2052
2053

Extra Weight (imgur.com)

ThoseTidess が 投稿

全 156 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]nogoodusernamesleft8Army fitness standards are oppressing 198ポイント199ポイント  (32子コメント)

Except some airlines, I think a pacific one, started introducing higher fares for people who are overweight. I can only hope it continues, especially if fuel prices rise.

[–]bob_mcbob 83ポイント84ポイント  (9子コメント)

The only airline that charges passengers by weight is Samoa Air, which operates two little Cessnas and one light utility aircraft with a combined passenger capacity of 15 people. Uzbekistan Airways is a major operator that just announced they would be anonymously pre-weighing passengers to determine average loads, but not for fare surcharges.

[–]MinecraftHardon 27ポイント28ポイント  (6子コメント)

That's funny, because when I think I Samoans I think of the Hawaii 5-0 Subway guy or Tito from rocket power. Not saying all Samoans are overweight, but you'd imagine the last airline to discriminate against weight wouldn't be the first one to think of for being fat.

[–]Friff14SW: 216 - CW: 193.8 - GW: 175 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

All the islanders I know are very open about their weight and don't really care if you comment about it. Most of the ones I know are from Tonga though. But they are all pretty big and they're really open about it and don't really mind when you make fun of them or comment on it. They own it. Doesn't surprise me that Samoa Air would be the first to weigh.

[–]Kyrixia 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not saying all Samoans are overweight

Well, almost all of them are overweight. (80.4%)

Source

[–]MinecraftHardon 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, but I didn't want to make a blanket statement lol. If I would have said all Samoans were fat I know I'd get one guy saying "But Dwayne Johnson!"

[–]NicerAndMoreTruthful 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's not overweight, but Dwayne Johnson isn't anyone's idea of a light man.

[–]Barrel_riding_hippos [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Is it really discrimination to charge someone what it costs to fly them though? They're not saying "because you're fat we charge more." They're saying "we will charge you based on what it costs us to fly you."

[–]MinecraftHardon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Discrimination probably wasn't the best word but it was too early for my internal thesaurus to work.

[–]nogoodusernamesleft8Army fitness standards are oppressing 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah thank you.

[–]mynameispaulsimon 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean, if you're Samoa Air, charging for passenger weight would probably make you a lot more money than fuel charges or 9/11 security fees.

[–]jarret_g 9ポイント10ポイント  (13子コメント)

A local radio station posted an article saying an airline was going this. The comments were a gold mine of fat privilege. "that's discrimination". Naw that's just your genetics

[–]xhable 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd worry about that - I bet been 6'8" I'd have to pay more while I'm still pretty thin.

[–]Wargame4life -5ポイント-4ポイント  (11子コメント)

it is discrimination, because men are generally taller than women so will always generally pay more, even if they are perfectly healthy and trim and non overweight.

you cant charge by the lb and determining exactly what is and isnt excess is complex for most average people

[–]Luckymusing 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why would that matter? The whole point of a weight based fare is to pay for the relative amount of fuel/weight capacity you're using.

Food is discrimination because as a large man I have to eat more of it to survive.

[–]Wargame4life 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

because the cost of fuel is not the total cost of the service, like it or not we dont exist as sole agents. or should men and women use the road network in proportion to how much tax they pay also?

there are entire society wide infrastructures required for air travel.

[–]jarret_g 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

sure you can. Before you board the plan they measure your height and weight. You pay based on how much over the statistical average you are. If you disagree with the number please take a seat to the side where you will undergo a body fat percentage test performed by one of our highly qualified and not creepy at all TSA agents.

[–]uouuoys 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

They can't only charge more based on body fat. They have to charge more for muscle too. Weight is weight when it comes to fuel use, and to only charge more for fat people while ignoring a bodybuilder carrying around a ton of extra muscle weight really IS discrimination. It would be obvious that it's not about fuel costs but about punishing fat people.

[–]mastigiaMayonaise Icecream [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

As someone who is lean and roughly 20lbs over what my height would call healthy, I completely agree with this even though I would be the one paying more. This sounds like it could be adapted into a fair and useful system.

