Obese to pay more to fly?

Originally posted by Scrooge
On an international yes he does

Including the after dinner mint? I hear it's wafer thin. [:w]

GJ

They do, airline seats come in 4 sizes to suit 4 different sized people - they are called 'economy' (little people), 'economy plus' (medium people), 'Business' (quite large people) and 'First' (large people).

The 4 'size' seats have varying amounts of space. Infact the airlines 'favour' large people and - the larger you are - the more extra perks you get to go with your larger seat [y]

Of course, so airlines aren't seen to discrimanate against little people and only favour giving these extra perks to large people, they will also sell these bigger seats (with the added perks) to little people too [8D]

It is just odd to me that larger people often don't follow the airlines' seat sizing recommendations and STILL opt for the littlest seats... [?]

Boo

Originally posted by pkatmk
In principle its fair.

The simplest way of charging heavier passengers more, is for airlines to offer a range of seats with varying sizes (extra width as well as pitch) and to charge according to this extra space together with an allowance for the likely extra weight. Airlines can then publish a maximum recommended weight (or waist size) for each seat type.

I think a lot of overweight people would be very happy with this arrangement.

The idea that an extra charge will somehow deter obesity is however naive in the extreme.

Originally posted by Boo Boo
It is just odd to me that larger people often don't follow the airlines' seat sizing recommendations and STILL opt for the littlest seats... [?]

After literally years of trying to scientifically establish a link between extra pounds (weight) and extra pounds (dosh), I have, regrettably, come to the conclusion that being overweight does not equate to being wealthy enough to spend hundreds -- or even thousands -- of extra dollars on larger seats, even though I might have enjoyed the extra room for my expansive backfield.

I reckon others have had that same experience and, thus, though girthsome, are short of the extra fare these 'larger seats' you speak of require.

Due to the results of my research, I decided to lose my extra weight and now fit very comfortably in a coach seat, though my frequent flying tends to get me booted up to first.

My mind, however, is always open. If you find a foolproof way to gain weight and a concordant increase in available funds, do share it. [y]

GJ

Ah, but pkatmk's point was that larger/weightier passengers would more than happy to be charged more if they were supplied with a bigger seat... [;)]

I am not sure that pkatmk's assertion that this proposed 'obesity charge' is designed to encourage people to loose weight - I think the3 reasons behind the airlines wanting to charge more money for heavier people is solely financial.

Boo

Originally posted by Boo Boo
Ah, but pkatmk's point was that larger/weightier passengers would more than happy to be charged more if they were supplied with a bigger seat... [;)]

I'm not sure I agree with pkatmk's assertion...but vive la difference! I reckon most people-of-size would like to sit comfortably at no premium to them. Whether that is a realistic expectation is another matter, entirely.

Well at any rate, I am off to a domestic flight to DFW now. I am on the bulkhead aisle, 6D. Hopefully I will not be pushed into the aisle by a sarcous seatmate! [y]

GJ

Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes
I'm not sure I agree with pkatmk's assertion...but vive la difference! I reckon most people-of-size would like to sit comfortably at no premium to them. Whether that is a realistic expectation is another matter, entirely.

Well at any rate, I am off to a domestic flight to DFW now. I am on the bulkhead aisle, 6D. Hopefully I will not be pushed into the aisle by a sarcous seatmate! [y]

Probably not... basically we all (fat, slim, stupidly-skinny, short, tall, musclely etc) want to travel in as much comfort as possible for a low as price as possible...

Air travel will ALWAYS be a trade-off between comfort and the cost we are willing to pay. Want more comfort, pay more money. Want to pay as little as humanly possible, then put up with a bit of discomfort for a few hours.

That is one of the reasons (there are others... [:D] ) why many of us spend so much time on places like this - so we can maximise the level of comfort for the minimal price (i.e. using airmiles, getting special offers etc.etc.)

Economy seats are as small and as tight as they are because that is what the market will support at that level. If people want/need more space, then they need to pay for it (and that option is open to them - by paying for a higher class or an extra seat).

Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes
Well at any rate, I am off to a domestic flight to DFW now. I am on the bulkhead aisle, 6D. Hopefully I will not be pushed into the aisle by a sarcous seatmate! [y]

Have a safe and very pleasant trip [8D]

Boo

Originally posted by Boo Boo
I am not sure that pkatmk's assertion that this proposed 'obesity charge' is designed to encourage people to loose weight - I think the3 reasons behind the airlines wanting to charge more money for heavier people is solely financial.

Boo

Not my assertion; it was somewhat implied in the headline:-

'A leading Australian nutritionist has urged airlines to charge obese passengers more for their seats'

Originally posted by Boo Boo
They do, airline seats come in 4 sizes to suit 4 different sized people - they are called 'economy' (little people), 'economy plus' (medium people), 'Business' (quite large people) and 'First' (large people).

