Are we heading for kilgramme fares ? [Archive]

moa999

13th Aug 2015, 01:28

No.

The key constraint in an aircraft is the cubic area available for sale.

For a passenger, given we haven't yet managed to have a design that stacks people, that comes down to floor space -- so the cost to carry a 50kg person in a seat that is 18" wide and 31" pitch is not substantially different to a 120kg person in a seat that is 18" wide and 31" pitch. Business/ First comes at a substantial additional cost becasue it takes up more of the airplane.

For cargo freight - this is mostly charged on a combination of cubic dimensions and weight.

For baggage - again the cubic dimensions are the key, but for ease of application all airlines seem to use a weight system - afterall most people are carrying clothes/ shoes of a similar density

For cabin baggage - its partially constrained by the size of the bins, but the weight restriction (if ever enforced) also effectively limits the size.

Granted that for some planes at the limit of MTOW that individual pax weights can make a difference

neville_nobody

13th Aug 2015, 02:04

Thats not actually true in that the 120kg person is costing you more to carry than the 50kg person for the same sector. So even though they paid the same fare the fat guy is costing you more to carry. Multiply that out over your network over a year and there are some eyewatering numbers!

In reality a kilo fare probably represents the true cost of carriage but I can't see how you are going to market that. Maybe thats why freight airlines are so profitable!

moa999

13th Aug 2015, 02:49

OK....

So lets take a plane full of 50kg people flying SYD-MEL each paying $150 for their ticket.
And lets take a second plane of 100kg people only half occupied each also paying $150.
Same total pax weight, so same freight capacity.

Which flight makes money?

Fill up the second plane - and it is only adding 8t of weight (assume 737 160-seat) - What is the marginal fuel cost of this? And/or lost revenue compared to displacing freight.

Metro man

13th Aug 2015, 02:52

chuboy

13th Aug 2015, 04:26

Like Southwest charging for check in bags, the airline that manages to market this to lighter pax as a way of saving them money is going to be just the first domino to fall. The fruit is there to be picked in terms of less conservative fuel and freight loading.

I'm no airline exec, but the way I'd do it is introduce it slowly using an optional trial period over a year where customers get a discount on their fare when they book if they provide their weight in advance. The discount gets credited at check-in as long as their weight is within tolerance of what they put in the reservation. Offering the carrot like this to start with will get all the punters on board with the idea.

After that, you quietly tweak the online reservation system so that the price on the screen becomes the defacto "heaviest passenger" price and if you enter your actual weight and it is closer to the norm, you get a decent discount to reflect the true cost of carriage. As long as the majority of people feel like they are getting a good deal (which they will, unless they are obese) then they will happily continue to provide the info.

Meanwhile route planners will now have an accurate idea ahead of time now, exactly what the weight of the pax will be. Weigh the hold baggage and assume a nominal 7kg for hand baggage. You could easily have a couple tonnes difference per leg over what you used to assume. That equals big fuel savings over the whole network, and presents an opportunity to optimise the way freight is carried, and even to allocate seating according to optimal CG. If you employed really clever analysts you might be able to save fuel and carry more freight.

Jet A1 is not getting any cheaper. I expect to see this become commonplace before I'm too old to travel anymore.

Snakecharma

13th Aug 2015, 05:16

chuboy

13th Aug 2015, 05:22

It will never happen and really does it need to?

How many aeroplanes are plunging to their destruction because some bloke had too many sausage rolls yesterday?

We have a lot of problems in the airline industry - this ain't one of them....

It's not that it's a safety issue. But airlines may well be wasting a lot of money, either by leaving freight behind or by carrying more fuel than they really need, because they don't really know what the total pax load is in kg.

Some executive somewhere in the industry is going to make or break their career trying to implement this and make it mainstream in our lifetimes.

Icarus2001

13th Aug 2015, 05:32

Jet A1 is not getting any cheaper.

