/ Should overweight people pay more to fly?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Oliiver - on 15 Apr 2013
Unless of course, they can prove it's a medical condition - rather than greed.

You travel on any airline today and they insist on charging you for any excess baggage what so ever. On the other hand though, some great big heffer boards the plane with no extra cost incurred what so ever.
Alyson - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

HEFFER
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heffer may refer to:

Fictional characters: Heffer Wolfe, character from the Nicktoon Rocko's Modern Life
Heather Trott, character from the BBC soap Eastenders (nicknamed "Heffer" by Gary Bushell)



Why should we care what either of two fictional characters pay to get on a flight?
Oliiver - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: exactly heather trott
deepsoup - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
Not this again. Is the plane on a treadmill?

> Unless of course, they can prove it's a medical condition - rather than greed.
I think there should be a 'sanctimonious prick' surcharge.
seankenny - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to deepsoup:
>
> I think there should be a 'sanctimonious prick' surcharge.

Unless they can prove it's a medical condition of course.
Blue Straggler - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
>
>
> You travel on any airline today and they insist on charging you for any excess baggage what so ever.

Not me! I often get away with up to 4kg excess. It's a case of "not being pig ugly". Are you really ugly? It's an unfair fact of life that the handsome and beautiful are accorded better treatment.
Alyson - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler: Brilliant :)
abseil on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:
>...I often get away with up to 4kg excess.

That reminds me of radson's really funny post in March:

"My former climbing partner once told that the ladies at check in that our bags were filled with home made jam for the orphans of Nepal. Probably had to be there, but they laughed so much at this blatant lie that they indeed let us on without charge."

You can read it here
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=498492&v=1#x6803501
Blue Straggler - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Alyson:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler) Brilliant :)

Maybe there should be a tangential thread to this, about why ugly people should pay more to go on the bus or go to the climbing wall etc. (arguably they DO pay more to go to nightclubs) After all, as Helena Rubinstein famously said, "There are no ugly women, only lazy ones" so ugliness is a lifestyle choice!
New POD - on 15 Apr 2013
Er no.

Not unless skinny people can pay less. That way as a family, we'll cost less.

Assuming 11 stone is the normal price, My wife and kids are jointly about 25 stone, thus allowing me to put on a couple of stone, and still be quids in.

dutybooty - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Read an article and £s per KG.

Thats the correct way.

If a KG costs £4
You and your baggage weigh 100KG, £400

If you and your baggage weight 200KG, £800.

A kilo is a kilo is a kilo. End of as far as I can see.
Ava Adore - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to New POD:

I have decided it shall be set arbitrarily at 10.5 stone. Lose some weight.

:-)
Tall Clare - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Ava Adore:

I also think tall people should have their legs chopped off, just to even things up.
Kimono - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Ava Adore)
>
> I also think tall people should have their legs chopped off, just to even things up.

finally some good news for Mr Pistorious ;)

999thAndy on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
I'd have thought you'd be more in favour of 'free stilts for the under height'.
Neil Williams - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Ava Adore:

I don't think it would be possible for me to reach 10.5 stone without removing some of my bone structure.

Neil
gear boy - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: I would agree to a fixed weight for person and luggage combined

with a refund for being underweight!
Ava Adore - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to Ava Adore)
>
> I don't think it would be possible for me to reach 10.5 stone without removing some of my bone structure.
>
> Neil

Then I'm afraid that's what you shall have to do. Or maybe we could arrange it so that you take a bit of a skinny person's allowance? Do you have skinny travelling partners?
Neil Williams - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Ava Adore:

"Or maybe we could arrange it so that you take a bit of a skinny person's allowance?"

Or here's an idea. Everyone pays the same (or you use a pricing model based on ticket features or yield management), and it evens out in the end? :)

Neil
Jamming Dodger on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to gear boy: Anorexics with their weedy weight and lack of bone density due to osteoporosis would be laughing. If they could summon the energy.
Fat people? Burn 'em; would solve the world's energy crisis.
But then who would we pick on??
nniff - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Jamming Dodger:

> Fat people? Burn 'em; would solve the world's energy crisis.


What at the check-in or on board? "I'm sorry madam, we need your leg for our final approach. If you would just step into the rendering plant at the back of the aircraft....'
Jamming Dodger on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to nniff: Well Kerosene is awfully expensive these days so seems futile to use up precious payload by allowing them to board. I vote a cattle pen pre-check in, with industrial scales to weed out the fatties.
(I am joking btw)
wilkie14c - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Ava Adore)
>
> I also think tall people should have their legs chopped off, just to even things up.