In reality the seat size correlates very poorly with the overall size of the passenger. Most of the extra space in each class increment is in the back to front direction - only one or two extra inches in width.

I'm not sure I agree with pkatmk's assertion...but vive la difference! I reckon most people-of-size would like to sit comfortably at no premium to them. Whether that is a realistic expectation is another matter, entirely.

GJ

On reflection, 'happy' was a poor choice of words. What I meant was given a choice between a cramped seat and a more spacious comfortable seat many overweight people would accept a correspondingly higher price.

(edited to improve clarity)

Originally posted by RichardMannion
But hold on, why should airlines make the seats bigger, and therefore be unable to carry as many passengers therefore pushing the cost per seat up? Airlines do have seats with more space, in business and first.

My thoughts exactly.

Originally posted by RichardMannion

What about this then - average passenger weight for UK is decided upon, and then airline factors in your luggage allowance. That's your lot before you have to pay excess baggage. So if average is say 100Kg and airline gives you 50Kg of luggage then your total is 150kg overall, if you weigh 120kg, then you now only have 30kg of luggage allowance.

Fantastic - increased luggage allowance for kids - I like it. I think pro-rata (even at 75% fare) kids - especially small ones - pay far more kg for kg for their seat.

FM

Question: If you buy two seats for yourself can you be sure of being seated together? [:D]

FM

[honey lamb]

Originally posted by FamilyMan
Question: If you buy two seats for yourself can you be sure of being seated together? [:D]

FM

Aer Lingus once famously did place a guy who had bought two seats for himself in different rows [:D]

Originally posted by RichardMannion
and am taxed (e.g. I don't have children, so can I get the education spend element returned?).

Think of it this way, Richard:- you are taxed on the option granted to you by HM Govt. to have your children educated free, however many children that may be. None or many.
Come to think of it, isn't Charterhouse not too far away from where you are?

Very delicate situation.

I was seated by the window with a rather portly person in the middle seat - I could not sit upright in my seat due to the 'overspill' nor could I use the on arm channel/volume controls without prior request to allow me to access them. It was just a bit odd they were sat in the middle seat - much better to have been sat in the aisle or window. fortunately it was only an hour long flight.

The seat I had was allocated 1 minute before the flight closed as I transfered from a later flight. Maybe they were trying to keep 'my' seat open.

I agree if one is not able to be contained within the space of the seat bought then an additional one should be purchased, or move up a cabin.

And as for paying taxes for unused services - roll on the revolution. I'll watch on from afar...

[HighFlyer]

Originally posted by Ian

Think of it this way, Richard:- you are taxed on the option granted to you by HM Govt. to have your children educated free, however many children that may be. None or many.
Come to think of it, isn't Charterhouse not too far away from where you are?

Nope, we are out in Oxfordshire.

The point is, we dont want children but have to subsidise others lifestyle choices. The majority of larger people are that way through a lifestyle choice, should we have to subsidise them as well? Isnt it more reasonable to say that people making certain decisions in life, such as to have children, be prepared to pay for the choices they have made rather than expect others who didnt make the same choice, or a governmental body, to contribute towards it?

This is a very interesting topic that has already been done to death in the thread that Nick linked to without coming to an agreed upon answer. My own personal viewpoint is above. If you are one of these unfortunate people who require more space through a medical condition then my opinion still stands that you ought to pay for it. It is not other peoples fault that you were born the way you were. I have my own medical issues that cause problems for me, but I see it as my problem to deal with them and to make life as comfortable for me as i can afford, and not to inflict my issues upon other people. I cant help feeling that a very large person (for whatever cause) that chooses to sit in an airline seat where they will obviously not fit properly is not only doing themselves harm but inflicting that displeasure on those around them. A no win situation for all.

Thanks,
Sarah

Originally posted by HighFlyer

Originally posted by Ian

Think of it this way, Richard:- you are taxed on the option granted to you by HM Govt. to have your children educated free, however many children that may be. None or many.
Come to think of it, isn't Charterhouse not too far away from where you are?

The point is, we dont want children but have to subsidise others lifestyle choices. Isnt it more reasonable to say that people making certain decisions in life, such as to have children, be prepared to pay for the choices they have made rather than expect others who didnt make the same choice, or a governmental body, to contribute towards it?

Thanks,
Sarah

Erm no....... Thankfully taxation is not something you can dip in or out of to suit your 'lifestyle' choice of the moment.

If we all decided not to have children you wouldn't have a country able to support itself within a few decades.