[–]PM_ME_BIGGER_BOOBS [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Isn't discrimination based on weight legal anyway? If I ever owned an airline I would just charge fat people for being fat. Non overweight people will love the space when all the fat people boycott. No need to figure out how to ethically charge overweight people. Cause you're right you have to charge body builders too. And weighing people to gauge price is kind of insane. I think it's more important to take weights in order to not over pack the plane. But yeah one day I'll buy an airline that actively discriminates fat people until they infect the government and update the bill of rights.

[–]Wargame4life 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

so everyone has to pay more to cover the admin and testing service, great one, did you design the US healthcare system too?

[–]jarret_g 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

no but I do accept donations to the national sarcasm awareness fund

[–]Molehole -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah. I weight nearly twice as much as my girlfriend. I'm 6'3'' and 220lbs. Wouldn't really be fair.

[–]PPKAP 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Curious what you think about people of different heights getting charged more. As someone who is 6'4", should I be charged more than a person who is 5'3" but roughly the same build as me? Obviously there's going to be a big weight difference.

[–]razmataz08 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I think so, yes. You still take more space and fuel.... Although I'm 4'11 so I might have felt differently if I were you 😜

[–]PPKAP [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think I'd be more willing to accept that if I actually got a space appropriate for my height. Instead I just end up scrunched up with my knees wedged against the seat ahead of me and the headrest up against the back of my neck :/

[–]HangTheDJHangTheDJ 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

The problem with this is that gigantic, healthy people would bear an unfair brunt. Imagine someone the size of JJ Watt, like 6'6" and muscular as hell. That's weight too. How would you distinguish who pays? Do they both pay or just the fat guy? There's a huge confounding issue there.

[–]Goatfodder 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Doesn't matter whether the weight is fat, muscle, or bone. Weight is weight, and the more weight, the more it costs to fly it about. It's not about health, it's about fuel consumption.

[–]uwillshitfear -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't. I'm a 6f5 slim/muscular guy and my BMI says I'm overweight when in actual fact I'm a healthy individual I weight about 224lbs. I suppose my hope is that they don't use BMI as a marker because it's not a reliable tool.

[–]mastigiaMayonaise Icecream [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not reliable for people like us, but we are definitely outliers. They need a system that is fair to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, people with builds like ours would most likely be negatively affected. But, they can't be expected to design the rules to satisfy the exceptions, can they?

[–]sonichighwaist 327ポイント328ポイント  (49子コメント)

But.. that's not fatlogic... It's AIRLINE LOGIC.

[–]Andrew5329 146ポイント147ポイント  (48子コメント)

It's definitely because of fatlogic, Airplane logic would implement a charge for their more corpulent passengers if it wouldn't blow up in a storm of bad press and potentially a lawsuit.

e: typo

[–]IanCal 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

It may also be a massive pain and be easier to average the weights of people and spread the charge for your overall increased costs. The fees on luggage may be related to maximum loads you can have your employees lift & any special precautions about handling 30lb bags vs 60lb bags.

[–]jmottram08 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right on the first part, but adding to the second. ... People will stuff bags or buy bigger ones until the limit. There have to be limits on baggage weight, or people would just bring more and more.

People wouldn't purposely get fat to ride on an airline though.

[–]sonichighwaist 16ポイント17ポイント  (41子コメント)

Fair point. I'd concede to you, Sir Andrew, if it were not for the fact that your comment itself is pointing us towards a different direction:

Neither airline logic or fatlogic. Just air travel policies not catching up yet with today's trend: unreasonably heavy passengers. Beyond 195 lbs. Makes me wonder what would happen to really heavy weightlifters if they enacted a new policy though.

[–]bob_mcbob 30ポイント31ポイント  (32子コメント)

Unreasonably heavy passengers should pay for an extra seat. Averaging passenger weight is the only practical way to pre-book and carry around 1.7 million passengers every day (in just the United States). Average population weights are actually higher than the FAA guidelines, but those are obviously elevated by people who are large enough to require two seats anyway. Obesity prevalence has actually levelled off in recent years, so passengers aren't really getting significantly larger.

[–]suicide_rights_NOW 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

I really hate to say this, but I wonder if at least some of the levelling off is due to the increase in obesity-related deaths. I'd like to know if the prevalence of overweight has increased and more people are becoming overweight and obese but many of the long-term obese are now dying.

