8 ms·

Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

25 points by rahulrg 15y ago

zeeed 15y ago
it's overdue that science steps in and makes this point.
- vacri 15y ago
  Please don't sully the term 'science' by association with this drivel.
slimdizzy 15y ago
The author dilutes and weakens his argument by bringing up obesity. Whether a 80kg person is 40% fat or 10% fat doesn't matter; the central point is that a person who weighs more, consumes more, and thus ought to pay more. I wish he stuck more to that point instead of running off on the tangent about health and the environment. Friends with whom I discuss this proposal often say that many obese people cannot help being overweight – they just have a different metabolism from the rest of us. To expand on the author's take on why this argument is weak, take for example nearsighted people. Nearsightedness is partly hereditary; similar to obesity, it can be exacerbated by certain choices, but some people are just bound to be nearsighted. Nearsightedness means paying for glasses (at least the deductible) and often paying a huge premium for sunglasses. Simply put: life isn't fair, and people are already paying different expenses just because of conditions they were born with. Tony Webber, a former chief economist for the Australian airline Qantas, has pointed out that, since 2000, the average weight of adult passengers on its planes has increased by two kilos. For a large, modern aircraft like the Airbus A380, that means that an extra $472 of fuel has to be burned on a flight from Sydney to London. That said, is such an initiative necessary, cost-saving, or beneficial to the customer? An Airbus A380 holds about 600 passengers. That comes out to about $0.75 per passenger per 2 kilograms. A pretty average American man weights about 85kg. A very light American man (bottom 5%) weighs about 65kg. A very heavy American man (top 5%) weighs about 115kg. (Pulling data from this chart). This means that the lightest 5% of men would pay about $7.50 less for a Sydney-London flight than average, and the heaviest 5% of men would pay about $11.75 more. On a shorter, domestic flight like Chicago-NYC, those figures work out to maybe a $5 difference in ticket price between a 65kg man and a 115kg man - and that's not even counting in the extra costs associated with spending time on weighing passengers! So with that taken into account, I don't think that this is the best idea. Maybe extremely heavy people who are literally spilling over into the seat next to them should be forced to purchase two seats or upgrade to a roomier first class seat, because it's not fair for the poor guy sitting next to him. But the weight-to-fuel-price argument seems to not be strong enough. Maybe it'll be worth revisiting if fuel prices climb significantly.
- tomp 15y ago
  There is a lot of evidence that obesity is not hereditary/predetermined, but is a choice (or a consequence of a weak mind/bad incentives). I was in Vietnam 5 years ago. I didn't see any fat people. Look at photos/documentaries of Africa. No fat people. To take it to the extreme, there were no fat people in Auschwitz. That is not to say that it was good in any way and that people should starve, but just that it is not impossible to be normal for anyone, you just have to try.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - heretohelp 15y ago
    Obesity is 100% calories in/calories out. Good thing I'm at a startup trying to help people eat healthy and in reasonable portions without feeling unduly hungry.
    - daeken 15y ago
      Do you have any info on your startup? I'm way, way overweight (somewhere around 380lbs) and currently attempting to get myself into a healthy lifestyle. Anything that makes that easier would definitely get my money.
      - heretohelp 15y ago
        I know you from your previous work, I'll be contacting you when we're ready for beta users outside of our original alpha cohort. Other people: keep my username bookmarked for future updates, I'll be posting the product on HN once we're ready for more publicity. Good luck on your weight loss whether you end up a user of our product or not.
    - moonchrome 15y ago
      Sarcasm ? I mean I'm not saying that people crying about genetics and how they can't help it aren't just wining but AFAIK it matters very much what kind your diet consists of and how physically fit you are ie. carbs, insulin sensitivity and muscle mass are crucial factors, calories in/out seem waay to simplistic.
antihero 15y ago
I don't think 75KG is a good standard weight. I mean, what about people who are muscular? I go to the gym and nobody I know would say I am obese (I am a little overweight) but because of muscles I'm around 109KG - I was 100KG and overweight, now I'm thinner and stronger but actually heavier. So should people who are muscular be exempt? Do we do it based on height vs muscle or body fat percentage? Unless we consider this, there's no way to do it fairly without punishing people for things either they can't control or would in other contexts be a good thing.
- bpodgursky 15y ago
  It's not about rewarding you for being healthy, it's about charging people for the resources (eg, jet fuel) which they consume. Whether your weight is from fat or muscles, you are costing the airline more than the 75kg person next to you.
  - kenver 15y ago
    You're right about the main thrust of the article, however a significant part of the article did argue about health issues, obesity and taxing unhealthy living, which I think weakened his argument somewhat. So as a counter to that side of the piece, I think it's ok to mention the difference between muscle/fat etc.
