Airline Weight Limits

[marshbags]

There seems to be quite a lot of problems with the limits on baggage these days and as a general observation offer the following.

Without wanting to appear discriminating i would like to post a thought i,ve had for a long time now.

Does anyone else think they should have allowances graded to take into account the weight of the passengers over a certain limit, along with size.

If you are at / under a reasonable weight then surely you ought to be allowed more baggage allowance above the 20 kilo limit and also be able to relax in the allotted space per passenger / seating area.

Some passengers are so big they take up their own seat and part of the unlucky passengers space as well.

Either side if there are more than 2 seats and they are in the middle or worse you are in the middle with above average passengers either side.

I am not referring to the old ect. by the way as i am more than happy to make allowances along with doing my best to help them during the flight at all times.

How can one argue with fuel consumption and weight distribution according to the planes safety load and the reasons for not exceeding their allowances for one.

How can safety be observed should an emergency take place and your movement is further restricted due to the size of others who do make a difference.

There is nothing worse than having your own space invaded, especially on long haul flights in particular.

I can see the time coming when passengers are charged accordingly and having to purchase seats that are suitable to their size.

I don,t have a problem with size as it,s a personal thing in most cases, but why should others be inconvenienced in a restricted area relevant to travelling, via air, road, rail ect.

Many are also very aggressive when you politely ask them to ease off a little and give you room to allow comfort and room to move instead of the straight jacket feeling, trying to eat the meals is a real pain when you cannot even move your elbows ect.

I once flew long haul on KLM from Amsterdam to Bangkok.

I was boxed in by larger passengers who as the flight progressed got a bit tipsy

I asked the attendant if i could be reseated and finished up having a right nightmare of a flight for being considered, inconsiderate as the flight was full and they couldn,t oblige.

I asked in a quiet polite manner only for her to respond like she was on the public address system.

I have never flown long haul with them since.

marshbags and often

[autonomous_unit]

Yes you might have a point. I also think the seats should be divided into classes by legroom and then assigned according to inseam length. I always find it absurd when some little short guy next to me is trying to get an upgrade, when his little legs already stick out like a child's and he can freely kick his feet around. Meanwhile, I nearly have to take my knee out of joint just to change the position of my foot on an hourly basis and stir the stale blood from one part of my leg to another... on full flights, they ought to have one of those signs like at the amusements parks: you must be this ---> tall to ride this ride.

[DFCarlson]

There's an easy solution! Just ask the passenger who owns the baggage to get on the scales with his/her suitcases, and set a reasonable weight limit for the passenger + luggage. If the airline is really concerned about the total weight limit for the plane, they have to consider the passengers' weight also.

I am not a small guy but I have been dwarfed by some men (and women) I have flown with, and occasionally I have had to endure them spilling over into my seat space. I fit into an economy size seat without problem. Luckily so far not on really long haul flights, but it's annoying anyway. BTW long haul for me is New York to Bangkok.

Edited January 12, 2007 by DFCarlson

[ding]

I know what you mean OP.

My buddy buys an upgraded ticket so he fits the seat better. He's a big feller. His Thai Wife loves it. She can really stretch out.

About luggage; China Air is having passengers put their carry-ons into sizing racks to see if it fits. If any airline is going to surcharge for meters of fat -it's probably China Air.

[marshbags]

I know what you mean OP.

My buddy buys an upgraded ticket so he fits the seat better. He's a big feller. His Thai Wife loves it. She can really stretch out.

About luggage; China Air is having passengers put their carry-ons into sizing racks to see if it fits. If any airline is going to surcharge for meters of fat -it's probably China Air.

Is that China Air or China Airlines please Ding

Not a sarcastic comment by the way as there are 3 " China " air providers.

I use China Airlines and it,s important coming the other way from Europe as my hand baggage usually exceeds the sizing rack ( it,s a ruck sack )

Thanks in advance.

marshbags

[Stekmer]

There seems to be quite a lot of problems with the limits on baggage these days and as a general observation offer the following.

Without wanting to appear discriminating i would like to post a thought i,ve had for a long time now.

