Air travel company to calculate plane ticket prices by passenger weight.

[fix-the-spade]

Considering that all 115kg of me, my bike and my luggage combined pay more than one 18stone plus fat bugger pays to get on a plane with his/her additional 20kg of luggage, I am very interested in that. I expect that the reality will be the same fares as before for me, but higher fares for heavier passengers.

I'm still fine with that, fuel costs are constantly rising and that money has to come from somewhere, I don't like subsidising people!

In a vacuum, fair enough. As it stands, though, society has all sorts of issues about fat people, this doesn't look too different from another backhanded attack.

If it encourages them to slim down, is that a bad thing?

 

[Thaluikhain]

In a vacuum, fair enough. As it stands, though, society has all sorts of issues about fat people, this doesn't look too different from another backhanded attack.

If it encourages them to slim down, is that a bad thing?

It won't.

Society has been saying "Hey fat people, stop being fat" for ages, with optional "or else"s at the end. Never worked, because it's not really supposed to.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Well I suppose Samoa Airlines would use smaller aircraft, and they would be more effected by people's weight then say, a 777. I've only flown and worked weight and balance on Cessnas, but it gives a bit of insight to how a 100 pound person could be permissible, but a 200 would put an aircraft overweight.

Not really, you forget that a 777 could have 500 or more people on board. If the average weight of your passengers goes up by 10kg then you're carrying an extra five tons of weight into the air (not counting luggage), that's a big difference even to a modern airliner.

Given that an 'average' American is 10kg heavier than an average European and 20kg heavier than the average Asian, that's a huge difference in fuel usage and passenger capacity.

Captcha: pants on the ground, seems appropriate really.

 

[Hoplon]

It makes sense. Airplanes have to consume more fuel when more weight is added, so why not charge by weight? The part about paying for the combined weight of you and your baggage makes it a bit more fair. The policy is kind of unfair to people who physically can't slim down because of health problems, though.

I like that it also promotes fighting obesity (even if it's through it's own twisted corporate way).

I'm afraid that you have this backward, if it's not necessary before now, then it being done purely because they think they can target that group and get away with it. Ryan air floated this proposal about 5 years ago too, it went down like a lead balloon.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Well I suppose Samoa Airlines would use smaller aircraft, and they would be more effected by people's weight then say, a 777. I've only flown and worked weight and balance on Cessnas, but it gives a bit of insight to how a 100 pound person could be permissible, but a 200 would put an aircraft overweight.

Not really, you forget that a 777 could have 500 or more people on board. If the average weight of your passengers goes up by 10kg then you're carrying an extra five tons of weight into the air (not counting luggage), that's a big difference even to a modern airliner.

Given that an 'average' American is 10kg heavier than an average European and 20kg heavier than the average Asian, that's a huge difference in fuel usage and passenger capacity.

Captcha: pants on the ground, seems appropriate really.

Oh I don't mean to imply that it doesn't matter. I am just trying to say it matters more for smaller aircraft as you tend to be working closer to the limit and the decreased amount of weight you are working in makes big differences more noticeable. For example, if I am flying with a 300 pound man in my right seat I shouldn't be leaving the ground, but assuming I could it would handle much differently then if I was alone or with a lighter individual.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

For me, seemingly the only person who doesn't like this idea (although I personally would probably not be inconvenienced by it), it comes down to whether fat people will be paying more for their tickets than they do now or the same. While it is practical, it results in non-malevolent discrimination against heavier people. People of any weight should be able to travel similarly on principle, whether or not that is the most sensible way to run things. Although it does solve the luggage situation.

Besides, I'm betting all the luggage that people bring weighs the flight down a lot too. Are they gonna start charging people who bring heavier luggage more as well?

[sub][sub][sub]Though I'd still be winning with that one, I pack light...[/sub][/sub][/sub]

It's combined weight of passenger and luggage.

 

[teh_Canape]

I'm not a particularly small person and I'm fine with charging by weight. It makes sense. The heavier the plane, the more fuel it's going to use. I could foresee a pretty nasty backlash at the company level though of those that travel for business. Suddenly, only the slender people get sent away while the fatties have to remain behind even though they might be the better choice to send. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

idk, I think they could even it out by giving a discount if you can prove that your weight is tied to your health (as in, metabolism and such)
although that would easily be exploited
alas

 

[Stryc9]

This isn't anything new really. Airlines have done this in the past except they just left it up to you to be honest and tell them your correct weight. The fuel the plane according the the amount of weight it's carrying and if all the math is correct the plane has enough fuel to make it's flight plus maybe some extra for an emergency situation and the airline saves money by not fully filling the tanks.

 

[Saulkar]

It sucks to be a body builder right now.

CAPTCHA: scot free - Sure as hell ain't

 

[ReadyAmyFire]

Would anyone here actually know the amount of fuel an A380 would actually requires for a base passenger weight, and is able to quantify just how much fuel would be required for a 2-4% increase in total weight?

Out of boredom, I ran some numbers into an aircraft sizing spreadsheet I made last year.

A 140 (so 737/A320 twinjet) passenger aircraft, at 175lbs per passenger, gives 45000lbs of fuel to travel 3500 nautical miles at M0.8.

Increasing the weight of each passenger to 240lbs with identical flights conditions on the same mission gives a fuel required of 57000lbs, including reserves. So about an extra 12000lbs of fuel for that particular flight.

The numbers themselves may not be particularly accurate, but the method is that outlined Dr. Jan Roskam's Aircraft Preliminary Design textbooks.

 

[Psykoma]

Would anyone here actually know the amount of fuel an A380 would actually requires for a base passenger weight, and is able to quantify just how much fuel would be required for a 2-4% increase in total weight?

Out of boredom, I ran some numbers into an aircraft sizing spreadsheet I made last year.

A 140 (so 737/A320 twinjet) passenger aircraft, at 175lbs per passenger, gives 45000lbs of fuel to travel 3500 nautical miles at M0.8.

Increasing the weight of each passenger to 240lbs with identical flights conditions on the same mission gives a fuel required of 57000lbs, including reserves. So about an extra 12000lbs of fuel for that particular flight.

The numbers themselves may not be particularly accurate, but the method is that outlined Dr. Jan Roskam's Aircraft Preliminary Design textbooks.

According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Specifications

With regards to the 737, go with the 136 passenger planes, closest to 140

The empty weight is almost 70,000 pounds, while 136 175 pound passengers would weigh 23,800lbs, and adding to that 45,000 lbs of fuel, then the takeoff weight, with 'healthy', and their baggage (assuming they all have the max 50 lbs and only one bag each) passengers would be 145,600 lbs.
The extra weight from overweight passengers would total 9100 lbs.
You're telling me that an extra 6% weight would require an extra 26% fuel?

Especially when according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft (as was already linked in the thread), an extra 6% weight would actually be an extra ~4.5% in fuel?