- rahulrg 15y ago
  Trying to understand how to factor in "fairness" here. The fact is that irrespective of body content (ie fat or muscle), what counts for the economics of the airline is the total weight. Heavier the passengers and the luggage, more fuel is burnt, and the costs correspondingly go up. I agree with you, however, that the 75 kg choice is pretty arbitrary. I wonder, though, if tickets online can be initially issued at price ex "weight-rate". Everyone would then stand with their luggage on the scales, and pay $k for every kilo (without any limit, per se). To me, that seems more "fair" without setting arbitrary limits that might carry discriminatory or racist overtones.
  - antihero 15y ago
VolatileVoid 15y ago
The reason, generally, you are charged more for heavier luggage has got nothing to do with jet fuel consumption and everything to do with higher baggage handling fees. Since handlers don't actually have to carry obese people (that's a job for the person's legs), it makes complete sense to charge for heavier luggage rather than heavier people.
- masklinn 15y ago
  Baggage handlers are not paid by baggage weight, so that does not make much sense. Jet fuel consumption, on the other hand, is heavily impacted by airframe weight.
  - piggity 15y ago
    I suspect the fees aren't always about cost, but rather a subtle encouragement to customers to do certain activities. I had a bike bag weighing 27kg and a second piece weighing 15kg. Well under the 46kg I could take on for no charge. The airline (Qantas) wanted to charge me an overweight charge for the bike bag - but were happy for me to park in front of the counter for 5 minutes while I moved heavy items between bags to balance them out. I didn't really care; it was a financial motivation to keep my weights at an easier to manage level. I imagine that overweight bags require different workers, who might be on a different pay scale - and so there is a cost to moving 27+15kg vs 22kg+20kg.
  - vacri 15y ago
    If you have double the items of luggage, you need double the number of handlers to move it through in the same amount of time. Excess baggage isn't all about the weight, it's a just a convenient and public-understandable thing to focus on, and gives them incentive to pack less.
  - kahawe 15y ago
    Baggage storage is very limited and usually packed full way more than passenger cabin space.
iamgopal 15y ago
I do not think the actual different is much unless the person is really overweight or underweight. And because of so much additional investment in to infrastructure and training required, it is pretty stupid to actually implement the idea. That said, it will be bad argument to say that it will punish the people for more weight, because at current price they are actually punishing underweighted and have them pay for the overweighted. ( poor fellas, they are underweighted and have to pay for it too. )
mjburgess 15y ago
Should we charge more for disabled people? Does any additional cost to a company mean that it can treat its customers differently? We must have a society where the equality of people is incontrovertible, and we make accommodations for the fact. That a thin small woman weighing 50Kg is worth the same as a muscular or fat person weighing 100kg. To ask one to pay more for a service because of what they are is unequal treatment. The people weighing less are charged more than they would be otherwise, so that everyone has the same price. But their arbitrary birth characteristics that make them under the average weight should not entitle them to benefit in "proportion" nor equally should the characteristics of another cause them to be disadvantaged proportionally. I would prefer a society where neither the state, nor private citizens, were able to reward birth-lottery success at the expense of birth-lottery failure. And im not talking about genetics. Being muscular or fat, a result of a series of choices (no doubt), is still a result of birth lottery. So you had a single mum in a por community that fed you cheap fast food? Do members disadvantaged communities (who are more overweight and unhealthy than the average) have their disadvantage compounded by being responsible for their parents and community?
- vacri 15y ago
  Well said. This is the real issue at hand here, a level beyond squabbling over simple freight charges.
- kristiandupont 15y ago
  This is a good point, but surely you will agree that we can only discuss where to draw the line, not whether it should be drawn or not? As said in another post, life is not fair. If we take your point to the extreme, society should even out the disadvantages that come from having below-average intelligence.
  - mjburgess 15y ago
    Well there are many competing princilpes, and the way we prioritize them will affect the kind of society we end up with. I believe in this instance, the benefits of equality outweight the costs. If we believe that a "free" market would distribute prices differently so that lighter people paid less and you believe the free market price is fair. Then some small ecnomic harm is occuring, to those who pay more. The social cost of rectifying this small harm however is, i think, considerable. It makes transportation harder for poorer people and perhaps those that need transport the most. And so on. In this case, i think the $500 extra /flight can be distributed across the couple hundred passengers without much to-do.
vacri 15y ago