Does anyone else think they should have allowances graded to take into account the weight of the passengers over a certain limit, along with size.

If you are at / under a reasonable weight then surely you ought to be allowed more baggage allowance above the 20 kilo limit and also be able to relax in the allotted space per passenger / seating area.

Some passengers are so big they take up their own seat and part of the unlucky passengers space as well.

Either side if there are more than 2 seats and they are in the middle or worse you are in the middle with above average passengers either side.

I am not referring to the old ect. by the way as i am more than happy to make allowances along with doing my best to help them during the flight at all times.

How can one argue with fuel consumption and weight distribution according to the planes safety load and the reasons for not exceeding their allowances for one.

How can safety be observed should an emergency take place and your movement is further restricted due to the size of others who do make a difference.

There is nothing worse than having your own space invaded, especially on long haul flights in particular.

I can see the time coming when passengers are charged accordingly and having to purchase seats that are suitable to their size.

I don,t have a problem with size as it,s a personal thing in most cases, but why should others be inconvenienced in a restricted area relevant to travelling, via air, road, rail ect.

Many are also very aggressive when you politely ask them to ease off a little and give you room to allow comfort and room to move instead of the straight jacket feeling, trying to eat the meals is a real pain when you cannot even move your elbows ect.

I once flew long haul on KLM from Amsterdam to Bangkok.

I was boxed in by larger passengers who as the flight progressed got a bit tipsy

I asked the attendant if i could be reseated and finished up having a right nightmare of a flight for being considered, inconsiderate as the flight was full and they couldn,t oblige.

I asked in a quiet polite manner only for her to respond like she was on the public address system.

I have never flown long haul with them since.

marshbags and often

Absolutely agree marshbags.

I think there should be a total weight limit of something like 110 to 120 Kgs - includes your weight and all baggage.

This would allow a little extra luggage for those in the average weight range and leave the unhealthy obese with enough luggage allowance to carry on a calorie counter or healthy living book to read on the flight.

[DFCarlson]

I think there should be a total weight limit of something like 110 to 120 Kgs - includes your weight and all baggage.

This would allow a little extra luggage for those in the average weight range and leave the unhealthy obese with enough luggage allowance to carry on a calorie counter or healthy living book to read on the flight.

I agree! Is what the airlines are doing now based on any real numbers?

Does anyone know what the weight limit is for each bag when you're allowed two checked bags? For a carryon bag? And does anyone know if this is based on an "average" passenger weight? If it is, what is the weight figured for an "average" passenger?

Or better still, what are the seating capacities for passenger + crew for airliners? And what is the total "cargo" weight limitation for those airliners? It might be interesting to look at even one good example.

Edited January 12, 2007 by DFCarlson

[DFCarlson]

I think there should be a total weight limit of something like 110 to 120 Kgs - includes your weight and all baggage.

This would allow a little extra luggage for those in the average weight range and leave the unhealthy obese with enough luggage allowance to carry on a calorie counter or healthy living book to read on the flight.

I agree! Is what the airlines are doing now based on any real numbers?

Does anyone know what the weight limit is for each bag when you're allowed two checked bags? For a carryon bag? And does anyone know if this is based on an "average" passenger weight? If it is, what is the weight figured for an "average" passenger?

Or better still, what are the seating capacities for passenger + crew for airliners? And what is the total "cargo" weight limitation for those airliners? It might be interesting to look at even one good example.

Just out of curiosity, I did a little Googling and found this site:

http://flyaow.com/planes/74eaircraftspecifications.htm

Specs for the 747-400:

No of passengers: 496 min, 592 max.

Payload: 144,000 lb. = 64,454 kg.

Take a rough average of 550 passengers, then payload per passenger = 262 lb. = 119 kg. This has to be the average of passenger weight + luggage weight. It sounds low when compared to reality...

But if this is correct then the 120 kg suggested by Stekmer may not be far off the mark. This is for a fully loaded plane and I have no idea what safety factors may be built into the payload figure (factor of 1.5 maybe?).

