might affect safety... BALANCE though is all about safety. Have an AFT CG and approach a aerodynamic stall and it's going to be a very bad bad day for everybody.

weight is damned well about safety if you can't clear the trees at the end of the runway

Which is about "performance", specifically total takeoff distance over a 50' obstacle. Aircraft weight is among the primary variables used here with lighter being "better performance". Of course, performance can be a safety issue if there isn't enough performance available to avoid hitting something.

I'm just stressing that CG is a safety issue that most people don't realize exists. You can fly with an unsafe CG, the aircraft will still fly just fine. What it won't do is recover from an unsafe attitude if the speed gets too low. The plane will stall and will NOT recover..

Market failure

[sinij]

So much for market forces resulting in a positive outcome. Airline industry is one of the most customer-hostile service providers.

Re:This is an invasion of my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

a colon check will also be offered free of charge on your next flight

Several Chinese Airlines Already Do This

[Kagato]

For at least a decade a number of Chinese Airlines have been doing this for their coach class customers. In particular on domestic segments where the planes are configured to be really tight. There are industry standard weight and balance calculations and they had to be updated in the late 90s because North Americans and Western Europeans all weigh more than they used to.

Passenger Weight Limits

[dmatos]

I've read through the early comments here, and I see a lot of vitriol for "obese" people, and statements that people should only be allowed a weight limit of 100kg, or worse, 200lb, beyond which there should be extra charges.

Go to hell, each and every one of you that supports that idea. I'm 6'3", and my body fat percentage hovers around 15%. I _sink_ in fresh water. And I weigh 240lbs, before any luggage is included. I am healthy and fit. I already suffer with airline seats that are far too small for my frame, with my knees in the back of the seat in front of me, and the headrest sitting firmly between my shoulder blades. And now you have the temerity to think that I should pay _more_ for the privilege of flying, because you think people that weigh more than 140 pounds are fat and unhealthy, and it's their own fault?

Get real.

Re:Passenger Weight Limits

[Discgolferusa]

Totally agree with you. I'm 6'4" and based off of my current BF% i'd still way 240lbs if I had 0% body fat. Sorry I wasn't born scrawny or lanky. As I always said in gym back in high school, I'm a Clydesdale not a race horse, stop expecting me to perform like one. People need to realize that we're not all popped out of the same mold.

Re:Passenger Weight Limits

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree with you. I'm 6'4" and based off of my current BF% i'd still way 240lbs if I had 0% body fat. Sorry I wasn't born scrawny or lanky. As I always said in gym back in high school, I'm a Clydesdale not a race horse, stop expecting me to perform like one.

People need to realize that we're not all popped out of the same mold.

You are arguing a variable (we're all snowflakes) against a constant (fuel consumption, which is obviously based on total weight being pushed along at 500MPH).

Sorry for you and the parent here, but you know that you are above average in a world that tries very hard to create a one-size-fits-all and succeeds most of the time for the overwhelming majority of humans. Obviously it becomes more and more difficult to deal with as you approach the statistical fringe.

Re:Passenger Weight Limits

[bsolar]

Fault doesn't matter: what matters is the *individual* cost of transporting somebody. Until now the individual cost didn't matter, it was all put together and everyone paid an equal share, but it actually makes sense that if *you* are more expensive to carry around, *you* need to pay more for the service, be it due to having a lot of fat, muscle or having an Adamantium skeleton.

Re:Passenger Weight Limits

[drkoemans]

Agreed. And I'm fine by paying by the pound. At 6' 1" 210 I'll pay more than the average. But since this is about weight and not volume and equitable distribution of that limited resource, the short people won't mind if I ask for their excess legroom to accommodate my height. It's only fair right? If we have adjustable fare's weight then I want adjustable seats based on height. Do that and I'm in.

Re:Passenger Weight Limits

[bsolar]

There is no reason not to pay *also* for volume, since it's a separate (scarce) resource you are "consuming" more than the others. You need more fuel, you pay more. You need more space too? You pay *that* more too.

Re:Passenger Weight Limits

[drkoemans]

True but in the first scenario we are talking about extra fuel expenditures. It literally costs more to fly heavier people. With volume, that is fixed regardless of load, flight duration etc. I'm guessing the average density of a human has some but minor variations regardless of fitness and yes I know muscle weighs more. Pegging volume to weight seems like it makes sense to me. I'm bigger (volume) than average therefore I weigh more. If I am paying more, it should be for both mass AND volume. The only question is in which direction is your additional volume, horizontal or vertical?

Re:Passenger Weight Limits

[Godwin O'Hitler]

And not using one's physical advantages to push annoying shortarse whiners out of their way, is that socialist?

Re:Passenger Weight Limits

[FranTaylor]

because you think people that weigh more than 140 pounds are fat and unhealthy, and it's their own fault?

Get real.

STRAW MAN ALERT

And not even a very good one, because you are mainly succeeding in playing the victim card.

Maybe you would like to have an argument with the scale? Or perhaps with the spreadsheet that calculates fuel costs? Because they think you should pay more and they really don't give a crap about your BMI

Variable costs

[sjbe]

Technically possible but logistically complicated and unnecessary since they know the dry weight of the plane already with pretty fair accuracy. The only variable is the contents (you, luggage, fuel, food, etc) and to allocate costs truly fairly it makes sense to charge by weight. A lot of people will be offended but weight directly affects fuel consumption so if you bring more weight on the plane you probably should be paying for a bigger percentage of the fuel costs. Not really fair to me to pay to haul you and your stuff if I'm traveling light.

I've always thought it would make the most logical sense to weigh a passenger and all their luggage and add a fuel surcharge instead of silly baggage fees. Travel heavy and you pay more. Travel light and you save a bit. It also stops people from trying to cram everything into carry-on because you get charged either way. Of course obese and larger people will be unhappy (understandably) but they ARE responsible for more fuel being consumed so it's really only fair that they pay more for it.

Often happens with small planes

[Matt_Bennett]

As stated elsewhere, weight and balance are important in a plane, and accidents have happened as a result. I've taken a number of small plane commuter flights in the US and they regularly asked how much I weighed, and they definitely weighed my baggage. The smaller the plane is, the more it matters.

Safety is one aspect, efficiency is another- knowing how much you weigh also tells the airline how much fuel they must put on board, and even how much cargo they can safely take- much cargo flies on a space (weight) available basis.

Hell yeah, I want them to know how much weight is on the plane.

Re:Often happens with small planes

[bobbied]

All true, but there is one more part, balance. Aircraft must be balanced front to back or they become uncontrollable under certain conditions. This requires that you know how much everything weighs, but also where it is loaded on the aircraft.

This is actually a good idea, if used for safety

[gweihir]

While averages work reasonably well for larger planes, having accurate weight data does increase the safety margin even there. For small planes it is critical to have good numbers and there have been crashes where one thing went wrong and accurate weight numbers might have prevented them.