Yet, in terms of the airplane’s fuel consumption, it is all the same whether the extra weight is baggage or body fat. ... because as we all know, there is no cost whatsoever in handling large amounts of luggage. Which do you think would cost more: 100kg per person, with fat people who had little luggage, or 100kg per person, 50kg in person, and 50kg is excess luggage. As a tall man, I hate this stupid point. I can't help the fact that I'm tall. I'm perhaps 10-15kg overweight, but if I go below 110kg, I am unhealthy. I already have to pay more to get a seat that doesn't screw me up - a seat that still doesn't fit me properly. Meanwhile Ms Slight Asian Woman is getting a much more comfortable seat. She's getting a better service for the same price. The thing is, it's swings and roundabouts, and wanting to charge people a 'fat fee' is oversimplistic.
- moonchrome 15y ago
  >As a tall man, I hate this stupid point. I can't help the fact that I'm tall. I'm perhaps 10-15kg overweight, but if I go below 110kg, I am unhealthy. I already have to pay more to get a seat that doesn't screw me up - a seat that still doesn't fit me properly. Meanwhile Ms Slight Asian Woman is getting a much more comfortable seat. She's getting a better service for the same price. Well even you admit that you require a special seat and that "Ms Slight Asian Woman" gets comfortable in a normal seat - so there is a reason for the price difference. Anyway this sort of things are best left to market competition, if it's efficient to charge for baggage more than body weight then the companies or if the decision hurts their image they will figure it out.
  - vacri 15y ago
    I think you missed my point. I am paying extra for a bulkhead seat that still does not fit me as well as a standard seat for the 'light person' - I get a worse service for more money. Then the guy in the article says I should pay even more, simply to appease his sense of misplaced righteousness.
    - moonchrome 15y ago
      I think you put it nicely - you think you're buying a service, this guy is arguing you're buying weight transfer, I would say you're buying seats, and whatever model makes the most sense should be used by the airline company.
shakesbeard 15y ago
If weight is a driver for costs, do we get a rebate or fee when only half of a flight's seats are taken?
kylec 15y ago
I can't wait for passenger rail to take off in the US. The weight of the passengers is virtually inconsequential - CSX has advertized that they can transport 1 ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel. Obviously people aren't freight, but even if it ends up being 10x that amount of passengers, that's still pennies for an increased cost if someone is overweight or obese.
- daeken 15y ago
  I'm in the US and way overweight even by American standards, and I take the train everywhere. I'm in NYC and I can easily go to Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, DC, or even Toronto via Amtrak. Certainly takes longer than a plane, but the comfort is worth it for me. If only there were trains to Europe.
  - vacri 15y ago
    Tickets are subsidised in the south, too. You can cover a lot of ground for not much money. Get up, walk around, plenty of space, power outlets at the seats, no air pressure issues, something to look at through nice big windows instead of clouds through a tiny window if you're right next to it, no security procedures... there's a lot going for the train.
fab13n 15y ago
Paying by the kg, whether kg of flesh/fat or kg of luggage, wouldn't be absurd. The kg of fat might be a bit cheaper, though: you need luggage crew to haul luggage, but most haul themselves autonomously. A reason to impose penalty on luggage weight is that it affects what people bring aboard: penalties might entice you to leave some luggage at home; they won't entice you to leave your rolls of fat on the ground. But companies won't start selling airfares by the kg: for it to be workable, you'd need a clear pricing scheme, and that's not in their best interest.
- vacri 15y ago
  It's not the pricing scheme, it's the invasion of privacy that people will arc up about. Someone who is sensitive about their weight - and there are a lot of them - will be very difficult to manage in this situation.
  - fab13n 15y ago
    You mean, the privacy of those people who will be scanned and groped by TSA thugs minutes after they've checked their luggage in? It seems that people are ready to give up the last bit of dignity as soon as they enter an airport; if a company could offer a substantial discount in exchange for paying by the kg, many people would cope with it. Not everyone, but enough people to sustain an airline company. The reason why it won't happen is because their pricing scheme is already optimized to extract the last dime each traveler is willing to pay. Introducing a weight variable would mess that system up.
    - vacri 15y ago
      The article is from Melbourne, Australia. We don't have scanners or pat-downs. But anyway, I used to work in a call centre doing anonymous cold-calling social surveys for government. One survey had a section on sexual abuse and rape - and a few of us found it odd that some respondants would open up their private lives answering these questions, sometimes in a fair amount of detail, but still balk at the standard demographic section at the end where they are asked their income bracket. Some magic numbers are more significant than others.
DrJokepu 15y ago
Measuring people's weight would make the already humiliating experience at airports even worse for many people, especially for women. Imagine the humiliation a female (over even a male) passenger would experience when she's flagged at the airport as overweight in front of her friends, family or colleagues. This is an incredibly bad idea and it would be a PR and commercial disaster for any airline or airport that would introduce such a scheme.

