Are we heading for kilgramme fares ?
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.
How is charging by weight discriminatory or unethical? Assuming the same rate per kg for all comers, of course.
It's irrelevant that the price per kilogram is the same. It's the end price that is what would breach the Act.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Attempting to charge me more than a "normal" 76kg person would absolutely be discrimination and would be actionable in Australia.
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.
Bottums Up
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?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
megan
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.
I'll tell that to my butcher. 10K of sirloin should be the same price as 1K.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Stretch06
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.
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.
ADFUS
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.
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.
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.
Bottums Up
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.