Of course, what the bean-counters will do is somehow make heavier people pay more (and without making things cheaper for lighter ones). This is however a political problem.

Why not start now..and take if further?

[cayenne8]

Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel, etc....so, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.

I'd be all for that.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[kimvette]

Although most instances of obesity is inability to control one's shoveling food into one's mouth (like my fatty of an ex) there are instances where obesity is caused by hormonal or glandular (thyroid, pituitary, adrenal) problems, so that isn't fair. What IS fair is charging someone for two seats if they're oozing into the next seat.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[drinkypoo]

Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight?

Because you have to get significantly out of the norm before you have a significant effect? Because two people who eat the same thing will experience different effects, even if they get the same amount of activity? Because you wouldn't want to be treated like a sack of ham if something happened to you and you got fat?

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[jandrese]

Because it would be an enormous headache. I don't know if you've flown recently, but most people don't go to the ticket counter to buy their tickets anymore. They buy tickets online, and if this policy was in place you would have to make the passenger input their weight and their luggage weight into the system when they buy the ticket, potentially months in advance. Then you need to verify their weight when they get to the airport, even though the only people who go to the counter currently are people who are checking bags or have some sort of emergency and need to spend half an hour going through the ticket buying process and make everybody behind them in line hate them.

There are already policies that make extremely fat people buy two seats which helps catch outliers.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[alvinrod]

The hormonal issues are often overstated. For instances hyperthyroidism (PDF warning) typically doesn't amount to enough weight to be solely responsible for obesity:

Since much of the weight gain in hypothyroidism is accumulation in salt and water, when the hypothyroidism is treated one can expect a small (usually less than 10% of body weight) weight loss

There are also medical treatments available for most of these issues, which a person should seek as carrying around excessive amounts of weight it hard on the body and is strongly correlated with diabetes and other medical conditions. Eventually those problems will result in a far more expensive medical bill that could be reduced or prevented by treating the initial issues.

People who have no hormonal or glandular problems will still insist that they do, because it obviously can't be them, it must be something else's fault. Just weigh everyone and charge based on total weight of person traveling and their luggage. It's far more simple that way and even if someone does have a legitimate medical condition or has been taking medication that is responsible for their extra weight, it still doesn't change the laws of physics or the need for additional fuel.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[TrentTheThief]

Fine reasoning, if it held exactly true. but humans being what they are, it does not. Many people do eat too much and they are fat. period. I''m not judging, just pointing out that being all touchy-feely and caring counts for nothing is the plane pitches over crashes.

This isn't fat shaming. "Norms" in your use relate to human structure and don't mean mean diddly in an engineering problem. There is no norm human, but there is room for X seats. That's what they want to fill. Flight is cut and dried engineering. If the plane is overweight or hard to trim, it doesn't fly real well and burns too much fuel. So if an airline essentially loses one entire fare due to an individual passenger's weight, who should make up that lost income and operating expense?

Who pays? The airline and the shareholders? The skinny passengers?

It's already too expensive and I don't want to subsidize someone else's fare.

If you're entrepreneurial as well as politically correct, here is your opportunity to run with a startup airline that doesn't use the new smaller seats and isn't concerned with weight because it always flies using only 60% of the available space for seating.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[cayenne8]

Although most instances of obesity is inability to control one's shoveling food into one's mouth (like my fatty of an ex) there are instances where obesity is caused by hormonal or glandular (thyroid, pituitary, adrenal) problems, so that isn't fair. What IS fair is charging someone for two seats if they're oozing into the next seat.

I believe it is STILL FAIR to those with glandular conditions (I have to think this category is by far a small one and an exception to the rule)...in that this is based solely on how much it costs the airline in fuel, etc to carry that person. We're talking weight here, nothing else. For whatever reason the weight disparity...a smaller, lightweight person is cheaper to carry than a heavy one, just like a box of Kleenex is cheaper to transport than a gun safe.

Pure economics.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[ultranova]

Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel, etc....so, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.

Have you ever noticed that when people propose something purely to make someone else's life worse, they then immediately start to make excuses ("so, it isn't discriminating" = "I'm not a racist, but") thus indicating they're fully aware of the malicious bullshit nature of their own message, and knew it would be obvious to everyone else too, but chose to post it anyway?

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[climb_no_fear]

I have been stuck between two people before who were oozing into the next seat (my seat). I paid for a whole seat (the damn things are small enough as it is) so I should get a whole seat. And make them buy two seats. That is unfair to me.

Or at least more luggage allowance.

Or what about

total allowed weight = luggage + weight of the person

At least that is fair and clear.If you show up with an overweight bag now, they weigh it already and charge you more. And let's face it, you know your weight to within a few kg. So maybe you pack a lighter bag....

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[ExekielS]

The airlines are making fine profits, the extra costs are a few cents, they are allready eckking out billions in baggage fees per year that cost them almost nothing. You are doing what some people call "infighting over the scraps" that those who run society are willing to let down to you. The solution is more fairness and market competition to get prices actually based on anything. In reality, both skinny ass and fat ass have HUGE profit cushions for each ticket they buy, you aren't subsidizing them at all.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[AmiMoJo]

It would be an administrative/legal nightmare.

For example, do you include clothing weight? If so, expect passengers to start stripping when they are on the borderline of a cheaper weight bracket. Like boxers do.

What about disabled passengers? Most countries require airlines to carry their equipment, like wheelchairs and crutches, for free. Some people are overweight due to health problems which can be classed as disabilities in a legal sense. You can bet a lot of them will argue that angle, genuinely or otherwise.

How would you take payment? The passenger buys a ticket online, but isn't weighed until they arrive at the airport. You could ask for an estimate online, but would still need to check when they arrive and start demanding hefty chunks of cash if they are over the limit. Estimates will never be very good because even if people don't lie domestic scales are often not very accurate.

Even charging for two seats for people who won't fit into a single one can fall foul of these issues. It's less contentious than weight but not by much.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[Dunbal]

As a doctor I can say that the "glandular" excuse for being overweight is pure BS. You treat hypothyroid patients with levothyroxine, and they maintain normal weight if they adhere to treatment. Excess weight is 100% due to overeating, eating poor quality food and/or sedentarism.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[ne0n]

Samoa Airlines already started this and no surprise. The economic realities of 2x the fuel per ham means they have to charge more. It baffles me why American airlines, which are nearly as vulnerable to obese passengers, don't follow suit. I'm fed up with subsidizing the obese travelers that slow down lineups, endanger other passengers with their bulk & take up far more than their share of seating.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[AmiMoJo]

Hormonal issues are not the only ones that can cause weight gain. And in any case, I might add that in some countries, particularly European ones, obesity itself is considered a disability that cannot be discriminated against even if it is purely down to the person's own lack of willpower. Could be interesting if US airlines can charge US passengers more, but not European ones.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[gdavidp]

Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel, etc....so, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.

I'd be all for that.

Sure. Sounds great. Now, why don't we just take it a little bit further. Males statistically weigh more than females. Taller, stronger, more muscle build by nature. Why don't we charge males more than females to fly?