So therefore you could turn it around and say people who make a choice not to have children should pay more tax as they will be relying on the future generations for everything further down the line into old age and haven't contributed to the future prosperity of the country

Jon B

[HighFlyer]

Clearly we disagree, and are taking this thread off to another tangent altogether. Children do not automatically equal a contribution to the future prosperity of this country.

We are pre-programmed to procreate so we'll never have a situation where we all decide not to have children. My stance in this day and age is that having children should be a privilege for some, not a right for all, and I do strongly feel that if you have children you should be paying for them yourself rather than increasing costs for those that dont. Compare it to the Mother who believes its okay for the state to pay for her Childs upbringing rather than working herself.

I'm happy to debate this further in Off Topic but would like to keep this thread focused on the obesity issues.

Thanks,
Sarah

Originally posted by HighFlyer
The point is, we dont want children but have to subsidise others lifestyle choices. The majority of larger people are that way through a lifestyle choice, should we have to subsidise them as well? Isnt it more reasonable to say that people making certain decisions in life, such as to have children, be prepared to pay for the choices they have made rather than expect others who didnt make the same choice, or a governmental body, to contribute towards it?

Hhmmm, am not so sure (keeping on topic, I hope [:)] ).

Yes - for most people like you, me and many of the other posters on the board - I agree. We are educated, clever and know about food and exercise and how they affect our weight and health. We CAN make a conscious decision to stay within a healthy range of weight.

There are a lot of people out there who are neither educated enough nor intelligent enough to make this lifestyle choice. Even if these issues are touched upon in schools, then think of people who manage to leave school without being able to read properly or do basic numeracy. If they can't pick up the basics from education, why should they pick up lessons on nutrition and exercise?

Plus you have the HUGE generation of young people who have been brought up on turkey twizzlers, chips and thinking that using the Playstation is exercise.... There is a huge lack of parental responsibility regarding lifestyle (amongst other things... [ii] ).

Of course there are people who are obese and just don't care or who aren't prepared to do anything about it...

It doesn't mean that obesity is acceptable at all or that overflowing into someone else's person space is acceptable either. BUT it is a mistake to think that obesity is a conscious decision for many people. It s a bit like having kids: for some of us it is a conscious decision, but for a lot it isn't. Doesn't mean it is right (like you, I agree that having kids should be a privelege and a responsibility...).

I don't know, sticky issue really...

I think all airlines should ensure that passengers buy the space that they need (if they need two seats, they should purchase two seats).

Boo

Viva la difference !

Originally posted by hackneyguy
Viva la difference !

I said that earlier, you piker [:p]

And if Lady Sarah continues to discuss procreation [:0] I am going to faint away dead, right here, at my keyboard. [}:)]

GJ

Originally posted by HighFlyer
Clearly we disagree, and are taking this thread off to another tangent altogether.

Thankfully we do Sarah, and should you wish to debate the topic further in a different thread I'd be delighted to continue.

Now to swing back OT..... Why should anyone in a modern society be discriminated against? Well the short, sharp answer should be - no reason whatsoever. Intolerance of others based on weight, sex, colour or any other reason you can think of can never be a good thing.

The very fact that if someone is 'obese' means that they have to pay more for a service that is offered to all that wish, or choose to use it is just wrong.

I work, pay tax, don't smoke and keep myself fit. So should my tax £ be used to treat others who maybe do smoke or drink or have weight related health issues? Yes of course it should

Jon B

[Decker]

The service ISN'T offered to all that wish/choose, it's offered to all that can afford it. If, by dint of accident of birth, I found myself born in a shanty town outside Soweto it is very unlikely I could afford to travel by air internationally.

[preiffer]

To help others, I've managed to sum up Jon B's suggestion with one single link [;)]

It's not discrimination we're talking about here - it's practicalities. Can a blind person drive a bus with 50 passengers on it? NO. Is that discrimination because we've prevented someone from doing as they wish?!? (handy hint: NO)

And no, Jon, I DON'T believe MY taxes should go towards the treatment of others who CHOOSE to damage their health by smoking. [n]

Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes

Originally posted by hackneyguy
Viva la difference !

I said that earlier, you piker [:p]

And if Lady Sarah continues to discuss procreation [:0] I am going to faint away dead, right here, at my keyboard. [}:)]

GJ

Sorry smiler - didnt see it ! [:p] It is that any sort of descrimination gets me a bit heated - and as for breeding, all I wanted was children before I turned 30 and it wasnt to be now I am a little over 30 having kids is the last thing we want. BUT I know many many women who were adament about not having children in their 20's but then they turn 30 and bing !! Mother nature tunes in. The same could be said of being thin - some people are thin and fit in their youth then something happens (eg getting older) and they put on a few pounds and find it hard to shift given their work/life balance, is it fair to descriminate ?? Eveyone, and that includes larger people, have feelings so we should be careful with our comments. [V]