What about the spider sisters? would they have to get 2 very cheap tickets owing to their total body weight halved OR 1 ticket but high priced due to total body weight. This argument also applies to John Remmick
Tom V - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

For myself, I would rather sit next to a person with a big arse than one with a big gob.
wilkie14c - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Tom V: that'd depend how much hot air is coming from either
ti_pin_man - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Cue the ' what diet for my next flight ' thread.
Carolyn - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Ava Adore:

> I have decided it shall be set arbitrarily at 10.5 stone. Lose some weight.
>
> :-)

Excellent - does that mean I get to take a few extra pairs of shoes to make up the difference?
rocky57 - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Tom V:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> For myself, I would rather sit next to a person with a big arse than one with a big gob.

Other way round for me. I can put my earplugs in and ignore the big gob, they soon shut up anyway. But I can't ignore the big arse spilling over into my seat. The fact that I've already paid half of the big arse fare, does not mean he/she can have half my seat as well.

Bring on the pay by weight regime, yes I am a fattist.
Ava Adore - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Carolyn:
> (In reply to Ava Adore)
>
> [...]
>
> Excellent - does that mean I get to take a few extra pairs of shoes to make up the difference?

Extra pairs of shoes should go free
Ava Adore - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to Ava Adore)
>
> "Or maybe we could arrange it so that you take a bit of a skinny person's allowance?"
>
> Or here's an idea. Everyone pays the same (or you use a pricing model based on ticket features or yield management), and it evens out in the end? :)
>
> Neil

Crazy talk
ads.ukclimbing.com
rocky57 - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

When Samoa Air brought it in last year it had the effect of making people take stock of their chosen 'lifestyle'. So that can't be a bad thing can it? The follow on from that is healthier people, and everybody wins with that.
Lord of Starkness - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

Latest news to come out of Airbus is that following demographic research they're planning some planes with seats of different width in economy class to accommodate those passengers of bigger build. (Lardarses in other words). Aisle seats are to be 25mm wider, but centre and window seats are to be 25mm narrower that currently in use to retain the current cabin configuration.

My wife and I are both of relatively slim build, yet find economy class seats fairly neat in any case. The thought of flying long haul in even narrower seats is not appealing - particularly if we have to fight our way past some large person in the aisle seats to go to the loo.

By all means have some wider seats on the plane, but if that means reducing the plane capacity to accommodate them so be it. Do not reduce the current width of seating. The potential loss of revenue could be offset by charging a premium rate to pre booking the wider seats in the same way that you can select extra legroom seats.

I've no problem with all passengers having to pay a standard fare for the combined weight of themselves and their luggage - but then again personal weight is not an issue for me!

Oliiver - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: so I presume, you all think its ok for fat people, who are fat through their own choice, should be aloud to fly without paying more. Yet, skinny people with excess baggage pay more? I don't we should pay per kg.
Neil Williams - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to rocky57:

If it was based on body fat percentage, I'd agree (even though I'm a bit podgy). But height, muscular build and body frame also affect weight.

Neil
deepsoup - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
I definitely don't think you should be allowed to fly. The English abroad have a bad enough reputation for boorishness as it is.
Neil Williams - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Lord of Starkness:

If you fly easyJet you already fly in the narrower seats. They specified them (but without the wider aisle seat) in order to have a wider aisle so you can get past the drinks trolley and for faster boarding.

"those passengers of bigger build. (Lardarses in other words)"

Er, wha? Even if I lost all my body fat I wouldn't get much smaller. People do come in all sizes, even healthy people. Not everyone is a skinny waif.

Neil
GrahamD - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Lord of Starkness:

Charge for seats by arse width rather than weight. At check in you can have different width doorways for people to go through.
Motown - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: An equation is needed that calculates the cost of fuel for the combined weight of people and cargo on the flight, then costs redistributed accordingly. Or fat/thin flights?

A weigh in with luggage would be fecking hilarious. Or traumatic.
Wiley Coyote - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
How about a noise meter too? Loud drunks and wingeing kids would rack up bills like on a taxi meter and be charged at the other end. If they could not stump up specially-trained medi-baillifs would surgically remove body parts or drain their blood for sale to rich people who need spares.
I think this might work ya know
dissonance - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't think it would be possible for me to reach 10.5 stone without removing some of my bone structure.

I believe Tall Clares suggestion has that covered.
SGD - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to: Can you imagine how bad checking in would become if everyone had to do a full weigh in and BMI check to ensure you haven't lied when you booked the flights... you'd have to arrive the day before your flight was due to take off.... ;P
adsheff - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: If airlines charged people per kilo, I think it would start a health revolution
New POD - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Ava Adore:
> (In reply to New POD)
>
> I have decided it shall be set arbitrarily at 10.5 stone. Lose some weight.
>
> :-)


Indeed, I went from 103 Kg to 91Kg last summer, but last week was back at 97Kg. This morning I was down a bit to 96Kg, but my target has always been 80kg which is 12.5978 stone, so still a bit over your limit.

New POD - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to adsheff:
> (In reply to Oliiver) If airlines charged people per kilo, I think it would start a revolution

EFA. Fat people would start getting stroppy.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

If they are so fat they are going to spill out over the sides of a standard seat then I think it's fair enough for the airline to take steps to protect the personal space of the customer in the next seat.

