Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58
  1. #1
    aspiring tri-national
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    in flight
    Posts
    20,552
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    39757

    Paying by the Pound -- You AND Your Luggage

    As a frequent international flyer, I was bemused by today's article on the theory that the combination of what you and your luggage weigh could determine the cost of your plane ticket: http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/u-s-fl...id=msnhp&pos=1.

    I'm a medium-sized person with a bad habit of overpacking, especially shoes. If I lose weight do I get another pair of shoes in there?

    Seriously, this looks like a discrimination case waiting to happen, but the weight restrictions on luggage do seem to set a precedent that heavier can cost more. I really am not sure how I feel about this.
    "Youth and vigor is no match for age and deceit." -- Prancer

  2. #2
    snarking for AZE
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    katbert greenhouse
    Posts
    30,172
    vCash
    2068
    Rep Power
    50062
    i think it makes total sense to pay based on total weight. however, i'm not sure any company has the balls to start weighing people.
    I feel like I'm in a dream. But it can't be a dream because there are no boy dancers!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    with the traditionless
    Posts
    5,625
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    8583
    A can of worms waiting to be opened…….because while I believe it costs more to fly a 200 pound person than a 100 pound one…it is essentially going to start a bunch of sex discrimination cases. On average men weigh more than women, so men are going to pay more. And once you go down that road of profit being the driving factor for everything....women are more expensive to health insurers than men – so a 25 year old female about to have 3 kids? Watch your rates go up. And why should we hire you anyway when you are about to go on maternity leave?
    What would Jenny do?

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,517
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    The fact is the heavier the load the more fuel the airline spends. I really don't think it's fair for the airline to spend twice as much fuel for a 300 pound person verses a 150 pound person yet in theory they pay the same price. I doubt any airline would do this but I also didn't think they would get larger people to buy two seats. They have total control of the luggage though and I'm sure will change the regulations of weight as they see fit.

    It's really no different than men paying more for a shirt at the Big-N-Tall store over men who can buy their clothes anywhere. They clothing company spends more on more fabric and the cost is passed to the consumer.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In and around.
    Posts
    10,629
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3495
    I could see this not flying because it's men who would invariably be the ones to pay more, as a whole. Women are used to paying more for everything-- clothes, haircuts, shaving razors identical to men's save pink colouring-- and nothing changes. Once men are in the same boat, it's discrimination.
    "How you treat the weak is
    Your true nature calling" -- Jane's Addiction

  6. #6
    Corgi Wrangler
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not Wearing Enough Sparkles
    Posts
    6,457
    vCash
    510
    Rep Power
    5546
    Andora: I dunno, I've seen lots of women who would be paying a LOT of money to fly.

    And I've said for years the airlines would LOVE to bill passengers by weight because it's one more way of treating them like cargo. My brother (whose MBA is in aviation business administration)...does not disagree exactly when I bring this up.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    9,147
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    35029
    I fail to see why a 180lb person is such a hardship for an airline as opposed to a 100lb person that it would consider implementing such a draconian policy.

    Honestly, I am astonished at the rate of support. 40% approval for such a policy? Lots (most?) people buy tickets in advance online. How do you determine price? And what happens if something occurs in the interim that causes weight gain, i.e. pregnancy? Or, say, I got on a diet and lost weight in the interim--can I get a refund? I used to weigh myself quite regularly and when I did I had a set pattern (in the morning, before breakfast, etc). Don't weigh me at 7pm after I ate dinner with all my clothes on.

    It's really no different than men paying more for a shirt at the Big-N-Tall store over men who can buy their clothes anywhere. They clothing company spends more on more fabric and the cost is passed to the consumer.
    I would question the premise that consumers at the Big-N-Tall pay more for their clothing than consumers elsewhere. I'm pretty sure the folks (even the short and skinny ones) at Brooks Brothers spend more money, for instance.

    And besides purchasing fabrics at those fabrics stores that I have no interest in, I'm pretty sure that the amount of fabric used is not such a huge factor in the setting of prices. Some baby clothes and women's underwear costs more than the suits I buy at a place like Men's Warehouse.
    Last edited by manhn; 04-22-2013 at 11:06 PM.

  8. #8
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,830
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    24455
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    The fact is the heavier the load the more fuel the airline spends.
    Fuel is just part of the costs of flying passengers. There are other cost that are fixed and some that are not fixed but not dependent on weight.

