Ultimately while the principle is good - and, as an overweight person, I'd have no problem paying more if it was done fairly - no airline would ever introduce this fairly. Once they've raised the price for fatter people, why, as a business, would they lower the price for thinner people to balance it out? Why not just take more profit?
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 had a conversation in an airport holding lounge once with some random guy, as I was annoyed that I had personally lost weight, but paid extra because my bags were a kilo too much. He told me that in one of the Indonesian countries, you simply stand on a scale with your bag, and that's how they calculated your weight allowance, and if you were over or not.
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.
This is what I've been saying for a long time. It makes no difference if the weight is in the bag or in the seat (and as a small guy with generally large bags, this is obviously a self-serving argument.)
Baggage handling type people don't have to haul you around and stow you beneath the plane. I was recently bitten by an overweight bag, and subsequently broke it into a second carry-on in a return flight. 25$ for extra bag, 100$ for overweight...
Anyways, what I was traveling with was unreasonably heavy, and would be a hassle to toss into the stowage, probably be a greater burden/wear on the conveyors etc.
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.
Yes, you can bring food and drinks onto planes. There may be limits to what you can bring before security, but anything after the security line is fair game.
> Once they've raised the price for fatter people, why, as a business, would they lower the price for thinner people to balance it out? Why not just take more profit?
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.
It's not just about the relative costs of transporting overweight people. I am 180cm tall, and 70kgs in weight. On a non-stop flight between SF and London, I was sandwiched between two massively overweight men. I could not even eat a meal, and struggled to turn the pages of a book, since these two took up at least 30% of the space that should have been mine. I asked the stewardess to move me because it was so uncomfortable, but she claimed there were no free seats.
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.
While the idea may make sense on paper, would this really save money?
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.
Many of us who fly don't check luggage. In fact, I'd be willing to be that the majority of people on shorter domestic flights don't check luggage. All of the sudden an airline would need a lot more staff to weigh people because everyone would now be getting in line to be weighed.
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.
I'm 6'5", 275lbs. Fine, charge me more. But you better give me a seat that is reasonable for my body size. The width and leg room of coach seats today is completely absurd!
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.
On some airlines, but the majority don't have them. I always try to get exit row, but even then the seat width is pretty small. If you're 5'2" I'm sure it's great! :)
The main rationalization for this kind of policy seems to be "we already pay for heavier luggage, so why not for heavier people as well?"
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.
The article seems to miss one key point that would make implementing this much more complex. While we have some control over our BMI (weight to height ratio) we don't have control over our height.
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.
Is BMI a relevant factor in this discussion? The author's point is that higher weight = higher cost of transportation due to fuel costs. If you're a tall person, it may not be your "fault" that you are heavier than average, but that doesn't change the fact that someone who weighs 200 lbs adds more to the fuel costs of a plane than someone who weighs 150 lbs.
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.
We don't have control over our birth gender, age, country of origin or a large other myriad of factors that are used to calculate insurance premiums. Certain industries succeed in placing these kinds of discrimination on the consumer, others socialise it across their entire base.
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.
I don't think this is supposed to be viewed as a "fat people policy." If the airlines were to implement this they wouldn't do it to punish obese people. It's not like they're going to calculate your BMI. It would be purely on weight; whether you're 6'5" or 5'6".
Whether the weight comes from obesity or from simple body size has no effect on the cost-per-kg to transport someone by air. If you're 6'5'', you're transporting more mass - it's only fair to pay more, because it costs more to move you.
As someone who is 6'8", 310lbs and spent 12 hours flying last week, I would have to strongly disagree. Until airlines provide a means of adjusting available room to compensate for height, its not appropriate to charge taller people more at all.
I too have friends in this category. I know really tall guys who are solid muscle and weigh a LOT. They're not fat at all but they are approaching the weight of two average people, easy.
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.
Interesting that they don't mention luggage, which if we're talking about weight is a significant factor.
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.
The example given in the article destroys any credibility this argument has. If you take a 500+ seat plane and increase every passengers weight by 20% it only costs an additional $472 for a trip from Sydney-Singapore-London. That's less than $1 per seat difference. What is the cost of tracking and weighing every passenger? Hard to see how there could be any gain from this.
No mention in the article about people who overflow their seats. I personally don't care whether the person beside me is 6'7" and 220lbs. But I do care if they're 5'0', 220lbs and half of their body is on my lap. Prices should rise with average customer weight for everyone across the board to make up for fuel costs, but when someone takes up two seats, they should pay extra for it.
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.
I've been saying this for awhile, not because of fuel prices but because of comfort. It is rude for an overweight person to spill into adjacent seats.
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.)
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.
In one statement, you say that not all people make a choice about their bodies and in the next you say that people are sometimes sedentary because they work so hard in their field. Well - that's the choice. They choose to spend all of their time working and none of their time exercising.
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.
I'm very overweight, but not so much that I spill over on a plane seat - yeah, it annoys me when sat next to someone like that.
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?
Additionally, smokers will, on average, die sooner and cost less in pensions. [1] [2] (The study is kind of.. morbid in it's conclusions, and even stranger is that the tobacco industry endorsed it.)
I've been looking for a similar study on overweight, but couldn't find any as of now.
Do you have any evidence for the extraordinary claim that one fat American causes increased health care costs for a skinny American. Take into account overall life expectancy, variable insurance rates, and fit people that fall off mountains and get hurt playing sports.
I always think back to the discussion in supersizeme when they're talking about how it's now socially acceptable to heckle smokers in public, and wonder when it will be the same for obese people.
This is pretty unenforceable, but could work if you counted passenger weight as passenger + carry on baggage, and merely set a limit on that (above which you have to pay a surcharge). That way you're not inherently charging heavier people more, but rather limiting how much baggage they can take as a result.
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.
This would be pretty much impossible for an existing airline to implement but what a great disruptive concept for a new discount airline startup. Your ticket is based on your total weight (body plus baggage) which means it would be totally attractive to anyone who is skinny and travels light (plus you're less likely to be squeezed in between two oversized seatmates). Sure you give up the heavy clientele but you gain a lock on an attractive slice of the market.
There are many things that influence how much it costs to transport people or anything else-- including weather, how much taxiing is involved and the style of the pilot.
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.
Many airlines have some type of policy in place for this. It is usually more about how big a passenger is, rather than pure weight (although the two are related). Of course, airlines, the bastions of customer service that they are, can't get it right...
There's no reason to have a bunch of different prices. You just have a total weight allocation for each customer, and instead of just weighing your bags, they weigh you and your bags. If the combination is overweight, you pay excess just like you do now. (Ideally on a somewhat proportionate scale as opposed to the "oh you are 1lb over, that'll be $100" approach many airlines seem to use now.)
Ever wonder why your bag mysteriously didn't arrive your destination? Could be too many overweight people on board. It's cheaper to "forget" some baggage than to ask passengers to stay behind.
So you're suggesting that airlines route baggage differently because the marginal increase in passengers' weight is pushing the airplane load past the factor of safety the FAA requires?
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.
below, I make a nuanced economic argument, sorry I don't have time to clean it up, believe me it's all economic.
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.
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.