[–]mistasweeney 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd be surprised if this were the case. Obesity has only been 10%+ in the US for around 40 years if I'm not mistaken

[–]FrogPaperweight [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If I recall correctly, what is "leveling off" is the number of people who are overweight or obese, not the amount of weight that the overweight and obese are carrying. The overweight people are still gaining weight, and the obese are gaining even more. Their weights haven't leveled off, though the fraction of the American population who are overweight/obese has.

Likewise, the fraction of Americans who are normal weight has also leveled off.

[–]mynameispaulsimon 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

I remember an episode of Air Disasters where a plane actually crashed and killed a lot of people because when calculating weight for the plane's balance, the pilots used a massively outdated average passenger weight number.

[–]evannever 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

I want to clear this up as a former aviator. There are some key details you're leaving out: the elevator control cables were incorrectly adjusted prior to the flight. Then proper elevator travel was not confirmed by the maintenance supervisor. Those are huge fuck-ups in aviation.

The weight of the passengers did not crash the plane, as center of gravity loading limits are generally conservative and allow for some margin of error. What crashed the plane was the chain of events that started with poor maintenance and ended with a 5% out of balance condition. Break the chain, at any point and the aircraft doesn't crash, even with the heavy passengers.

thanks, /u/dsolomo for linking the wiki.

[–]suicide_rights_NOW 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, I saw that too. Airlines should be weighing all passengers as well as all luggage, to determine how many people they can safely carry, instead of using population-based averages. Some flights are going to contain a lot more heavy people than other flights, just by random chance. That's a separate issue from the economic issue of charging individuals more for their weight, however.

[–]dsolomo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here it is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Midwest_Flight_5481

[–]vuuvo -1ポイント0ポイント  (24子コメント)

I have mixed feelings about this. My boyfriend is almost 2m tall and weighs nearly 90kg, close to double my weight (I'm quite short). As it is, he usually has to pay more for upgraded seating due to his long legs, which he also had no say in growing - I'm perfectly comfortable in the cheapest seats but for him not shelling out the extra cash basically means a flight with his knees next to his ears.

I really don't think it would be fair to charge him more on top of that - neither of us had any choice in how much we grew, and neither of us would have the option to lose weight to get cheaper tickets.

I think if airlines did implement some kind of pay-what-you-weigh scheme they'd have to be really careful not to penalise people who may weigh a lot, but who don't have excess weight.

As others have mentioned, sorting out the rugby players from the beer bellies would be nightmare enough to make it at the very least extremely impractical.

[–]koalaberries 27ポイント28ポイント  (8子コメント)

I think if airlines did implement some kind of pay-what-you-weigh scheme they'd have to be really careful not to penalise people who may weigh a lot, but who don't have excess weight.

The whole argument is that people who weigh more cost the airline more in fuel. If they did not charge tall heavy people the same as fat heavy people, then fat people would cause a ruckus, and I'm not sure they'd be wrong.

[–]vuuvo 13ポイント14ポイント  (7子コメント)

This is true, but there are plenty of scenarios in which certain demographics of people cost more, but would not be expected to pay more.

An afro-caribbean person may be more likely to develop schizophrenia, kidney disease or diabetes, but you wouldn't charge someone higher taxes for healthcare based on the colour of their skin.

Wheelchair-bound people take up more space on buses and trains, but you wouldn't make them buy two tickets.

Hell, a European court ruling a couple of years ago essentially outlawed the practice of basing insurance policies on gender, despite the fact that men are statistically more likely to crash their car (and to drive drunk/speed/not wear a seatbelt), as well as having a lower life expectancy.

I think it would be very, very difficult to legally implement a payment system for airlines that would calculate price based on weight alone, as this could very easily be classed as discrimination (because, let's face it, it is). Charging more for the overweight would make a lot more sense, as having a high BMI is - in every practical sense - a lifestyle choice.

[–]SoBuffaloRes 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

Physics doesn't care if you chose to weight what you do. The more weight a plane is carrying, the more fuel it uses.