    And airlines do charge larger people for two seats. Of course over the years they consistently shrunk the size of the seats and the space between them and then they started charging people for not fitting and acting like it was all their fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by manhn View Post
    I fail to see why a 180lb person is such a hardship for an airline as opposed to a 100lb person that it would consider implementing such a draconian policy.
    It's because (a) they aren't remotely customer focused and (b) they think they can get away with it.

    I remember when I lost 100 pounds and how excited I was to fly for the first time. I thought: now I don't have to stress about the person next to me being sure every time I accidentally bump into them, it's because I'm so fat. And finally I'll be comfortable in my airline seat as I haven't been in years. First of all, the "average" person is too big for the average airline seat. So my seat mates spilled over into mine. Then, even though I was in the middle, they BOTH hogged the armrests. I was as uncomfortable as I ever was. The only difference is that I wasn't self-conscious about it because I knew it wasn't anything about me that was causing the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by manhn View Post
    Honestly, I am astonished at the rate of support.
    People lack sell-awareness. Those same men who hogged my armrests and were spilling over in their seats are probably all for this policy thinking it will show those other people who are so fat and never dreaming that it could impact them negatively even though they are also in the overweight or obese category.

    At least that's my take on it.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,517
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    Fuel is just part of the costs of flying passengers. There are other cost that are fixed and some that are not fixed but not dependent on weight.

    And airlines do charge larger people for two seats. Of course over the years they consistently shrunk the size of the seats and the space between them and then they started charging people for not fitting and acting like it was all their fault.
    So it's not their fault for needing two seats or seatbelt extenders? Who's fault is it?

    I've been flying for 35 years and have got slightly bigger over the years but never to the point of not fitting in the seats-even if they have been 'shrunk' by the airlines. If it ever comes to a point where I do need those things, it will be up to me to loose weight to be more comfortable not airlines making their seats wider.

    Or they could take out the middle seat and charge $2000 for a flight from NYC to Philly to compensate. People would be more comfortable but pay a higher price. It is a money making business so it doesn't surprise me they look for ways to make more money but it's not like they want to charge blondes more than brunettes.

    Yes, fuel is not the only part of the cost but it is one part. More poundage more fuel, that's why they put a limit on the baggage in the first place or pay more for more luggage.

  10. #10
    drinky typo pbp, closet hugger
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    c'est genifique!
    Posts
    29,983
    vCash
    325
    Rep Power
    39317
    This issue came up on another site I frequent a couple of weeks ago. One of the main points (that I agree with) is that people are not shaped like luggage, and can't be stacked - although airlines seem determined to get human seating as close to stacking us on a diagonal as they can.

    If we're going down this road, then why not make the seat widths adjustable in a way so that you move the armrests to accommodate the size of the passenger, so you can fit in as many width-wise as makes sense. This would of course require people to give their dimensions upon check-in, would reduce freedoms in seat selection to get the most people in the plane as possible, and would result in thin people getting seats that are as tight to their frames as current seats are to wider folks. It's all about moving products!

    Quote Originally Posted by snoopy View Post
    And once you go down that road of profit being the driving factor for everything....women are more expensive to health insurers than men – so a 25 year old female about to have 3 kids? Watch your rates go up.
    That already happens. Young men are the best thing, from an employer standpoint, to keep health care costs down. Childbearing age women? oy. we don't even have the option to pinky swear that we're never having children!
    Q: Why can't I read the competition threads?
    A: Competition forums on the board are available to those with a Season Pass or a premium membership How to View Kiss & Cry

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,641
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    8021
    Well, I must admit that while it seems reasonable that my ticket (I'm overweight) and my husbands ticket (who is normal weight) is the same price - our weight range is still close, why am I paying full price for my 30 lbs 2 year old? travelling domestically he doesn't even get luggage, at least internationally he does for most airlines with a fully paid ticket. I think the point is that it all averages out for the airline. This is just a ploy to get more money for heavier people, it is not like they are going to sell cheaper tickets to lower weight persons or children.

    And I think they would get lots of lawsuits.
    Check out my baking blog at http://morethandough.wordpress.com, and like it on facebook. Thanks!

  12. #12
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,830
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    24455
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    So it's not their fault for needing two seats or seatbelt extenders? Who's fault is it?
    You are missing the point. The airlines control the seat size. They made them smaller and closer together (this is well documented) and at the same time started charging people for not fitting into them as if there was no relationship between them changing the seat configuration and more people not fitting.

