Airasia X May Charge Passengers By Weight

[Spee]

Jet blue is now charging $7 for a pillow & blanket on flights of more than 2 hours. US airways is charging for tea, coffee, bottled water and soft drinks on domestic flights. And some airlines are charging a fee to those purchasing tickets with FF miles (not included the usual tax and fees--Delta, US Air and American)

IM(non-legal)HO, these policies could easily be made to go away with a large class action anti-trust, as there is clearly a monopoly created by the airline and airport and enforced under the guise of security. It is inconceivable to me why flyers are not allowed to bring their own food and drink on board (and without having to be raped at the post-screening sales counters). As far as opting to pay for airline food (or opting out), if one is not in first or biz, why bother? The food generally blows anyway.

It seems that the really budget airlines have no "extras" to charge for, so they may just have to go with weight.

If these were little 10 seat puddle jumpers flying to the maximum of their range, then maybe someone could make a case for weight. But as far as aircraft go, everything is engineered by and for the airline within human factors ranges (e.g., 10th to 90th percentiles for height, weight, legroom, etc.).

Also, for a large aircraft like a 747 on a maximum range long haul route, the weight of the "human" cargo is typically no more than 5-10% of the gross take-off weight. The aircraft could effectively care less if it carries 400 people weighing 200 pounds or 400 people weighing 100 pounds.

It reminds me of a great line from the wonderful movie "Seabiscuit" when the jockey says in response to a question about strength and weight, "He's a 1200 pound horse, Sam. I'm an afterthought."

[PattayaParent]

Tall people weigh more than short people.

They should be charged more?

Ridiculous idea, discrimination lawsuits will be rampant.

What would people say if the headline read....."Airasia X May Charge Passengers By Height"

<deleted>

[PattayaParent]

AirAsia X may charge passengers by weight

By staff writers August 04, 2008 01:45pm

AIRASIA X is considering charging passengers depending on their weight in a bid to fight rising fuel prices and to "help Aussies lose weight"

The airline is allegedly considering weighing passengers to calculate the overall weight of the aircraft, said AirAsia X general manager Darren Wright.

After Australia's airlines vowed never to weigh passengers, Mr Wright told travel trade magazine Travel Today that AirAsia X is considering more extreme measures to increase revenue if fuel continues its march to $US200 a barrel.

Although admitting the move would be difficult to implement, Mr Wright said charging larger passengers "could help Aussies lose weight".

Mr Wright said the new weighing system would enable the airline to calculate the remaining weight allowance to be taken up with additional cargo.

Peter

Everyone seems to be missing the point, it's not about airline costs it's about Aussies being fat and need to lose weight.

[roygsd]

AirAsia X may charge passengers by weight

By staff writers August 04, 2008 01:45pm

AIRASIA X is considering charging passengers depending on their weight in a bid to fight rising fuel prices and to "help Aussies lose weight"

The airline is allegedly considering weighing passengers to calculate the overall weight of the aircraft, said AirAsia X general manager Darren Wright.

After Australia's airlines vowed never to weigh passengers, Mr Wright told travel trade magazine Travel Today that AirAsia X is considering more extreme measures to increase revenue if fuel continues its march to $US200 a barrel.

Although admitting the move would be difficult to implement, Mr Wright said charging larger passengers "could help Aussies lose weight".

Mr Wright said the new weighing system would enable the airline to calculate the remaining weight allowance to be taken up with additional cargo.

Peter

Bu tthe whole pricipal goes down the pan whn the flight is full of thin/light asians, unless of course they are calculating their costs on people who weigh between 50- 70 kilo's to make a profit and then adding extra profit by charging heavier people more, they would be beter to inverst in more economical planes than alienating the majority of their cutomers.

Helping Ozzies to loose weight? He sounds like the don to me!

this will not get off the ground

roy gsd

Edited August 6, 2008 by roygsd

[wolfmanjack]

I've long been peeved by this, having more than once been charged like a wounded bull for an extra kilogram of luggage while some elephant sits next to me... fair is fair set an average based on fuel consumption per kg, then calculate back. If cargo, mail etc. can be charged per kg, then shy not people? why would anyone want to make it a discrimination issue. Kids fares sorted... Its logic people, and a legitimate business calculation.