25 points by rahulrg 15y ago

zeeed 15y ago

it's overdue that science steps in and makes this point.

vacri 15y ago
Please don't sully the term 'science' by association with this drivel.

slimdizzy 15y ago

The author dilutes and weakens his argument by bringing up obesity. Whether a 80kg person is 40% fat or 10% fat doesn't matter; the central point is that a person who weighs more, consumes more, and thus ought to pay more. I wish he stuck more to that point instead of running off on the tangent about health and the environment. Friends with whom I discuss this proposal often say that many obese people cannot help being overweight – they just have a different metabolism from the rest of us. To expand on the author's take on why this argument is weak, take for example nearsighted people. Nearsightedness is partly hereditary; similar to obesity, it can be exacerbated by certain choices, but some people are just bound to be nearsighted. Nearsightedness means paying for glasses (at least the deductible) and often paying a huge premium for sunglasses. Simply put: life isn't fair, and people are already paying different expenses just because of conditions they were born with. Tony Webber, a former chief economist for the Australian airline Qantas, has pointed out that, since 2000, the average weight of adult passengers on its planes has increased by two kilos. For a large, modern aircraft like the Airbus A380, that means that an extra $472 of fuel has to be burned on a flight from Sydney to London. That said, is such an initiative necessary, cost-saving, or beneficial to the customer? An Airbus A380 holds about 600 passengers. That comes out to about $0.75 per passenger per 2 kilograms. A pretty average American man weights about 85kg. A very light American man (bottom 5%) weighs about 65kg. A very heavy American man (top 5%) weighs about 115kg. (Pulling data from this chart). This means that the lightest 5% of men would pay about $7.50 less for a Sydney-London flight than average, and the heaviest 5% of men would pay about $11.75 more. On a shorter, domestic flight like Chicago-NYC, those figures work out to maybe a $5 difference in ticket price between a 65kg man and a 115kg man - and that's not even counting in the extra costs associated with spending time on weighing passengers! So with that taken into account, I don't think that this is the best idea. Maybe extremely heavy people who are literally spilling over into the seat next to them should be forced to purchase two seats or upgrade to a roomier first class seat, because it's not fair for the poor guy sitting next to him. But the weight-to-fuel-price argument seems to not be strong enough. Maybe it'll be worth revisiting if fuel prices climb significantly.