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[AmiMoJo]

I''m not judging, just pointing out that being all touchy-feely and caring counts for nothing is the plane pitches over crashes.

Sure, and I wasn't arguing otherwise. But simply weighing passengers is unlikely to be an acceptable solution.

Someone else suggested weight sensors in the landing gears. That sounds reasonable since it would avoid blaming individuals and prevent accidents.

Who pays? The airline and the shareholders? The skinny passengers?

Yes and yes. Just like they pay to transport wheelchairs or breathing apparatus for people who need them. Just like the cover the cost of special meals for people with allergies or religious dietary requirements.

I know it doesn't seem fair, but in the end it makes for a better society so try not to feel too bad. Remember that if one day you end up in a wheelchair at least you won't have to pay double to travel.

Re: Why not start now..and take if further?

[Teun]

Strange, I've recently seen such a case on a KLM flight where a couple decided it was cheaper to have a row of three than both a business class ticket.
A problem could be security, occupied seats need to be associated with a name and passport.

Re: Why not start now..and take if further?

[praxis]

What proportion of your salary is an annual checkup? My doctor charges $250 with blood work for an annual physical, and that's on the high end around here. My insurance covers it, but if I couldn't afford insurance (was $1000/month when I last paid out of pocket for insurance for a family) I would still spend the $250 a year for a physical.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[praxis]

You make a lot of assumptions about other people, yet you decry assumptions others might make of obese people. This is a sword that cuts both ways. While "weight gain = energy input - energy output" is in a simplification, we eat, on average, double what we did twenty years ago. More of what we eat is sugar. We have been eating more, and higher-calorie foods, and have gained weight. That's American society as a whole; individual metabolic differences discounted.

Re: Why not start now..and take if further?

[cayenne8]

A problem could be security, occupied seats need to be associated with a name and passport.

Why would the majority of people need a passport just to fly domestically....?

I don't have a passport, never has hindered my flying. Just seems strange you'd use that as the first off the cuff example, rather than just the usual flash of your drivers license (since most folks I've ever known don't have a passport).

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[operagost]

This is NOT insightful. The way it will work is this:

Today: ticket is $250 for everyone.

With weigh-in: Under 150 lbs $250, 150-200 $300, 200+ $350

PROFIT!

Not to mention that this is discriminatory against men and tall people, who are going to weight more than women or shorter people through no fault of their own.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[cayenne8]

Because it would be an enormous headache. I don't know if you've flown recently, but most people don't go to the ticket counter to buy their tickets anymore.

It should actually be easy. Have a scale you step on as you get go past the guy that checks your ticket before you board...., do it then as they scan your ticket so they know it is you, and then the scale registers your weight, and just adds the charge to your credit card they had on record when you bought the ticket online.

It just adds it on. So, the system would basically be something like:

1. Initial purchase of ticket is a fixed basic amount for everyone.

2. When you are about to board, scan ticket, you hit scale and if you exceed x amount (or you could do it for everyone) it adds the fuel charge based on your weight. This could also catch costs for heavy carry on bags too.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[cayenne8]

Have you ever noticed that when people propose something purely to make someone else's life worse, they then immediately start to make excuses ("so, it isn't discriminating" = "I'm not a racist, but") thus indicating they're fully aware of the malicious bullshit nature of their own message, and knew it would be obvious to everyone else too, but chose to post it anyway?

No, quite the opposite in fact.

These days people are getting so fucking OVERLY Politically Correct, and scared of hurting anyone's feelings potentially, that if you make most any statement on something that would be based somehow on a per person basis, no matter how factual it is and for sound reasons....a pile of people will immediately jump up and shout racism, fat shaming, sexism......it is getting so bad today, that you can't have an intelligent conversation on hardly anything without someone shouting it is some sort of discrimination.

This is just plain stupid. People ARE all different. All shapes and sizes...and we are all NOT created with equal dynamics, physical or mental qualities And the minute you observe or base some real thing in the world on differences....folks will jump up and down and claim it is for nefarious reasons, and you are a bad person for even suggesting there are differences, much less that they might possibly need to be addressed differently.

Common sense has gone straight out the fucking window. I hate to say it, but I'm almost wishing for a backlash, have the pendulum swing back and this time maybe land in more of a reasonable middle, because today it seems, folks are so afraid of saying anything that may potentially offend even the smallest niche in society...that nothing much worthwhile gets said anymore.

You can't point out that the emperor has no clothes on, because you might discriminate and kill the self esteem of all emperors in the world!!

Remember, emperor lives matter!!

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[ciaran2014]

I can't see how the price difference could be significant.

If I'm on a 747 and it's 80% full, that's 292 people.

The plane weighs 162,400Kg (358,000 lbs). 292 people @ 80 kg (170lbs) is 23,400kg, for a plane+people weight of 185,000kg, or 636kg per person.

How big would someone have to be before you charge them more? 200 kg (440 lbs) ? When blended in with their portion of the plane, we're only talking an increase from 636 to 756 kg, or roughly 20%.

So you want a small number of people to pay 20% more for the *fuel portion* of their ticket price?

This is a big discussion for a small number of euros/dollars from a small number of people. Move on.

(Asking a "two-seat person" to pay for two seats is a different question.)

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[GameboyRMH]

Consider that a healthy average Chinese guy is going to be a lot lighter than a healthy average Samoan guy. Wouldn't it effectively be a bit racist to charge by weight?

Women's tickets would also generally be cheaper. And kids would hurt the airlines badly, taking up a whole seat with a very low weight charge.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[Gavagai80]

If we went by pure economics, people in wheelchairs would have to pay big tolls at ramps to enter buildings.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[cayenne8]

If we went by pure economics, people in wheelchairs would have to pay big tolls at ramps to enter buildings.

Not the same at all. We're talking purely about offsetting the cost of fuel, and maintaining a safe weight for flights which tend to depend on both those factors to keep them from falling out of the air prematurely.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[Zeroko]

I seem to remember some airline (possibly in Alaska) doing this to us once...we had to stand on a scale while holding our bags. Then again, it was a pretty small airplane.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[FuegoFuerte]

I believe the airlines should charge not based on the weight of the passenger, but based on the weight of the passenger and all luggage/carry-on. So, tickets would be priced as "$xx.xx + $y.yy * [unit of weight]." A person might weigh 80 lbs but carry 100 lbs of luggage/carry-on, so they would be charged the base rate for a seat plus 180 * price/lb.

This is no different (and no more discriminatory) than driving; cars, like airplanes, use more fuel when they're weighed down more heavily. The fuel station isn't discriminating when they dispense more fuel to fill the tank of the car carrying a lardo, and the car isn't discriminating when it burns more fuel, it's simply obeying the laws of physics. Same with FedEx or UPS when they charge more for a 100-lb package than for a 5-lb package.