The more unbalanced an airplane is, the higher the safety risk in case of many scenarios requiring flying close to the envelope of the design (Ice buildup causing early stalling, for example).

[–]vuuvo 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

I know. I'm not disputing the physics, I'm saying that it would be very difficult to implement a purely weight-based pricing policy without it being at the very least discriminatory, and more likely illegal.

As I said in my other post, in many industries it has been shown to be illegal and discriminatory to charge people more for services based on their race, gender or ability - even if it costs the service provider more to cater to them.

While charging overweight people more may be more of a grey area (as being overweight is a voluntary lifestyle choice), charging people more based on their weight alone (i.e. their height and body shape) is a completely different kettle of fish and I find it very hard to believe that it would ever be possible to implement on large airlines.

[–]SoBuffaloRes 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

It is illegal to charge more/not service, unless there is a clearly defined safety reason not to.

ie, a person who is a quad cannot go onto a rollercoaster. A person requiring constant oxygen can be refused service at a deep sea diving school, or charged more due to the extra equipment required.

Or, in this case, extra fuel and balancing is required for heavier (Regardless of reason) passengers, therefore, more can be charged for the service.

This is pretty well defined in US legal precedents, as to what can be denied and still ok under the ADA.

[–]SuperCerealz 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

But if ticket prices were weight-adjusted then it probably wouldn't change much for you two. at 90+50 Kg you'd still be averaging 70 Kg which is probably very close to what such a system would use as a base weight.

Also price per Kg would be pretty low if indexed on actual fuel cost, we're probably talking about a few bucks extra on a long flight for your bf at worst and would only become noticeable (compared to ticket price) for someone in the 150+ Kg range (where it might be similar to buying a second seat)

At this point it would just be enforcing the second-seat rule while making it fair for everyone. Also, no one thinks it's unreasonable that an airline doesn't let you haul 150 Kg in your cargo without paying a premium so why not combine your body weight to base that extra cost on the total charge you're adding to the flight?

[–]vuuvo -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

no one thinks it's unreasonable that an airline doesn't let you haul 150 Kg in your cargo without paying a premium

No one thinks this is unreasonable because the person with a 150kg bag chose to take 150kg of stuff with them on holiday. If they don't want to pay the premium they can open their bag and take stuff out, or choose to bring less to begin with. The key word here is choose - you choose how much luggage to bring. You don't choose your height. You cannot choose to make yourself weigh less if you are already at a healthy weight.

But if ticket prices were weight-adjusted then it probably wouldn't change much for you two.

We are not the norm. Think of it more like this:

My BF's family are all massively tall and therefore weigh more, let's say a total of 350kg for four family members 2 male + 2 female. My family is all quite short and petite. If you added up me, my mum, dad and one brother we'd weigh something close to 230kg.

In short, his family weighs over 50% more than mine. If they wanted to go on a family holiday the airline weight-surcharge would (presumably) be over 50% more, despite the fact that no one in either family is overweight.

You'd be really, really hard-pressed to explain - from both a legal and advertising standpoint - why this wouldn't be discrimination.

The fact that me and my BF differ so much in height because of our respective (European) ethnicities just opens up a whole new can of worms.

[–]stephanonymous 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The added cost of those who are more expensive to transport through no fault of their own should be spread around and absorbed by everyone, is basically what you're saying, and I agree. The problem is that you'll never be able to up-charge overweight people due to their excess "baggage" without also charging more for people who weigh more due to height. THAT would be discriminatory. A blanket statement of "weigh more, pay more" would be more likely to fly because the airlines could get away with saying it's based on simple physics and on not spreading the cost around to all passengers based on the special needs of a few.

Personally, I'd be okay with a cut-off point of, say 250 lbs. Almost nobody is healthy at that weight, so it wouldn't punish those who are tall, or built. Under 250? Blanket price. Over 250 and you start paying extra by the pound.

[–]azihe 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

But at the end of the day, this is a simple physics question. Race, disability, gender... None of those matter to how much you cost to fly around. All that matters is your weight.

Physics doesn't care if it's because you're tall or obese or black or anything else. If you cost more to transport, I think it's fair you pay more to transport.

