Just now, richard_smith237 said:

And many people fly business class to avoid sitting next to people they may not 'appreciate'... 

 

So, the argument could be turned around, If someone is particular about who they sit near and don't want to sit next to a large overweight person, should they pay a premium to ensure they are 'safe' ???

 

Thats more of a devils advocate response, however the point is somewhat valid.

 

This issue isn't quite as black and white as some people are making out. 

 

 

Business class costs, a family with one fatty probably would not pay the difference, plus being separated is probably a no-no.

But, I will not change my opinion, fatty's should not spoil other's flight experience in cattle, especially long haul..... ????

 

Just now, KhunLA said:

I suspect 165 lbs / 75 kg will be revised.  Raised 10lbs/5kgs as a new standard.   Airlines certainly won't like that, and fares will rise also.

That will not happen......this survey is about safety and weight distribution.

54 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Always an inflammatory debate. 

 

But should a fit and healthy 183cm 95kg muscular person pay more than a 150cm 40 kgs skinny girl ???

 

Why ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should loose some 15 kilo at least .....not because ticket price , but for a healthy weight .

 

Not calling you obese , but just sleight+  overweight  ????

Scariest part about the most recent US adjustment to passenger weights:

 

Airlines must increase the average weight of female passengers and their carry-ons from 145 pounds to 179 pounds in summer, and from 150 pounds to 184 pounds in winter. The average weight for males with carry-ons is increased from 185 pounds in summer to 200 pounds, and from 190 pounds to 205 pounds in winter.

 

So, men's weight has increased about 15 Lb, or about 8%.  Wimmuns, OTOH are about 34 Lb heavier, or about 22% heavier.  And they wonder why passport bro's are a thing...

 

https://airinsight.com/the-pending-new-faa-weight-balance-rules/

 

The linked article also has some interesting pontification how the increased weight per passenger may cause airlines to remove some seats they can't use because filling them would make the plane overweight.  On the plus side, bigger seat pitch.  On the downside, tickets will be more expensive...

 

10 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

That will not happen......this survey is about safety and weight distribution.

Exactly, and that would be the point of weighing passengers, to establish a new standard.   Unless a very small aircraft.

 

I worked for the airlines, and did the weight & balance of the aircrafts, so pilots knows where to set the elevator/rear wing horizonal stabilizer. 

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Exactly, and that would be the point of weighing passengers, to establish a new standard.   Unless a very small aircraft.

 

I worked for the airlines, and did the weight & balance of the aircrafts, so pilots knows where to set the elevator/rear wing horizonal stabilizer. 

And how many seats they can sell...

A formula using Body Mass Index IMO would be fairer, although some bulked up athletes with a lot of muscle mass could object.

If someone is so obese they intrude into my seating place on an aircraft, I fail to see why their gluttony should add to my discomfort as a sardine.

11 minutes ago, impulse said:

And how many seats they can sell...

Or, the less mail & cargo they'll be able to carry. 

 

Added fuel to accommodate the extra weight per passenger, again, lessening the available cargo/mail weight, all means higher fares, less free luggage allowance.

20 minutes ago, david555 said:

You should loose some 15 kilo at least .....not because ticket price , but for a healthy weight .

 

Not calling you obese , but just sleight+  overweight  ????

I was heavier when playing rugby at Uni...   and some of my mates taller, more muscular and heavier. 

 

As another example... Owen Farrel England Rugby player is 188cm and 96kgs.... 

 

What's a healthy weight again ?

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

A formula using Body Mass Index IMO would be fairer, although some bulked up athletes with a lot of muscle mass could object.

Indeed - this is one of the points I'm trying to make. 

 

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If someone is so obese they intrude into my seating place on an aircraft, I fail to see why their gluttony should add to my discomfort as a sardine.

Agreed - but how many are there, really ?... I've only ever sat next to someone I'd consider obese, twice (and I take more than 30 flights per year on average). 

