h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-03-25/academic-says-heavier-flyers-should-pay-higher-air-fares/

"Heavier flyers should pay more for air fares than lighter passengers in proposals for a controversial new airline pricing scheme.

Weight and space should be taken into account when flight companies price their tickets, a Norwegian professor has said."

What do we all think of this? From an economic and environmental point of view, I think it makes perfect sense. Especially when you're charged for taking more luggage.

But, there's no way in hell I can see any airline successfully making this part of their pricing policy. There'll be a huge backlash from anyone above average weight, and a huge number of people lying about their weight when they buy tickets. Anyone for extra queues while passengers are weighed and fined?

But what do you think? Good idea, or totally mental?

(Full disclosure, I'm 6'7" and 17.5 stone - so this'd cost me an arm and a leg. Unless I cut off an arm and a leg, I suppose...)

It's difficult isn't it? I've met you, and in comparison to some of the holiday makers on their way to all inclusive stays, you're a lightweight. I'd be perfectly happy to sit next to you and for you to have paid the same price for a ticket as me.


However, I did once find that my (last minute booked) seat was in-between a married couple who'd tried to beat the system, by booking the window and the aisle seat in a block of three. Both were obese. They needed additional sections for the seat belts. When I came to take my place they glared angrily at me! Luckily for me, the cabin staff (it was so impossible that I had to call and ask them for help) were able to move me to extra legroom - but had this not been available I'd have not been able to sit comfortably.

At the other end of the spectrum, little toddlers pay exactly the same price as obese adults. I've always thought this to be unfair. So maybe some form of payment by weight would be a good thing.

I think it is a rational solution. Weight can be determined by scales while volume can be determined by those body scanners that digitise the body creating a 3-D model of your various bodily parts. The question would then be how the payments were made. Perhaps there should be a flat fee then an excess charge to be paid at the airport. Perhaps the flat fee could be set at the 30th percentile level of the average adult - so most would have an excess charge to pay, while 30% could get a credit for coming in underweight etc.

Once passports incorporate memory chip technology then various personal biometrics could be added to the passport with regular updates etc.

One way around this is to pack your body and suitcases with helium gas - although the voluming component of the equation might be the undoing.

ppps If you're prepared to coil yourself up into a tight ball throughout the journey in order to reduce your packing space then I think you should get a discount.

I think at the end of the day it would be easier to have a flat fare standard size and then having an excess category.

When you take a light plane in Nepal, you and your luggage are weighed before you get on...

But I've never seen them charging for excess backage in the waist area - most of the walkers are pretty slimline, and I've never met a fat Nepali.

I think if you don't need an extra seat, then a few kilos here and there are not really the major issue environmentally or economically.

sprout

"I think at the end of the day it would be easier to have a flat fare standard size and then having an excess category."

They do that now. Cleverly, airlines decided to make their seats close enough together that anyone up to 5'11" can sit in them without having to eat their own knees.

They then charge anyone of a sensible, sexy height extra to sit in the "extra legroom" section. In which you might only lose circulation in one leg.

If they discriminated in this way against any other group, there'd be hell to pay. But we tall folk are used to the slings and arrows hurled upwards by the Lilliputian masses.

I'd be happy with a charge per weight, to cover both body & luggage weight. With my relatively lightweight body I could then take more heavy luggage...
There should also be a max limit, so you can't take extra just by paying for it.

My son once got round the weight limit by putting loads of heavy stuff in his backpack (hand luggage).

It's time to bring back the 'I Speak Your Weight' machines at check-in.

Last time I tried one of those at the seaside I reckon I must have stepped on the 'I Guess Your Religion' machine by mistake.

"JESUS CHRIST"

<>

Meh. Try sitting in the main stand at Cappielow. http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r166/swl_album/IMAG0162_zpsf716d1b1.jpg Note, the back of the seat in front is actually behind my knees!

As for airlines, simple solution. Replace the chairs with beanbags.

I fully support the idea of there being a total weight allowance per passenger of, say, 100kg.

If you weigh 80kg, that means you get 20kg luggage. If you weigh 60kg, congrats, 40kg luggage (if you can lift it).

If you weigh 80kg and want to take 40kg luggage, you pay extra for that 20kg, as at present.

Obviously, if you repulsively, disgustingly obese, you'll be paying extra every time you fly even if you take no bags, but that will either (a) disincentivise you from flying, which will make everyone else's day nicer and more comfortable, or (b) incentivise you to lay off the pies. I'm seeing no downsides to this plan.

Except... you can be over 100kg and not be obese. So the question is - are we trying to penalise people for being fat? Or are we simply acknowledging that weight is a factor in airline economics and safety?