tomp 15y ago
There is a lot of evidence that obesity is not hereditary/predetermined, but is a choice (or a consequence of a weak mind/bad incentives). I was in Vietnam 5 years ago. I didn't see any fat people. Look at photos/documentaries of Africa. No fat people. To take it to the extreme, there were no fat people in Auschwitz. That is not to say that it was good in any way and that people should starve, but just that it is not impossible to be normal for anyone, you just have to try.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- heretohelp 15y ago
  Obesity is 100% calories in/calories out. Good thing I'm at a startup trying to help people eat healthy and in reasonable portions without feeling unduly hungry.
  - daeken 15y ago
    Do you have any info on your startup? I'm way, way overweight (somewhere around 380lbs) and currently attempting to get myself into a healthy lifestyle. Anything that makes that easier would definitely get my money.
    - heretohelp 15y ago
      I know you from your previous work, I'll be contacting you when we're ready for beta users outside of our original alpha cohort. Other people: keep my username bookmarked for future updates, I'll be posting the product on HN once we're ready for more publicity. Good luck on your weight loss whether you end up a user of our product or not.
  - moonchrome 15y ago
    Sarcasm ? I mean I'm not saying that people crying about genetics and how they can't help it aren't just wining but AFAIK it matters very much what kind your diet consists of and how physically fit you are ie. carbs, insulin sensitivity and muscle mass are crucial factors, calories in/out seem waay to simplistic.

antihero 15y ago

I don't think 75KG is a good standard weight. I mean, what about people who are muscular? I go to the gym and nobody I know would say I am obese (I am a little overweight) but because of muscles I'm around 109KG - I was 100KG and overweight, now I'm thinner and stronger but actually heavier. So should people who are muscular be exempt? Do we do it based on height vs muscle or body fat percentage? Unless we consider this, there's no way to do it fairly without punishing people for things either they can't control or would in other contexts be a good thing.

bpodgursky 15y ago
It's not about rewarding you for being healthy, it's about charging people for the resources (eg, jet fuel) which they consume. Whether your weight is from fat or muscles, you are costing the airline more than the 75kg person next to you.
- kenver 15y ago
  You're right about the main thrust of the article, however a significant part of the article did argue about health issues, obesity and taxing unhealthy living, which I think weakened his argument somewhat. So as a counter to that side of the piece, I think it's ok to mention the difference between muscle/fat etc.
rahulrg 15y ago
Trying to understand how to factor in "fairness" here. The fact is that irrespective of body content (ie fat or muscle), what counts for the economics of the airline is the total weight. Heavier the passengers and the luggage, more fuel is burnt, and the costs correspondingly go up. I agree with you, however, that the 75 kg choice is pretty arbitrary. I wonder, though, if tickets online can be initially issued at price ex "weight-rate". Everyone would then stand with their luggage on the scales, and pay $k for every kilo (without any limit, per se). To me, that seems more "fair" without setting arbitrary limits that might carry discriminatory or racist overtones.
- antihero 15y ago

VolatileVoid 15y ago

The reason, generally, you are charged more for heavier luggage has got nothing to do with jet fuel consumption and everything to do with higher baggage handling fees. Since handlers don't actually have to carry obese people (that's a job for the person's legs), it makes complete sense to charge for heavier luggage rather than heavier people.