[chuchok]

I think there should be a total weight limit of something like 110 to 120 Kgs - includes your weight and all baggage.

This would allow a little extra luggage for those in the average weight range and leave the unhealthy obese with enough luggage allowance to carry on a calorie counter or healthy living book to read on the flight.

I agree! Is what the airlines are doing now based on any real numbers?

Does anyone know what the weight limit is for each bag when you're allowed two checked bags? For a carryon bag? And does anyone know if this is based on an "average" passenger weight? If it is, what is the weight figured for an "average" passenger?

Or better still, what are the seating capacities for passenger + crew for airliners? And what is the total "cargo" weight limitation for those airliners? It might be interesting to look at even one good example.

Just out of curiosity, I did a little Googling and found this site:

http://flyaow.com/planes/74eaircraftspecifications.htm

Specs for the 747-400:

No of passengers: 496 min, 592 max.

Payload: 144,000 lb. = 64,454 kg.

Take a rough average of 550 passengers, then payload per passenger = 262 lb. = 119 kg. This has to be the average of passenger weight + luggage weight. It sounds low when compared to reality...

But if this is correct then the 120 kg suggested by Stekmer may not be far off the mark. This is for a fully loaded plane and I have no idea what safety factors may be built into the payload figure (factor of 1.5 maybe?).

I think you are referring to cargo capacity here

[Jingthing]

People aren't luggage.

Nice try.

It all averages out.

[ZZZ]

Trend: Costing for Heavyweight Travelers

Globesity is a growing phenomenon at a time when rising fuel costs and tighter margins make every ounce count. The steadily growing additional passenger weight alone is bound to have an impact on aircraft loading calculations. One obese passenger with a full luggage allowance can easily weigh as much as two other passengers. It's becoming increasingly hard for airlines to justify charging a 140-lb passenger for 20 lbs of excess luggage without charging a 260-lb passenger for excess body weight.

Euro RSCG said that it's looking increasingly likely that passenger weight will be factored into ticket pricing with a "personal weight allowance," which will mean that heavy passengers will either have to pay extra or not travel. At a time when being overweight is becoming more the norm than the exception, airlines will be facing tricky calculations to fill their seats without overloading their aircraft. It's not hard to imagine the day when airlines start using "10 pounds extra personal weight allowance -- FREE!" to secure a competitive edge.

http://www.m-travel.com/news/2004/07/lowcost_airline.html

[DFCarlson]

People aren't luggage.

Nice try.

It all averages out.

No, people aren't luggage - but they are cargo.

Payload = fully loaded weight - tare weight

Tare weight = empty fully fueled plane

And this website gives the plane loading specs in terms of passenger capacity, not pallets or boxes.

So payload in this case = total passenger weight + total luggage weight

The OP's initial post expressed a concern as follows:

"There seems to be quite a lot of problems with the limits on baggage these days and as a general observation offer the following.

Without wanting to appear discriminating i would like to post a thought i,ve had for a long time now.

Does anyone else think they should have allowances graded to take into account the weight of the passengers over a certain limit, along with size.

If you are at / under a reasonable weight then surely you ought to be allowed more baggage allowance above the 20 kilo limit and also be able to relax in the allotted space per passenger / seating area. "

I simply wanted to see just what a realistic number might be for the weight limits per passenger on a typical airliner, and these are some numbers I found. Sure it averages out, and the planes are not usually loaded to full capacity. But if you want to take passenger weight into account in addition to luggage weight, you have to consider these numbers.

Edited January 12, 2007 by DFCarlson

[britmaveric]

Basically luggage weight isnt about weight really more about charging more. A jumbo jet is fully capable of taking what most passangers have and more. Just airlines being greedy and trying to over compensate for more fuel costs.

BTW - more weight = more fuel burned.

[chuchok]

Basically luggage weight isnt about weight really more about charging more. A jumbo jet is fully capable of taking what most passangers have and more. Just airlines being greedy and trying to over compensate for more fuel costs.

BTW - more weight = more fuel burned.