    In other industries, as the customers get bigger, so do the seats. That's what happened in the movie industry. You don't see them whining about how they can't fit as many people into a theater as they used to so they'll go out of business if they don't start charging people by how wide they are.

    The airlines, in general with a few exceptions, haven't understood how to attract and keep customers for years. This "let's charge by the pound" idea is just the latest in a long line of bad ideas that drive more and more people away from airline travel because it's unpleasant and costly.

    Quote Originally Posted by maatTheViking View Post
    This is just a ploy to get more money for heavier people, it is not like they are going to sell cheaper tickets to lower weight persons or children.
    Exactly. When they start giving me a discount for being thin, we can talk.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  13. #13
    Re-registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Nowhere in particular
    Posts
    5,849
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1561
    According to the piece I listened to on the CBC radio- Samoan Airlines is charging by weight, not number of people, so a thin family of five could conceivably fly for the same price as an obese man. It's a concept that would work really well with small passenger plane, not so much the jumbo jets.
    ‎"You emerge victorious from the maze you've been travelling in." Oct 21,2012- Best Fortune Cookie Ever!

  14. #14
    Just me
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    no place special
    Posts
    6,762
    vCash
    9350
    Rep Power
    1820
    If you want to charge me 20% more for my seat because I weigh 20% more than the set base line, that's fine, I'll then decide if I want to pay the price or not. If I decide to pay it, I'd better get 20% more seat space.
    If this is to end in fire
    Then we will all burn together

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    City of Blinding Light
    Posts
    15,918
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    12302
    Quote Originally Posted by manhn View Post
    I fail to see why a 180lb person is such a hardship for an airline as opposed to a 100lb person that it would consider implementing such a draconian policy.

    Honestly, I am astonished at the rate of support. 40% approval for such a policy? Lots (most?) people buy tickets in advance online. How do you determine price? And what happens if something occurs in the interim that causes weight gain, i.e. pregnancy? Or, say, I got on a diet and lost weight in the interim--can I get a refund? I used to weigh myself quite regularly and when I did I had a set pattern (in the morning, before breakfast, etc). Don't weigh me at 7pm after I ate dinner with all my clothes on.



    I would question the premise that consumers at the Big-N-Tall pay more for their clothing than consumers elsewhere. I'm pretty sure the folks (even the short and skinny ones) at Brooks Brothers spend more money, for instance.

    And besides purchasing fabrics at those fabrics stores that I have no interest in, I'm pretty sure that the amount of fabric used is not such a huge factor in the setting of prices. Some baby clothes and women's underwear costs more than the suits I buy at a place like Men's Warehouse.
    You can't compare across brands. You need to look within brands, comparing like to like. Apples to apples. For example, a specific Land's End ladies shirt I just looked up is $54.00 for all sizes in regular, petite and tall. It is $64.00 for all sizes designated "plus".

    And the amount of fabric used actually is a major contributor to the price of a garment. According to the NY Times, material is up to 60% of a garment's cost. In addition, the costs of making plus sized items are higher for manufacturers for reasons beyond the fact that the item may need more material. The issue with plus sized items is that they often require a different production process than petites, talls and regulars do, including the use of wider bolts of fabric, which are more expensive and which, depending on the garment, can require different machinery.
    Use Yah Blinkah!

  16. #16
    Corgi Wrangler
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not Wearing Enough Sparkles
    Posts
    6,457
    vCash
    510
    Rep Power
    5546
    Quote Originally Posted by genevieve View Post
    This issue came up on another site I frequent a couple of weeks ago. One of the main points (that I agree with) is that people are not shaped like luggage, and can't be stacked - although airlines seem determined to get human seating as close to stacking us on a diagonal as they can.

    If we're going down this road, then why not make the seat widths adjustable in a way so that you move the armrests to accommodate the size of the passenger, so you can fit in as many width-wise as makes sense. This would of course require people to give their dimensions upon check-in, would reduce freedoms in seat selection to get the most people in the plane as possible, and would result in thin people getting seats that are as tight to their frames as current seats are to wider folks. It's all about moving products!
    And you'd have to charge more for people who widen the seats (and more for everyone as you'd fit fewer people on the plane.) Every place you don't fit a person or paid cargo that you COULD is wasted space and empty space wastes money.

