Obese to pay more to fly?

[HighFlyer]

There's being discriminatory, and there's being a realist. Very different viewpoints.

Thanks,
Sarah

Originally posted by HighFlyer
There's being discriminatory, and there's being a realist. Very different viewpoints.

Thanks,
Sarah

Hi Sarah,

I totally agree with you.

I was referring to the remarks some others had made regarding the reasoning of airlines debating this subject. The UK law may well change in that service providers eg airlines will be forced to make 'every reasonable effort' to accommodate larger people but there is certainly a point where this becomes impracticle.

Cheers,

Originally posted by 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]

Congratulations you've managed to sum up my suggestion inaccurately once again. How good of you to try though.

Following on if you read the original link at the start of the thread, then it is aimed more at alarmist statements brought out by a nutritionist and author - so no gain for him in saying this then! and offered a tenuous at best comment to practicalities - rather like your blind man driving a bus analogy did to my original post.

As an end point, like it or not your taxes go to help subsidising others be it in health or in other areas such as education. You can make a choice to go private in either, but like it or not, you still have to pay for others - and the fact that that rankles a little with you makes me happy

Keep up the good work though

Jon B

[preiffer]

Indeed, it is a shame more taxes don't go into education... [;)]

Originally posted by preiffer
Indeed, it is a shame more taxes don't go into education... [;)]

Stop it!.....your subtle humour kills me[;)][;)]

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

I don't believe Jon is advocating communism, idealism maybe. Communism is about making a service accessible to all through a redistribution of wealth - Jon very clearly makes the point that he is only against one person being charged more for the same service. Of course this is probably a redundant argument in this case as no-one is suggesting, I hope, that larger people would pay more for the SAME service - the point is they would (I hope) recieve an enhanced service in the form of a larger seat.

Personally my view is that there are certain services that should be provided by society to ALL - health, policing, legal aid and I would include childhood education, since it is a legal obligation, and whilst parents may choose to have children they do not choose to send them to school - the government does that for us. I like to think that in a social environment individuals all take a certain amount of collective responsibility for everyone else and certainly for the young - good grief society for thousands of years has done this.

However the provision of wider aircraft seats for larger individuals is not a social issue and therefore does not fall into this category. I do agree that this is more an issue of practicalities though and whilst I support the rights of all individuals to travel in a Y seat, I also support the rights of the people sitting next to them to be able to move their arms. Therefore gravity challenged passengers (regardless of why they are large) should not be seated in such a way as to cause problems with other passengers and if this means they need to pay for a larger or additional seat on full flights then that may be the answer. On VS Premium Y gives a pretty good option here but Business Class is not a sensible alternative as this is not about just providing a wider seat. Unfortunately as mean mass increases this is an issue that will need to be tackled and at the moment this is not the case.

Confusing the issue of obesity on aircrafts with wider social issues is probably not constructive.

Thanks

FM

[preiffer]

While I see your point, Phil, in a very subtle way the larger you are the more service you ARE already receiving.

It costs X in fuel to fly the plane.
The heavier the plane, the more fuel you need.
Fuel is funded by the passengers and cargo costs paid to the airline.
TECHNICALLY speaking (and we know the airlines would never rebate [;)]) if all passengers weighed 10lbs LESS on any given plane, it costs less to fly it.
If it costs less to fly it, ticket prices come down.


SO, in an industry where weight DIRECTLY = cost, why should 'lighter' passengers (and in that, I include those with little luggage as opposed to the 100kg bags you sometime see checking in for a flight!) pay to haul heavier passengers' a**es across the sky? I know that may appear rather blunt, but it's a simple fact - in aviation, weight=cost. Reduce weight, reduce cost.


To take it further, I used to work at the HO of a big fashion retailer. The same issue applies here in terms of 'fairness'. Why should Mr 30' waist SUBSIDISE (yes, it's a form of subsidy, I know the exact margins on a lot of the sizing for garments, and they're eroded the further up the chart you go) Mr 50' waist who needs twice as much fabric? Same with shoes. I'm size 11/12, and even I think it's unfair that I pay the same for my shoes as someone with size 2 feet.

We live in a world where we pay for what we consume. Unfortunately, with 'political correctness', it ends up with half the world paying for what the other half consume.



(Oh, and for reference, before anyone even tries to jump on the 'fattist' bandwagon. When I left college, I was 17+ stone - I'm not now, out of CHOICE, but I HAVE sat on both sides of the fence [:(])

Originally posted by preiffer
I HAVE sat on both sides of the fence [:(])

Sitting on the SIDE of a fence - there's a picture to ponder! [:D]

Point taken Paul. Obviously it is worth pointing out that the weight of a passenger is only a percentage of their apportioned share of the aircraft, fittings and crew. It would be an interesting exercise to work out what percentage an average 90kilo passenger is in relation to this total weight - I would suggest it is really quite small.

Realistically weighing passengers and their luggage at departure point and calculating their fare according to pre-booked cost class on the day of departure is even more impracticle than selling all clothes sizes at different prices. Makes for an interesting sales advert though '99p per kilo to New York'. I think the main driver for any weight related surcharge would be containment in the seat rather than any overriding weight consideration.

Having said that I wait with baited breath for the launch of 'Obese Airways' tailored to the needs of the larger person - but then again, I can't see it getting off the ground. [:)]

FM

All this debate has made me hungry. Chocolate cake, anyone?

As for my further thoughts on the topic, strictly limited to air travel costs:

* People should be allowed to get as fat as they want
* If, because of this freedom, they become so fat as to impinge on the comfort of others seated next to them, they should be either a) required to purchase another seat or b) denied flight

It's very simple so far as I can see, despite the attempts of others to make it not so.

