Are we heading for kilgramme fares ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we heading for kilgramme fares ?
looks like it.
All airlines have to do it work out a very quick way of doing it.
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail
All airlines have to do it work out a very quick way of doing it.
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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....
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.
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 
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?
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?
Last edited by Ollie Onion; 13th Aug 2015 at 07:44. Reason: ad
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Global
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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!
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!
Bottums Up
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.
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.