 

On both occasions there was a seat between us.

Its more difficult on full flights of course.

 

But, really, outside of social media and photo's how often have we actually seen someone so large they wont fit in a seat ?

 

 

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

I was heavier when playing rugby at Uni...   and some of my mates taller, more muscular and heavier. 

 

As another example... Owen Farrel England Rugby player is 188cm and 96kgs.... 

 

What's a healthy weight again ?

 

 

 

Body mass index is the norm !

 

You could also use the example of heavy weight lifters

...as a bad example for health .... strenght ...YES

 

 

I think the cargo weight is a much larger portion of a planes cargo.  

33 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Exactly, and that would be the point of weighing passengers, to establish a new standard.   Unless a very small aircraft.

 

I worked for the airlines, and did the weight & balance of the aircrafts, so pilots knows where to set the elevator/rear wing horizonal stabilizer. 

Exactly.

 

It is not about determining whether to charge more fatties.

1 minute ago, david555 said:

Body mass index is the norm !

 

You could also use the example of heavy weight lifters

...as a bad example for health .... strenght ...YES

 

 

No 'body mass index' is just something commonly used because it's a simple height to weight ratio and easy for people to calculate and understand. 

 

And... I didn't use the example of a Weight Lifter - I used the example of a national sportsman who represents his nation. 

 

The calculations put him at a BMI of 27.2 and classed as overweight - yet from a perspective of physical fitness he is a professional athlete. 

 

 

The issues with many of the comments is they try and shoehorn diversity into a single pack of rules and that is flawed. 

 

 

When the comments are against people who are obese through their own laziness I'm more understanding as are many.

 

 

 

 

Think we have all done it, got on the plane, found your seat and sat down.

The next thing is closely watching those walking up the isle, scanning for a fatty, when one is spotted, one goes all hot and sweaty, teeth are gripped tight, they stop by your seat scanning the seat numbers, just hoping they pass bye, then euphoria, they pass.......... .................

11 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

Exactly.

 

It is not about determining whether to charge more fatties.

Unless a small plane, they wouldn't be weighing passengers for that specific flight.  Those numbers are already built into the W&B equation, or computer programming, with built in safety margins.

 

Late 1970s/1980, I did the #s on paper with slide rule ????  Last time I did the W&B, 2001, the computer did the thinking/calculation for you.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

No 'body mass index' is just something commonly used because it's a simple height to weight ratio and easy for people to calculate and understand. 

 

And... I didn't use the example of a Weight Lifter - I used the example of a national sportsman who represents his nation. 

 

The calculations put him at a BMI of 27.2 and classed as overweight - yet from a perspective of physical fitness he is a professional athlete. 

 

 

The issues with many of the comments is they try and shoehorn diversity into a single pack of rules and that is flawed. 

 

 

When the comments are against people who are obese through their own laziness I'm more understanding as are many.

 

 

 

 

I can understand  that you as a sportsman and rugby guy are using that for feeling to be a healthy person .....,

as trained to lift that muscle body ......

 

But you could also compare with many other sport man & woman as example Runners , height jumpers , and many more ..... all different and in the sports category and low weight persons

 

While non sport category is determined by other standards for healthy weight

 

But on a plane i would not confront  a rugby player from that your seize .....for obvious reasons ????

12 minutes ago, david555 said:

I can understand  that you as a sportsman and rugby guy are using that for feeling to be a healthy person .....,

as trained to lift that muscle body ......

 

But you could also compare with many other sport man & woman as example Runners , height jumpers , and many more ..... all different and in the sports category and low weight persons

 

While non sport category is determined by other standards for healthy weight

 

But on a plane i would not confront  a rugby player from that your seize .....for obvious reasons ????

To be fair...   much of that Uni Muscle has 'evolved' and been nurtured through love of wine and cheese over the years...    But, I still run 8ks on a football pitch without issue.

