Think back to when smoking was banned on most airlines, the airlines didn't think "great, now we can give our customers an even better service for the same price but without that smell that non-smokers hate", they thought "cool, now we can massively cut down on how much air circulation we do, meaning less in-plane oxygen, and keep more profit for ourselves".
-----
This debate may sound discriminatory, but in fact what economists term price discrimination - charging consumers who buy essentially the same product a different price - is a common feature in the modern market.
Surely the argument is that you aren't charging consumers differently for the same product, you're charging them differently for different products - the same way you pay more when shipping a heavier package through a courier firm or USPS/Royal Mail.
I don't know the truth of it, but I see no reason to not simply add onto the bag allowance and put in a scale as described.
Why do businesses not just raise prices on everything? Unless they are colluding and very good at limiting competition/alternatives, a competitor will happily undercut them.
I'm happy that airlines are beginning to decouple the service offerings of a seat, food, and baggage handling. This means that I can choose a flight which maximizes my happiness at a particular price point. Is United offering cheap fares but charging for baggage? Maybe I'll choose them when making an overnight trip. No food service? My local gourmet grocery sells very good take-out lunch boxes, so I'll just bring one of those onboard.
So, charging by weight is just another means of pricing innovation. What are some other ways the airlines could achieve price discrimination? The days of charging extra without a Saturday night stay seem all but gone thanks to Southwest and other innovative airlines.
You can't assume that raising prices will cause your profit to go up. Higher prices (for heavier people) means that they are less likely to buy plane tickets, which could potentially mean less profit. So, you have to counteract this by incentivizing less heaver people to fly, by lowering the price for them, or by lowering the base ticket price slightly. Having heavier people pay more wouldn't necessarily get more money out of people, it would achieve having less weight on the plane so that fuel costs are lower.
The author of the article does mention a "petite discount:"
Conversely, a female weighing just 50 kilos would get a "petite" discount of $14.50 each way.
To do this, airlines would have to weigh passengers before they fly and then charge them a surcharge based on what they weigh (say that everything up to 120 there is a flat fee and then you pay for every pound over).
Think about how much man power that would take. It would greatly slow down flying even more, unless of course airports got much bigger and had considerably more staff.
From the airlines' perspectives this doesn't make sense. It may make sense in the abstract if you're a smaller passenger, but would an airline really want to have hundreds of possible SKUs for each flight?
Asking someone who is big to pay for a second seat doesn't require a lot on an airlines part, but the idea of paying by how much you weigh would require a lot of additional resources.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3562617
Doesn't seem like it would take more staff, and I'm pretty sure there are technical solutions to automate that.
Also, there are fees for extra weight in the baggage already, so it's not a new feature.
Currently, I print my ticket at home, never go the ticket counter and don't check luggage and have nothing weigh for most of my flights. The idea of weighing me with my bags would require me to start checking luggage.
It is complicated when you think about it. Airlines are trying to get more and more passengers to skip the ticket counter, print their own boarding passes and to not check luggage. That all saves money and time by requiring less staff and even less ticket printers. This proposal to weigh every passenger does not save time or staff resources.
It's obvious that there need to be over-sized seats for over-sized people. I don't particularly care if they pay more or I pay less. Flying cattle-class is painful enough without being sandwiched between people who are much, much wider than the average person. It can't be comfortable for those fat people either to be crammed into a small seat. But at least they book flights knowing what they will endure (and they could book the more appropriately sized seats in business class). The rest of us don't have any determination in these events.
As for it being unenforceable, people get removed from planes for many reasons. I was recently on a plane where a man was removed from a 5 hour flight; he stank so badly that no-one could sit within 3 rows of him.
Part of the problem is that there is too big of a gap between coach and first. It's like having to choose between a Smart Car and an Escalade, when really all I need is a mid-priced sedan.
In my opinion, overweight costs for luggage have nothing to do with "fair price", but all with "profit maximization" - airlines have to offer some luggage allowance (either by law or to make people actually fly), but they know that many people are careless and will cross the limit. Therefore, they can freely charge them without stirring up too negative feelings about greed. But that's exactly what it is - it has nothing to do with actual costs. Ryanair and EasyJet (though especially RyanAir) earn huge amounts of money this way.
Allowing them to charge heavier people would just inspire more greedy behaviour.
I have two friends who are 5' tall and 6'5" tall. The 6'5" male, while still being quite fit, comes in at a solid 210-220 easy I'd guess, which would (under a 'weight only' policy) incur a surcharge for him. The 5'0" female has a little extra weight probably being about 130lbs. She's 90lbs less but more "obese" than the male.
Variations like this would make this type of policy very hard to implement in reality.
The goal isn't to judge people based on whether they are "overweight" or such, but rather to institute a system that charges customers proportionally to the cost of transporting them.