I'm in the same boat, where my wife is a full 40 cm shorter than me, so our weight differences are uncontrollable. I would still pay more in recognition of the fact that I consume more fuel to keep in the air.

[–]vuuvo 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm saying that although I agree that heavier passengers cost the airline more to fly, it would be discriminatory to charge people differently based entirely on something that is as innate as race and gender.

From my other comment:

A good example would be a disabled person who has to go on a train, say they are in a wheelchair. They will take up much more space than others (as they have the bulky wheelchair), so they must have a special place to sit (built at the cost of the train company). Taking up more space also means that train may not be able to fit as many people on it, costing the train company revenue. When the train comes to their stop, they will need a train guard (paid for by the train company) to come and fit the ramp (that the train company paid for) so they can get off.

Wheelchair-bound people objectively cost train companies more to transport than people who are not disabled. However, they are not expected to pay more for their journey (in fact, here in the UK at least they enjoy discounted tickets). The reason for this is that being disabled is not their fault, being able to travel freely is a right, and to prevent this by charging people more for something they cannot help is illegal.

I fail to see how charging people more based on weight alone is any different. Even if the cost is negligable for some, many people depend on air travel just as much as they depend on other forms of public transport, and I honestly don't understand how anybody could support the idea of what would essentially be a tax on being tall.

[–]HaZeBit 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because you can change your weight, but not your race, disability etc.

[–]frontrandom -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

You'd be really, really hard-pressed to explain - from both a legal and advertising standpoint - why this wouldn't be discrimination.

It's not discrimination because it can be applied across the board. Think about it this way: your boyfriend's family also probably consumes more food. If they're all "massively tall" then they consume more calories than yours, right? Well then their monthly food budget must be higher to accommodate. Or they pursue alternatives such as cheaper food, etc.

They also consume more fuel. They are heavier, which requires more resources to transport. If every person had to buy their own fuel to bring to the airport, they'd have to bring more than your family. It's a perfectly fair system. If they can't afford it, they can travel less or pursue other means of transportation. As the system currently is, they cost more for the airline to transport than your family does (let's exclude luggage for now). By averaging out fuel costs among all passengers you pay more than your fair share in order to lower his costs. That's all well and good for you if you're fine with that, but I don't like having to pay your boyfriend's fuel costs.

[–]vuuvo -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Afro-Carribeans have a higher average height. So you agree that black people should be charged more to take public transport?

Obviously this isn't what I actually think you believe, but do you understand my point? Being tall is as innate as your race or your gender. A system where a black man is charged more than a white woman for the same service (if you look at it from the customer's perspective) is not a fair one.

If one starts saying "I don't want to pay for x demographic" it's a very slippery slope. It would take exactly the same logic to say that black and south asian people should pay more for healthcare; disabled people should have to buy two tickets for buses/trains; men should be charged higher rates of insurance; parents of a kid with dyslexia should pay higher taxes to cover their schooling; etc.

[–]linguaphilia 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree. Its a slippery slope and that's not how I want service pricing to work. (And I am a very short woman, so no benefit for me personally here).

[–]attica13 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is NOT about race. But you seem hell bent on twisting the issue to make it about color. Heavy people cost more to transport it's a fact. The color of those people is not relevant.

[–]iareslice [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It costs more money to fly big people. They have every right to impose that extra cost on the large person. It doesn't matter WHY you're heavy, the reality is it takes more fuel to cart your ass around whether or not its fat, muscle, or just plain height.

[–]Enthused_Llama 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

Beyond 195 lbs.

That's an awful low cutoff. Basically everyone I know who's 6ft+ (which is a surprising number of people) who lifts any sort of weight is above that.

[–]rtirado 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yea, I'm 6'2", workout quite regularly, and I weigh 205. I would be pissed if I got charged extra because I know I don't overflow into someone else's seat on a plane.

I would say anything above 240lb would be a fair cutoff.

[–]Phaelanx 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wouldn't avoid the issue. 6'8'', lift 4x a week and weigh 260 lbs.

[–]rtirado 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh yea, I forget there are people taller than me.

