Peak Oil News and Message Boards

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.

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

Iaato wrote: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.

arretium wrote: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.

any chance you are a lardass?

kpeavey wrote:any chance you are a lardass?

I assume you are referring to me and my post?

If so, you do realize that your inference is offensive right? I'm sure that didn't crossed your mind and you figured I was a lard ass and you didn't care. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there. I will however point out that your inference is totally irrelevant.

If I was, would you dismiss my post?

If I'm not, does it give my voice more credibility?

Sorry, I'm a normal guy 6',1", 210, I'm an old 35+ something guy now, but still run 3 miles in under 30 minutes.

Do I get more credibility now that you know I'm not? Or are you one of those anorexic gay males that believe male beauty is no more than 140 lbs?

arretium wrote:Charging people for weight is a boneheaded idea.

Why is it a boneheaded idea?

You're suggesting we shouldn't discriminate against anyone and charge everyone the same price? A nice "warm and fuzzy" policy?

Ok, by that logic the overweight, middle-aged, alcoholic, sky-diving, racecar driving, diabetic smoker with full-blown AIDS pays the same life insurance premium as the young healthy-living risk avoider?

Lifting 300lbs of lard to 35000' altitude requires an additional 14 MJ of energy. Energy that costs money.

Niagara wrote:

arretium wrote:Charging people for weight is a boneheaded idea.

Why is it a boneheaded idea?

You're suggesting we shouldn't discriminate against anyone and charge everyone the same price? A nice "warm and fuzzy" policy?

Ok, by that logic the overweight, middle-aged, alcoholic, sky-diving, racecar driving, diabetic smoker with full-blown AIDS pays the same life insurance premium as the young healthy-living risk avoider?

Lifting 300lbs of lard to 35000' altitude requires an additional 14 MJ of energy. Energy that costs money.

Are we talking about insurance or airfare? I'm talking about airfare. With respect to airfare, I'm against charging more for people's weight. I think it's a bad idea. I'm not saying there isn't logic behind your position, because I see the logic, I just disagree. Using your logic, my 2 year old should pay less since she weighs less than 30 lbs. So should my 5 year old.

There's already an industry practice to charge on a per seat basis. This makes sense. If someone takes up two seats, then, as I indicated above, they would need to pay for two seats. However, nickeling and diming people for 5 lbs of weight they carry on their body only plays at the margins. It will also offend too many people. Everyone in an airline counter is going to know why that woman paid $ 450 and the person behind her paid $ 200. They are going to look at the two and judge. Eventually, you'll end up with legislation outlawing the practice in the U.S. And do we really need more legislation in this country? Charging for luggage makes more sense in my view.

I like the idea of charging people by their weight, however going by shear mass is not enough.

Like Niagara said "my 2 year old should pay less since she weighs less than 30 lbs. So should my 5 year old."

It should be done on the BMI,BMI Wiki that way those that fit into the overweight, obese, mordbidly obese will pay more for their fare. Those in the 'normal' weight to height range will pay the normal fare.

It should also apply to long distace coach trips, and even trains.

The 'oh crap, that fat guy is going to sit by me, isn't he' feeling is one that i could stand knowing that I paid waaaaaay less than him for the same trip. might make them think twice about that second pasty.

It should be done on the BMI,BMI Wiki that way those that fit into the overweight, obese, mordbidly obese will pay more for their fare. Those in the 'normal' weight to height range will pay the normal fare.

Wow, socialism at its finest right there.


I went to a restaurant with 20 people. The 105 pound healthy woman ate only what a 105 pound woman should eat. The 260 pound healthy male ate 4 times as much, which is what he should eat.

They should both pay the same amount?

Socialist.

Just let market forces dtermie if its a good idea. Obviouslyu, the price, by mathematics, should be a composite of the seat occupancy and the weight. If an airline figures they can compete by offering a sliding scale, they will, if not, they won't.

There is no real human rights issue here. No more than the insurance pricing formaulas mentioned. Flying is not a necessity of life.

My support of this idea isn't based on any value judgement of large, fat, heavy people vs tiny, skinny, light people. It simply is a matter of paying for what you consume. It costs more and uses more fuel to transport more weight. I expect to pay more for shipping if I'm FedExing a cast iron cookware set versus a computer memory chip.

If I were a rickshaw runner, you bet your ass I would charge more to haul around a 400 lb dude than I would a 90lb little girl.

Cashmere wrote:
Wow, socialism at its finest right there.


I went to a restaurant with 20 people. The 105 pound healthy woman ate only what a 105 pound woman should eat. The 260 pound healthy male ate 4 times as much, which is what he should eat.

They should both pay the same amount?

Socialist.

You have just backed up my point, pay for what you use!

on a plane the 205lb person uses MORE fuel to transport than the 105lb person.

So they should pay the same?

idomar wrote:

Cashmere wrote:
Wow, socialism at its finest right there.


I went to a restaurant with 20 people. The 105 pound healthy woman ate only what a 105 pound woman should eat. The 260 pound healthy male ate 4 times as much, which is what he should eat.

They should both pay the same amount?

Socialist.

You have just backed up my point, pay for what you use!

on a plane the 205lb person uses MORE fuel to transport than the 105lb person.

So they should pay the same?

Your original quote seemed to imply that all fit people should pay the same price.

That's socialism.

All should pay their weight, regardless of fitness.

It will be done someday. I don't see the issue here, if we have to pay by mass for packages, we should be prepared to pay by mass for ourselves. After PO airlines will be almost dead anyways, this at least gives them a chance.

Almost everyone agrees on airlines should be charging based on weight

Yet there is no relative news on the media about this. Howcome they don't think about it. There must be something that prevents them to do so that we do not know.

There's no way an obese person is going to be able to squeeze into one of those seats. I'm sure they make up for the fuel burned to carry the overweight around, by virtue of the fact that many of the morbidly obese MUST take business class to be even minimally comfortable.

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

Probably mostly just bad for PR, and they're afraid of the backlash from the "political incorrectness."

Seems reasonable to me though. As it stands, they probably just figure the average fuel cost per customer based on previous flights, meaning little people are subsidizing big people to fly cheaper.

Cashmere wrote:
Your original quote seemed to imply that all fit people should pay the same price.

That's socialism.

All should pay their weight, regardless of fitness.

BMI has nothing to do with 'fitness' it is a height to weight ratio calculation

mass (kg)/height(M)2

thus this does not penalise the lofty, like me at 1.87m and 80kgs where as a chunky short arse at say 1.65m weighing the same 80kgs would be classed as overweight and therefore pay more.

Back to the future.

In the early days of long distance passenger flight, both the passenger and their luggage were weighed at check in and in public at that. Can't say if the ticket price was based on the total though, or if a premium was paid for 'overweight'. I'm sure aircraft take-off weight was the prime consideration. Sorry sir, yes we have plenty seats available but we have exceeded our TO weight because of this obesity convention in LA.