Oz

I like this idea. pay by weight just like aircargo since that is what we are for many airlines these days. If you are overweight then take less luggage. many times i fly with only my carry on anyway and that would save me money on luggage charges. Also if i know i am flying somewhere it would give me an incentive to lose weight.

[nidhogg]

What would people say if the headline read....."Airasia X May Charge Passengers By Height"

Well this one would probably say "Yeehaa" frankly. As some one who is on the small and light side, maybe I get tired of subsidising all you tall and large people.

Combined weight and luggage allowance. Up to you how you divide it up. Thats not discrimination - its just fair.

[Carib]

Jet blue is now charging $7 for a pillow & blanket on flights of more than 2 hours. US airways is charging for tea, coffee, bottled water and soft drinks on domestic flights. And some airlines are charging a fee to those purchasing tickets with FF miles (not included the usual tax and fees--Delta, US Air and American)

IM(non-legal)HO, these policies could easily be made to go away with a large class action anti-trust, as there is clearly a monopoly created by the airline and airport and enforced under the guise of security. It is inconceivable to me why flyers are not allowed to bring their own food and drink on board (and without having to be raped at the post-screening sales counters). As far as opting to pay for airline food (or opting out), if one is not in first or biz, why bother? The food generally blows anyway.

It seems that the really budget airlines have no "extras" to charge for, so they may just have to go with weight.

If these were little 10 seat puddle jumpers flying to the maximum of their range, then maybe someone could make a case for weight. But as far as aircraft go, everything is engineered by and for the airline within human factors ranges (e.g., 10th to 90th percentiles for height, weight, legroom, etc.).

Also, for a large aircraft like a 747 on a maximum range long haul route, the weight of the "human" cargo is typically no more than 5-10% of the gross take-off weight. The aircraft could effectively care less if it carries 400 people weighing 200 pounds or 400 people weighing 100 pounds.

It reminds me of a great line from the wonderful movie "Seabiscuit" when the jockey says in response to a question about strength and weight, "He's a 1200 pound horse, Sam. I'm an afterthought."

Where you go wrong is that you talk about the grossweight of the aircraft, you should be looking at the payload. The aircraft is designed to move a payload from A to B, and has to take the rest of it`s weight along to make that happen.

You are talking about a difference here of 40.000lbs. The total extra payload gained after redesigning the 747 to the 747 ER 400 model was 15.000 lbs , and you say that 40.000 lbs is not really important ?

I donot want you on my fuel saving team.

Regards

[mijan24]

What other bright ideas will they come up with?

How's this charging to use the toilet in the aircraft?

Take away all the seat and have passegers all stand

Losangels you must be an airline executive! please PM me I have a special going on helium filled shoes. Trying to round out my selling slogan - No more flying by the seat of your pants more like "Have youre heels push you higher higher etc.

[Mosha]

If someone cannot fit into a seat without spilling over into the next one, why the heck shouldn't they pay more? Think about the person who has to sit next to them.

[billp]

Well, the pilots' slang for "passengers" is "self-loading cargo," so I guess it fits into the overall scheme of things. Personally, I'm for it. Fuel cost depend on weight. Why shouldn't we pay for ourselves by the kilo?

[Briggsy]

Fantastic idea. Implement it on all airlines today.

[dumball]

What would people say if the headline read....."Airasia X May Charge Passengers By Height"

Well this one would probably say "Yeehaa" frankly. As some one who is on the small and light side, maybe I get tired of subsidising all you tall and large people.

Combined weight and luggage allowance. Up to you how you divide it up. Thats not discrimination - its just fair.

Combined passenger plus luggage would be great , i could carry twice the luggage and still be under , what bothers me more than this is the lard ass who decides he needs half of my seat and raises the arm rest so that 'HE' can be more comfortable , even has his elbow on my food tray . I say make them pay , but provide seating they can be comfortable in because they should get what they pay for . Air frieght is detirmined by weight , sea frieght by volume , Canada post on the other hand , both weighs and messures a parcel , the largest amount has to be paid , perhaps this would satisfy more potentioal passengers !

[Spee]

Combined passenger plus luggage would be great , i could carry twice the luggage and still be under , what bothers me more than this is the lard ass who decides he needs half of my seat and raises the arm rest so that 'HE' can be more comfortable , even has his elbow on my food tray .