Well you obviously have not being paying attention.

http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/image.aspx?commodity=jet-fuel

chuboy

13th Aug 2015, 05:48

Blimey, you're right! If you extrapolate that trend out, by the New Year the oil companies will be paying the airlines 10c/gal to fill up! :ugh:

Ollie Onion

13th Aug 2015, 06:22

I don't see he advantage. At our airline the flight crew produce the load sheet on the 25 minute turnaround, implementing this policy will mean longer checkin times and would result in me having to enter up to 180 individual weight figures to produce a load sheet. That is going to be more of a danger than the current system. I think the average weights would prove to be just as accurate, when my family travels I am near to 100 kg, my wife is 52 kg so the average for us is 76kg. So the net effect of all that farting around is that my wife and I pay the same as what we currently do as my ticket is more expensive but hers would be cheaper :ugh:

You don't see many RPT aircraft falling from the skies due to pax weight inaccuracies, it is not a problem so don't fix it. Also if I am going to pay a premium because of my 1.95m frame then I want a bigger seat and more legroom, surely those short, light people who pay less can make do with a thinner seat and less legroom?

Snakecharma

13th Aug 2015, 09:06

Chuboy, our airline does standard pax weight surveys every couple of years and the standard weights used in the load control system are accurate enough for day to day use.

Where one flight might be able to take a couple of hundred kg more freight the next one might lose a couple of hundred kg, so overall the benefit is, in my humble opinion, likely to be not worth the considerable effort.

At the end of the day, if it is a safety issue we would see aeroplanes with weight and balance issues every day, which we don't. If we were seeing weight being left behind every day then management would be bleating loudly and whilst management tend to bleat loudly all the time it isn't about this issue.

I just can't see it happening. Weighing every punter and then using the data in the load control system adds complexity. complexity adds cost and cost is something most managers want to avoid. Not even to broach the fact that most, if not all, major load control systems could not accept a seat based weight for each punter, so it wouldn't happen for years if it did happen.

Metro man

13th Aug 2015, 11:42

The A320 can "weigh" itself inflight by using AoA and air data to compute what it thinks it weighs. Usually it comes out below the load sheet with Asian passengers, Aussies were a different matter.;)

striker26

13th Aug 2015, 13:20

This idea of charging by weight has discrimination, ethics and lawsuits written all over it. I think, like chuboy, there should be a base fare (like now) where you get a percentage discount for every lets say X amount of weight you are under the standard (the standard could be set universally).

If you're a business traveler going for a day round trip for example and don't have any luggage, you can use that weight savings to your body weight to save. If you re a child and weigh very little, you pay less. If you travel frequently, you get forgiven for your weight more you fly etc.

It only makes sense to do this and it will happen because you can only limit carry on and check in luggage so far. Weight has a direct impact on fuel savings, and i don't see electric and solar powered 300 seat passenger planes in this lifetime. If you pay more or less should be determined when you weigh your baggage, everyone step onto belt as well :)

Snakecharma

13th Aug 2015, 23:31

I can't believe that so many people here think this is a reasonable thing and it is inevitable!

FFS we have issues coming out of the rafters and many are safety related - fatigue, tighter schedules and turn arounds, security and the embuggerance that it is on our daily lives to name a few.

Do we really need to encourage some clown fresh from business school to look at this seriously? I do appreciate that the readers of pprune are unlikely to be the serious movers and shakers in our industry who have the ability to influence these things, but some moron with a MBA and higher positions in sight might read this crap and decide to give it a go....

When we have a serious go at managing weight by way of a proper weight budget for the aeroplanes, stripping old paint off before repaints, drying insulation and carpets on a heavy check so they don't carry hundreds of kg of moisture into the airframe, actually getting the industrial vacuum out and getting all the dust and dirt out of the airframe when it is stripped for a check, put in light weight seats, properly manage the catering so it isn't a bloated mess in terms of weight, print the inflight mag on lighter paper - or better still make it an emag on the IFE, use actual SG's for fuel and not an average, clean the aeroplanes on the outside to remove dirt, oil etc so the machines are more fuel efficient with less parasitic drag, properly rig the flight controls so there is no inefficiencies with surfaces sitting minutely into the airflow when they don't need to be, do water washes on the engines to remove internal deposits and maximise EGT margins just to name a few - when we have done all of those things we can may be come back to this idiotic idea and discover how manifestly inefficient it will be from a check in and load and trim management perspective and see how it actually introduces errors with no corresponding increase in safety.