They also want to be able to maximise the freight they can carry.Airlines make between 15-25% of their profits from carrying commercial freight.The less baggage they carry,the more they can get revenue for.

Edited January 12, 2007 by chuchok

[warwick7735]

Absolutely agree marshbags.

I think there should be a total weight limit of something like 110 to 120 Kgs - includes your weight and all baggage.

This would allow a little extra luggage for those in the average weight range and leave the unhealthy obese with enough luggage allowance to carry on a calorie counter or healthy living book to read on the flight.

Hi all

110-120kgs minus your 20kg allowance leaves 90-100kgs, thats 15-16stone in old money. Thats not average thats a big big person, should be more like 75kgs for the person(12 stone)+20kgs baggage 95kgs total. If your over you pay more.

Warwick

[DragonQuest]

this happened at great america, some fat girl waited 4 hours to ride in the front seat and was told she cant fit cause she was too fat , she cried and everyone laughed at her

[jetjock]

I think it is important to remember that although it costs airlines extra money in fuel costs for every extra pound they carry, the prime reason reason payload weight is so important is for the safety of the airplane and passengers. All calculations for a safe takeoff are based on the weight of the loaded airplane, runway length, outside air temperature, etc. Without getting too technical, simply put these calculations help insure that the pilot has a long enough runway for takeoff and is able to abort the takeoff before rotational speed and still have enough runway left to stop the airplane safely. This is why sometimes airplanes are weight restricted and cannot take a full load of passengers. Weight is critical in an airplanes performance but unfortunately it is one the biggest variables since airlines do not weigh passengers or carry on luggage but just use an average weight calculation which may not reflect the true weight even with a safety factor built in. Everyone flying should hope that the average weight calculations used by airlines reflect the true weight since if they do not, your safety may be greatly compromised. I think we should all be thankful that airlines try to pay close attention to the weight of luggage we bring with us even though it can inconvenience us.

I can assure you that it is not a fun experience to be taking off a 747 and see the end of the runway coming up fast and you have not yet reached your rotational speed and realize you are probably over gross due to incorrect weight calculations. Fortunately with the safety factor built in, it usually only turns out to be an exciting experience rather than an accident.

[britmaveric]

Weighing passengers isn't going to happen I'm afraid, so we can all forget about that.

I believe previous mentioned lady who was rather large sued and rightfully won her case. So in the end it cost the airline more money.

Be honest airlines cram too many passengers in - should just carry less passengers and make bigger seats and more pitch room. Current seats in coach are great if you are Asian size, but rather miserable otherwise especially when lad in front of you reclines fully.

Edited January 12, 2007 by britmaveric

[ColPyat]

Yes you might have a point. I also think the seats should be divided into classes by legroom and then assigned according to inseam length. I always find it absurd when some little short guy next to me is trying to get an upgrade, when his little legs already stick out like a child's and he can freely kick his feet around. Meanwhile, I nearly have to take my knee out of joint just to change the position of my foot on an hourly basis and stir the stale blood from one part of my leg to another... on full flights, they ought to have one of those signs like at the amusements parks: you must be this ---> tall to ride this ride.

Yeps.

One of my pet grieves is when i ask for an emergency exit or bulkhead seat for more legspace only to be told they are occupied. And when in the plane they usually are occupied by shorties only. I am not even that tall, or big, just average - just short of 90 kgs (and no - i am not grocely overweight), and a tad bit less than 6 ft, but i have been on several long haul flights where i could not get my knees straight behind the seat in front of me.

I wonder how the really tall people can manage?

I would have no problem with paying more, like in EVA evergreen class, but unfortunately EVA is mostly booked out by the time i can fix my schedule. Why can't more airlines do something like EVA evergreen?

Long haul flights are torture for me.

[Jet Gorgon]

I agree with BritMav, weighing passengers won't happen because it will be construed as discrimination, especially in fat-filled countries like Canada, US, Euro and sumo wrestling stables.

I don't mind fellow passengers taking up a wee bit of my space (my average weight is 45kg, 46 on a monsoon day), but I get a bit ticked when I get dinged for 5kg overweight luggage and then fatties take all the overhead carryon space, too.