    If airlines made the seats larger, they would have to start charging the real value of the seats, not what whiny cheapskates in coach are willing to pay. Jet fuel is not getting any less expensive, while people want to pay low airfares. If you want to see larger seats...fly in business class or in first on short domestic flights and pay those rates (which are a lot closer to being profitable rather than operating at a loss for the airline.) If people insist on dirt cheap airfare, they're going to be packed in like cattle to make up for it. If they demand bigger seats and therefore fewer passengers, they should expect doubled airfares. And more overbooks, because the airlines will have to be sure the flight leaves filled, meaning they have more no-shows to account for.

    As for it not being THAT big a deal...um, yes, it is. Every ounce on an aircraft matters, plus it matters where the weight's concentrated. With the cargo, putting a pallet in the wrong place can be the difference between taking off and crashing. There's a REASON even Southwest won't let everybody crowd up at the front of the aircraft.

    And of COURSE airlines would like to make a profit. They barely manage in some cases and a lot of times don't, with part of the reason being people want to fly, but they don't want to pay profitable rates for a coach seat. There's a reason airlines bend over backwards for business travelers flying business class-they pay enough the airlilne makes something. Since the coach passengers refuse to pay enough to cover the operating costs of the seat, the airlines compensate by cramming as many in as they can. People fat enough to take up two seats need to be paying the cost of that other fare they couldn't fit in. And it takes a LOT to do that. I'm no slender reed but I've never needed two seats or a belt extender.

    Airlines are businesses providing a service using their property, the aircrafts. No one has an absolute RIGHT to fly or to fly for cheap. If they decide to just straight-up charge by weight, get weighed or don't fly. People who don't like the policy are free to take ground transportation.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    9,147
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    35029
    You can't compare across brands. You need to look within brands, comparing like to like. Apples to apples. For example, a specific Land's End ladies shirt I just looked up is $54.00 for all sizes in regular, petite and tall. It is $64.00 for all sizes designated "plus".
    I can when the poster I responded to was comparing across brands. Besides, a man's shirt at the Gap is the same price, whether it's x-small or x-large. The same suit at JC Penney is the same price, regardless of size. I have never had to worry about the price of a man's garment because of my size.

    As for Land's End, I'll just say it. Not sure why women don't complain more about these things.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Thankfukky watching skating
    Posts
    13,674
    vCash
    317
    Rep Power
    41192
    Quote Originally Posted by manhn View Post
    I would question the premise that consumers at the Big-N-Tall pay more for their clothing than consumers elsewhere. I'm pretty sure the folks (even the short and skinny ones) at Brooks Brothers spend more money, for instance.
    Wrong. My husband shops at a bigNtall type store. They sell name brands like Arrow, Ralph Lauren, & Van Huesen, etc. We often see the same shirts at Dillards & Macys, except he pays $75 - $125 per shirt for his; theirs are more like $40 - $80.

    However, I would be violently against airlines charging more based on weight. If the person needs to buy 2 seats that's one thing but if they fit into the seat then the airline needs to charge the same to all.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    City of Blinding Light
    Posts
    15,918
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    12302
    Quote Originally Posted by manhn View Post
    Besides, a man's shirt at the Gap is the same price, whether it's x-small or x-large.
    To clarify, XL isn't considered a plus size.
    Use Yah Blinkah!

  20. #20
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,371
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11617
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    More poundage more fuel, that's why they put a limit on the baggage in the first place or pay more for more luggage.
    No, it's an opportunity to make more money, just like bank charges and cell phone fees and any number of other user fees, surcharges and taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by maatTheViking View Post
    Well, I must admit that while it seems reasonable that my ticket (I'm overweight) and my husbands ticket (who is normal weight) is the same price - our weight range is still close, why am I paying full price for my 30 lbs 2 year old?
    I used to fly with a cat - it was about $80 per trip. She weighed less than 15 lbs carrier included, I personally transported her door to door, she didn't use any services or have any snacks, and she took up no space in the overhead or baggage hold, because she was under my seat the whole time.

    Zero reason to charge me for a cat and not for other hand luggage, but they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by manhn View Post
    Honestly, I am astonished at the rate of support. 40% approval for such a policy? Lots (most?) people buy tickets in advance online.
    Yes, that amazed me too. But then again we seem to be in that mode lately - the answer to everything seems to be to put a tax on it, and for some reason rather than finding ways that we can all live better, people focus on ways to make others suffer.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •