I'm glad to see we are looking to Samoa to revolutionize our air transportation system.
So the guy who is 6'4", 225 lbs, fit and healthy needs to take the same "level of responsibility" as a woman who is 5'0" and 225 pounds? You're suggesting weighing three hundred people, one at a time, then processing payment for each one at the gate before departure?
Have you ever seen an airline lose revenue because it's passengers weigh too much? Sure, they burn a little more fuel than they probably did 10 or 20 years ago because average weights are increasing, but isn't that more than offset by big increases in aircraft efficiency, and more direct routes and fuel efficient arrival procedures?
Do you probably pay a few dollars more per ticket because people are heavier? Sure- but I'd be shocked if it's more than $5.
If you want to be angry about the obesity problem, look to our healthcare system. This is where we all pay more for the unhealthy. Do you think you're really going to change anyone's lifestyle habits by humiliating them at the airport?
Can we let this bad idea rest now?

 

I love the idea if only because it would drive the PC police absolutely berzerk!

An added bonus is that it would force people (especially women) to travel with less. And while they are at it, they should double the price for carry-ons.

This is a consequence of the PC BS they foist off onto society.

Welcome to "equality".

 

I'm guessing that if you weighed all our passengers with all their luggage, women would still be lighter on average. Shoes, make-up and underwear weigh a lot less than human flesh, and men are still bigger than women on average.
There is some validity to the idea of charging people for carry on luggage. Didn't Spirit do this a few years ago? I don't know if they still do it. I remember the idea was met with a lot of criticism, but isn't the overhead space a desirable product? No one wants to check luggage, but they all want the overheads, so why aren't we charging for it?

 

I agree with you on all your points. Weighing pax would not only be a logistical nightmare but would only further **** off paying customers.. BRILLIANT idea, airline management!!

IF any of them had a brain they'd charge for carry ons and NOT for checked luggage. That would help expedite the boarding and make everyone's life easier. I "think" Spirit lets you take a bag that will fit under the seat for free---but ones that don't fit and need overhead space do get a fee.

BTW, I'm guessing the only guys who like this ridiculous idea are of the 5'4", 135 lb. soaking wet variety who have "little man syndrome."

 

It's crazy

 

Well, if we're paying by weight, I want size/weight appropriate seating too. If the one-fare doesn't fit all, neither does one seat and/or seat pitch.

But there goes preferential seating too - as you'd be more likely to have to distribute your big people seats towards the middle and the lighter ones towards the rear.

Or maybe rotating seats, where as you burn fuel and the CG moves forward, bigger people move further aft?

 

Sounds fair to me. As one of the bigger, taller folks who would be paying more, I can support that. Since the bigger people would be paying more than the smaller folks, the smaller folks can sit in the back, boarding and de-planing last.

Did I mention how much I love knowing how upset this idea would make the PC morons?? LOL

 

We already have seats to accommodate anyone too big for a standard seat: it's called first class. Or, just buy two coach seats. You guys are coming up with solutions for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Instead of being so defensive of the current pricing systems, be a little open to other thoughts and ideas. Disagreeing is fine but hammering folks for thinking outside the good old box once in a while solves nothing.

I understand what airline management will do and not do. It’s still not a bad thing to float around thoughts and ideas on subjects like this. We all don’t have to always keep on being the “good drone” and keep the status quo.

 

Not really "thinking outside the box"- more like an excuse to pick on the overweight, and the PC police (PC Police being defined as anyone who is more sensitive than yourself.).

Our current pricing system is based on supply and demand- like everything for sale in a capitalist society. We sell a block of space in a tube that moves people from one place to another. As long as you fit in the block, it doesn't matter what you weigh. Passenger airliner payloads are limited by volume, not weight. You guys are arguing as though the airlines are losing money because people are too fat. Yes, the plane burns more fuel if it is heavier, but we pass that cost on to the customer, and it's only a small part of the overall cost of running an airline anyway.

If you're running an with small planes that tend to be limited by weight rather than volume, and you can't sell all the seats because you're customers are too big, then maybe a policy like this makes some sense. Otherwise, why is it even being discussed?