They should get the choice of paying more for a bigger seat or getting seated in the same row as all the other fatties.
David Martin - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

Makes complete sense (although it does have some obvious issues). Certainly better than the ludicrous scene at check of passengers transferring heavy items from hold to hand luggage in an effort to keep within the allowance. See no harm in a passenger's total weight (including hold/hand luggage) forming some percentage of the total fare.

If fatties have issues with getting pinged for excess cost then I should be just as aggrieved at being charged extra on account of my x litres of luggage weighing in more than someone else's. Especially as 20 additional kilos of flesh spilling over from the seat next to you has a far more detrimental impact on inflight pleasure than the similar mass stored in the hold.
Tom V - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

Ever seen a big fat bastard hi-jack a plane? Me neither. They are usually scrawny little f*ckers with beards.
Jon Stewart - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Oliiver) so I presume, you all think its ok for fat people, who are fat through their own choice, should be aloud to fly without paying more. Yet, skinny people with excess baggage pay more? I don't we should pay per kg.

So it's fat people, who are fat by choice, rather than heavy people per se (e.g. massive rugby players, bodybuilders) that should be charged the supplement?

To avoid having to do some complicated medical examination, perhaps the airline should ask on the booking form:

Are you a big fat bastard? Y/N (delete as appropriate)
Did you always want to be a big fat bastard? Y/N (delete as appropriate)
Jamming Dodger on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: When you say, due to a medical condition, what medical condition are you talking about?
Oliiver - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Prader-Willi syndrome. I presume, most of you have never sat next to a fat person on a plane or a train. What a horrible experience it is.
Tom V - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I definitely qualify as a big fat bastard.
I don't eat a lot.
But I do drink a lot, much more than is advisable, and alcohol puts weight on me.
Therefore my condition is a result of an "illness" ;) and I won't be paying the lardarse surcharge.


Aztec Bar - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
I weigh 21 stone and I am 5ft 10 inches tall. I have very little hand luggage however. Why should I pay more than some 'skinny'?

Oliiver - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: generally, people suffering from alcohol relating illnesses, are actually quite thin, due to the majority of their income being spent on it.
Jamming Dodger on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Oliiver) Prader-Willi syndrome. I presume, most of you have never sat next to a fat person on a plane or a train. What a horrible experience it is.

Is this it? I have BEEN a fat person. Despite being hypothyroid im now a thin person. Only because I exercise on average 2 hrs a day, often more. Time and good health is a luxury many people dont have.
Ive also been a heavily pregnant person. My own fault. Should've kept my knickers on. How much do I owe you?

tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Tom V:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> Ever seen a big fat bastard hi-jack a plane? Me neither. They are usually scrawny little f*ckers with beards.

Excellent point.

So if the airlines seat a super fatty on either side of every scrawny bearded gentleman potential hi-jackers will be completely squished-in and unable to work their mischief.

Moreover if they somehow find the space to move their arms enough to set off an underpants bomb the super-fatties will act as giant water bags and smother the explosion.
tony on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

You still haven't worked out how to use the Reply button, have you?
Neil Williams - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

Depends how fat. As a typical male is wider in the shoulders than the backside, you'd get more usable space sitting next to someone a bit fat but otherwise unfit than you'd get sitting next to a bodybuilder or rugby player.

Neil
mike kann - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: You're doing quite well. 57 replies and only 4 posts from your good self. Keep the hard work up. What flavour crisps do you recommend?
Fat Bumbly2 - on 15 Apr 2013
Has anyone been weighed before taking a scheduled flight? I have, a grim experience. They let me on though.
alan barnes - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
Yes.
Everyone should be allowed 100 kg which includes themselves and their luggage.
Anything extra you pay for.
Jim C - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> Unless of course, they can prove it's a medical condition - rather than greed.
>
> You travel on any airline today and they insist on charging you for any excess baggage what so ever. On the other hand though, some great big heffer boards the plane with no extra cost incurred what so ever.

Too late already being done. It is also the way it used to be done way back at the start of airlines, so nothing is new in his world.

http://www.samoaair.ws/

Andrew Wilson - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
I wonder if Michael O'Leary is reading this . . .
stevieb - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
Great idea. For the environment we need less people flying, and the embarrassment of a public weighing will have far more impact than appealing to people's better nature.
I've been weighed with my luggage before now, but it was for a 12 seater plane in Fiji to help them not crash, so I didn't mind
llechwedd - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Tom V)
> [...]
>
> Moreover if they somehow find the space to move their arms enough to set off an underpants bomb the super-fatties will act as giant water bags and smother the explosion.

What if the bomb blast isn't smothered by a nearby bariatric person?
Rapid cabin decompression from a rent in the fuselage could pull people to their doom.
Repairing the puncture with a fatty is one solution. However, most of their body mass could prolapse through the hole but their big bones could tether them in place until a more permanent repair is effected on landing.