Now, much as I detest the lardy, ultimately this is actually a baldly aerodynamic thing. To those people with acceptable body mass indices who are simply tall and well built, I can only apologise. I myself would only be allowed 15kg of luggage under my scheme. I'll take that hit, if it means my petite co-passenger can sign in some of my luggage under her allowance. Ultimately, airline fuel costs money and if you're contributing to needing more of it, you really should pay, regardless of your height.

As for the "it's only a few kilos here and there" idea - you only need a couple of extra kilos on each passenger on an A380 to add several tonnes to the all-up weight.

Yeah, it makes sense from a fuel point of view. I just wouldn't want to be the airline that decides to roll it out to a nation of ever-increasing waistlines.

It'll never happen - which country clocks up the most air miles?

You can do what you like on the plane Mr603 - just please don't sit in front of me at the cinema! (and take of that 10 gallon hat while you're at it )

Wasn't it Marks and Spencers that once tried to make bigger size bras more expensive than the smaller sizes? Didn't work, did it?

I think it would be an interesting and brave commercial move for any company to try anything like this. I can see a few potential problems and some interesting consequences....

In terms of problems, I wonder if it would be vulnerable to challenge on the grounds of indirect discrimination, on grounds of race or gender. If some ethnic groups tend to be heavier than others (which I think may well be true), and as men are typically heavier than women, it could be argued that the measure was indirectly discriminatory. But "discrimination" is only a problem if it's done on irrelevant factors, and it could be argued that weight isn't irrelevant. I think as Hoo says that luggage weight would have to be factored in too, otherwise it would be a, er, case of treating one kind of weight differently to another.

But if baggage is factored in, I can see that prompting a major behavioural change depending on how much the premium is. At what point does it cease to be worth packing cheap clothes, books, toiletries and so on. Smart suits and electronics would probably still be worthwhile, but socks and pants and t-shirts possibly not. This might lead to an even greater throwaway culture than we already have.

In terms of consequences, it's not hard to imagine passenger choices of airline changing, either as a direct result or on principle. We could imagine lighter people flocking to an airline that gave them a discount - presumably appealing to those flying with children, though children typically fly for holidays, so luggage would be needed to be factored in. Conversely, at least some of the heavier passengers would chose a different airline, pushing up that airline's costs.

However, I would imagine that most business travellers - who make up around 30% of the total flying from Heathrow according to (http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures), may not be influenced by any change, as those travellers aren't paying from their own pockets. Having said that, if they regarded it as humiliating or degrading, they may take their business elsewhere.

I wonder how much a company might save over the course of a career by only employing very light pilots and cabin staff? Mind you, most cabin staff are already fairly short and slight, presumably partly for aesthetic reasons and partly because of working in fairly confined spaces.

I guess the main obstacle to any company bringing this in is that it'll be seen as intrusive and demeaning. But although airports are already like that, I'm not sure any company wants its check in staff arguing with the red-faced businessman whose weight is a stone or two heavier than the number he put on the booking form from the last time he weighed himself, a year or so ago....

I don't see any scope for argument that it's intrusive or demeaning. Pretty much the first thing you do at the airport is line up and put your luggage on a scale. With a minor design change, you simply walk up and put your luggage on the scale and get on the same scale yourself - no guessing your weight before you turn up. The figure comes up, and you either pay a premium or you don't. And if you have to pay a premium, you can't argue with the scales.

There's no way the airline can be accused of discrimination, as there's only one question they're asking you - "how much total weight do you want us to move from point A to point B?". They would be entirely uninterested in how that weight is distributed between the cabin and the hold, and why would they be? It makes no noticeable difference to the performance of the aircraft. The total weight definitely does, though.

And if that leads to a cultural change in packing priorities - GOOD! If there's less of a tendency to move tonnes of worthless stuff you're not going to use from A to B and back again, leading to a reduction in the use of aviation fuel, great!

And yes, there might be an argument that says you buy socks, pants etc. at destination and throw them away when you're done. That stimulates the local market, which is a good thing... assuming the stuff wasn't all made in China, of course. I quite like the idea of going on holiday carrying hardly anything and then buying my clothes when I get there. I might do that anyway, next time...

It would promote the use of Kindles, iPads etc. Again - good.

Business class, I would expect, would carry a higher luggage allowance - say 200kg - because hey, they are in fairness paying a good deal more per ticket. Degrading? How? Even business class passengers have to check their luggage in (in a separate queue away from the plebs, naturally), and they still have to undergo security checks. Standing on a plate with your bags for ten seconds is hardly "humiliating", and as you point out, if they've gone over the allowance, they're not personally paying, so who cares?

I think it would be a brave commercial move by a company, and I'm frankly surprised Ryanair haven't already done it. Whoever does it could spin it as an environmental push to minimise fuel usage - which would be true.

I don't want to take that much luggage

so can we have two seats instead, Hiccup and I would come under the 'per passenger weight limit'