I'd pay a few baht more for bigger space just to make it easier to vault over sleeping giants when I want to stretch and use the facilities. Better air quality would be great, too. Can't aircraft use some of that outside fresh air? Wish I could open a window...

[Shimokitazawa]

I love this statement on Thai Air's website:

Recommendation for Obese Passenger

For your travel comfort,the obese passenger is recommended to travel in Royal First Class or Royal Silk Class where seat is big enough for your accommodation.Should you prefer economy class,however,additional seat should be purchased for your accommodation as well.

[Jet Gorgon]

I love this statement on Thai Air's website:

Recommendation for Obese Passenger

For your travel comfort,the obese passenger is recommended to travel in Royal First Class or Royal Silk Class where seat is big enough for your accommodation.Should you prefer economy class,however,additional seat should be purchased for your accommodation as well.

Ya, and take your screaming brats with you.

[Stekmer]

Hi all

110-120kgs minus your 20kg allowance leaves 90-100kgs, thats 15-16stone in old money. Thats not average thats a big big person, should be more like 75kgs for the person(12 stone)+20kgs baggage 95kgs total. If your over you pay more.

Warwick

I was thinking more of average (Western) passenger weight (plus clothing, shoes etc) = 75 to 85 Kg

Luggage = 20 to 25 Kg (25 Kg before being charged for excess)

Carry on allowance = 5 Kg (or in some cases 10 Kg .... just look around the next flight you take)

Total of clothed passenger + Luggage + Carry on = 115 Kg ... ish

PS - I've had the misfortune of sitting next to some people that could reasonably be described as 'cargo' and should have been seated accordingly.....

[Jet Gorgon]

PS - I've had the misfortune of sitting next to some people that could reasonably be described as 'cargo' and should have been seated accordingly.....

Hope they didn't smell like durian, too.

[ZZZ]

I agree with BritMav, weighing passengers won't happen because it will be construed as discrimination, especially in fat-filled countries like Canada, US, Euro and sumo wrestling stables.

It's also discrimination making normal people pay for the freight of obese people.

Smokers are being charged and inconvenienced for their bad habit, higher insurance premium, restrictions on where they can smoke. The time will come when overweight/obese people will have to face the cost of their bad habits and the inconvenience they are causing others.

[somtaamgaiyang]

I think there should be a total weight limit of something like 110 to 120 Kgs - includes your weight and all baggage.

This would allow a little extra luggage for those in the average weight range and leave the unhealthy obese with enough luggage allowance to carry on a calorie counter or healthy living book to read on the flight.

I agree! Is what the airlines are doing now based on any real numbers?

Does anyone know what the weight limit is for each bag when you're allowed two checked bags? For a carryon bag? And does anyone know if this is based on an "average" passenger weight? If it is, what is the weight figured for an "average" passenger?

Or better still, what are the seating capacities for passenger + crew for airliners? And what is the total "cargo" weight limitation for those airliners? It might be interesting to look at even one good example.

Just out of curiosity, I did a little Googling and found this site:

http://flyaow.com/planes/74eaircraftspecifications.htm

Specs for the 747-400:

No of passengers: 496 min, 592 max.

Payload: 144,000 lb. = 64,454 kg.

Take a rough average of 550 passengers, then payload per passenger = 262 lb. = 119 kg. This has to be the average of passenger weight + luggage weight. It sounds low when compared to reality...

But if this is correct then the 120 kg suggested by Stekmer may not be far off the mark. This is for a fully loaded plane and I have no idea what safety factors may be built into the payload figure (factor of 1.5 maybe?).

Well if the allowance that is published everywhere in airports of 7 kg for handluggage, 20 kg for an economy class ticket, that leaves 92 kg per person. Not sure of the stats, but 92 kg average may exist in the deep south of the US, but not many other places in the world.

[sceadugenga]

I'm a big guy who flies a lot. If I travel with my Mrs I suppose we average out at about 75 kilo each. If I travel alone my regular airline usually sits me next to an empty seat or at the bulk head when they see my frequent flier card.