This would also free up seat space of course.
Jamming Dodger on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to llechwedd: I love how your mind works. And the fact you got the word "prolapse" into the argument. Nice job.
Radioactiveman - on 15 Apr 2013
> (In reply to Oliiver) If airlines charged people per kilo, I think it would start a health revolution

Either that or the popularity of cruises will go up
Oliiver - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: good
mgco3 - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

I suggest that anyone with a body mass index above 30 has to travel in a crate in the hold along with their luggage..

Fredt on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
I agree totally, and the excess weight surcharge should also be extended to those buggers who bring along their heavy wheelchairs for free.
And it doesn't even count in their number of checkable luggage items!
Oliiver - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Also, fat people should be barred from certain seats on planes e.g. Isle seats. If there was a crash,how the heck could the get up in time? You'd be squashed to death.. They should either: book a full row or go first / business class.
krikoman - on 15 Apr 2013
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> . Should've kept my knickers on.

If only Oliwally's mam had kept hers on.
Bob Hughes - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

I know that it's always dangerous to extrapolate from individual experience but for the past 3 years I've flown pretty much once a month and in that time I can only remember one occasion when I was next to an uncomfortably fat person. Have I just been lucky or is the problem of fat people on planes exaggerated? Genuine question
Neil Williams - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Bob Hughes:

I think it's much more of an issue in the US where obesity levels are much higher.

Neil
Fat Bumbly2 - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Neil Williams: Nevermind the lard, what about those bar stewards (myself included) with long femurs. How can you recline your seat? They should go on the roof rack!
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Ok, so you've dealt with fat people. Now how are you going to deal with people like me who get on long haul flights with very little people who scream a lot?
nealh - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: My mother in law (who is a lady of size,(god I sound like Les Dawson)) thinks larger flyers should be given a greater luggage weight allowance as their clothes weigh more, brilliant!
Ciderslider - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to Bob Hughes)
>
> I think it's much more of an issue in the US where obesity levels are much higher.
>
> Neil

Think we are only a couple of years behind
Ciderslider - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: It's really strange how as soon as the F word is mentioned people get really irate
Trangia - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

Only if they spill into a neighbouring seat thereby. In that case they should pay for two seats
rocky57 - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

What do you think would happen if the following was to take place?

I get on an aircraft and find myself sitting next to an overweight person that spills over into my space. By my space I mean the invisible partition that extends through the middle of the arm rest that separates my side from theirs. People have finished getting onboard and the doors have been closed. I leave my seat and go to see the cabin staff. I explain that I am not happy with the fact that the person next to me is squashing up against me and I feel that they are compromising my safety. And that I won’t sit down until they do something about it. The conversation with the cabin staff takes place in private.

I’ve toyed with the idea ever since I had to sit next to an extremely overweight person some years ago. The situation has not presented itself since, but I have determined to do it should it arise. How do you think it will pan out?
Alyson - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to rocky57: I think they would move the person sitting next to you to first class, if there was a space free.
rocky57 - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Alyson:

There is no space in first class, what now?
marsbar - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: I think they should be "aloud" to charge extra for trolling and spelling mistakes.
Trangia - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to rocky57:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> How do you think it will pan out?

I think the Captain would order you to return to your seat. If you disobeyed him he would have you arrested by the police in the next country you landed in.

If it was a Ryanair flight you would be made to go and sit on the wing.

Jim C - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:

The Seattle Times ran this ( I'm 13 stone) I will be middle of the road, but it looks like it is on the way.....

"Airfare by weight just might fly Charging passengers according to their weight gets a closer look after Samoa Air starts pay-by-the-pound system.


News of Samoa Air charging passengers by the pound, rather than by the seat, came so suddenly that some people thought it was an April Fools’ Day joke. Not only was the announcement no joke — it eventually could become an industry standard.

For decades, passengers have viewed what they’re buying from airlines as a seat on a plane. More accurately, a flier is buying a portion of a finite amount of space and weight that each plane can accommodate.

Simply, more weight requires more fuel. It’s one reason that planes have gone to extreme lengths to lighten their loads — for instance, carrying less food and fewer magazines.

Such realities also are why the air cargo business has been more lucrative than passenger flights; shipping prices at companies such as UPS are set by “dimensional weighting,” which includes size and weight. As one expert said, sending a pound of feathers will be more costly than shipping a pound of gold because it requires more space.

“The aircraft can only carry a certain weight a certain distance,” said airline consultant Robert Mann, of Port Washington, N.Y. “The minute someone decided passengers should be charged per seat, they sub-optimized their ability to develop revenue.”

Charging passengers by weight rather than by the seat has been an industry discussion since fuel prices shot up about five years ago. But tiny Samoa Air, established in 2012 as the national carrier for that group of Pacific islands, appears to be the first intending to do it.