masklinn 15y ago
Baggage handlers are not paid by baggage weight, so that does not make much sense. Jet fuel consumption, on the other hand, is heavily impacted by airframe weight.
- piggity 15y ago
  I suspect the fees aren't always about cost, but rather a subtle encouragement to customers to do certain activities. I had a bike bag weighing 27kg and a second piece weighing 15kg. Well under the 46kg I could take on for no charge. The airline (Qantas) wanted to charge me an overweight charge for the bike bag - but were happy for me to park in front of the counter for 5 minutes while I moved heavy items between bags to balance them out. I didn't really care; it was a financial motivation to keep my weights at an easier to manage level. I imagine that overweight bags require different workers, who might be on a different pay scale - and so there is a cost to moving 27+15kg vs 22kg+20kg.
- vacri 15y ago
  If you have double the items of luggage, you need double the number of handlers to move it through in the same amount of time. Excess baggage isn't all about the weight, it's a just a convenient and public-understandable thing to focus on, and gives them incentive to pack less.
- kahawe 15y ago
  Baggage storage is very limited and usually packed full way more than passenger cabin space.

iamgopal 15y ago

I do not think the actual different is much unless the person is really overweight or underweight. And because of so much additional investment in to infrastructure and training required, it is pretty stupid to actually implement the idea. That said, it will be bad argument to say that it will punish the people for more weight, because at current price they are actually punishing underweighted and have them pay for the overweighted. ( poor fellas, they are underweighted and have to pay for it too. )

mjburgess 15y ago

Should we charge more for disabled people? Does any additional cost to a company mean that it can treat its customers differently? We must have a society where the equality of people is incontrovertible, and we make accommodations for the fact. That a thin small woman weighing 50Kg is worth the same as a muscular or fat person weighing 100kg. To ask one to pay more for a service because of what they are is unequal treatment. The people weighing less are charged more than they would be otherwise, so that everyone has the same price. But their arbitrary birth characteristics that make them under the average weight should not entitle them to benefit in "proportion" nor equally should the characteristics of another cause them to be disadvantaged proportionally. I would prefer a society where neither the state, nor private citizens, were able to reward birth-lottery success at the expense of birth-lottery failure. And im not talking about genetics. Being muscular or fat, a result of a series of choices (no doubt), is still a result of birth lottery. So you had a single mum in a por community that fed you cheap fast food? Do members disadvantaged communities (who are more overweight and unhealthy than the average) have their disadvantage compounded by being responsible for their parents and community?

vacri 15y ago
Well said. This is the real issue at hand here, a level beyond squabbling over simple freight charges.
kristiandupont 15y ago
This is a good point, but surely you will agree that we can only discuss where to draw the line, not whether it should be drawn or not? As said in another post, life is not fair. If we take your point to the extreme, society should even out the disadvantages that come from having below-average intelligence.
- mjburgess 15y ago
  Well there are many competing princilpes, and the way we prioritize them will affect the kind of society we end up with. I believe in this instance, the benefits of equality outweight the costs. If we believe that a "free" market would distribute prices differently so that lighter people paid less and you believe the free market price is fair. Then some small ecnomic harm is occuring, to those who pay more. The social cost of rectifying this small harm however is, i think, considerable. It makes transportation harder for poorer people and perhaps those that need transport the most. And so on. In this case, i think the $500 extra /flight can be distributed across the couple hundred passengers without much to-do.

vacri 15y ago

Yet, in terms of the airplane’s fuel consumption, it is all the same whether the extra weight is baggage or body fat. ... because as we all know, there is no cost whatsoever in handling large amounts of luggage. Which do you think would cost more: 100kg per person, with fat people who had little luggage, or 100kg per person, 50kg in person, and 50kg is excess luggage. As a tall man, I hate this stupid point. I can't help the fact that I'm tall. I'm perhaps 10-15kg overweight, but if I go below 110kg, I am unhealthy. I already have to pay more to get a seat that doesn't screw me up - a seat that still doesn't fit me properly. Meanwhile Ms Slight Asian Woman is getting a much more comfortable seat. She's getting a better service for the same price. The thing is, it's swings and roundabouts, and wanting to charge people a 'fat fee' is oversimplistic.