Apart from those issues I am all for it!

Capt Claret

14th Aug 2015, 01:10

How is charging by weight discriminatory or unethical? Assuming the same rate per kg for all comers, of course.

Having said that, imagine she bun fight at the airport when Bloggs and/or Bloggsette roll up having booked and paid on the interweb, and the airport scales who that they've either not been entirely truthful, or, the home scales just happen to under-read. And so they fight the demand for the extra dollars.

YPJT

14th Aug 2015, 03:45

The airlines could then apply this across the board. Tech and cabin crew have salaries adjusted dependant upon their weight. What's good for the goose.....

404 Titan

14th Aug 2015, 04:16

Capt Claret
How is charging by weight discriminatory or unethical? Assuming the same rate per kg for all comers, of course.
It would actually be illegal under the Commonwealth "Disability Discrimination Act" where treating someone differently because of apperence or physical difference would end up with you being in very hot water. It's irrelevant that the price per kilogram is the same. It's the end price that is what would breach the Act.

megan

14th Aug 2015, 04:30

It's irrelevant that the price per kilogram is the same. It's the end price that is what would breach the Act.I'll tell that to my butcher. 10K of sirloin should be the same price as 1K. :p

Would love it if it were feasible to pay by weight, but the means to make it work are not available, nor attainable. I can appreciate a light weight person objecting to pay for being a few kilos over the baggage allowance, when a porker behind him/her in the line has double the total weight (baggage include) and pays nothing extra.

YPJT

14th Aug 2015, 04:32

Very good point 404. Whilst we're all beating ourselves about the various pros and cons, we missed the elephant in the room.:D

Bankstown Boy

14th Aug 2015, 04:32

I am 204cm tall - by the "normal' standards - I am not overweight at 104kg.

Attempting to charge me more than a "normal" 76kg person would absolutely be discrimination and would be actionable in Australia.

I have always been amused that this idea comes up every 6 months or so, with the protagonists rarely, if ever, thinking about the logical consequences.:ugh:

chuboy

14th Aug 2015, 05:09

Capt Claret

It would actually be illegal under the Commonwealth "Disability Discrimination Act" where treating someone differently because of apperence or physical difference would end up with you being in very hot water. It's irrelevant that the price per kilogram is the same. It's the end price that is what would breach the Act.

I don't believe it is strictly illegal under the DDA. This isn't about charging people with disabilities (whether or not obesity is considered a disability in Aus is another question) more for the same service.

In this case, someone who weights 150kg would pay the same regardless of whether they are considered disabled under the Act. There is no discrimination against the disabled, there is discrimination based on weight - but remember discrimination in and of itself is not necessarily unlawful.

In any case, snakecharma has already provided a nice long laundry list of places to improve which aspiring MBAs will be pleased to make use of in pursuit of their next promotion. Only outdated systems are slowing down the widespread adoption of individual pax weighing. But I'm sure people said the same about charging people for printing a boarding pass, checking in a bag at the airport, etc, before that become mainstream.

neville_nobody

14th Aug 2015, 06:00

It would actually be illegal under the Commonwealth "Disability Discrimination Act" where treating someone differently because of apperence or physical difference would end up with you being in very hot water. It's irrelevant that the price per kilogram is the same. It's the end price that is what would breach the Act.

Except that it actually costs more to carry a heavier person (especially so on a long haul sector). So the same argument in reverse is why does the 50kg lady have to subsidised an overweight guy at 130kg?