[–]Ariadne89 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're misunderstanding, it's not a cut-off, it's an average. They're assuming some people flying are well under 195 (including women, children, or just smaller people) and some will be over (including obese or just people who are tall and muscular) So they're doing their fuel and weight calculations assuming averaging out to the average passenger to maybe 195 per person, even though some are less or more. And your comment seems to be referring mainly to men... at any time we can probably assume 40-50% of an average flight may be women. If women are over 195 lbs they're likely obese. Even for a very tall woman say, 5'11.. 195 is a BMI that's technically considerd overweight, although sure we can use the argument that it's muscle if she is an athletic person. Average height of American woman is more like 5'4 I believe.. at that height 195 lbs is seriously overweight. Again, it's an average, not a cut-off saying that no one can be over 195 lbs.

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_GAY_DICKS 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Beyond 195 lbs.

Classic heightism at work. I'm so triggered right now. /s

I'm 6'1" and ~205lbs, which is overweight but certainly not massively so. If I were to be getting charged extra because I'm tall, then I'd expect a seat with extra leg room!

[–]ProjectShamrock 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Neither airline logic or fatlogic. Just air travel policies not catching up yet with today's trend: unreasonably heavy passengers. Beyond 195 lbs.

I would agree with you, but not with the weight. I'm tall enough to play basketball, relatively skinny, and I would be forced to pay extra through no fault of my own. It's already painful flying because my knees don't fit straight in front of me in the seat.

So I'd potentially agree with you, but raise it to a weight that no healthy person could be (I include body builders who use steroids because they're too bulky to fit in the area due to their size, and it is by choice.)

[–]nofattiesplease 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

A lot of airlines will charge you for two seats if you're too big for one seat though.

[–]Andrew5329 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's something they put the responsibility for on the Stewardess who has to make a judgement call on whether to let one person suffer or ground the whole plane while accommodations are made (or aren't if the plane is full) for the plus size passenger.

[–]general-information 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

My experience sitting next to obese people has shown this to be false.

[–]MoocowR [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Airplane logic would implement a charge for their more corpulent passengers if it wouldn't blow up in a storm of bad press

Because then it comes down to where is the line drawn and what's fair? I'm 6'4, I'm going to be a lot heavier than some one who's, 5'1 and has the same build.

It's the same reason clothing is priced the same for sizes from XS to L and then you pay more for XL+, it's not exactly ethically fair that a shorter person pays less, even though they are using less materials.

People pay for a seat on an airplane, they don't pay by the pound, the same goes for buses and taxis, or literally any sort of transportation. If you take too much space in a plane, you pay more.

If your bags are heavier than they should be, you pay more, not because the added weight to the plane, it's the added work involved to handle your luggage and it's a fee put there to discourage people from bringing heavy shit.

It wouldn't be exactly fair if Verne Troyer carried around 100lb suitcases.

[–]jljljljljl 40ポイント41ポイント  (1子コメント)

They mostly charge because they are paying people to carry/ throw it onto the plane. Heavier bags may cause back pain and require special labels for their employees to take more care

[–]thakurtis 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well I'd gladly throw it in myself

[–]stgxliz 22ポイント23ポイント  (2子コメント)

I work for an airline, and you're actually "required" to purchase an additional seat if the seatbelt won't latch. Also, the reason they charge more for the bag over 50 lbs is mainly because of the crew who is loading the bags on the plane.

[–]suddenlytrp 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have a coworker pushing about 400lbs. He routinely squeezes in, somehow, and carries his own belt extender for the seatbelt.

Large people, uh, find a way.

[–]stgxliz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah we call those seat belt extenders hog straps.

[–]Nanotchkareformed fatlogic atheist 71ポイント72ポイント  (10子コメント)

Air Midwest Flight 5481 crashed in January 2003, killing all 21 people on board, partially because the FAA had not updated its average passenger weight assumption for a long time, meaning that passengers were on average about 20 pounds higher than the estimate. It wasn't the only factor in the crash but the crash would not have occurred without it. This crash caused the FAA to update its passenger weight calculations. Obesity kills, folks.

[–]Star-spangled-Banner 27ポイント28ポイント  (3子コメント)

The non-obese people on that plain died from passive obesity.