moonchrome 15y ago
>As a tall man, I hate this stupid point. I can't help the fact that I'm tall. I'm perhaps 10-15kg overweight, but if I go below 110kg, I am unhealthy. I already have to pay more to get a seat that doesn't screw me up - a seat that still doesn't fit me properly. Meanwhile Ms Slight Asian Woman is getting a much more comfortable seat. She's getting a better service for the same price. Well even you admit that you require a special seat and that "Ms Slight Asian Woman" gets comfortable in a normal seat - so there is a reason for the price difference. Anyway this sort of things are best left to market competition, if it's efficient to charge for baggage more than body weight then the companies or if the decision hurts their image they will figure it out.
- vacri 15y ago
  I think you missed my point. I am paying extra for a bulkhead seat that still does not fit me as well as a standard seat for the 'light person' - I get a worse service for more money. Then the guy in the article says I should pay even more, simply to appease his sense of misplaced righteousness.
  - moonchrome 15y ago
    I think you put it nicely - you think you're buying a service, this guy is arguing you're buying weight transfer, I would say you're buying seats, and whatever model makes the most sense should be used by the airline company.

shakesbeard 15y ago

If weight is a driver for costs, do we get a rebate or fee when only half of a flight's seats are taken?

kylec 15y ago

I can't wait for passenger rail to take off in the US. The weight of the passengers is virtually inconsequential - CSX has advertized that they can transport 1 ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel. Obviously people aren't freight, but even if it ends up being 10x that amount of passengers, that's still pennies for an increased cost if someone is overweight or obese.

daeken 15y ago
I'm in the US and way overweight even by American standards, and I take the train everywhere. I'm in NYC and I can easily go to Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, DC, or even Toronto via Amtrak. Certainly takes longer than a plane, but the comfort is worth it for me. If only there were trains to Europe.
- vacri 15y ago
  Tickets are subsidised in the south, too. You can cover a lot of ground for not much money. Get up, walk around, plenty of space, power outlets at the seats, no air pressure issues, something to look at through nice big windows instead of clouds through a tiny window if you're right next to it, no security procedures... there's a lot going for the train.

fab13n 15y ago

Paying by the kg, whether kg of flesh/fat or kg of luggage, wouldn't be absurd. The kg of fat might be a bit cheaper, though: you need luggage crew to haul luggage, but most haul themselves autonomously. A reason to impose penalty on luggage weight is that it affects what people bring aboard: penalties might entice you to leave some luggage at home; they won't entice you to leave your rolls of fat on the ground. But companies won't start selling airfares by the kg: for it to be workable, you'd need a clear pricing scheme, and that's not in their best interest.

vacri 15y ago
It's not the pricing scheme, it's the invasion of privacy that people will arc up about. Someone who is sensitive about their weight - and there are a lot of them - will be very difficult to manage in this situation.
- fab13n 15y ago
  You mean, the privacy of those people who will be scanned and groped by TSA thugs minutes after they've checked their luggage in? It seems that people are ready to give up the last bit of dignity as soon as they enter an airport; if a company could offer a substantial discount in exchange for paying by the kg, many people would cope with it. Not everyone, but enough people to sustain an airline company. The reason why it won't happen is because their pricing scheme is already optimized to extract the last dime each traveler is willing to pay. Introducing a weight variable would mess that system up.
  - vacri 15y ago
    The article is from Melbourne, Australia. We don't have scanners or pat-downs. But anyway, I used to work in a call centre doing anonymous cold-calling social surveys for government. One survey had a section on sexual abuse and rape - and a few of us found it odd that some respondants would open up their private lives answering these questions, sometimes in a fair amount of detail, but still balk at the standard demographic section at the end where they are asked their income bracket. Some magic numbers are more significant than others.

DrJokepu 15y ago

Measuring people's weight would make the already humiliating experience at airports even worse for many people, especially for women. Imagine the humiliation a female (over even a male) passenger would experience when she's flagged at the airport as overweight in front of her friends, family or colleagues. This is an incredibly bad idea and it would be a PR and commercial disaster for any airline or airport that would introduce such a scheme.