Don't forget that you would be charging carry-on and baggage per kilo here as well. So same argument. If someone only needs a day trip bag in the cabin why should they subsidise one of these people who push all the limits with carry-on and checked lugagge.

I am 204cm tall - by the "normal' standards - I am not overweight at 104kg.

Attempting to charge me more than a "normal" 76kg person would absolutely be discrimination and would be actionable in Australia.

However there is no 'normal' fare in this scenario. You would be charged 'per kilo' of carriage.

Just like your water bill and electricity bill.

At the end of the day I would imagine that this would have already been done by the likes of Ryanair if it was possible to do so. But it's an interesting argument none the less.:ok:

Capt Claret

14th Aug 2015, 06:20

I reckon charging per kg would be problematical and am not suggesting that it's viable, but I can't see how it's discriminatory if everyone pays the same rate/kg. Where is the discrimination?

The Bullwinkle

14th Aug 2015, 06:57

What about the 50kg woman with 25kg of luggage!
Because the baggage limit is 20kg, she'll get charged $10 per kilo for the additional 5kg.
She'll be slugged an extra $50, while the 130kg man with only carry-on pays nothing, yet he is an additional 55kg heavier than the woman's total weight!
Now that's discriminatory!

BNEA320

14th Aug 2015, 07:11

Not that hard. A base fare with say 20 kilo increments. If it means airlines can advertise cheaper fares everyone wins. Ie passengers. Crew. Airlines. Look at what lcc s have done. Created more work for everyone.

404 Titan

14th Aug 2015, 07:39

megan
I'll tell that to my butcher. 10K of sirloin should be the same price as 1K.
I’m sure you are just being tongue in cheek but the DDA only applies to humans.

chuboy, neville_nobody, Capt Claret, The Bullwinkle & BNEA320

The name of the “Disability Discrimination Act” is a misnomer. It should be called the “Physical & Mental Differences Discrimination Act” because a careful read of the act is exactly what it’s covering. You “CANNOT” under any circumstances charge a person a different price because of their weight, even if it costs you more to deliver that service to them. If you do, you will be in a sh*t load of grief, not to mention the understandable moral outcry from society.

Trent 972

14th Aug 2015, 07:46

ULH flight between 13 to 15 hours on 380/747 etc. rough extra fuel burn/weight carried is a third. i.e.. carry an extra tonne of fuel, you will burn 330kg just to carry it.
By extension, a 75kg pax will require 25kg of fuel to carry their weight on that ULH flight (ignoring aircraft/catering etc. - just the person) and a twice the size 150kg giant will need 50kg of fuel, an extra 25kg. (35 litres or so// about $50 on a long flight on a SH flight the difference would be negligible).
If the airlines want to chase a large portion of there customers away to their competitors then good luck to them.

continueapproach737

14th Aug 2015, 10:03

But who spends more on inflight meals and generates more revenue? The 50 kg guy or 120kg

Stretch06

14th Aug 2015, 11:05

Bullwinkle hit the nail on the head.

I do not see pay by weight as a discriminating system. Otherwise I could cry discrimination now.

I am skinny, barely 80kg wringing wet. Why should I pay excess baggage if I have a couple of kilos over in my checked luggage, when someone who is 130kg checks the same luggage for no etc cost.

Maybe the solution below can get around the issue 404Titan points out.
Instead of charging the individual extra or less for their body weight, I would like to see a system that was calculated on total weight. IE, PAX, carry on and checked baggage measured as a total. Say the limit was 130kgs per purchased ticket. If your total weight exceeds that, then you pay for excess, if not, it doesn't matter how many etc kilos your individual bag may be.

404 Titan

14th Aug 2015, 11:16

Stretch06

Instead of charging the individual extra or less for their body weight, I would like to see a system that was calculated on total weight. IE, PAX, carry on and checked baggage measured as a total. Say the limit was 130kgs per purchased ticket. If your total weight exceeds that, then you pay for excess, if not, it doesn't matter how many etc kilos your individual bag may be.
What part of “CANNOT” do you not understand. Whatever formula you come up with, if a component of that formula involves a person’s weight, you are in breach of the DDA, period.

grrowler

14th Aug 2015, 12:00

I wonder if the certified MTOW of aircraft could actually be increased for carriers using accurate pax weights?