So, stop the ridiculous checked-bag fees, let people check whatever they want to free up the overhead storage for actual carry-on luggage, and charge for everything (passenger+bags) at a flat per-pound (or per-kilo) rate. Simple, effective, and non-discriminatory.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[FuegoFuerte]

HUGE profit cushions? What airlines are you looking at? Airlines have historically struggled with being profitable at all. They typically operate on razor-thin margins, and some of the more creative have just in the last few years become profitable on an ongoing basis. There's a lot of money moving around in the airline industry, but a surprisingly small amount of it is profit.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[jandrese]

That way you'll never know how much your trip will cost until you're literally at the gate. Airlines could even play with the price per kilo numbers to make themselves look better on Travelocity or whatever while still being expensive (see also: baggage fees). It also makes reimbursements for business travelers a hassle since the quoted priced on the ticket won't be the final price of the flight. Plus you get the fun of getting the kids to sit still on the scale when boarding, and also the need for the extra delay at the gate so the scale can properly register, and to make sure the guy behind you doesn't have his foot on the scale by accident...

Air travel sucks enough already guys. Please don't push so hard to make it worse. It's not like you're going to save money, even if you are thin. This would purely be a surcharge that every airline would implement, just like baggage fees.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[sjames]

Or, considering that fecal transplants have been shown to change a person's weight, they may be right that there is a medical issue, just wrong about which one.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[sjames]

Are you saying that with the same authority that said the root cause of stomach ulcers is stress?

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[Imbrondir]

If obese persons would get a pass, what about tall people? Or female vs male? At the same level of obesity, a 2 meter tall man will weigh a lot more than a 1.5 meter girl. Nah rather just follow the laws of physics.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[Dunbal]

Learn to read.

Re: Why not start now..and take if further?

[cyber-vandal]

Non-discriminatory? Men will be charged more for a start being taller and heavier.

Re: Why not start now..and take if further?

[fullymodo]

Sure, except weight isn't solely a factor of how thin or obese one is. What about tall people? They also weigh more. It's not enough that tall people are more uncomfortable on airplanes, they should have to pay more than shorter people too? How about muscular folks? Androids? Medieval knights? It's just not fair I tells ya!

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[Theaetetus]

As a doctor I can say that the "glandular" excuse for being overweight is pure BS. You treat hypothyroid patients with levothyroxine, and they maintain normal weight if they adhere to treatment. Excess weight is 100% due to overeating, eating poor quality food and/or sedentarism.

So, as a doctor, you're saying that untreated hypothyroid patients gain weight, regardless of overeating? Wouldn't someone properly characterize that as a "glandular" issue?

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[OrangeTide]

I'm 6'2". Anyone should expect me to weigh more than someone who is 5'0".

Who has to pay for the weight of the air in the cabin? It is pressurized and must weigh something.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[OrangeTide]

so that isn't fair

You've leap to a conclusion here. We could still charge difference prices, but offer vouchers for people with legitimate medical conditions.

(I do think this whole thread is a terrible idea, but the engineer in me isn't going to let you assume something is automatically unfair)

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[OrangeTide]

What? I can't offset the cost of the mandatory ramps to my business by charging a toll? not fair!

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[OrangeTide]

so edema doesn't count?

way to not understanding the meaning of "100%", doctor. Maybe malpractice costs are up because 100% of doctors are bad at their jobs?

Re: Why not start now..and take if further?

[OrangeTide]

A problem could be security, occupied seats need to be associated with a name and passport.

are we so inflexible that my name can't be on two seats?

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[OrangeTide]

They plan on giving you both half the space that you have now.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[FranTaylor]

Because it would be an enormous headache.

they weigh your bags at the ticket counter, they could put a scale under where you stand at the ticket counter and weigh you and your stuff right there.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[FranTaylor]

How would you take payment?

the same way it's done for overweight baggage, pay the overage on the spot with cash or a credit card

believe it or not, you can warn people in advance about having to pay for things

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[FranTaylor]

Because you have to get significantly out of the norm before you have a significant effect?

really, so there is no significant difference between a thin person travelling with no baggage and and obese passenger travelling with maximum allowed baggage? I would think that the difference is probably a factor of two, at least.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[mjwx]

Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

/wipes tear from eye, oh wait, you're serious...

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

All it would do is make air travel more expensive by giving bad and budget airlines one more thing they can charge for. Your already bad airport experience would get worse with exchanges like this:

Airline security: Sir, 35 KG is the expected maximum weight of a male passenger, you'll need to pay for every KG over.
You: Wha!!!!!
AS: Further more, you entered your weight during booking as 57 KG, so you've only prepaid for 22KG.
You: Uh...
AS: Your weight came in as 68 KG on our scales so you'll need to pay for an additonal 11 KG.
You: But I'm sure I'm only 57 KG
AS: Sir, our properly calibrates scale says you are 68 KG, excess weight is only $24 per KG.
You: Twenty fo...
AS: Plus taxes sir. Please take this receipt to the payment counter and thank you for choosing to fly with us.

I'd be all for that.

Have you ever been told to be careful what you wish for?

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[ultranova]

These days people are getting so fucking OVERLY Politically Correct, and scared of hurting anyone's feelings potentially, that if you make most any statement on something that would be based somehow on a per person basis, no matter how factual it is and for sound reasons....a pile of people will immediately jump up and shout racism, fat shaming, sexism......it is getting so bad today, that you can't have an intelligent conversation on hardly anything without someone shouting it is some sort of discrimination.

Very well then: your original message was pointless malice aimed at making other people's lives worse for no reason except appeasing whatever demons drive you, and your attempt to make a smokescreen out of political correctness is just plain sad. You "can't have an intelligent conversation on hardly anything" because you can't stop being an asshole long enough to say anything intelligent without shitting all over someone in the process, and the mechanisms that forced them to simply take it in the past are weaker nowadays. You aren't a victim just because other people are no longer forced to be yours.

You can't point out that the emperor has no clothes on,

Your emperor has no clothes on, and you're butthurt because this keeps getting pointed out to you. Also, your emperor isn't a vain but harmless moron but the Devil, and that's something you really don't like having pointed out.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[goose-incarnated]

What about disabled passengers? Most countries require airlines to carry their equipment, like wheelchairs and crutches, for free. Some people are overweight due to health problems which can be classed as disabilities in a legal sense.

Regardless of the reason for being overweight, is it at all accurate to class overweight people as *disabled*? I think the argument yuo're seeing here is that few people want to see overeating becoming a protected class. You're also doing a huge disservice to those disabled people when you call overeaters "disabled".

Re: Why not start now..and take if further?

[mbeckman]

If you charge passengers for weight then airlines must be required to refund a percentage for delays. Easy to do in today's microbilling ecommerce society.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[AmiMoJo]

The thinking is that being overweight is a medical problem. It is treated by doctors, it causes other medical issues. If it get really bad it can warrant medical intervention, like surgery. Most doctors recognize that it isn't just a "lifestyle choice" or whatever, so it gets classed as a disability.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[Hevel-Varik]

Everything you said makes sense. " It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier" is why you are evil.