According to the airline’s website, passengers enter an estimated weight of themselves and their baggage when booking online. They are reweighed at the airport to confirm the estimate.

While it’s impossible to say if American airlines could follow suit, several industry experts said it would make sense. Even though he said he is 6 foot 5 inches and about 265 pounds, Mann wouldn’t be opposed. “The physics make it fair,” he said. “An aircraft can only carry a certain weight a certain distance. My kids would pay less, and as a family we’d pay less.”

The hurdles are obvious — the primary one being public opinion. “It would be doable, but it would be a nightmare,” said George Hobica, founder of Airfare Watchdog, who was among those initially assuming Samoa Air’s plan was a prank. “I don’t think we’ll ever see it on a large scale in the United States. Maybe a small airline, like Samoa Air or Great Lakes Airlines, could do it. For a major airline, no.”

But there may be an increased push. In recent weeks, a Norwegian economist published an article in the Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management arguing that airlines should charge passengers by weight. The economist, Bharat P. Bhatta, suggested three models: charging a per-pound fare, as Samoa is doing; charging a base fare with cost added or subtracted depending on weight; and a base fare for fliers with “average” weights, and a surcharge or discount depending on whether a passenger is above or below average weight.

Paul Hudson, president of FlyersRights.org, said he wouldn’t necessarily oppose charging by weight, especially with sufficient oversight from the federal Department of Transportation.

“It would only be reasonable if they charged less if you weigh less,” he said. “I think there would be a backlash by passengers if it was a one-way street” where only heavier passengers were up-charged while people weighing less were not given a price break."
GrahamD - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to rocky57:

I remember as a teenager having an analogous converstaion with flight staff on an exchange trip to France (a private follow up trip). Two flights were rolled into one and my previously booked no smoking seat became anythig but. Eventually after threatening to be sick I spent the entire flight in one of the rear facing stewardess seats.
ThunderCat - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to GrahamD:

Mrs TC bought me a balloon flight for my birthday once, and when I called up to book a time for it and they found out how much I weighed (21 stone at the time), they told me I would have to pay for an extra place (in effect paying for two places).

Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: I think it makes common sense, family's pay less, fat people feel the need to change and overall, less fuel is used thus, the tree huggers can finally leave us alone.
Jamming Dodger on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Is it bitterly cold up on that high horse of yours?
You hate fat people, tree huggers.... I hate people who can't spell. Therefore I am superior. So there.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: just a suggestion, it makes sense to put a comma after therefore.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: And whilst we're on the matter, I've actually got a horse - but that's irrelevant
.
Jamming Dodger on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Not always necessary. Check your grammar. It also helps to start sentences with a capital letter.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: I'm not starting a sentence...... Can't you see it says 'In reply to...:'
doz generale - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> Unless of course, they can prove it's a medical condition - rather than greed.
>
> You travel on any airline today and they insist on charging you for any excess baggage what so ever. On the other hand though, some great big heffer boards the plane with no extra cost incurred what so ever.

What about fat amputees? Surely they are cheating the system especially if they have prosthetic limbs made from lightweight materials.

Fat midgets? they also are cheating, should be given a slap in the face once boarded.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: you don't get many amputees flying all at once. Also, don't use the word 'midgets' use 'vertically disadvantaged' its more pc.
Jamming Dodger on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to doz generale: Its Prader Willi syndrome or pay! Get with the programme!
Dominion - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22001256

"The head of Samoa Air has defended the airline's decision to start charging passengers according to their weight.

Chris Langton told Australia's ABC Radio that it was "the fairest way of travelling".

Rather than pay for a seat, passengers pay a fixed price per kilogram, which varies depending on the route length.

Samoa Air flies domestically and to American Samoa. It is thought the move could encourage other airlines to introduce similar policies. "



And

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22141525



"Airbus plans to reduce the size of its window seats to make room for wider ones in the aisles.

Those requiring the larger seats would have to pay more for their flight.

Aviation analyst Chris Yates discussed the trend for airlines to vary their charges based on passenger size."
doz generale - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Oliiver) you don't get many amputees flying all at once.

Try telling that to the Chinese paralympic team.
Fredt on 16 Apr 2013
>In reply to Oliiver: Is it bitterly cold up on that high horse of yours?
>You hate fat people, tree huggers.... I hate people who can't spell. Therefore I am superior. So there.

> (In reply to Oliiver) just a suggestion, it makes sense to put a comma after therefore.

You are wrong. A comma there would be entirely superfluous.

You, however should have enclosed the, 'therefore' with quotation marks.

Jamming Dodger on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt: Thanks, but I think education is wasted on him.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Jamming Dodger: It's 'it's' rather than 'its'
roperat - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
I have a feeling it might be an expensive education that has been wasted on him.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Also, jammingdodger if you're so contempt, in maintaining the status quo of fat people flying at no extra cost - I hope you don't mind me saying this. Madam, you are a Female, the Internet is no place for you, specifically discussion. I can see your Husband wants you; what did he say? He says the hoovering, cooking and cleaning need doing? Then hurry on my dear, don't waste your time on here,when your Husband needs you.
deepsoup - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> You, however should have enclosed the, 'therefore' with quotation marks.