On the occasions I sit with some one who obviously doesn't like it I try to drink a lot, fart and keep my elbow in their dinner tray at meal times to really give them something to whine to their mates about when they get home.

Also any regular traveler will tell you that baggage weight is more about staff handling. I've checked in 32 kilos in one bag with nothing more than a rolling of the eyes and a 'heavy' sticker.

[Jet Gorgon]

I'm a big guy who flies a lot. If I travel with my Mrs I suppose we average out at about 75 kilo each. If I travel alone my regular airline usually sits me next to an empty seat or at the bulk head when they see my frequent flier card.

On the occasions I sit with some one who obviously doesn't like it I try to drink a lot, fart and keep my elbow in their dinner tray at meal times to really give them something to whine to their mates about when they get home.

Also any regular traveler will tell you that baggage weight is more about staff handling. I've checked in 32 kilos in one bag with nothing more than a rolling of the eyes and a 'heavy' sticker.

Well as least you have sense of humour. I'd drink with ya and let you hog the arm rest.

edited typo

Edited January 13, 2007 by Jet Gorgon

[steveromagnino]

I've worked as a pricing manager, and for some reason there is a distortion in aircraft pricing because it isn't cost reflective; this is based on marketing demand and branding IMHO>

In fact, pricing would ideally be set exactly by size, with the ability to shuffle seats around to squeeze in the most people; rather than 50,000kg made up of 250X100kg people with 100kg of luggage each, an airline could instead have 500X75kg people with 25kg of luggage each.

THen logic continues, if this is the case, why not ban 75kg people, and instead only allow 60kg people with 15kg of luggage and get more and so on.

The issues are that of course you cannot easily necessarily split up groups of people by weight; that size and shape are issues (someone can be 75kg but incredibly wide and thus interfere with the seating format) and that the seats cannot be shuffled around at will.

There is however, some merit is making people pay for weight, which they are brave enough to do for some luggage (not all, there are ways and means) but not for personal weight yet. There is no discrimination issue here; it is based on fact; heavier people cost more to transport and should therefore pay more. Works for insurance, works for modelling jobs.

In the case of airlines, the heavier people currently get subsidised by the small; and don't pay their fair share, as all seats cost the same for the most part irrespective of weight.

I think the dimensions of the seat suggest that anyone under 40kg is a good base; and an allowance of say 20kg per bag per person. This starts the ticker at child size.

Every kilo above that should be charged. Therefore a 75kg person carrying no luggage pays a fixed charge plus a variable charge directly related to their weight. Every single kilo of luggage as well; no hand vs. carry on.

What is the bet that the first airline that could actually do it, would be able to undercut every other airline? Sure...they would miss out on transporting heavy people around, but as long as they weren't massive operations, they could cherry pick the skinnier/smaller people/people without large volumes of luggage. They could also potentially reduce seat sizes knowing that for the most part bigger people would be less likely to get on board. Furthermore, they could introduce higher charges for the seats with increased leg room e.g. bulkhead.

And for the remaining airlines, they would end up in what we used to call 'the death spiral'; they would lose the thinnies who had been subsidising the heavier/bigger people, and then would have to increase their charges for their remaining customers as the average weight would continue to increase.

My guess is for non economy customers, they don't care that much about the cost; but economy fliers watch every single penny. So, this would be an interesting low end marketing deal; make people actually pay for what they use.

In conjunction with this, charge for all catering onboard; every single thing; and serve it; they book the ticket, they also book the food/drinks etc, and thus minimise wasted weight carried onboard.

That's pretty much what we do in yacht racing, and other weight critical things; for some reason the airline industry is only half way there to doing this.

If you are young and male, insurance premiums for driving a sport car are higher, because that is cost reflective on average. If you are heavy and/or carrying loads of luggage, you should pay more, because you are actually more expensive to service.

And jsut for the record I am not a small person, but this is being objective.