404 Titan

14th Aug 2015, 12:21

ADFUS
I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be. From what I found out there haven't been any cases regarding obesity and discrimination in Australia just yet.
I've turned away passengers due to them being to big to fit into a piston aircraft but I don't think airlines would be able to use the same reasoning.
There are exceptions to the DDA for safety/physical limitations if they can’t reasonably be adjusted or changed. There are no exceptions to the DDA to having a pricing policy based or partly based on a person’s weight. I couldn’t find a precedent in the courts either but that doesn’t change the purpose or intent of the Act.

Capt Claret

14th Aug 2015, 12:45

404 Titan, you're saying that it can't be done because it's discriminatory but you're not explaining how.

If every one, not just the big people, is charged per kg, how is anyone being discriminated against.

The Disability Discrimination Act (D.D.A.) makes it against the law for providers of goods, services and facilities to discriminate against a person because of his or her disability.

This means that providers of goods, services and facilities cannot:

Refuse to provide a person with a disability with goods, services and facilities. For example, a person cannot be refused service in a restaurant because he or she has a guide dog. A person cannot be refused hospital treatment because he or she is HIV positive.
Provide goods, services and facilities on less favourable terms and conditions. For example, charging a person with a disability a higher kilometre rate for a taxi because he or she uses a wheelchair or not providing a TTY line for deaf people to contact emergency services.
Provide the goods, services and facilities in an unfair manner. For example, making insulting remarks while serving a person with a disability or serving a person with a disability after everyone else has been served.

megan

14th Aug 2015, 15:16

404, I think you are missing the point that a person of large physical size is not necessarily suffering a disability. Once lifted three drill floor pax with carry on who came in at a neat 1,000 pounds, and none you would have classified as obese, though they carried a bit extra about the gut. There is a rugby team whose average weight is 235 pounds. Those disabled would not be discriminated against, as all would be paying by weight.

404 Titan

14th Aug 2015, 15:50

megan & Capt Claret

And there in is the point. When is being obese a disability, disease or a physical attribute? All are covered under various Federal and State/Territory Anti-decimation laws.

Ollie Onion

15th Aug 2015, 01:19

^^^^ That is the point I was making, this isn't necessarily about being OBESE, there are a lot of tall large 'healthy' weight people out there who are shoehorned into a thin seat with not enough leg room. If we are truly going to start charging according to weight or volume then it is only fair that those who pay more because of their size should get more room in their seat. How are the airlines going to deal with that, why should a child who pays next to nothing get a big roomy seat when someone tall who has paid the highest fair has to wedge himself/herself into the same size seat?

If we are going to treat pax like we treat frieght then we should follow the same process, you get the space/volume on the aircraft that you pay for.

Alloyboobtube

15th Aug 2015, 01:36

Once was sat next to a very large person to the point of not being able to cope with the situation for a 4 hour flight.
I asked to be moved pre departure but was told flight was full.
Said I couldn't do the flight like this.
I removed myself from aircraft, was denied a new booking or a refund.
So I paid for that fat funks gut to get a comfortable ride.
Moral screw them and make them pay.

Ollie Onion

15th Aug 2015, 05:13

^^^ problem being if that large person pays for their weight then wouldn't that entitle them to both seats anyway so you may not of been able to get a seat on that plane anyway? And if their was a seat how would their higher ticket price prevent you from being squeezed into you seat with out selling space equivalent to the cost of the ticket.