[–]grizzlyblake91 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's like the fat version of second hand smoke

[–]HugeFish 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fat people are the new second hand smoke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JznbxXQFvMQ

[–]evannever 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Your omission of the faulty elevator maintenance and lack of a quality control check on that maintenance by the operators of the aircraft, is about the same level of logic as a morbidly obese 21 year old talking about their blood work being "fine."

The aircraft was over loaded, but so where thousands of other flights using the same charts. Midwest 5481 crashed because of a chain of failures, folks.

[–]Nanotchkareformed fatlogic atheist 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm not sure why you're taking such an aggressive tone. I specifically said that it wasn't the only factor in the crash. And as I would guess you know, most crashes are the result of multiple factors coming together to create an incident -- a "chain of failures," as you said.

The point is that one of the links in that chain was the increasing fatness of the American public and the FAA's neglecting to update the charts accordingly. This is not a controversial or incorrect statement.

[–]evannever 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

If I reported on a traffic fatality and highlighted that the deceased was talking on his phone as a factor of the accident, but left out the fact that the car was hit by a wrong way driver, would you consider that acceptable context to then say "Talking while driving kills, folks"?

[–]anonlineidentity 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Was the velocity of the wrong way car enough to kill the talker? If not, then being distracted by a phone was a necessary condition to the talker's death.

It would be a pretty shitty system if every single failure in it would be sufficient to cause catastrophe.

[–]ak_k1ng 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

at this rate they need to do another update ASAP

[–]bob_mcbob 38ポイント39ポイント  (11子コメント)

Solution: Weigh your bag before you arrive at the baggage check-in desk, whether you are 100 lbs or 350 lbs. I can't believe how often I see people re-packing luggage in airports.

Airlines follow standard FAA guidelines, which assume the average passenger weighs 190-195 lbs (including 5-10 lbs for clothes and 16 lbs for personal items and carry-on bags), and the average checked baggage weighs 30 lbs. No western airline is going to weigh all their passengers, but they are damn well going to make sure your checked baggage isn't too heavy, and there has to be a cut-off. And don't get me started on Samoa Air, whose "fleet" has a combined passenger capacity of 15 people.

I'm curious to know how much less the guy would have to weigh before the creator of this comic wouldn't think it was an issue anymore. 300 lbs? 250 lbs? 200 lbs? Should men all pay more for airfare because they weigh more than women? Should different races pay different amounts because of height differences affecting weight? The reason the FAA guidelines exist is because the system depends on averaging out passenger weight by seat, both in terms of practicality as well as avoiding that kind of inherent price discrimination. At the moment, the only practical system is to sell seats, not passenger weight capacity.

[–]frozen_strawberry 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Plus, there are people handling the luggage when they load it onto the plane. There has to be a cutoff because they shouldn't be forced to handle all kinds of extra weight there. They're already ruining their backs and knees. As long as airlines still make you walk around the airport instead of carrying you I think it's pretty fair she might pay more. Though most employees are nice about it if it's just a pound over the limit.

[–]DamBones 30ポイント31ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm curious to know how much less the guy would have to weigh

Like you said, there has to be a cut-off, especially when they can't fit their sits and intrude upon other passengers. And save me the demagogy, weight isn't a race or skin color but something that you control, If someone choose to indulge in gluttonous life style to the point that they can't fit a sit, then they should pay for better accommodations, not us.

[–]RedCat1529 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

when they can't fit their sits

Makes me think of cats.

[–]bob_mcbob 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

You really missed the point of my comment. Yes, there has to be a cut-off; the cut-off is when a passenger won't fit in a single seat, because airlines sell seats, which is exactly what I said. Weight isn't a race or a skin colour, but height and healthy body weight vary dramatically by gender, race, and ethnicity, regardless of whether a person has a "gluttonous lifestyle".

[–]DamBones 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

That because you choose to ignore the point of the comic.. And all the factors that you noted are well know and has been included for decades, the only thing that has changed in that formula is the more self indulgent gluttonous life style. And your vague language is exactly what obese people use to demand changes on our dime.

