The weight debate: paying for excess bags when your actual body weight is low.

[Mr. Hat]

:confused:I'll subsidise fatties when pigs fly
By John Rolfe
The Daily Telegraph
November 29, 2008 04:36am

WHY should I have to pay for my excess luggage when fatties don't have to?
Last week a Canadian court ruled fat people have the right to two seats on a plane for the price of one.

Sorry, they're not "fat people". They are, according to one airline, "customers of size".

And today we publish the results of a travel website survey that shows a majority of Australians disagree with the ruling. Most think fatties should have to buy that second seat.

I say we must go further.

All plane passengers should be weighed at check-in, otherwise the obesity crisis will inevitably lead to over-burdened flights falling from the sky.

Checking into a Sydney-London flight in 2005 I was forced to fork over $320 for having 8kg more in my bags than the "limit".

As the Qantas staff member processed the payment I looked at the line behind me. Fattie. Fattie. Bill Bryson. Fattie.

My cash was covering those cows in the queue. Why is it that bags are the only things airlines weigh?

I weighed 70kg (and still do). Add 8kg excess luggage plus the 20kg allowed. That's a total of 98kg.

Some people on that flight weighed 130kg. Add 20kg of luggage and they're more than 50 per cent heavier than me and mine.

Yet I paid more.

Airlines need to introduce the same system for passengers as the horse-racing industry has for jockeys.

Get on the scales with your saddle bags. If you can't make the weight you're off - or you'll have to buy the seat beside you.

And the other side, come to think of it - it's completely unfair for people like me to be deep-fried peanut-butter sandwiched to the wall for 14 hours.

Before I get strung up outside a KFC, I should make it clear that I don't really believe in weigh-ins and check-ins.

Because while some people are unnecessarily heavy, others are just bigger than me. Where would it end? Skin-fold tests?

That said, when will we stop making excuses for people who are too fat? It's bad for them and it costs the community a bomb in related healthcare costs.

Access Economics recently estimated the fat epidemic bill at $58 billion.

Reality must bite, so to speak, some time soon.

Interestingly, the travel.com.au survey of attitudes towards obese travellers found NSW to be most tolerant.

There are two explanations for this.

The first is that people have a finite amount of displeasure to direct at others, and that our State Labor Government has sopped up pretty much all of it up like a piece of bread in dripping.

The second explanation is the stones-in-glasshouses argument: We have more fat people than other states. About 600,000 more, according to census figures. There are so many fat people in NSW that only a minority want "customers of size" to have to pay for that second seat.

Now that's food for thought.


What do you guys think? When or will actual weights be used for economic purposes and for accuracy with regard to V1 VR V2 ect?

I suppose the argument could also extend into other areas such as costs of medical care to the tax payer ect...

The problem at the end of the day with this one is that some people are heavy because they are big - say a football player for example and then some are heavy because they overeat. But is it fair for the featherweight to pay excess bags?

[Capt Claret]

Weighing of pax, from an RPT transport perspective won't be used as it's too cumbersome, and time consuming, and therefore expensive.

As for V speeds, unless the pax load isn't representative of the wider population, ie the 53rd world congress of Sumo Wrestlers, then average pax weights are surprisingly accurate.

My first twin job was flying people from Bundy, to and fro Lady Eliott Island. The strip being only 600 metres, everything that went onto the aircraft was weighed. At one point, Fearless Leader (Chief Pilot) took all the load sheets for the year, and determined that the average weight of all adult pax was, 77 kg! This at the time was the average weight for adult pax.

Now whilst most of the pax were diving types, a lot weren't, and it wasn't uncommon for Ten Ton Tess from Teddington to refuse to hop on the scales because she didn't want to face the truth. Some would even take their shoes off in an effort to weigh less, so the 12 month sample did contain a representative sample of the community.

[j3pipercub]

I agree, and Claret, Tess still goes out there, except now she invites a lot more of her Over-eaters Anonymous friends.

j3

[c100driver]

In New Zealand airlines are required to do a representative weigh of approx 10,000 pax (for the jet operators) and their hand luggage every five years to confirm average pax weight. The survey is overseen by CAA staff, and is taken on different flight profiles.

The last one had an average weight of 82 kg, and this is adjusted when groups outside the standard profile are carried, i.e. school groups or sumo conventon goers

[KittyKatKaper]

Perhaps airlines could have a quiet policy whereby pax that look 'underweight' get (say), 5kg of free 'excess' baggage.

[moa999]

Excess baggage is only part about overall weight.
Rest is an incentive to passengers to keep bags with OH&S standards for the baggage handlers (and frankly for the LCCs to creep a bit of extra revenue from cheap tickets)

[Spikey21]

And a lot of the fat people claim that it is their DNA, nothing to do with a crap diet :rolleyes:

Have you ever seen a fat Ethiopian ?