 

That said, we're not talking about guys my size as I'm not in the obese category (even by BMI measurement) - I'm just highlighting the flaws in making decisions based on weight or BMI alone as it seems perfectly fit and healthy people would fall foul of extra charges if the ideology of some shortsighted people were employed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, transam said:

Think we have all done it...

Rewrite:

 

"Think we have all done it, got on the plane, found your seat and sat down.

The next thing is closely watching those walking up the isle, scanning for a hotty, when one is spotted, one goes all hot and sweaty, teeth are gripped tight, they stop by your seat scanning the seat numbers, just hoping they sit, then disappointment, they pass.......... 

1 hour ago, JeffersLos said:

No, they get extra baggage allowance. 

 

passenger + baggage can = xxx kg. 

Then our 4 year old could take his complete toy collection with him ! 

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Always an inflammatory debate. 

 

But should a fit and healthy 183cm 95kg muscular person pay more than a 150cm 40 kgs skinny girl ???

 

Why ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes because it costs more to carry his weight.

 

2 hours ago, transam said:

Business class costs, a family with one fatty probably would not pay the difference, plus being separated is probably a no-no.

But, I will not change my opinion, fatty's should not spoil other's flight experience in cattle, especially long haul..... ????

 

And the same applies to people that fully recline their seats I look forward to the time that its mandatory for all airlines to install fixed shell seats where if you want to recline you recline within the space that you paid for

Any price increase based solely on weight is going to be problematic and a hard sell,

Most likely it'll be approached by the airlines as a safety issue, large and/or obese may impede emergency egress, etc,

More weight requires more fuel. The reason you weigh more doesn't really matter. Shipping companies often charge by weight. It seems fair that all forms of transportation could charge based on weight of passenger plus belongings. Next time you crawl into a taxi or uber, there will be a scale built into the car and your fare will be calculated accordingly. 

13 hours ago, sidjameson said:

Yes because it costs more to carry his weight.

 

Careful what you wish for when suggesting airlines charge by weight..

 

... Flights will be full of families and kids who are taking advantage of cheaper tickets because they only weigh 15kgs...  the airline runs at a loss, so they have to put up their ticket prices for the 'average' weighted person to compensate for the cost of the kids ticket.

 

41 minutes ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

More weight requires more fuel. The reason you weigh more doesn't really matter. Shipping companies often charge by weight. It seems fair that all forms of transportation could charge based on weight of passenger plus belongings. Next time you crawl into a taxi or uber, there will be a scale built into the car and your fare will be calculated accordingly. 

 

The whole idea of charging by weight for human travel is very poorly thought out.

There is no viable solution which is fair. 

 

I used the 'Fire fighter' example earlier - Fire fighters need to be physically fit and strong.

They are often guys weight 100kgs and could carry you out of a burning building - why should that guy be charged a premium for his travel?... what about guys in the Military who may be tall, strong and fit?... Why should they pay more for their extra 20kgs body weight than my skinny mate who's on benefits ?

 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Careful what you wish for when suggesting airlines charge by weight..

 

... Flights will be full of families and kids who are taking advantage of cheaper tickets because they only weigh 15kgs...  the airline runs at a loss, so they have to put up their ticket prices for the 'average' weighted person to compensate for the cost of the kids ticket.

Nah, do it the same as baggage allowance, weight over 90Kg and pay more, no discounts for weighing less (unless not taking up another seat).

Just now, BritManToo said:

Nah, do it the same as baggage allowance, weight over 90Kg and pay more, no discounts for weighing less (unless not taking up another seat).

On the surface, 90 kgs seems like a fair limit for a skinny pensioner with a myopic outlook.

 

However, I know sportsmen and military lads who are easily 100kgs...  why should they be penalised ?

 

 

Baggage allowance is fair because its inanimate, it is not reliant on genetic differences, career differences etc...  

People are diverse and singling out any group through any means and charging them more is wrong.