GJ

PS -- I know these fora are supposed to embrace the placid and proper calm of a Cotswolds retiree tea party, but I have to say I'd rather see people slinging real mud at one another versus the synthetic, specious mud of passive-aggressivism some are wafting here. If you have a point to make, just bloody make it.

PSS -- Decker, does International Male even deliver to Soweto? [:p]

Originally posted by FamilyMan
It would be an interesting exercise to work out what percentage an average 90kilo passenger is in relation to this total weight - I would suggest it is really quite small.

Thought I'd have a quick go at this.

Based on an unladen weight of 245 tonnes (from Airbus website - not sure if this includes seats), an approximate configuration of 50/40/220 and a UC/PE/Y weighting of 4/2/1 it means that a typical Y passenger is responsible for .5tonne, PE=1tonne and UC=2tonnes (including a small allowance for Crew).

So in other words the difference between a 100kilo passenger with 20kg luggage(biggish) and a 160kilo passenger with the same luggage is about an extra 8.2% in Y, 5.3% in PE and 2.4% in UC. So while weight is certainly a factor for charging more based on weight I would suggest that space is the more valuable commodity.

FM

So in other words the difference between a 100kilo passenger with 20kg luggage(biggish) and a 160kilo passenger with the same luggage is about an extra 8.2% in Y, 5.3% in PE and 2.4% in UC. So while weight is certainly a factor for charging more based on weight I would suggest that space is the more valuable commodity.

FM

It could be inferred that the Dietician was suggesting punitive charges on the obese not just economically justifiable ones.

Originally posted by preiffer
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]

And nor perhaps should the additional taxes smokers pay go toward your roads, or your health care. Perhaps then the road tax I pay shouldn't also go to support bus passengers or a particular museum some people enjoy but I find frivolous. And let's not even get into migration ...

Wouldn't life be fantastic if we could seperate all these things out and only pay the bit of the tax that would benefit us directly. Ooops, bet you a hundred bucks those taxes themselves would then go up and we'd still pay the same. [:0]

Back to the subject in hand, I still would like to know that if air fares were pegged to weight, and then I went on a diet, would I get a rebate on weigh-in based on the fact that I'd be responsible for lower fuel consumption?

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?

Nope, we are out in Oxfordshire.

The point is, we dont want children but have to subsidise others lifestyle choices.
Sarah

Respectfully, Sarah that's not the point. You have the option to have as many children as you wish educated by the State and you are being taxed on that option. That you choose not to exercise that option is your decision and does not alter the fact that you have received a valuable item. My reference to Charterhouse was slightly obtuse in that, like you, I have not exercised that option, I have paid my taxes and my 3 children have been educated at my expense, which has resulted in your not having to pay as much tax as if I had exercised that option.
Anyway, the obese question has been done to death many times and this is a topic likely to result in an interesting debate.

[HighFlyer]

Yes I understand what you are saying, Ian. The point i was trying, perhaps erroneously, to get across is that, in my opinion, we should all be prepared to pay for ourselves and our choices in life and not look to others or society to take care of them. Therefore, my natural stance on the obesity debate would be in favour of the larger individuals paying themselves for their extra comfort rather than just blanket increasing costs for us all.

You are right about the interesting debate. Might be worth kicking off a few debate threads in Off Topic. While some of us have greatly differing views i have utmost respect for everyone who has contributed so eloquently to this thread and not transformed it into a personal slanging match.

Thanks,
Sarah

Well this whole tread reminds me of a trip back from SFO some time ago, when I had to return to the Uk for business. Now granted I was running very late for this full flight and at that time I had mr no-body status with VS. So i was given a middle seat and was almost last to join the flight.

Now here is the amusing part of all of this. The gentleman in the window was of a large stature, and i sat just about in the middle seat. Thinking I was last on the flight and that the aisle was free, I was thinking I was quids in........how how wrong I was. As whilst I was chatting with the chap next to me, his wife equally as large as hubbie was going to sit in the aisle set. So halfway though the flight I was even struggling to sit in the seat let alone eat. The couple either side of me where really embrassed, but we did have a laugh about it all, as it was either that or cry....... so I created a new class of travel on this flight, its called the Toilet Class (tm). I gathered a pillow blanket and pen and paper and went to the rear of the 747, put an amusing sign on the toilet door and slept in the toilet, which was far more space and comfort than the seating arrangement.

On returning to the UK, I wrote at the time a suggestion that they should put flag in the system on checkin that allowed passengers with size better spacing options on flights and also put in my note about a new class of travel in these situations. About a week later got a reply from SRB, saying the letter was funny but topical, and 50,000 miles plus my money back..... BARGIN.

All in all the couple were acutally embrassed about the situation, and explained that it was thorugh medical reasons that they both suffered from some kind of disorder. So the moral here is cant judge a book by the cover. Some folks have specifc reasons for size and actually cant help it. I guess they have a right as anyone to book and pay for travel.

Originally posted by ofarvoo
I guess they have a right as anyone to book and pay for travel.

Couldn't agree more so long as they don't impinge on the comfort and space I booked and paid for.

GJ

Interesting
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/23 ... pensation/

[HighFlyer]

Originally posted by AlanA
Interesting
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/23 ... pensation/

Very interesting. Though i wonder if the damages paid were largely due to the indignity suffered. While i think that larger people should have a second seat, I wouldnt condone passengers being weighed or measured infront of other people in that manner.

Thanks,
Sarah

[preiffer]

Interesting comments on the article too - the majority seem to come down on the side of Air France...

Originally from article..
since the flight was full, he'd have to pay for the seat next to him

flight full - pay for another seat - so how does that work then? Did they off-load someone?

FM

We were settling into an internal US flight a few years ago. The CC were checking seatbelts etc. One flight attendant a few rows in front of us shouted all down the aircraft 'can you bring a seat belt extender for this passenger please'![:0]