Muphry's law strikes again.
deepsoup - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
Your trolling is about as good as your spelling. Can't see you getting a bite with that, Tory Boy.
Jamming Dodger on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Errrrrrr....
.
.
.
.
.
Eh?!
.
.
.
.
That is all.
Fredt on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Oliiver) Also, jammingdodger if you're so contempt, in maintaining the status quo of fat people flying at no extra cost - I hope you don't mind me saying this. Madam, you are a Female, the Internet is no place for you, specifically discussion. I can see your Husband wants you; what did he say? He says the hoovering, cooking and cleaning need doing? Then hurry on my dear, don't waste your time on here,when your Husband needs you.

What an incredible post! That post must take the prize for the worst use of punctuation, grammar and random capitalisation.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: don't blame me, blame apple. Their spell checker is awful.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: I started female with a capital, because their merely the name of an object. I'm not sexist, I'm a realist, I'm just maintaing the status quo of another generation.
Jamming Dodger on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: I was going to go to bed, since I have an early start at 6am to get my husband's lunch ready, scrub the floors and iron his underpants. But now I find myself with baited breath awaiting your next move. Pray, keep talking.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: you forgot his socks.
Neil Williams - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to rocky57:

If there is an opportunity to rejig seats, no doubt some attempt will be made to resolve the situation. If not, I expect you would be offered the choice to put up with it or disembark and take the next available flight instead.

That said, it would depend on how you spoke to the cabin crew about an issue that has little or nothing to do with safety, merely comfort. A skinny short person who's got themselves ratted in the bar then taken sleeping tablets and is sitting in the middle, blocking you in the window, is a greater threat.

If it's Ryanair, OTOH, I expect you would be told to sod off.

Neil
doz generale - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Oliiver) I started female with a capital, because their merely the name of an object. I'm not sexist, I'm a realist, I'm just maintaing the status quo of another generation.

realist? I would say gobshite no?
Neil Williams - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:

FWIW, as I posted upthread, only *very* fat people are likely to encroach onto your seat, which is why this is rarely an actual issue. Mostly their gut just takes up a lot of the space between them and the seat in front.

In my experience it's rather more likely that a healthy but heavyweight bloke, e.g. a bodybuilder or rugby player, encroaches into my seat width at shoulder level. The likelihood of encountering this is one downside of choosing the exit row.

Neil
Jamming Dodger on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: To be honest Oliiiiiver, I dont hate people who can't spell. My ex had trouble spelling. This was because he'd had surgery on his brain. He wasn't stupid.
I fail to acknowledge that you'd have the same excuse.
Still, the empty space must save a lot of weight when it comes to flights under your proposed scheme. Good luck with that, and goodnight. Helen x
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Jamming Dodger: it's not my 'scheme' it's a discussion.
JJL - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Jamming Dodger:

Wow. Lighthearted thread and your toys on the floor?

Fat burd?
Jamming Dodger on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to JJL: 14 stone. I'm big boned, y'see.
Orgsm on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

Inpractical, flights have long enough waits as it is, how do you propose to weigh everyone quickly? Then if their weight doesn't match their estimate, they have to pay. The whole thing would just take too long. The flight experience is bad enough without this, it's why I drive, or take the high speed trains for anything in Europe.
Alyson - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to JJL: Her posts read just as lighthearted as anything else on this delightul thread.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Helen, we don't see eye to eye on fat people flying, but what we do agree on is your outspoken,your outsmarted and quite frankly, your out of order.
Alyson - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: You mean 'you're', not 'your'. And also you're wrong.
Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: exactly what I meant Alyson - thank you.
Alyson - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: I like helping the poorly educated. It's not your fault you have a bad grasp of language <pats little Oliiiiiver on the head>
Jim C - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Oliiver) Also, jammingdodger if you're so contempt, in maintaining the status quo of fat people flying at no extra cost - .........

Oliver, I was going with you, a bit, on the pay by total weight of passenger and baggage thing, ,as there is some merit in it from what we can see from at least one airline having it on trial , I will,however, have to distance myself from your subsequent comments.

I don't want to appear rude, but is this your first language?


Oliiver - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: First language? In terms of nationality?
stroppygob - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: This brought back a recent experience;

As a treat we went to see "Circus Oz" a few weeks back. They had hit Canberra and everyone was raving about them. Go here for a look at what they do.

http://www.circusoz.com.au/

We got in early, with about fifteen minutes before the show started. In the row in front of us two women with about half a dozen kids sat down. One kid screamed for the first ten minutes, "I don’t wanna be struck by lightening!" "I don’t wanna be struck by lightening!" "I don’t wanna be struck by lightening!" "I don’t wanna be struck by lightening!" Until I hit him.