Charge what you want but leave other people the fuck alone.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[bingoUV]

Charging for weight may not be discrimination. Most restaurants already charge extra for people who eat more. The others, the all-you-can-eat buffets, "discriminate" against anorexics by charging same for any amount of food eaten. Hell, hospitals charge ONLY the people who get sick - no hospital ever charged me for being healthy, but many of them charged me for being unhealthy.

It is even less likely to be considered discrimination if the price is fixed price + (weight in pounds)*(few cents).

Currently airlines are afraid to charge for weight because then wider people will start demanding their full quota of space. Charge for weight would justify their girth, at least in their own opinions. Separate charge for width is complicated to explain to users, and aircraft seating configuration is not easy to change for a single flight.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[bingoUV]

For example, do you include clothing weight? If so, expect passengers to start stripping when they are on the borderline of a cheaper weight bracket. Like boxers do.

If they intend to carry along the stripped clothes, it counts as luggage and the charge should be almost[1] the same as if it were on their bodies.

If they don't intend to carry along the clothes, airport might charge them for waste disposal if it is a huge tonnage of clothing but otherwise not a problem.

As far as naked people making others uncomfortable, this problem pops up even without charging people for weight, so neither surprising nor insoluble nor unheard of in the service industries.

[1] Luggage can be slightly cheaper than live human bodies because it is easier to tie down and distribute. Luggage also doesn't shout when it is separated from its "friends and family" to adjust center of mass of the aircraft.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[400_guru]

You must be a tiny little runt. 80 kg is only 177 lbs and 65 kg is just 143 lbs!! At 6'5" if I weighed 143 and turned sideways I would be invisible! My 5' 22" brother would appear a toothpick even at 177! 80 kg is normal to itty bitty where I look down on you from.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[400_guru]

You really think this would make airline pricing MORE complicated? That's funny stuff right there!

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[ExekielS]

I can make any industry look like it is struggling to turn a profit. Just reinvest all extra income and count it as a cost, then you can grow and prosper forever while looking like you are never profitable. Virtually all big US companies do this to a variable extent to suppress profit numbers. The company I work for grew 50% last year, but has profits at 5% annually. Which says plenty.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[VisceralLogic]

Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel, etc....so, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.

I'd be all for that.

Sure. Sounds great. Now, why don't we just take it a little bit further. Males statistically weigh more than females. Taller, stronger, more muscle build by nature. Why don't we charge males more than females to fly?

If airlines start charging by weight, they will charge the average male more than the average female. As a male, this does not offend me.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[vuffi_raa]

that is actually discrimination. why should I as a 6'2" person have to pay more than a 5'0" person, my weight will be much more, obese or not. no matter how healthy I am, there is no way I am going to lose a foot of height.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[sribe]

As a doctor I can say that the "glandular" excuse for being overweight is pure BS. You treat hypothyroid patients with levothyroxine, and they maintain normal weight if they adhere to treatment. Excess weight is 100% due to overeating, eating poor quality food and/or sedentarism.

Uh-huh. Assholes like you are the reason why people with adrenal tumors, pituitary tumors, iatrogenic exogenous steroid-induced Cushing's, pheochromocytoma, and so on, take years bouncing from doctor to doctor before they finally get a correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[jwhitener]

Excess weight is 100% due to overeating, eating poor quality food and/or sedentarism.

Well true. Calories in vs calories burned. Very simple, right?

Except like most medical doctors, you are ignoring the mental components and overall life conditions. The "why" factors.

I've noticed a very distinct lack of concern for a person's overall life conditions in medical offices over the years. This narrowing of treatment seems to have become even worse with the rise of HMO's. Treat the symptom or secondary cause, get them out the door fast, next patient... never a root cause analysis.

For instance, for the first time in my life, my blood pressure when up. The doctor wanted to put me on medication. I told him I'd like to try increasing my exercise and loose a bit of weight to see if that helped. It did. I've never had high blood pressure since. But he was ready to just drug me, rather than asking about my overall diet, mood, habits, etc..

Just from knowing obese people over the course of my life, it seems obvious to me that the way to cure their obesity isn't just 'more willpower', but it would be to address all the reasons why they feel the need to eat so much or move so little. Oftentimes that is depression, but it can be a myriad of other factors.

I think we would be a lot better off attempting to treat the entire person and their life rather than a condition or two.

Re: Why not start now..and take if further?

[FuegoFuerte]

It's not racial discrimination any more than it's protectionist to charge more for a Mexican mango because it's larger/heavier than a Florida mango. The price is based on weight, not where it came from.

Uzbekistan?

[gurps_npc]

This looks more like a comment (or worse, a joke) about Uzbekistan than a comment about airlines.

The Nepal Airlines once sacrificed a goat to appease a Hindu God. But like this story, it says more about Nepal than it does about Airlines.

Other airlines will no doubt ignore Uzbekistan, just as we ignore Nepal Airlines.

Mostly fuel costs but there are other factors

[sjbe]

I bet this is all about fuel costs and nothing to do with safety.

It's mostly about fuel costs though there is a safety component to it. You have to know the weight of the plane with reasonable accuracy to put in the right amount of fuel. There also are issues on smaller planes regarding proper distribution of weight. If you've flown in puddle jumpers you very likely have been asked to move seats to even out the weight distribution. I've had to do it a number of times and it is entirely about safety.

If they can more accurately weigh the plane, they can put just enough fuel in to reach the destination, and save millions in jet fuel over the course of a year.

Quite true but there is also the issue that travelers currently aren't charged accurately for the weight they bring on the plane. They sort of do it by guessing the average weight of a passenger and then charging extra fees for luggage. But it would be much more sensible to actually charge each customer a fuel surcharge based on weight (themselves + their luggage). Bring more on and you pay a bit more. Travel light and you save a bit. Since weight is the biggest variable in fuel use it makes perfect sense to charge customers based on weight. Plus it would create an incentive to pack light AND it would reduce the number of people trying to cram an elephant in their carry-on to avoid baggage fees.

All for Kevin Smith?

[KatchooNJ]

Maybe this is an over-the-top way of screening for Kevin Smith when he flies.

Sign of the times

[onkelonkel]

In 1960 the average American male was 165 lbs and the average female was 140 lbs. Today those weights are 195 for men and 165 for women. At the same time airlines are continuously trying to add more seats. At some point it will pay off for the airline to use the actual weights of passengers instead of some assumed average to do their weight and balance calculations.

Re: Fuel Cost

[onkelonkel]

If you carry more fuel than you need you are carrying extra weight for no good reason. That extra weight costs you in total fuel consumption for the trip. Now do you understand?

its more of an issue than you think.