As someone asked recently, is Canada is becoming the Byron Bay of the world.

Where will it all end :*

[No1Dear]

I have had this discussion before with a light pax moaning as her bags were off loaded and whilst I can see their point of view, the check-in/loading procedures need to be kept as simple as possible for the benefit of easily confused people like me.
Let's not make our jobs more complicated than need be.

[apache]

what about some of the sporting types? Anyone want to tell an All Black, or wallaby that he is obese?

[bushy]

I don't think they are obese. They are fit and healthy.

[Mr. Hat]

There was an accident in the US in a braz from memory where the pax size/weight was a factor from memory. Can anyone recall the details?

Muscle twice as heavy as fat they say but I don't think muscle is that common in Western society these days!

[gsf]

Fit and healthy All Blacks and Wallabies may be over the average weight, but I think they would not spill over onto half of the adjacent seat like many of the lardarses do.

[jodiem]

I'm not getting at fat people as I could do with losing a few kg's meself, however, this is just hilarious. Enjoy.


YouTube - Ricky Gervais Fame - Fat people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX8CKji6Ass)

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Bushy,
Unfortunately fit and healthy sometimes has nothing to do with it. Obese has been applied to me in the middle of my footy playing days when I was having a medical for a trekking holiday. I almost fell off my chair! I hardly had any fat on me, however my Body Mass Index (a height to weight ratio based on the average male and female body) put me on the borderline of the chart's obese category. The doctor (who I also played footy with, so he knew I wasn't obese, or even overweight) said that medically he would have to think about whether he could pass me for the medical. I was about 20% over the "correct" weight for my height, which according to his charts, was obese. I have a very solid build, and remarked that I was probably fitter and stronger at that time than I had ever been, but he still took some convincing to go against the almighty "charts". He spent half an hour on the phone (which he charged me for!) with the trekking company before he would pass me.

[Plazbot]

Traffic guy, obviously your weight was not the only issue if it required a half hour phone call to get you on the Trek.

Want to know what you should weigh?

The Stillman formula.

He fixes the non-active man's average weight for height with a simple formula. He allocates 110lbs (56.2kg) for the first five feet (1.524m) in height and 5 1/2lbs (2.49475kg) for every inch (0.025m) thereafter. He is harsher with women, giving them 100lbs (45.3kg) for the first five feet and 5lbs (2.268kg) for every inch above this.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

No, it was all about the BMI, I could hear his conversation. He said everything else was fine, but for the BMI. He even said that he could physically see that I was not overweight, but his charts indicated otherwise.
I was probably an inch shorter than the doctor, but probably 20 kg heavier than him. Just different body types.
According to your formula I should be 83.6 kg. Back then (20 years ago) I was supposed to be 75kg according to the chart. I was then around 88kg, and am 90kg now. In neither case do I consider myself obese, but if you are outside the curve, you could be labelled as such.
I have had numerous medicals since and it has never been raised as an issue since.

[Mr. Hat]

Ha and at the bottom of the page a "lose weight ad"!

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

Slight thread drift but I've always wondered if it would be feasible to install commercial scales on the ramp such that a weight could be taken for each wheel and then converted into a more accurate Ramp Wt and CoG. Of course this could only be done once everything and everybody was on board so it would not work for planning purposes but it could certainly serve to confirm the accuracy of the pre-loading numbers and to reach more accurate speeds and flight planning figures.

It's probably been discussed and seen as cumbersome and unnecessary and I can see why.

~FRC CB

[Metro man]

South West Air (USA) require 'customers of size' to purchase two seats if the aircraft is full and someone else would be denied a seat. If empty seats are available only one seat needs to be paid for.

Sounds reasonable to me.:)

[Hasselhof]

The doctor ... said that medically he would have to think about whether he could pass me for the medical

The doctor in question is / was an idiot. 88kg and you can't go on a trek? Nonsense. The reason it hasn't been brought up since is because the first guy had no idea what he was doing from the sounds of it.

My own observations, I find it hilarious when thinner people feel that they are being discriminated against when compared to fatter people. Its called reverse discrimination. Harden up, fatter people have been doing it for years.

[Mr. Hat]

FRQ, someone once told me that some aircraft have the capability to know their weight but that it has been deactivated or not installed.

[Antsl]

Personally... I do get annoyed having to sit next to people who are a lot bigger than me ... I just wish airlines would make the fat people sit next to each other...:E

[KittyKatKaper]

Mr. Hat Yeah.., I though, why don't they put load-cells somewhere in the landing gear structure., then I thought about how much force those cells would experience during a 'normal' landing, never mind a hard one !
It's a 'good idea', but probably fails the cost/benefit test.


Antsl I like your idea, but it could seriously upset the W&B :)

[Mr. Hat]

As for the fat vs skinny debate i dont really care as i've never had to pay excess baggage.