For those who want to take the "butcher shop" mentality, I only see one way around it. You make all the seats bench seats with movable armrests, seatbeats and TV units, and the airfare is based upon how much width of seat the passenger wants. So if I want a seat that is 30inches wide, then I pay 50% more than someone who wants a 20 inch wide seat. This is a workable business model .... how??

May I remind you that when not flying in 1st or Biz, meaning you are stuck in cattle, like me and anyone else you are not entitled to comfort. Nor are you entitled to whom you may or may not want to sit next to. Nor are you entitled to relief from someone with stinky farts, awful B.O., loud snoring, or almost anything else that makes for a difficult flight.

You are paying to rent a seat that the airline chooses to rent to you. If you have a problem with any of that, then perhaps you need to do more research on optimal seat locations, which flights are least crowded, etc. I know I certainly do. If I'm stuck with flying in cattle class, then I wait until I get the exact seat locations that I want, ideally the exit row which usually has extra leg and elbow room. If I can't get what I want, then I change my schedule until I can.

[britmaveric]

TG recommends larger carriage people buy business class seats....

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.

Passenger Weight

[JetsetBkk]

...Postal parcels we never give it a thought, i mean you send a heavier package .. you pay more....

Not true in my experience. I sent 3 boxes to Isaan: total weight 150 kg - 1,000 baht. I then sent 4 boxes exactly the same way: total weight 68 kg - 2,000 baht. The lighter boxes were much bigger, so it was the volume that was important.

So if airlines had bigger seats for bigger people they might start charging by size. This may be one of the few cases where being dense is an advantage.

[dumball]

...Postal parcels we never give it a thought, i mean you send a heavier package .. you pay more....

Not true in my experience. I sent 3 boxes to Isaan: total weight 150 kg - 1,000 baht. I then sent 4 boxes exactly the same way: total weight 68 kg - 2,000 baht. The lighter boxes were much bigger, so it was the volume that was important.

So if airlines had bigger seats for bigger people they might start charging by size. This may be one of the few cases where being dense is an advantage.

Exactly my point about Canada post , volume is more important than weight when carried by small transport means , everything i mailed OUT of Thailand by air was charged by WEIGHT , that is why it would be good (for them) to charge air passengers by total weight including luggage .

[bendix]

I'm amazed noone has pointed out that Thais will generally weigh less than farang and so will play less, with noone bleating about double pricing.

[wolfmanjack]

...Postal parcels we never give it a thought, i mean you send a heavier package .. you pay more....

Not true in my experience. I sent 3 boxes to Isaan: total weight 150 kg - 1,000 baht. I then sent 4 boxes exactly the same way: total weight 68 kg - 2,000 baht. The lighter boxes were much bigger, so it was the volume that was important.

So if airlines had bigger seats for bigger people they might start charging by size. This may be one of the few cases where being dense is an advantage.

Many shipping companies go by weight or volume whichever is higher. They have a weight per cubic foot and if your package is heavier than that then you are charged by the weight. If it is lighter than that then you are charged as if it weighed the amount they have fixed for that volume. So more compact and just as heavy would not help. Muscle weighs more than fat.

[wolfmanjack]

I'm amazed noone has pointed out that Thais will generally weigh less than farang and so will play less, with noone bleating about double pricing.

Not complaining because it is based on something other than being thai or not.

[britmaveric]

I'm amazed noone has pointed out that Thais will generally weigh less than farang and so will play less, with noone bleating about double pricing.

Bendix - I did point this out earlier. All but a few Farang would be considered overweight and would pay significantly more than their asian counterpart. Be careful what you ask.....

[Nignoy]

AirAsia X may charge passengers by weight

By staff writers August 04, 2008 01:45pm

AIRASIA X is considering charging passengers depending on their weight in a bid to fight rising fuel prices and to "help Aussies lose weight"

The airline is allegedly considering weighing passengers to calculate the overall weight of the aircraft, said AirAsia X general manager Darren Wright.

After Australia's airlines vowed never to weigh passengers, Mr Wright told travel trade magazine Travel Today that AirAsia X is considering more extreme measures to increase revenue if fuel continues its march to $US200 a barrel.

