[QUOTE][Lastly I truly agree that for certain people,they should be weighed/ or have them try and sit in a test seat at check in. I take the MaxZFW seriously and I would like to know that the standard weights are kept to as close as possible which means a lard arse well above 78kg （HKcad）must be designated 2 seats. I'm fed up with all this anti discriminatory BS./QUOTE]
I have to agree with you about the two seat designation. For both the weight issue and the pax sat next door's comfort who may be put off flying with your airline next time due to 'overspill'.
Think alone how the issue may affect the fuel league tables!
You could perhaps have put it in a politer way, though.
Had a F/A at a previous airline who was a tad bit wider than the aisles, I always wondered about her ability to perform her duties in an emergency. As for the OP, I am pretty sure the extension (s) will work. SWA in the united states started charging for two seats if a person could not fit in one, I do believe though that if you can make it through the entry door, the airline can accommodate the seat belt situation.
I am what some of you impolitely term a lard arse. But then I don't get on an aeroplane and turn right. I have enough air miles not to have to sit down the back with the impolite so-and-sos posting here on my personal trips. 'The Company' pays for me to travel J-class for business purposes. So should I have to buy a second J- or F-class seat, too? What use would that be, given that most are 'podded' these days? And that I don't spill out of my own seat anyway. Honestly, the attitude of some here is disgusting.
As for the MZFW argument - well, when travelling as a family I travel with my svelte wife (60kg or less) and my 3 year-old (about 13kg), so I wonder how we average out? Around 60kg, I suppose.
I do remember the story, possibly coupled with an episode of 'Air crash investigations' about a regional twin-turboprop in the states that crashed because of a tail-heavy load balance caused by an overweight individual sat in the back.
Definitely think there is nothing wrong with charging per the Kg/Lb. Weight limits are something I associate with aviation, and to not discriminate against those that take the piss is bad form IMO.
Last edited by Jollygreengiant64; 22nd Oct 2012 at 14:55.
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
In aviation we have a thing called 'envelopes'. Weight and balance is one of those envelopes. Anything within the envelope is acceptable - and if that also translate to a price for being within that envelope then so be it.
Which then leads us to the inescapable conclusion - anything outside the envelope is not acceptable and, if associated with a price, then that price must reflect the deviation from the norm.
Taken from Aviation 101 for the slow of learning and hard of understanding. Helpful for those in F or J.
Pilots did nothing wrong,the elevator travel was restricted due to a maintenance error and the average weight of the pax was 9kg more than the estimated (standard average) weight.The baggage handler thought some of the bags were pretty heavy too ( a comment I saw in the Air Disaster episode).
It was this crash that caused a revision of the standard pax weight used in calculations upwards (at least in the US).The average passenger was heavier than in days gone by.
Taken from Aviation 101 for the slow of learning and hard of understanding
Not really, though, is it? Taken from Aviation Operations 101, perhaps. Certainly not taken from Aviation Business, which is a whole other discipline. Maybe it's only a discipline for the slow of learning and hard of understanding.
Aviation Business 101 - if you discriminate against a passenger group, your competitor will pick up your spill.
In this case (banning fat people), corporate travel departments will not be able to make bookings with the discriminating airline becuse they are not privy to passenger weight information (lost revenue); the obese traveler's family will also not travel with you, so it's often not 1 ticket lost, it's 2, 3 or more (it'd be 4 in my case) - (more lost revenue); 'word of mouth' will ensure that others will also not travel with the airline 'just in case they're too fat' (a bit more lost revenue).
So sisemen, you make the case for the development of a leisure airline carrying ony slim people and their relatives. How big is that market, exactly?
Last edited by panda-k-bear; 24th Oct 2012 at 10:56.
Location: uk mostly, desert lots, searching for lost posts
Recently did the helicopter sightseeing bit in the Grand Canyon. Not only were we all weighed (as a helicopter pilot I can appreciate this!), but there was a large sign saying "All Pax over 285lbs will be charged a supplement" which seemed not unreasonable as we were talking 4-5 seat helos.
It's never arisen in practice, but when we travel, Milady Teeters (who is about 9 inches shorter and 4-5 stones lighter than me!) often comments how annoyed she would be to be charged for - say - 5 Kg of excess baggage, when our allowance is the same.
Try sending a parcel by Airmail!...you'll soon see how much of a premium you pay for weight!
Remember the 6d Airmail letters you used to get from the postoffice, when a surface-letter cost about 2 1/2 d ?
For the youngsters...6d=2.5p so surface would be ~1p (£1= 240d) A "d" was a penny..apparently from the Latin "Denario"...but uss poor, ill-educated kids thought it was short for" Dosh"
Anyway, I'd always assumed that the total pax-weight was well-under the maum for a commercial aircraft. (think 40 ton wagon full of cornflakes or Rice crispies....full up volume-wise but the pallets weigh more than the load! )
So, there's a good case for airlines to charge a base-price for a seat,then supplement it according to the occupant's weight....it would also be fairer on peeps like musicians , who pay full price for a seat for their violin or cello.
With so many of the flying population being"large", the model based on 300 scrawny baby-boomers like me. just doesn't work. It DOES show that the flight-envelope of commercial aircraft is extremely conservatively specified.
(look at the massive overcrowding reported in some 3rd. world cases, yet they still operated "safely" (no fatalities!) albeit the margin was probably a bit on the thin side.)
As a 9-stone weakling, I don't want to be squashed by a huge, smelly (yes! they do!) person who has paid the same as me...subsidising is a perogative of the public-sector...privately, one pays for a given quality and standard......next you'll tell me i can only buy a huge,battleship-quality 3-piece suite, 'cos a lighter, smaller one would discriminate against the heavies.
Life isn't fair ...some are thick, some brainy, some dexterous, some clumsy some big, some small.......the thick, clumsy hoofers accept that they'll never be brain-surgeons..why don't the PC brigade take one of their realism pills and get with the truth.
OP, don't call yourself fat. I can't believe the revolting attitude of some people on this post. Both were over 40 with their skin probably sagging to their kneecaps. I hope your flight goes well OP. And well written to the first couple of replies. They were great answers.
Some of the posters' replies had nothing to do with not being PC. They were outright written attacks. Weight is not a PC issue like religion or race and as such these disgusting people ought to be reprimanded.