[misterno]

I am really curious about this subject. I think it makes sense to charge people by weight. We all know that every ounce you put in that airplane makes it burn more fuel. But howcome they don't do that yet?

Is this against any moral or ethics form that we know of? Or is it just not feasible? I want to hear your thoughts about this subject.

[Aaron]

So you're saying I can get a discount if I show up naked & starving.

[Cashmere]

[Cashmere]

So you're saying I can get a discount if I show up naked & starving.

Aaron, guys as good looking as us can show up just naked and get the discount.

[dinopello]

Makes sense to me. They do it with freight.

Same could apply to cars - fees based on weight (due to increased wear on public roads), variable storage (parking) charges for size.

[misterno]

So why don't they do it? Maybe it is against the law?

[Gerben]

I think this should be implemented. The problem is that you cannot weigh people in public. Some people would not fly with an airline that did that. So you should do it in a seperate room or even weigh people together with their luggage.
Hmm 200 pound. That small handbag of yours must be really heavy...
If you want to survive as an airline you should realy charge people to what they cost you to transport them. You will also need a base fee though. A skinny person still takes up a seat. And you might end up with lots of children in your airplanes (noisy, dirty little creatures) that require a lot of crew attention.

Road taxes in the Netherlands are already based on car weight btw.

[Daniel_Plainview]

Some states (like California) have laws which prohibit discrimination based on weight / height. Moreover, people who are genetically predisposed to obesity (and who presumably have little control over their weight) would likely file a class action lawsuit, claiming unfair discrimination.

However, if a new federal law were enacted that specifically allowed for this, that federal law could preempt state laws, and weight discrimination could fly (pun intended).

[IanC]

Funny you should mention that. My wife and I were just having this discussion. I think it makes perfect sense and I support the idea. Can you imagine what a uproar this would cause, though? Where would you weigh people? A certified scale at check-in? One last indignity at the end of security? Maybe just have a scale in the floor that automatically takes your weight and charges per pound to your credit card?

Wow, an obesity fee. Seriously though - a seat my 40 pound 4-year-old costs as much as the 350-pounder accross the aisle. Shouldn't she at least get an extra piece of baggage for her toys for free?

-IanC

[Niagara]

I think this should be implemented. The problem is that you cannot weigh people in public.

Why not? It could be done discreetly. Have a floor scale which weighs the passenger and luggage together and displays the total weight. The public wouldn't need to see the digital display.

[Clouseau2]

Funny you should mention that. My wife and I were just having this discussion. I think it makes perfect sense and I support the idea. Can you imagine what a uproar this would cause, though? Where would you weigh people? A certified scale at check-in? One last indignity at the end of security? Maybe just have a scale in the floor that automatically takes your weight and charges per pound to your credit card?

Wow, an obesity fee. Seriously though - a seat my 40 pound 4-year-old costs as much as the 350-pounder accross the aisle. Shouldn't she at least get an extra piece of baggage for her toys for free?

-IanC

Well there's a scale right there at the checkout counter to weigh your luggage. Just upgrade those to handle 500 pounds (to handle most Americans) and you're all set. You can make sure only the person behind the counter sees the weight to avoid embarrassment and public humiliation.

Also, there could be rule that anyone over say, 350 pounds pay for two seats or go in first class. That would be a relief to passengers who have had the problems of people's bodies spilling over into their seats when they sit next to a morbidly obese person.

It doesn't matter if you haul 50 pounds of luggage or blubber ... It burns the same amount of fuel.

[Iaato]

I'm in favor of this one. Maybe it will induce some weight loss, and in doing so, take some pressure off of the health care system.

While we're at it, health insurance needs to be risk-based. Charge extra for smokers, addicts, and the obese.

These will be stop gap measures. The end is near for both airlines and health insurance anyway.

[kpeavey]

People are simply cargo, nothing more. The scales might want to be able to handle more than 500 pounds.
another way to do it is charge an initial fee up front for a ton, including traveler and luggage, refund what is not loaded on the plane. There is also the advantage of less bathroom use, and its cost, on the plane as the travelers do what they can to reduce their air fare just before getting in line.

I once flew from Boston to Cleveland between two fat ladies, didn't see my arms for 2 and a half hours.

[Niagara]

I once flew from Boston to Cleveland between two fat ladies, didn't see my arms for 2 and a half hours.

They're not fat. They're "nutritional overachievers"

[Denny]

I think this should be implemented. The problem is that you cannot weigh people in public.