Although admitting the move would be difficult to implement, Mr Wright said charging larger passengers "could help Aussies lose weight".

Mr Wright said the new weighing system would enable the airline to calculate the remaining weight allowance to be taken up with additional cargo.

Peter

What a wonderful idea next time I am flying from coolangatta with this airline can solve any over weight problems by chopping of an ear, wife reckons I dont use both of them anyway

[bendix]

I'm amazed noone has pointed out that Thais will generally weigh less than farang and so will play less, with noone bleating about double pricing.

Bendix - I did point this out earlier. All but a few Farang would be considered overweight and would pay significantly more than their asian counterpart. Be careful what you ask.....

I fly business class. It doesnt apply to me

[PattayaParent]

...Postal parcels we never give it a thought, i mean you send a heavier package .. you pay more....

Not true in my experience. I sent 3 boxes to Isaan: total weight 150 kg - 1,000 baht. I then sent 4 boxes exactly the same way: total weight 68 kg - 2,000 baht. The lighter boxes were much bigger, so it was the volume that was important.

So if airlines had bigger seats for bigger people they might start charging by size. This may be one of the few cases where being dense is an advantage.

Many shipping companies go by weight or volume whichever is higher. They have a weight per cubic foot and if your package is heavier than that then you are charged by the weight. If it is lighter than that then you are charged as if it weighed the amount they have fixed for that volume. So more compact and just as heavy would not help. Muscle weighs more than fat.

Correct, it's called the 'freight tonne' you're charged the greater of the weight or the volume of the shipment.

[simon43]

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.

[\quote]

I love Thai Airways! Forget being PC and tell it like it really is! If you a lard-bucket then either buy an extra seat or pay to travel in a larger seat in 1st class. I wish other airlines would be as honest as Thai Airways.

Simon

[JetsetBkk]

...Postal parcels we never give it a thought, i mean you send a heavier package .. you pay more....

Not true in my experience. I sent 3 boxes to Isaan: total weight 150 kg - 1,000 baht. I then sent 4 boxes exactly the same way: total weight 68 kg - 2,000 baht. The lighter boxes were much bigger, so it was the volume that was important.

So if airlines had bigger seats for bigger people they might start charging by size. This may be one of the few cases where being dense is an advantage.

Many shipping companies go by weight or volume whichever is higher. They have a weight per cubic foot and if your package is heavier than that then you are charged by the weight. If it is lighter than that then you are charged as if it weighed the amount they have fixed for that volume. So more compact and just as heavy would not help. Muscle weighs more than fat.

Correct, it's called the 'freight tonne' you're charged the greater of the weight or the volume of the shipment.

Thanks for the info. It puzzled me because I was sure he didn't measure the heavy, small packages the first time I went, but he got his tape measure out the second time.

[jingjoe]

This story's a beat up of course...

from the Air Asia site;

No Xtra Charge For Heavier Guests On AirAsia X

Further to recent reports in the media, AirAsia X has absolutely no plans to charge passengers by weight.

Azran Osman-Rani, Chief Executive Officer of AirAsia X said: "We never planned nor even considered charging passengers by weight."

[britmaveric]

As I predicted.....

[bdenner]

Forget the weight issue, check out the aircraft history 9M-XAA is a worn out piece of junk flown by some very dodgy airlines. This is the plane doing the Gold Coast KL run.

Link

9M-XAA

Operators of the aircraft

Delivery date | Airline | Registration | Remark

02/05/1994 Aer Lingus EI-SHN lsd ILFC - ret 28/06/02 as N54AN

27/04/2004 Air Algerie F-OMSA lsd from AWAS - ret to lessor 27/08/05

28/09/2005 Air Madrid EC-JMF Suspended operations 16/12/06 - Stored at BCN - To SN Brussels - reg N54AN

14/09/2007 Fly Asian Xpress 9M-XAA AirAsiaX - Named Semangat Sir Freddie Laker

[jingjoe]

I'm not an expert, but it seems a little unreasonable to label an A330;

a worn out piece of junk

...just because it's 14 years old, chai mai?

[tw25rw]

I'm not an expert, but it seems a little unreasonable to label an A330;

a worn out piece of junk

...just because it's 14 years old, chai mai?

Yes. And who maintained them is more important than who flew them..