Derfred

15th Aug 2015, 07:32

For years, the fabulously beautiful planet of Bethselamin increased its booming tourist industry without any worries at all. Alas, as is often the case, this was an act of utter stupidity, as it led to a colossal cumulative erosion problem. Of course, what else could one expect with ten billion tourists per annum? Thus today the net balance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete while on the planet is surgically removed from your body weight when you leave; so every time you go to the lavatory there, it is vitally important to get a receipt. :)

Sunfish

15th Aug 2015, 22:36

And of course to add to the discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAg0lUYHHFc

BNEA320

16th Aug 2015, 03:30

airlines could do it as a promo.

Imagine the free press they would receive. Just like O'Leary from Ryanair, when he wants millions in free publicity, he just says

"we're going to charge 2 euros to use the loo onboard" & all the media gets up in arms & then 2 weeks later, he says they've decided against it.

But it's not that difficult really.

They could have fares eg. like

1) up to 80kgs inc everything, person, all bags

2) up to 100kgs

3) up to 120kgs

etc.

They already weigh checked bags. Only difference is passenger would have to jump on same scales as well.

caneworm

16th Aug 2015, 08:22

On a scale from 1 to stupid, this idea, (and thread) is a 10+

VH-Cheer Up

17th Aug 2015, 00:16

IIRC this is already happening with a small operator in the Pacific flying Islanders.
I've been asked to stand on the scales once when travelling on a DHC8 from a marginal runway, the take off was with power set against the brakes.Mum and Dad told me back in the day (1950s) they used to weigh passengers for a Dragon Rapide service Southampton - Jersey. But that was all about weight and balance, not to enable them to charge people more per kg - actually in those days stones and pounds. When the operation moved to Blackbushe and used Dakotas to the Channel Islands they didn't have to weigh the pax.

BNEA320

17th Aug 2015, 00:34

lots of long haul flights are weight restricted.

Going down this path may mean, more passengers/freight maybe carried, rather than using very outdated averages.

Heard that in New Zealand they have an extra weight category(apart from child, female & male), which covers big guys like the Old Blecks.

Ollie Onion

17th Aug 2015, 01:12

Ah but it could also mean a lot LESS passengers and freight could be carried, not to mention this would mean the END of all self check-in services as someone could just lie about their weight.

404 Titan

17th Aug 2015, 04:58

BNEA320

You’re a either a troll or illiterate. I’ve said numerous times now on this thread why you can’t base airline tickets for passengers based or part based on their weight here in Australia. What happens in other countries is irrelevant as that is governed by their own laws.

CurtainTwitcher

17th Aug 2015, 05:13

I got in early on post #2 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/566071-we-heading-kilgramme-fares.html#post9080463)
F$ck off back to the travel agency. Your presence diminishes the SNR for the rest of us. You are a waste of bandwidth.

Arguing with BNEA320 reminds me of Uncle Remus children's story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby (http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/2010/07/brer_rabbit_meets_a_tar_baby.html). You punch and punch and punch, but end up getting getting all tied up in knots. You cannot argue rationally with this type of mental illness. Don't waste your breath

layman

17th Aug 2015, 06:03

I know of at least one set of charter flights (6 seater aircraft) where only 3 of 5 potential passengers could be taken due to weight (they were a group of 5 very large gentlemen).

They were not happy but the aircraft would have been overweight with 4 passengers on board (the pilot was only 62kg when ready to fly).

By the way, having a quick look at the DDA, I don't believe weight / size is considered to be a disability.

cheers
layman

C441

17th Aug 2015, 07:16

30-odd years ago in the days of TAA/Australian & Ansett there were two 727's on the apron on a bloody hot, calm day in Alice Springs.

When the numbers were done pre-flight it was discovered by one of the carriers that they couldn't depart with the planned pax load. They put their punters over the scales, worked out what they could carry and get away using with actual weights and blasted off (almost literally in the 72!) successfully. For some reason the other carrier decided to go with the standard figures and a tiny wisp of headwind on 30.

I was having lunch in the tower at the time. This aircraft wasn't even thinking about flying as it went past the tower, got the nose wheel off in the last little bit of the runway and the mains somewhere in the red dust off the end. :eek:

Alice Springs was closed for about half an hour until the dust cloud dissipated in the minimal breeze.