Well I didn’t really it was just the music started and drowned him out, so then he ran up and down the isles for the rest of the show.

The show was just about to start when an enormously fat couple wobbled their way up towards where we were sat. They were clutching a selection of fizzy drinks and a bucket of popcorn each, as well as various other "treats." They checked their tickets, and sat down next to us.

The woman sat on my wife. On her, on top of her. The wife had a quarter of her seat left, and had this woman’s sweaty body enveloping her whole right side; she was pinned to her seat.

Luckily there were a few spare seats next to us, so I got to shuffle along, and pulled the wife out from under the fat woman. When we moved she took over the whole of the wife’s seat, with one buttock to each chair.

If that had been a plane she would have endangered my wife, and we would have not flown that way.
stroppygob - on 16 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Advice from a fatty;

http://stacybias.net/2012/01/flying-while-fat-superfat-tips-for-international-air-travel/

Includes;

Pre-boarding will also allow you to raise the armrest next to you before your fellow passengers arrive. Most folks will be too polite to ask you to put it down and that might afford you another inch or so of hip room.
krikoman - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to Alyson:
> <pats little Oliiiiiver on the head>

It's spelled, "kick's little Oliiiiver in the knackers"

David Martin - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Oliiver) Is it bitterly cold up on that high horse of yours?
> You hate fat people, tree huggers.... I hate people who can't spell. Therefore I am superior. So there.

I don't see any high horses or hatred of fat people in the proposal.

Its simple equality. Myself and my baggage all contribute to the efficiency of the aircraft. If I am required, rightly, to pay more for my increased baggage, I should also be required to pay more (or less) for my relative body weight.
Neil Williams - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to David Martin:

Generally, unless overweight, 1 or 2 kilograms don't make a massive difference to a large commercial aircraft.

The idea of a baggage allowance is mainly:-
1. (most airlines) To ensure everyone doesn't bring way too much.
2. (Ryanair) To catch people out and make them pay more by having it lower than every other airline.

This is different on airlines flying very small planes e.g. 8-seaters. It's no coincidence that the airline that is documented as doing this is indeed flying 8-seaters.

Neil
abseil on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:
>...how do you propose to weigh everyone quickly?

I suppose they can put a metal pad under where passengers stand, which shows a readout of the weight at the checkin agent's desk? Still takes a bit of time, of course.
fraserbarrett - on 17 Apr 2013
As a dyslexic I find some of the spelling/punctuation comments on this thread (along with other threads but that’s the internet for you) highly offensive. Spelling and grammar are a very poor indication of intelligence and can defiantly be independent of education. I have to concentrate hard to spell well, but have a higher than average intelligence and a good master’s degree from a very good university (because they don’t discriminate based on spelling!). I also have a very rewarding, well paid job.
Some of the greatest minds of human history were probably dyslexic, as one trait that dyslexics tend to have is an increase in analytical and logical reasoning.
I do wander if those of you who are spelling pedants are suffering from a lack of self-esteem in other parts of your life and focusing on belittling people in one area you feel you are competent?
Or is it that you are struggling to win an argument, based on logic and debate, and therefore take the politicians approach and pick at the candidate rather than the policies (as it were)?
ThunderCat - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to fraserbarrett:
> I do wander if those of you ....



'wonder'.

:)
PanzerHanzler on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to fraserbarrett: Well said that man.
David Martin - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to David Martin)
>
> Generally, unless overweight, 1 or 2 kilograms don't make a massive difference to a large commercial aircraft.

No, but multiply that by 300 and you have a substantial amount. Moreover, while hold luggage might only be a few kilos over, it's quite clear passengers can easily carry a good 20-30 extra kilos of flesh. This is far more substantial.

Just seems a bit silly to gouge me for cash (or restrict my packing) on account of my hold luggage while seated passengers carrying extra weight don't pay a penny more.

> The idea of a baggage allowance is mainly:-
> 1. (most airlines) To ensure everyone doesn't bring way too much.
Why should that worry an airline (in terms of hold luggage) any more than body weight?

> 2. (Ryanair) To catch people out and make them pay more by having it lower than every other airline.
If an airline wishes to make more money this way, that is their prerogative. Nothing discriminatory about it, whether the charge applies to lard or luggage.

> This is different on airlines flying very small planes e.g. 8-seaters. It's no coincidence that the airline that is documented as doing this is indeed flying 8-seaters.
Agreed
TomBaker - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:
I'm pretty sure at 14 stone you won't be paying much more than you do now.

More than the average woman, but not too much extra.

Also wasn't this thread nice.

Everyone should pay per kg, not "extra" for fat people, a sliding scale starting at nothing for those of us not flying, right up to chartering the plane if you and your luggage take up the entire aircraft.
krikoman - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to fraserbarrett:
>

> I do wander if those of you who are spelling pedants are suffering from a lack of self-esteem in other parts of your life and focusing on belittling people in one area you feel you are competent?