 

A seat is a seat and the limiting factor is if someone fits into it. 

 

Charging for check-in baggage is wrong (IMO) as it compromises safety when people take too much carry on and creates additional choke points at security check-points.

 

If someone is morbidly obese and can't fit in a seat, give them 2 seats, unless the flight is full, in which case, offer them a flight on which they can be given 2 seats (or they have to pay for an additional seat - i.e. an additional child fare etc).

 

How often are the flights 100% full. I've noticed more full flights recently, but still very few are 100% full and I rarely see anyone who is going to struggle to fit in a seat. So a lot of these comments are simply 'pie in the sky' and just a peacocking opportunity for some to show off their prejudice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Should skinny people then get a refund?

I see aother point, additioanl to the operating costs related to carrying over weight people.

 

Years back I travelled for about 2 years Melbourne to Singapore and return every 2 to 3 weeks. Both ways about 9 hrs flying time.

 

Several times the person sitting next to me was very overweight and their shoulders (and more) spilled across to my seat area, making it quite difficult to get comfortable or to enjoy a meal. 

 

One or two times the purser quietly moved me to business class but that's of course not possibe when there's a full flight or if it's an airline that has concern for such situations.

 

Unpleasant to say the least. On the other hand it was obvious, on some occasions, that the overweight person was also feeling uncomfortable about the situation but needed to travel.

1 minute ago, scorecard said:

I see aother point, additioanl to the operating costs related to carrying over weight people.

 

Years back I travelled for about 2 years Melbourne to Singapore and return every 2 to 3 weeks. Both ways about 9 hrs flying time.

 

Several times the person sitting next to me was very overweight and their shoulders (and more) spilled across to my seat area, making it quite difficult to get comfortable or to enjoy a meal. 

 

One or two times the purser quietly moved me to business class but that's of course not possibe when there's a full flight or if it's an airline that has concern for such situations.

 

Unpleasant to say the least. On the other hand it was obvious, on some occasions, that the overweight person was also feeling uncomfortable about the situation but needed to travel.

... And thats just the way it is...  the woes of flying economy class - we take our chances...

 

- We may be sat next to a drunk.

- We may be sat next to someone who farts a lot.

- We may be sat next to a family of noisy kids who wont sit still

- We may be sat near a crying baby.

- We may be sat next to someone who is grossly overweight and spills into our seat.

 

If we are so sensitive that we can't face any of the above, the pay for the comfort and privacy of business class... Otherwise just accept that Eco is going to be rubbish and deal with it. 

 

Additionally so..

- The flight could be empty and we get 4 middle seats to lie across.

- We may get a spare seat next to us. 

 

You never know.. 

The reality is, Economy class, its s#!t, you're never going to be comfortable, you never have much space - its about getting as many people as possible from A-B as cheaply as possible while making a profit. 

 

 

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

... And thats just the way it is...  the woes of flying economy class - we take our chances...

 

- We may be sat next to a drunk.

- We may be sat next to someone who farts a lot.

- We may be sat next to a family of noisy kids who wont sit still

- We may be sat near a crying baby.

- We may be sat next to someone who is grossly overweight and spills into our seat.

 

If we are so sensitive that we can't face any of the above, the pay for the comfort and privacy of business class... Otherwise just accept that Eco is going to be rubbish and deal with it. 

 

Additionally so..

- The flight could be empty and we get 4 middle seats to lie across.

- We may get a spare seat next to us. 

 

You never know.. 

The reality is, Economy class, its s#!t, you're never going to be comfortable, you never have much space - its about getting as many people as possible from A-B as cheaply as possible while making a profit. 

 

 

 

 

 

Lots of relevant points. And yes it's a lottery.

 

On the other hand I suggest passengers are entitled to have some level of comfort regardless of what they pay.

 

Further, I've done many bus. class flights and been less thansatisfied with several aspects of the bus. class experience.