Actually it would bve easy enough to do, just stand on a mat with sensors. You don't need a giant dial so everybody sees it, just the electronics used for billiing need to know it.

People have a good idea of their weight, so they cold buy tickets ahead with a minor variance allowed, and nobody would be the wiser.

[Cashmere]

Well, if they do it, I think it should be with the maximum amount of shame possible.

Have the scale be on one side of the terminal and the recording agent be on the other side.

Then have the woman mount the scale, and scream the number across the terminal. Hire a really loud person, like me, for that job.

<b>Wife - 284!</b>
<b>Husband - 310!</b>
<b>Obese kid 1 - 160 </b>
<b>Obese kid 2 - 155 </b>

"Total added charge to fly this fat f-cking family to IdiotWorld in Orlando, $350."

Only they shouldn't use U.S. dollars. Everything should be converted to McDonald's double cheeseburgers.

"Total added charge to fly this fat f-cking family to IdiotWorld in Orlando, 359 double cheeseburgers."

Better yet, for the women they should have giant cow calipers hanging next to the scale so they can check the hip width. Yell that out too -

"We got an extra wide one, throw on a two seat charge for this heffer."

Perhaps a little shame is what these cow people need to figure out how disgusting they are.

[pedalling_faster]

that sounds reasonable. charge part for taking up a seat, and part for how much you weigh.

or just have a 'normal' ticket and a weight surcharge.

and maybe a hand-out explaining "Peak Oil" to the customers. maybe the Southwest Airlines stewardess' and stewards can incorporate it into their pre-flight spiel.

though i wonder if they would extend the policy to first class.

[kpeavey]

maybe the Southwest Airlines stewardess' and stewards can incorporate it into their pre-flight spiel.

[s]Stewardess[/s] [s]Flight Attendant[/s] Customer Service Specialist:
In the event of a water landing, you seat cusions may be used as a flotation device, unless you are a fat greasy bastard like that guy in 9A, in which case you should just hold your breath for the rest of your life.

Be sure your tray tables and seat backs are in their normal upright position.

*CAPTAIN*
If you look out your window you can see New York City going up in flames from a food riot...WHOA, there goes the Chrysler Building now, ain't that a sight! When we land at JFK the time will be 1850 AD.

Don't stop, dude, the Langoliers will get you

[arretium]

I'm in favor of this one. Maybe it will induce some weight loss, and in doing so, take some pressure off of the health care system.

While we're at it, health insurance needs to be risk-based. Charge extra for smokers, addicts, and the obese.

These will be stop gap measures. The end is near for both airlines and health insurance anyway.

Why stop there? How about premiums based on how often they have sex, with whom, how often they drink, whether or not they have had mental problems in the past like bi-polar, schizophrenia, past acts of domestic violence, whether or not the kids watch too much TV, how clean their home is (that's a factor ...for something), whether or not they are messy in general, how much money they keep in their bank account, their credit rating, how much booze they drink, what time they go to bed, what time they get up, when they eat breakfast, what they eat for breakfast/lunch/dinner, whether they ever drive above the speedlimit and for how long and how fast.

Let's just regulate every frakkin' aspect of everyone's life. Screw privacy! Let's just implant a wireless enabled RV chip in our head and have it where every time we do anything it is downloaded to the federal government for immediate processing and revision of our rates for: health insurance, auto insurance, air fares, tickets to ball games, costs for food, stamps for postage, and anything else we do.

Charging people for weight is a boneheaded idea. That's not to say that EXTREME CASES of increased charges where people take up two seats (like happened on SWA) or someone who needs a crane to lift them into the plane shouldn't be allowed.

[Iaato]

Why stop there? How about premiums based on how often they have sex, with whom, how often they drink, whether or not they have had mental problems in the past like bi-polar, schizophrenia, past acts of domestic violence, whether or not the kids watch too much TV, how clean their home is (that's a factor ...for something), whether or not they are messy in general, how much money they keep in their bank account, their credit rating, how much booze they drink, what time they go to bed, what time they get up, when they eat breakfast, what they eat for breakfast/lunch/dinner, whether they ever drive above the speedlimit and for how long and how fast.

We have risk-based auto insurance. The more bad driving behaviors, the more you pay in insurance. Why not treat health the same way? We certainly can't go on with things the way they are[s]; the health care system is a lot closer to the brink than the auto industry[/s]. Never mind about the comparison. It's a race to the bottom for both industries.