Overweight pax, and baggage allowances.

[JEM60]

Senior Management [wife] and myself are regular holiday pax. My wife weighs eight stone. When we flew BA last year, at check-in, we were behind a very large couple, with their 25 kilo cases. My wife weighs eight stone, a third of the weight of one of this couple, and yet she is still restricted to a 25 kilo case, despite the fact that aforesaid large people weigh 3 times as much, and therefore cost far more to transport than her total weight including baggage. Is there, therefore, a case for airlines to charge a TOTAL WEGHT [person+baggage], so that heavy people have to consequently pay more because of their obesity. She feels that she is being slightly discriminated against because of her trim healthy figure, and she would certainly like to take more clothes on cruises than she does at present so long as it would not exceed a future 'arbitrary' airline weight. This would also encourage a large number of travellers to get fit and loose some weight. I am aware that some US airlines make people pay for two seats if they are obese, but it's the luggage question she is more interested in. So, to sum up, is an arbitrary weight, say 15 stone+25kilos luggage practical??? I suspect a certain Irishman might be thinking about this!!!

[TSR2]

No, your wife is not restricted to 25Kg total baggage allowance. You can always pay for excess baggage irrespective of other passengers health, wealth, fitness, size or weight.

[JEM60]

Yes, I do realise that, but overweight people don't have to pay for overweight, despite the fact that they weigh far more than my wife plus baggage. My wife weighs 8 stone +25kilos baggage, but pays the same fare as a person twice or 3 times heavier, who costs more to transport. That was the point!

[skiesfull]

Don't you mean 23kgs?

[Diaz]

You seriously expect to be able to get this to happen at the moment? Give it 2 or three years, and this suggestion will seem gentle compared to new government schemes.

STOP PICKING ON PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE IT AS WELL OFF AS YOU!!!

[TSR2]

JEM60

Yes, I do fully understand your point. I was simply pointing out that you have options if you want to take additional weight.
My 2 year old granddaughter is only a quarter of my weight and her baggage weight is only a fraction of her allowance but her fare is still exactly the same as mine. Same example I think. Should she get a discount. Would you call this discrimination.

[PAXboy]

Airlines, as in any mass production business, make money by standardising the offer and the price. At some point, someone will probably try and offer fractional pricing related to weight and/or size but the cost of implementing it will be high and be open to more questioning by clients and prospective clients. By sticking to standard sizes/weights/prices, they keep it simple and, consequently, cheaper to administer.

[Blues&twos]

Or you could really get your money's worth by both becoming morbidly obese before your next flight.

And to really reap those savings, make sure you don't use the toilet for two days before departure.

[DTY/LKS]

Or a person who weighs 3 times what your wife does will have clothes that are larger & therefore heavier, so in theory they should have their luggage limit increased.
Or the airlines could reduce your wife's baggage limit as her clothes are small & light to fit her petite frame.

Works both ways.

[MrSoft]

Or you could really get your money's worth by both becoming morbidly obese before your next flight.

LOL

Actually, the Isles of Scilly Skybus is halfway to solving this, as they weigh every passenger at check-in. No premium is levied, but then the majority are middle aged birdwatchers. I have seen extra tyre pressure requested for Bill Oddie.

[slide blower]

roll on the ssbbw!.

[spaceman18]

I think a fair point has been made, and one that people will rarely discuss because of the PC brigade.
Why should someone whos going to put 200kg on the plane (175kg/27st in their own wieght, and 25kg in baggage), not pay any extra for that? Its certainly gonna cost fuel! Yet someone who puts 80kg (50kg/8st and 30kg in baggage), have to then pay a fortune in excess bag charges!

[csrster]

I agree. It's definitely about time you got yourself a larger wife.

[Skintman]

The weight debate has already started in a way, with very large people having to purchase 2 seats. I think that it is inevitable at some stage that a passenger's weight will be considered. As the pressure builds up on the airline industry, due to green issues, keeping the overall weight of a plane to the min will become paramount. In fact - is being overweight a green issue in itself? Are tubby folks wasting more of the earths natural resources? Mmmm. With waists increasing, it's only a matter of time.

Surprised M O'Leary hasn't started it already.

I'm a svelt, smug 12 stoner.

Skintman

[TSR2]

Skintman

The 'purchase 2 seats for the very large passenger' policy is a totally different subject. It is driven by passenger comfort/safety concerns whereas this thread is debating the impact of passenger weight on aircraft operating economics.

I do not think we will see an airfare structure based solely on passenger weight (with or without baggage) in the immediate future. The passengers that would benefit most from such a system would be small children, and depending on the number of children on a particular flight, could of course lead to a substantial reduction in operating revenue compared to the current system.

[Skintman]

TSR2

I agree with you, changes are not imminent, but I think it will come in some format in time. not sure how though. The fact that it is being discussed, means that it is not a taboo subject anymore.
Green issues are going to be massive in the future and who knows what it will encompass.

Skintman

[spaceman18]

I have just watched an Air Crash Investigation where a Beech 1900d crashed partly due to being overwieght and improperly loaded due to average weights being used for pax and bags....surely this is another reason for actual weights being known

[PAXboy]

The smaller the a/c, the more critical weight is. Those that operate craft such as the 1900d know that. If they ignore their responsibilities, then they will be held to account. For large jet transport, the same is true but tolerances are greater and they have more power to compensate.

Over the last 50 years, average weights for pax have worked very well. These averages are updated every couple of years. Baggage weights are, as I understand it, now automatically fed in due to the computerisation of the weighing system.

If every pax was weighed, the cost would go up and most pax would ask why the need to charge more money to weigh pax when average weights are well known.

[WHBM]

Back in the 1920s when weights were critical it was done exactly this way. Early London-Paris passengers were allowed some 100 kg, including their bags. Petite women did well, chunky chaps had to pay a surcharge.

[BaronChotzinoff]

I used to get away with nearly 30kg sometimes (with 20kg) allowance, when flying with EJ from Luton. Of course I used to flash my svelte 10st frame at the check-in girl at the time, who would give me a knowing wink as she scanned the luggage tags with no questions asked. And being active and trim I was able to carry all that weight, materials for my daughter's dolls house then later her 3rd bike IIRC, all the way to the airport bus on foot at 4.30am, nearly 2 miles from where I was staying.

But in the debate between cases and carcasses I too think "total combined weight" should be taken into account - eg get 5kg extra baggage if you're 12st or less - it would be an incentive for people to get slim and consume less - the world's rapidly running out of grain on which to fatten all the animals for greedy people to scoff.