I have a small penus

andy - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to fraserbarrett: It's a fact of life that spelling and punctuation do matter though - I write papers that go to boards of various firms, and if they're not (a) well written and (b) spelt properly then firstly they wouldn't even get presented and if they did then they would be less well received than they would otherwise.
fraserbarrett - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to andy:
> (In reply to fraserbarrett) It's a fact of life that spelling and punctuation do matter though

I didn't say that they didn't matter, but on an internet forum where things are written quickly, and for instant consumption, I think they matter much less than some people make out......
Fat Bumbly2 - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to fraserbarrett: Typong skills came later in life and leave much tp be desired. Also English is a pig of a language to spell in. Words are more like pictograms than collections of letters. Guess the vowel is a constant irritation.
In reply to fraserbarrett:
>
>
> I didn't say that they didn't matter, but on an internet forum where things are written quickly, and for instant consumption, I think they matter much less than some people make out......

They matter less to you and more to some others,


Chris
Oliiver - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to fraserbarrett: I completely agree with you.
Bob Hughes - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply
> [...]
> Why should that worry an airline (in terms of hold luggage) any more than body weight?

because passengers load themselves onto the plane whereas baggage has to be manhandled

Neil Williams - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to Bob Hughes:

They aren't described in the industry as "self-loading freight" for nothing :)

Neil
Jim C - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Oliiver) Advice from a fatty;
>
> http://stacybias.net/2012/01/flying-while-fat-superfat-tips-for-international-air-travel/
>
> Includes;
> Pre-boarding will also allow you to raise the armrest next to you before your fellow passengers arrive. Most folks will be too polite to ask you to put it down and that might afford you another inch or so of hip room.

For the above, others read it pays to be impolite at the expense of others that ARE polite and ' your 'fellow passengers' will be made to pay for that politeness.

Also Replace ' afford you' with 'steal' another inch or two from your neighbour.

Just read it all, there are some suggestions that would benefit everyone, but asking to be upgraded to dearer seats they were not prepared to pay for just annoyed me.

Lots of good advice, but NO diet plans !
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to abseil:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
> >...how do you propose to weigh everyone quickly?
>

There's already a good system for outsize hand luggage that could be adopted. Just put a metal frame the width of a standard airline seat at the boarding gate.

Oliiver - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: fat people also damage airports and use more resources, e.g. Toilet roll and their selfish when it comes to seating.
waterbaby - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

You don't smoke, drink alcohol or eat processed food, I take it?

You are the perfect human being. You are not a drain on the NHS now or in the future (assuming the NHS will survive that long).

You should holiday/ work at home, flying is not terribly environmentally friendly, leave the flying for the fat ignorant folk....problem solved.

Jim C - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to abseil)
> [...]
>
> There's already a good system for outsize hand luggage that could be adopted. Just put a metal frame the width of a standard airline seat at the boarding gate.

A simple designated weigh bridge area in front of the check in desk will do it, you stand on it , with your luggage, and it is job done, let us not find or invent difficulties that are not there, it would take the same time to weigh as it does now, with very few modifications.

The practicalities is not the difficulty, it is the reluctance for airlines to tackle something that is clearly unfair to some, and benefits others, if you try and change it, the ones that currently benefit will complain and find all sorts of spurious reasons to keep the Status Quo.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Neil Williams - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to Jim C:

This:-

" Pre-boarding will also allow you to raise the armrest next to you before your fellow passengers arrive. Most folks will be too polite to ask you to put it down and that might afford you another inch or so of hip room."

is rubbish, because the cabin crew will require you to lower it for take-off for safety reasons.

Neil
Neil Williams - on 17 Apr 2013
In reply to Jim C:

More passengers don't check bags these days than do. Where would you do it for them, the gate I guess?

Neil
teflonpete - on 18 Apr 2013
In reply to waterbaby:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> You don't smoke, drink alcohol or eat processed food, I take it?
>
> You are the perfect human being. You are not a drain on the NHS now or in the future (assuming the NHS will survive that long).
>
> You should holiday/ work at home, flying is not terribly environmentally friendly, leave the flying for the fat ignorant folk....problem solved.


Hopefully he doesn't drink or smoke, he's fifteen! Doesn't stop him being an expert on Thatcher and '80s politics though...
teflonpete - on 18 Apr 2013
In reply to fraserbarrett:

> Some of the greatest minds of human history were probably dyslexic, as one trait that dyslexics tend to have is an increase in analytical and logical reasoning.

Oh dear, spelling is one thing (and not a problem afaic) but you'll have trouble with that statement being accepted without references or examples.

Some of the greatest minds in human history PROBABLY had fantasies about beastiality.
See what a meaningless statement yours was? If you've got a Masters you should know better.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.