Do I think we'll have weight-based fares? Not in my lifetime but it may have been a good choice to weight the punters back in '85.

Buttscratcher

17th Aug 2015, 07:57

Yeah good story anyway

Listen, to the OP.....Matey, would you please clean up the spelling in the thread title.
It really annoys my OCD every time I see it.
Seriously, bloody savage!

404 Titan

17th Aug 2015, 08:15

layman
By the way, having a quick look at the DDA, I don't believe weight / size is considered to be a disability.

There are most definitely situations under the DDA where obesity would fall under the Commonwealth’s definition of “disability”. The problem is you and I aren’t qualified to make that call and neither is most if not all service providers. Secondly discrimination based on weight is covered under some of the States Anti-Discrimination Laws. Have a look at Victoria.
disability, in relation to a person, means:

(a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or

(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or

(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or

(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or

(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or

(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or

(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;

and includes a disability that:

(h) presently exists; or

(i) previously existed but no longer exists; or

(j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or

(k) is imputed to a person.

To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability.

BNEA320

17th Aug 2015, 08:33

404 titan cos u say it doesn't make it true.

You can charge passengers based on their weight.

Think about it .............

It's actually discriminatory to charge a lighter person the same as a heavier person.

+ great for free publicity. Certainly hasn't done Ryanair any harm. They just keep growing & growing.

Capt Claret

17th Aug 2015, 08:51

404 Titan,

You haven't explained, and I don't understand, how charging ALL passengers by weight is discriminating against anyone.

Just curious. :confused:

404 Titan

17th Aug 2015, 10:45

Capt Claret

Very simply if the total price is different because of a person’s weight and people have between disadvantaged because this, it is grounds for discrimination because in most cases the obesity is either caused by a disability, disease or is a personal attribute and is either covered under the DDA or various State/Territory Anti-Discrimination Laws.

BNEA320
It's actually discriminatory to charge a lighter person the same as a heavier person.

And how have they been discriminated against when the total price is the same? In your example no one is advantaged or disadvantaged. Also the price hasn't been based on weight. It's just a fixed price. If you were to make such a claim it would be you having to explain how a fixed price is discriminatory. In fact the discrimination could be levelled at you because it could be argued you are trying to take a financial advantage over a person because of their weight.

megan

18th Aug 2015, 01:58

To play the devils advocate, the lightweight passenger is the one being discriminated against.

All the airline has to sell is payload measured in pounds/kilos. One of the reasons passengers/freight can get bumped at times.

The airline incurs greater costs transporting the heavy pax through greater fuel burn, hence the airline is making a greater profit from the lightweight, and they increase their profit further by selling the payload gained from the lightweight to the freight market. And the profit is further enhanced if the lightweight has excess baggage, even though the total weight pax and bags is far, far less than the heavy guy who has no excess baggage.In fact the discrimination could be levelled at you because it could be argued you are trying to take a financial advantage over a person because of their weight.

You got that right, they are taking financial advantage over a person because of their weight (light). As a lightweight I'm being screwed over. :{

IFEZ

18th Aug 2015, 02:48

Spot on Megan. How many people do you see getting pinged at check-in cos their luggage is a couple of kg's over and copping a heavy $ penalty, when the morbidly obese guy next in line has a good 50Kg+ on them but their luggage is correct weight. Should be total weight, passenger + luggage. Set a limit, and if you're under its all good, if you're over you pay accordingly. The PC brigade won't like it, and I know there are issues with implementing it eg what weight do you set the limit at etc, but seems fairer to me.
Standing by for the backlash... :E

Derfred

18th Aug 2015, 04:33

and they increase their profit further by selling the payload gained from the lightweight to the freight market

No they don't, they use standard passenger weights.

Under the absurd idea proposed here, then yes they could.

On a short sector the fuel saving of a 50kg passenger compared to a 75kg passenger would be maybe 15 cents. On a long sector it would be lucky to be a dollar.