Are we heading for kilgramme fares ?
^^^^ 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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
^^^ 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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got in early on post #2
Arguing with BNEA320 reminds me of Uncle Remus children's story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. 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
Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher
F$ck off back to the travel agency. Your presence diminishes the SNR for the rest of us. You are a waste of bandwidth.
Charter not RPT but ...
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
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
Sometimes weighing the punters is a good idea
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
layman
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.
By the way, having a quick look at the DDA, I don't believe weight / size is considered to be a disability.
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.
(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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 17th Aug 2015 at 11:14.
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.
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. 
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.