I do however think that knowing the exact weight of your a/c would be very very handy.

[blow.n.gasket]

Mr Hat wrote:

FRQ, someone once told me that some aircraft have the capability to know their weight but that it has been deactivated or not installed.

If this was on Qantas aircraft the reason the aircraft may have forgotten their weight is because most of them are now senile!:E:bored:

[Prado]

Unfortunately some pax will use their body weight as an argument against paying excess luggage. I just smile and suggest if airlines start to go down that path, they could start to charge for obnoxious-ness, bad breath, body odour, or other personality traits and that would be very subjective..... and expensive if you annoy the CSO!!!!:O

If a CSO can, they will usually try to wangle seating to ensure that an extra large person has two seats to themselves, for everyone's comfort, but obviously that is not always possible. There is also the option for the pax to purchase a second seat, an option that many frequent travellers do do, again for their own comfort and to save embarrassment.

Cheers
Prado.

[Centaurus]

Back in the early Eighties, Air Nauru was chartered by UTA (French airline) to operate several flights a week between Noumea and Port Vila including a service from Noumea (Tontouta) to Wallis Island. The aircraft was a 737-200.

The loads were almost always full - the few times that Air Nauru filled more than half the available seats in those days. We had a full load going to Wallis and rate of climb was not all that good and in cruise we continually lost 10 knots IAS from book figures. On descent into Wallis I requested a set of weighing scales be made available to weigh each pax and hand luggage as they stepped off the aircraft.

First off was huge Pacific island lady weighing 135 kgs without hand baggage. That set the scene for the others who varied between 100 kgs to 130 kgs with each hand baggage averaging 15 kgs. Turned out the French UTA agents at Tontouta were using "standard" pax weights of 77 kgs for males and 67 kgs for females. Pacific islanders especially women are often big people.

I recall we were actually 1200 kgs over the max structural weight for the 737 and this had gone on for years without anyone worrying about it. After that UTA had to weigh each passenger on check-in.

[bushy]

There has been a case in Australia where a freighter taxied out grossly overweight due to a fault in the electronic scales that weighed the freight. But the aeroplane (an electra I think) was too smart and told the crew about it so they taxied back and had it checked.
I think they measure the oleo pressures.

On a recent flight with Air New Zealand I noted that you can buy the adjacent seat for $50.00.

[max AB]

Pax weight wouldn't be such an issue if airlines didn't rip off pax with excess baggage charges. A typical wide body on a 6 hr flight burns about 2kg of extra gas for an extra 10kg of baggage. So what's that, about 2.5 lts of fuel... some one tell me what that costs these days, I'm guessing but somewhere around 2 bucks!

[KittyKatKaper]

I suspect that the 'out-of-all-proportion' excess-baggage charges is the most practical way to keep too many pax from exceeding their weight allowance.
The alternative would be to get pax to unpack overweight bags and remove items at the checkin counter, which then raises the problem of what to do with said items.

[Led Zep]

The more baggage a pax takes, the less cargo can be loaded. If it simply didn't matter, the CSO wouldn't give a %^&* .

[Cloud Cutter]

Why shouldn't airlines charge excess? They make their money charging for carriage of passengers and baggage/freight. If you choose to bring more baggage than you've paid for (when purchasing your ticket), of course you should pay more - it's not just about cost covering max AB (do you think courier companies charge by weight simply based on what it costs them to carry it and how much extra fuel the'll use). As Led Zep said, baggage weight often directly affects the quantity of freight that can be carried.

I'm quite happy for people to pay excess baggage charges if it keeps the ticket price down for the vast majority of us who travel with a reasonable amount of baggage. Unless you're moving house, I fail to see how it's so difficult to stick to 20-25 kg.

As for charging based on pax size, this is probibly not going to happen due to human rights considerations. I do like the Southwest policy though.

[poteroo]

Just returned from a multi-stage round-the-world trip using Star Alliance partner airlines - economy.

Not once was there any attempt to limit carry on luggage either by outer sizes,(using the standard cradle), nor by weighing what were likely overweight bags. Lots were so heavy that the owners needed help from other pax to get them up, and others were just so large that they had no way of fitting into the o/h lockers. And these were 767-300, A320, 737-400 - not regionals.

On 2 sectors there was insufficient space in the overheads to fit it all, and we were left with our feet on it all. On one flight within the USA, even the exit rows were chockers with hand luggage in excess of the o/heads. The F/A's simply 'did a Nelson'....or we'd have still been there!

It seems we'll need an incident involving falling overweight hand luggage, before there's any move to curb this excess.

With business tapering off all round the world - is it likely that airlines are going to upset pax who've developed this excess hand luggage habit? I think not.

Luckily for us and fellow pax, the A340 we were departing Dubai on was well under numbers,with everything stowed well, as we made an abort at about 100kts and nothing moved a cm.

happy days,