SSP

An Australian nutritionist is proposing that airlines charge more for fat people.

https://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bus...ax.tickell.cnn

It kind of makes sense...fat people cost the airlines more in terms of fuel, so why not?

Towards the end of the interview, he proposes what I think is a valid proposal - that when you check in for your flight, you and your luggage are weighed together. If you're over a set limit (he suggests 120 kilos), then you would be assessed an extra fee for being overweight.


He also proposes that governments stop subsidizing agricultural products that make us fat (e.g., corn and wheat), and start subsidizing fruits and vegetables instead.

Interesting stuff....

eubi

To put this into perspective, a 757 will hold 240 passengers.

Let's suppose they are all 30# overweight. That's 7,200#

The max takeoff weight of a 757 is 270,000#

(7,200#/270,000#)*100 = 2.7% Not very much.

I think the airlines just want to cram the seats closer together, if this is possible.

Forgive my sarcasm, I'm 6'2"

Marrock

Tell you what, you spend some time being singled out for your weight or how you look or just because someone with a tiny bit of power doesn't like you and then tell us how valid the proposal is.

SSP

I kind of doubt they could cram them any closer together than they already are!

As for the 2.7% - the airlines already operate on pretty thin margins (excuse the pun), and it takes more fuel to haul a plane full of Sumo wrestlers than a plane full of triathletes.

However, given political correctness, and the normalization of obesity, I doubt the airlines or the government will do anything about it. In effect, thin folks will be subsidizing the extra costs associated with fat folks (something that already happens with health insurance, for instance).

maddmaxx 

Be careful what people wish for. Everyone has some characteristic that could be charged for somewhere!

Oh by the way a 2.7% increase in takeoff weight is a very large amount of $ in fuel burn and paying passenger capacity.

SSP

Or subsidize...I should get a subsidy for being bald!

Tom Stormcrowe

How about a subsidy on sensitivity (or lack thereof)

SSP

If implemented properly, it would be no different than the overweight luggage surcharge that is standard on international flights.

You could be overweight due to your luggage, or your spare tire, or both. But, "you" wouldn't be singled out...you'd just be surcharged because your total mass on the airplane was over limit.

Presumably it wouldn't be called a "fat surcharge" or a "fat tax"...something more politically correct like "weight limit surcharge".

Beverly

It's not the corn and wheat that make us fat, it's the way we prepare it. People have been known to make vegetables fattening also.....deep fried cauliflower, etc

SSP

Yeah, but it just seems really weird that with obesity skyrocketing in this country, we're subsidizing farmers to grow corn, wheat, and tobacco, but not fruits and veggies.

dipy911

People would look for ways around it like every other stupid rule/law out there. Give your luggage to your children, they have to have a valid ticket as well. This rule would also slow down check-in even further, as every passenger would have to be weighed. I think the current rule, If you need two seats/pay for it, is adequate.

Dchiefransom

People that are overweight don't cost the airplane more in terms of fuel, either for taking off or keeping it airborne. The airlines must want to weigh the passengers so they can take more "freight" in the baggage hold and charge companies for transporting that freight, by getting closer to a maximum limit for the plane.

stapfam

I am a slim 150lb (70kgs) at 5'6" My riding mate is 220 lbs at 6'7" He is quite slim for his weight but at 100kgs-he wouldn't be taking much luggage.

maddmaxx 

Extra weight costs fuel. This is one of the basic rules of jet engine disign and performance.....and cost. It also explains why airlines have limited flight crew weights in the past. Flight attendent unions have had some very interesting disagreements with the airlines.

CB HI

Never flown on Japan Airlines (JAL) eh!

SSP

Thankfully...no. If it's tighter than standard US coach, that sounds like a nightmare (especially given the length of those flights!).

John E

Then there is the entire problem of being crowded in coach (or a theatre) by an exceptionally wide person in the next seat.

bobkat

Aircraft are rated at gross weight for takeoff, and some for maximum landing weights which is less because they burn off fuel during the flight. Those weights are carefully calculated and are CRITICAL for safety. Lately there have been a couple of accidents (all fatal) that were thought to be due to uncontrollability, or at least contributed to uncontrolability, because people entering aircraft are all assumed by the FAA to be the same weight for simplicity. They are increasing the "average" weight of passengers because of this, which will reduce the total number of passengers in some smaller aircraft and in the future for large ones.
So to say that passenger's weight is not important is incorrect.

Neil_B

Bad idea, as other posters have pointed out. Size does not equal fat. Tall folks would pay the charge just like your hypothetical "spare tire" carrier. According to your proposed 'rule', every NBA team would need to pay a surcharge. Or are you going to require body-fat composition screenings before selling tickets?

Neil_B

Why cut into my market, Tom?

Old Hammer Boy

Whew! This whole discussion is way too heavy for me.

CrossChain

Dancing around the delicate issue of the moral stigma attached to being....obese. Today on NPR, one nutritional expert cited half the world's population as being seriously overweight; he considered this the greatest threat to humanity-- greater than anything Al Gore describes. I teach in a low income area. Most of my parents (and many of their kids) are overweight and have little concern/knowledge of nutrition. (No ma'am, Hot Cheetohs and pepperoni sticks are not a dinner staple.) For cultural, social, economic, genetic, and personal reasons-- some controllable and some not-- people become fat.

Does attaching a stigma, mild or otherwise, help? Dunno. How should obese people be judged--or not judged? Dunno.

But, the meathook reality is that fat costs a person (and their children) health, quality of life, money, self-esteem, and dignity. Others also pay the indirect cost form health care costs to .......jet fuel.

Neil_B

I've been attacked before for suggesting that for most people the reasons they became fat are within their power to control, so I won't argue the point here. I don't suggest applying a stigma to obesity, but I do suggest educating people that obesity is a lifestyle choice, and a lousy one at that. The best way to do this is to emphasize that it IS a choice, and that fat people are NOT victims. Take it from a recovering fat person.

Neil
was 385/now 255/will be 220

cyclinfool

I think the reasonable policy I have seen is that if the person can't put the arm rest down beside them when sitting in a seat they have to buy two tickets. It's not weight related but girth related. As a frequent flyer I think this is reasonable, although as I walk onto a plane I am always hopeing I don't get the seat next to the big people and hopeing for the seat next to the thin hotty - the latter NEVER happens.

BSLeVan

If we follow through with the logic, couldn't we also say that a heavier vehicle causes more wear and tear on the roads. Hence, there should be a "fat tax" on any bicycle weighing over 16 pounds.