For many reasons, the issues of splitting up families and having to launch a new airline brand in an industry which consistently on average is 'a dog' makes me not want to try launching myself. Sure would be fun to be able to recruit the airline trolly dollies though; slim is goooooooooooooood.

[Soju]

Interesting subject. I think though you have to separate the issues. Weight of a passenger and or luggage is a separate issue from size of a passenger. Also carry-on and checked luggage should be treated separately.

From my way of thinking, an ideal (fair) solution would be to charge everyone a base fare for each seat they are using on an aircraft, and then charge them a surcharge for every kilogram of body weight plus carry-on luggage. This surcharge should be inline with what the airline's actual fuel costs are for hauling this weight for the flight. Whether you are very wide person, very tall, short, thin, or whatever size doesn't really matter to the airline as you are still taking up one seat and in the passenger cabin the seating is fixed and they can only sell a maximum of one ticket per seat (with the notable exception of infants). If the passenger cabin isn't full, they can't really do anything with that unused space.

Checked luggage is a different matter because the airline can sell excess space/weight in the cargo hold for hauling general and/or high priority cargo. So checked luggage should be charged whatever the commercial rate is for shipping something via air cargo. Perhaps a discount is applied being the person is also a passenger.

Passenger size is important with respect to how it interferes with passengers sitting side-by-side. But size isn't the only issue here. I've been on flights where rather large people are quite polite/well mannered and only take up their allocated space, despite their obvious discomfort in the cramped confines. And I've seen countless cases of rather small individuals being rude and seriously encroaching on their neighbor's space. So the issue of abusing your allocated space isn't necessarily one of the passenger's size, although size does exacerbate the problem. Blindly charging a passenger extra just because of their size would be viewed as being discriminatory and would not work. Furthermore, if the airline charges more for a wide person who takes up too much space, then they are simply making more money but this does nothing for the poor passenger sitting next to them. The only practical solution that I can see might be to set some limit on the width of a passenger based on the width of the seat they have purchased. If their width is such that they cannot reasonably fit into the seat without encroaching on their neighbor's seat, then they could be asked to pay some surcharge, and a smaller-sized passenger found who is willing to sit next to them, and that passenger is given the surcharge paid by the larger passenger as compensation for not being able to use all their allocated space. Either that or simply force them to buy two seats or buy an upgrade to a premium cabin with larger seats. You could try to have varying width seats within a cabin, but what about people flying together where one person is very large and their companion is quite small? I suppose you could try to make a passenger cabin with let's say the A seats wider than the B seats, but then everyone would want the A seats, even if they were small. Perhaps you could charge some premium for the wider A seats, but then you're really talking about a premium economy seat and airlines have already begun implementing such.

I think all these things are fine to talk about, but probably will never be implemented as there are too many real-world issues with trying to implement them. Trying to weigh individual passengers would mean extra facilities at the airport, plus problems with many passengers viewing weighing of themselves as an invasion of privacy. Plus problems in extra time/staff required to do the weighing and collecting funds. Also people like to travel with a pre-purchased ticket which they know the exact cost of, many times which is paid for by their company or some third party. Paying an airport tax upon departure is bad enough, and many people fail to take this into account and find themselves short of funds on departure. Forcing them to pay for their weight at the airport would create major hassles. A last minute passenger arrives trying to make a flight, only to find that they have to pay a weight surcharge but not enough cash and then need to run all over trying to find an ATM. You'd also have problems with people trying to cheat the system. If the weighing station was at check-in, people would leave their carry-on bags elsewhere and weigh-in light, only to retrieve their heavy carry-on later. Or take out the heavy items during weigh-in and add them back later. And having the weigh-in at the gate would be a total nightmare for the boarding process.

So I think the ultimate answer is that the airlines would probably love to charge passengers based on their weight as it would be a way for them to make more money, but there is no practical way of making the system work. And passenger outrage at implementing any such system would mean the airline would lose much more money in lost passengers than they'd gain in the additional charges. Perhaps some low-cost airline might be able to partially implement something, but I don't see anything ever being implemented across the board. I do see premium economy seating becoming more and more popular in the future as body size of the general population increases.