[nimbius]

working for an airline that rhymes with town crest, passenger and luggage weight is an issue thats usually handled automagically by a combination of pilots and flight crew. you'll rarely see it, but very large passengers will generally not get on a flight until they buy the adjacent seats for their row. Its a call made by the captain and crew to ensure drinks service and emergency procedures work. you might be refused a wing seat in an exit row, you might not get to sit in front. we try to avoid it because fat passengers are typically angry passengers.

passengers generally have been getting larger. the obesity epidemic makes flights heavier, fuel costlier, and boarding and deplaning slower. jetways have to handle more load and they see their pantographs serviced more frequently. and the bathrooms (or as we call it lav service) become a bigger issue thanks to the poor diet we're all subjected to and the confined nature of the space. its more frequent and the equipment ends up being serviced more often. passengers also pack more crap than they did 30 years ago, and in response we're trying to lighten flights by giving an economic incentive to 'pack light.' That turns out, in my opinion, not to have worked. instead more people are just forcibly insisting their checked luggage be treated as carry-on. Trust me, if its a packed flight and youre not boarding with a light backpack and a jacket, that bags getting checked no matter how quickly you try to shuffle through the line.

Re:This is an invasion of my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the complimentary prostate exam, too!

Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[RogueWarrior65]

Seriously, all CG calculations aside (which happen automatically in large aircraft), have you noticed that treating overweight people like sh*t is now the only remaining universally tolerated form of social abuse?

Re:Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. For example someone who is racist, it is very socially acceptable and even encouraged to socially abuse them. Another example are people who side on opposite ends of hot button political issues.

Re:Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[ceoyoyo]

Aside from the Slashdot comments, where everyone gets treated badly, is anyone in this story treating overweight people like shit? Treating people badly isn't good, but some subtle societal pressure to take the edge of the obesity epidemic isn't a bad thing.

Re:Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[gurps_npc]

Not true. You are objecting, so it isn't universally tolerated.

Also, short men get paid less, date less, get married later in life - but stay married longer (as in when women finally date them they realize what they were missing and the men don't cheat). When asked about this, people talk about a single study (without any reference to it's validity or checking to see if it was large enough) that says "it's about height during childhood, not height at adult, so it must be that short men don't learn the right skills"

How would women or blacks feel if someone said "women/blacks get paid less because they never learned the social skills white get"? Really short men get paid less than women (of any height) do. Society screws over short men as much as fat people.

Re:Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[RogueWarrior65]

By universally-tolerated I mean overtly by the media and people who get easily offended at everything else. Some big shot makes a fat joke and nobody screams bloody murder calling for their resignation or for a public apology or for criminal charges be brought against them.

But to your point, a number of years ago, there was a piece on 20/20, IIRC, where Diane Sawyer did a "study" about short men. They set up this police lineup style room and had women judge the men in the lineup. None of them picked the short guy as someone worth dating. Then they would start telling the women details about the people they picked, fake details but increasingly disparaging e.g. that guy has a criminal record, that guy never went to college, etc. The women still didn't pick the short guy. Then they starting telling details about him e.g. he's a neurosurgeon or CEO of a major company, etc. They pretty much had to make the short guy a god before the women would go out with him. So busted. Short men are just dismissed without comment.

Re:Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[RogueWarrior65]

Using the word "epidemic" is just a B.S. excuse. People have been doing this for decades. Long before the word obese became commonly used by laypeople.

Re:Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[ceoyoyo]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Obesity in most western societies, especially those in North America meets all the criteria for an epidemic; it's also a major public health disaster that's only getting worse.

Societies have certainly always exerted pressure on their members. That's really what makes them societies. So far it's been a wildly successful strategy. In regards to obesity, it goes back a lot further than decades. Gluttony is one of the capital sins.

Re:Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[RogueWarrior65]

My point is that labeling it an epidemic somehow gives some people absolution over treating people in that group like sh*t. How ironic that once AIDS reached epidemic status it was no longer okay to treat such people as second-class citizens.

Re:Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[ceoyoyo]

In that case, I disagree. If anything, recognizing growing obesity as an epidemic turns the reaction from "hey, there's a lardass who obviously doesn't take care of himself" to "hey, lots of us are turning into lardasses, maybe we should see if there's something else going on."

Re:Offensive to the gravitationally-enhanced

[RogueWarrior65]

I agree. However, there are far too many people who are taking the shaming approach to solving it. Personally, I'm an advocate of the H. Pylori hypothesis. For years, everybody "knew" that ulcers were a result of poor diet. That turned out to be wrong. Even the researchers who discovered the pathogen were dismissed to the point where one of them infected himself to prove it.

Re:This is an invasion of my privacy

[sls1j]

Reminds me of this comedy skit.

World culture of being clueless about what you eat

[Theovon]

The US is pretty bad, but it's not exactly awesome elsewhere. People are just not educated about nutrition. They know nothing about protein, carbohydrates, fats, sugars, vitamins, minerals, food sensitivies/allergies, intestinal flora, pollutants and contaminants, or any of those things. People just eat whatever the hell they want, which is primarily junk food, they get fat, slow down their brains, and get even dumber. The biggest offenders are actually the MDs who have all knowledge of nutrition ripped out of their brains upon entering med school. They're dangerously ignorant and, as representatives to most people of how they should take care of themselves, the MDs pass on their ignorance to the rest of the population. The FDA isn't a lot of help either with so much bullshit in their recommendations. Contrary to what most doctors will tell you, mineral and vitamin deficiencies abound among Americans, because they eat such as shitty diet. Trust me, the trace amounts of iodine you get in your salt just aren't enough, and people have magnesium deficiencies left and right, just to mention two.

Some fat people will tell you that they have a "glandular problem." Maybe some don't, but this is actually fairly common. However, if you eat right, you can compensate for a lot of these problems, and there are ways of treating it. But people don't even TRY. They don't listen to what little nutritional advice they do get, so they just keep getting fatter and sicker. They don't take resposibility for their bodies.

So, you know, I don't think it's a problem that airlines micro-optimize their operations to account for passenger weight. People should take responsibility for their own personal health and learn to eat right. If they don't, the rest of shouldn't have to suffer. The thing is, this airline is from Uzbekistan, a part of the world where discrimination is accepted as part of their culture, so they'll actually have an easier time getting away with this sort of thing. If an airline in the US did this, they'd get all sorts of flak over it, although I still think they should be within their rights to do it.

It's shitty nutrition that I think is part of the increase in autism we observe (assuming it's not *just* an increase in diagnosis). But idiots want to blame vaccines instead, because it's easy to not get a vaccine, but it takes proper discipline to change your diet.

And discipline is just not something that's encouraged in most parts of the world.

It *is* a safety issue.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

For small airplanes. Not for the huge airliners.

I remember a crash of a small twin engined turbo-prop, around 2006. The plane took off and crashed within seconds of take off, it just pitched up and up and up, stalled, rolled in and crashed into a hanger. The cause was the use of average weight for passengers to estimate the take off weight to set the elevator tabs. Compounded by unusual number of heavy bags. The plane was tail heavy, the center of gravity was beyond the allowable limits and the elevators could not generate enough aerodynamic force to pitch the plane down.

The captain of the plane, the leader of NTSB investigation team, the air traffic controller, the emergency crew leader that went into the wreckage looking for survivors, and the baggage handler who provided the clue that cracked the case were all women.

Nothing new

[0123456]

This used to be normal in the early days of commercial aviation. I've seen a picture of people being 'weighed in' prior to boarding a plane from one of the aerodromes around London in the 20s or 30s.

Re:This is an invasion of my privacy

[PPH]

eating any terrorist food.

Aloha Snackbar!

Re:This is an invasion of my privacy

[myowntrueself]

a colon check will also be offered free of charge on your next flight

Will this include a prostate massage?

Re:Subject

[bobbied]

Too expensive and would need to be nearly 100% reliable.

Weight and Balance are both critical for safe flying. It's just way to easy and cheaper to weigh stuff before you load it, then calculate the weight and balance of the loaded aircraft.

Price based on weight

[laie_techie]

One big issue I see with charging by the kilo is actually booking the flights. Most of us book online with at least one layover. Do you trust people to accurately / honestly report their weight at the time of purchase? Weight of luggage is only accurately known at the time of travel. What happens at the airport if some under reported or over reported their weight? Could a couple use their average weight (one is overweight and the other under), or do they pay normal fare for the lighter person (no discount) and pay a surcharge for the heavier partner?

Re:World culture of being clueless about what you

[codeButcher]

Having recently flown on an airline named after a greek letter, and having sampled the output of their catering services, I am reminded that I am somewhat repulsed by the fact that you mention "nutrition" and "airlines" in the same post.

However, mentioning "airlines" and "flak" in the same sentence somewhat atones for that.

Re:Good

[Opportunist]

And idiots shouldn't be allowed to waste valuable oxygen.

But I guess neither of us will get his wish.

Do you really need a scale?

[RevWaldo]

I should think a couple of cameras and right software should be able to make a reasonable estimate of a passenger's weight, which should be good enough if they're not planning to flag individuals.

.

Re:This is an invasion of my privacy

[ArchieBunker]

No that is $10 extra now and non refundable.

Asking the FAA check pilot for his weight

[Latent Heat]

I was preparing for my first flight as a student pilot with the senior instructor at flight school in his role as FAA examiner. Even though this early in my training, and the purpose of this flight check was to see if my regular instructor was doing his job, I wanted to make a good impression by following all of the rules -- kinda like not wanting to make rolling "stops" past traffic signs on your driving road test.

Even though in lessons with my regular instructor we never went through weight-and-balance calculations, this was on the basis that a trainer was in proper trim with 2 people and a full tank of gas and we never took any luggage, I knew the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk 2-seat trainer had a stringent gross weight limit. Even though each person, pilot or passenger, was deemed to weight 160 lbs "by the book" for weight-and-balance, the PA-38 only allowed for full gas tanks if the "payload" was at or below 320 lbs -- at least my regular instructor had cautioned me that if go over, you need to offload fuel.

I knew that I weighed 160 lbs "back in college", and whereas the FAA guy wasn't unusually tall, he had the look of the few pounds that comes as we age.

Faced with a diplomatic dilemma, I got up the courage to ask, "If I am to calculate weight-and-balance the right way, I am going to have to know how much you weigh . . " The Examiner barks back at me, "You are to count each person in the aircraft as weighing 160 lbs!"

OK, OK, alright already!

Re:Asking the FAA check pilot for his weight

[Spazmania]

Okay, technically there are airlines consisting of two and four seaters that deliver one to three passengers to some remote location. And my weigh-in for the several trips I've taken by helicopter was not objectionable.

But the article was not talking about teensy aircraft. They were talking about routine commercial service for 10 to 300 passengers. For folks who board standing up via a jetway. For those relevant situations, I stand behind my statement.

Average out

[ananamouse]

Maybe they want to put the screaming babbies next to the morbidly obese?

Could they?
Would they?
Should they?

Obesity is always caused by overeating

[sjbe]

Although most instances of obesity is inability to control one's shoveling food into one's mouth (like my fatty of an ex) there are instances where obesity is caused by hormonal or glandular (thyroid, pituitary, adrenal) problems, so that isn't fair. What IS fair is charging someone for two seats if they're oozing into the next seat.

Obesity is always caused by shoveling more food into your mouth than you can digest. Hormones don't have calories so it still is them stuffing their face. I recognize that staying slim can be quite challenging (especially in the face of hormonal problems) and I do sympathize but the simple fact is that there is no way to get fat without overeating. Period.

In any case, life isn't fair. People who are simply bigger naturally (even if very fit) will get charged a bit more but the physics of the situation doesn't care. They ARE going to cause the plane to burn more fuel than someone smaller and that's just a fact. I prefer not to have to subsidize their share of the fuel costs for the flight. I'll pay for what I use and they can pay for what they use and I think that is quite fair at the end of the day.

Re:Obesity is always caused by overeating

[operagost]

Some people are disabled through no fault of their own, and we have to provide facilities to accommodate them. It costs more to install ramps, handles, special sinks and toilets, etc.

Re:Obesity is always caused by overeating

[parkinglot777]

Obesity is always caused by shoveling more food into your mouth than you can digest.

Hmm... I think you need to replace the word "digest" with something else (i.e. your body can burn off the exceeding nutrient). If your body can't digest, it doesn't make you fat but rather come out as whatever it is, and you know what...

... the simple fact is there is no way to get fat without overeating.

Again, word choice... It should be "in general," not "simple fact." Why? There is a way to get fat without "over eating." If you know how to turn on survival mode and that would significantly reduce your body metabolism. As a result, you will gain weight even though you eat food less than the amount your body normally need.

In any case, life isn't fair. People who are simply bigger naturally (even if very fit) will get charged a bit more but the physics of the situation doesn't care. They ARE going to cause the plane to burn more fuel than someone smaller and that's just a fact. I prefer not to have to subsidize their share of the fuel costs for the flight. I'll pay for what I use and they can pay for what they use and I think that is quite fair at the end of the day.

I agree that life is not about fairness. However, your point of view seems to be that "it is not fair for you and I am not one of you, so you all suck it up." I am wondering if you are one of them, how difference your point of view would be. Oh, by the way, I am weight height proportionate, but I still think it is unfair to think that people's weight should be considered. However, if we are talking about the weight of belonging, then I wouldn't mind charging that by weight because it is a much more controllable parameter for each individual.

To me, this is just a way a big corporation scheme attempting to reduce their cost by pushing the blame on passenger. I highly doubt that the weight of passengers plus their belonging would actually reach the limit of a passenger air plane can carry. Usually a passenger air plane would carry freight and that is also their revenue. Even though it is not much compared to overall revenue of a flight, the corporation would never want to mention about it because their customer is another big corporation -- being one of them.

Re:Obesity is always caused by overeating

[petteyg359]

... the simple fact is there is no way to get fat without overeating.

Again, word choice... It should be "in general," not "simple fact." Why? There is a way to get fat without "over eating." If you know how to turn on survival mode and that would significantly reduce your body metabolism. As a result, you will gain weight even though you eat food less than the amount your body normally need.

Uh, no. You just moved the goal posts. If you "turn on survival mode" (whatever that means), and continue to eat the same amount, then you are now overeating. You can't gain body mass without inserting that mass into your body in the first place.

Wouldn't be a huge challenge

[sjbe]

Because it would be an enormous headache. I don't know if you've flown recently, but most people don't go to the ticket counter to buy their tickets anymore. They buy tickets online, and if this policy was in place you would have to make the passenger input their weight and their luggage weight into the system when they buy the ticket, potentially months in advance.

Not a big deal. They already have infrastructure in place to deal with fees for checking bags. It would not be a huge challenge to add some scales to the system. They weigh the bags already and they can put a scale either in the security line or next to the gate. Attach the boarding pass to a credit card and they don't have to do anything special at the airport aside from stepping on a scale with their belongings.

Wouldn't be hard to do

[sjbe]

It would be an administrative/legal nightmare.

No it wouldn't. Most of the infrastructure is there already. They'd basically have to add a few scales and some computer code and a little extra procedure. It would replace the baggage fees which we already deal with.

For example, do you include clothing weight? If so, expect passengers to start stripping when they are on the borderline of a cheaper weight bracket. Like boxers do.

Of course. EVERYTHING you take on the plane including yourself gets weighed. You + your luggage. You can take something off if you want but you are going to get charged for it anyway because they would weigh your luggage too. Give it to someone else? Then they get charged and I doubt they'll appreciate that.

What about disabled passengers? Most countries require airlines to carry their equipment, like wheelchairs and crutches, for free. Some people are overweight due to health problems which can be classed as disabilities in a legal sense. You can bet a lot of them will argue that angle, genuinely or otherwise.

What about them? You can make some reasonable allowances for disability assistance. Nobody is suggesting we have to be inhuman ogres about the whole thing. But more weight = more fuel used. That is an indisputable fact. If you bring more weight on the plane then you should have to pay a greater share of the fuel cost. Whether that extra weight is you or your luggage is irrelevant to the physics and economics of the situation.

How would you take payment? The passenger buys a ticket online, but isn't weighed until they arrive at the airport.

Same way we take payments now. It would be trivial to tie the boarding pass to a credit card so when you get in line for being weighed the fee gets assessed automatically. If you pay cash or something else unusual you get sent to a line to settle up any charges. They already have the basic infrastructure to handle this since they charge for all the checked bags now. This is basically the same thing just with one extra scale.

Estimates will never be very good because even if people don't lie domestic scales are often not very accurate.

Using estimates would be pointless and stupid. You just weigh them and you don't need to make a big production of it.

Bigger = more fuel used

[sjbe]

Except that this would open up a can of worms like sexism, etc.. Why should an average guy pay more for a plane flight with the same weight of luggage as an average woman? Like it or not, men tend to be heavier, even if they are at their ideal weight.

He should pay more because he requires more fuel to move around. Simple physics. He very literally costs more to fly from point A to point B. The only arguments against him paying more for the indisputable fact that he requires more fuel to be burned are social ones. Economically he is using more resources so logically he should pay more for that.

Plus I don't know about the women you know but in my experience women tend to pack a lot more crap when they travel so it probably evens out somewhat.

The only exception I might make would be some allowance for medical devices like wheelchairs.

Of course, they could go with some sort of standard for height, weigh, sex, etc. and you only pay for the amount that you are over your ideal weight. But this, again, gets into privacy concerns because it would be recorded somewhere.

Not necessary and too judgmental. The ONLY truly fair way to do it is to weigh the person plus their luggage and charge a fee for whatever that total weight is. If you are naturally a bit larger that's just the way it goes. You pay for what you use. The reason why you use more is irrelevant.

Re:Bigger = more fuel used

[thinkwaitfast]

What about someone who has a 60kg special needs wheelchair, but weighs a normal amount?

Re:Bigger = more fuel used

[sjbe]

What about someone who has a 60kg special needs wheelchair, but weighs a normal amount?

If you will note I specifically said we should make an exception for medical assistance devices. We don't have to get stupid or inhumane about it.

I can see it now

[Jawnn]

The airlines want to charge by weight, not by seat. I say fine. If I have to pay 50% more because I way 50% more than your "average", I want 50-fucking-% more room for my knees and elbows.

Re:I can see it now

[sribe]

The airlines want to charge by weight, not by seat. I say fine. If I have to pay 50% more because I way 50% more than your "average", I want 50-fucking-% more room for my knees and elbows.

YES! This, exactly. I would love to be able to get 25% more room for 25% more $$, rather than 3x-5x the $$$.

People care about WIDTH not WEIGHT

[DirkDaring]

I don't think anyone cares much about weight. You can be 6'2 and be in great shape but weight 250. But if you are - ahem- wide and spilling into the seat next to you then there is a problem.

Overeating what, exactly?

[dfenstrate]

Obesity is always caused by shoveling more food into your mouth than you can digest. .

Not exactly. Generally, it's the excessive consumption of easily digested carbohydrates, which trigger an insulin response that causes and maintains the excessive accumulation of fat tissue.

I highly recommend a book by Gary Taubes, Why We Get Fat (and what to do about it.)

I can't do it justice, but I'll paraphrase a point he made:
We give the same advice to someone looking to work up an appetite for a sumptuous dinner as we give to someone looking to lose wait. Consequently, any diet that doesn't allow someone to eat until they're satisfied is doomed to failure. So you need to change what you eat, eat until your hunger is satisfied, and then you can lose weight.

Re:World culture of being clueless about what you

[Theovon]

Heh. You're right. Airline food is evil. And imagine having celiac disease and being able to eat anything they serve on the plane. Hell, you'd have trouble finding gluten-free food at an airport!

I did not by any means imply that the airlines give any thought to nutrition AT ALL. They just want to save money, and they have noticed some diversity in passenger weight. Like any psychopatic entity hell-bent on optimizing profit margins, they're going to latch onto that.

Ever sat in the middle seat ?

[Archfeld]

I recently flew from Phoenix wedged between to women who both weighed close to 300 lbs. if they weighed a pound. I couldn't get my elbows un-wedged from my ribs for 2 days following the flight. I can see being embarrassed if you weigh that much and still can't see over the top of the seat, but why should I be forced to suffer the invasion of the seat I pay for because of someone else's' health/size issues ?

Why pay for excess luggage

[rainer_d]

when excess fat is free?

It's not discrimination. Just pay-per-use.

Borat would be proud.

[thisisauniqueid]

Greatest country Uzbekistan.

Re:Borat would be proud.

[tmjva]

Borat's country was Kazakhstan however.

Re:Percentages

[OrangeTide]

what if a local anime club all booked the same flight so they could fly to comic-con together?

In Soviet Uzbekistan

[liamoohay]

In Soviet Uzbekistan, airlines weigh you. Oh, wait...