The relatively small differences in cost may make it socially acceptable. A 6'5" person is probably already used to paying extra for reasonable leg-room.
What really astounds me, though, are skinny girls going away for three days but check-in TONS of luggage. It also is invariably over the weight limit and they end up paying excess.
Guys, on the other hand, take a tiny little rucksack on as hand luggage containing a clean shirt, a clean pair of kecks and their toothbrush for the same trip. It also means NO WAITING for luggage at the other end.
For example, my wife weighs 105lbs but has been known to bring her weight in luggage (not kidding). I weigh 240lbs and usually bring a laptop and a couple changes of clothes in a small carry-on.
Only way to implement this (unimplementable in reality) idea would be to charge for the total weight being transported, passenger and luggage.
But of course, I think seat sizes should increase with average customer width too, but we're still flying in planes that were manufactured in the skinny 70s. Increasing seat size would ensure that only the most ginormous would have to pay for an extra seat, rather than the 60% of the population that is overweight.
Just like it is rude for overweight people to drive up the cost of health care because they refuse to take care of their own bodies.
It's a touchy subject, but I think we have a lot to gain as a society by telling people it's not OK to be lazy and fat, instead of silently judging them. (Save yourself the "Some people can't help it!" argument. No one is buying that the 33.8% of obese Americans fall into that category - it's a choice for them.)
I buy that many or most or nearly all obese Americans have made lifestyle choices you find repugnant, but I don’t buy that they all do. And for that reason, I do not go around making blanket statements like “It is rude for overweight people to drive up the cost of health care because they refuse to take care of their own bodies.” Some--maybe many--overweight people make choices about their bodies, but some do not.
Furthermore, I know many overweight people who make dietary choices I disagree with but who are also very hard-working in their chosen fields. Your suggestion that overweight people are “lazy and fat” is unsupported. Some are sedentary, some are not.
Overall, I find that your arguments are unsound. But that being said, I don’t think you’re trying to be cogent here, your use of terms like “rude” and “refuse to take care of their own bodies” and “lazy” sets a tone that depicts every obese American as being at odds with you.
To pe perfectly candid, the conversation we are having reminds me strongly of many conversations around discrimination, stereotyping, and bias. Which is unfortunate.
Working hard at your job is great, but a lot of that is habit and it is easier to do every day than breaking that habit and introducing an exercise routine. The definition of being lazy, to me, is taking the easy way out, thus I personally find this behavior lazy.
Discrimination? Stereotyping? Bias? Yes, yes and yes. I would definitely prefer a healthy person to a non-healthy person in any business or social endeavor. (Unless it was a hot dog eating contest.) Yes, I stereotype obese people to be lazy, over-eaters, inactive and sedentary. I don't see anything wrong with this. I prefer to hold people accountable for their actions. If this upsets them, they can either lose weight or bear my bias. The only win-win is for them to lose weight.
As to health care, as a smoker in the UK I already contribute much more to the NHS through tobacco taxes than an average smoker will cost in extra health care issues - and I would fully support unhealthy foods being taxed much more heavily.
That said, where do you draw the line? It's not OK to ride a motorbike because it's more dangerous than driving a car or using public transport? It's not OK to play football?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Finance_Balance_of_Smoki...
[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20011105203845/http://tobaccofree...
By setting this limit appropriately, you could ensure you're never forcing anyone to pay extra (as long as they're not morbidly obese), as long as they take an appropriate amount of carry-on baggage.
I am sure the airlines have taken this variability into account. No need to make ticket pricing even more elaborate than it already is.
If they start discounting for thin folks, then they'll be criticized if they adjust the ticket for bad weather conditions and/or lead-foot pilots as well.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/kevin-smith-fat-fly/story?id=983726...
No, it won't be. Also, I'd guess that the weight of a passenger is small compared to the weight of plane required to add an extra seat to a plane.
All of which is to say I don't think this will start making sense until fuel prices go up by at least a factor of ten.
In some cases I'm sure that's been the case. In general planes are more limited on volume than lift, as most people don't travel with particularly heavy luggage.
Actually, from the point of view of the business, heavier people should pay more to fly if they also happen to have more cash and leftover demand when given cheaper tickets. Everyone should pay the very greatest dollar amount they are willing to, and if this function corresponds well with weight (why not, they can afford to eat more, and more of them are middle-aged professional than starving students, maybe?) - great.
Except for anyone whose point of greatest demand is actually still a loss, go ahead and charge everyone the most they'd pay. hell, make it fair, keep up the illusion that it's about weight, and if you don't have seats to fill, fill 'em at a loss with skinny people.
but maybe a better way to find a price discrimination curve woudl be to weigh wallets though for security reasons, or charge an extra fee for each (potentially-terrorist) credit card that a person flies with.