[–]bob_mcbob -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't ignore the point of the comic, I think the point is stupid. There is a difference. Passenger weight is a totally separate issue from airline checked baggage cut-offs, and any perceived slight the 100 pound woman feels is just as relevant if the man weighs 200 pounds, unless there is a clearly defined cut-off for acceptable passenger weight. There is nothing vague about my language. I am quoting specific values from the FAA passenger and baggage weight guidelines. I have no idea why you keep replying about "gluttonous lifestyles" and arguing with me when it's clear we agree that passengers who don't fit in a single seat should pay for two seats.

[–]Andrew5329 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

They could just go with the FAA guidelines for 'average', which by and large is a generous allotment for the majority of people.

[–]bob_mcbob 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Go with it how? Charge everyone above average weight extra? The FAA assumes the average man weighs 179 lbs and the average woman weighs 158 lbs (without personal items, carry-on, and clothes). The height cutoff for the healthy BMI range for those weights is 5'11" for a man and 5'6.5" for a woman, or 5'9" and 5'5" with the actual average BMI of the United States population. The average works because it's the average, and people will be both higher and lower. It's completely impractical to change the flight booking system to weight-based and weigh 1.7 million passengers every day.

[–]CarolineJohnsonFat is healthy, thin is anorexic. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If someone choose to indulge in gluttonous life style to the point that they can't fit a sit, then they should pay for better accommodations, not us.

It's like having someone follow you with a portable toilet because you refuse to go into bathrooms yet still want to use a toilet.

[–]obviouslythrowaday 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

'm curious to know how much less the guy would have to weigh before the creator of this comic wouldn't think it was an issue anymore. 300 lbs? 250 lbs? 200 lbs? Should men all pay more for airfare because they weigh more than women? Should different races pay different amounts because of height differences affecting weight?

This is a strawman. You can easily tell when someone is fat. If they can't fit in ONE seat (and that means your folds don't go over the armrests) then you have to buy a second seat. Sorry, but we can't all be inconvenienced because you chose to eat more than the rest of us normal people

[–]bob_mcbob [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Read the rest of the discussion before making straw man accusations. Nobody is saying fat people should get a free extra seat. I am talking about the distinction between passenger weight and baggage weight the creator of the comic and many posters don't appear to understand, and the inherent discrimination in almost any weight-based fare system without a very generous fixed cut-off. We already have a system in place to require excessively large obese people to purchase two seats, and that system should be strengthened so airlines actually enforce their seat policies. Anyone else is assumed to average out to the standard FAA guidelines, whether they are a 4'10" Indonesian woman or a 6'2" Dutch man, and whether they are rail thin or obese and still able to fit in one seat. Trying to price airfare based on passenger weight would be a logistical impossibility and public relations nightmare.

[–]erickpasta 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It seems like most airlines don't charge for the overflow seat because that would be discrimination apparently. They DO charge tall people extra if we request an exit row.

[–]gwarster 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

To be fair, the reason airlines charge more based on the weight for individual checked bags (not simply checking a bag) is because the baggage handlers' union is under an agreement to not subject the handlers to excessive weight.

[–]Lennvor 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't know about this kind of thing. Does a person's wheelchair get counted in their baggage allowance? Even if they need it for a stupid self-inflicted reason?

[–]bob_mcbob 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Basically all airlines allow you to check at least one wheelchair free of charge, separate from your regular baggage allowance. Same with crutches, dialysis machines, etc.

[–]mango133 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

these modern planes can carry huge amounts of weight without a problem. the reason they charge more for heavier bags is so they can earn an extra few bucks without causing the shitstorm that would be the result of charging passengers based on their weight.

[–]Poondog2 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If they're super fat, don't they charge them for a 2nd seat?

[–]yourstraitfriend 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The fat guy. He has a bomb on his shirt. Look at the bottom left of his shirt

[–]NiceFormBro 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought the bag weight limit was for the sake of the baggage handlers.

[–]LyingRedditBastard 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

not related to fatlogic at all

related to airlines not charging passengers based on weight

[–]couldyanot 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

For most airlines now a days, they're supposed to make sure an overweight passenger fits in the seat. If the passenger can not put the arm rest down, they're SUPPOSED to have to buy another seat. If you see an over weight squeezing into a seat, ask someone why you have to be punished by sitting next to them. It may be cruel, but maybe it'll wake people up.

[–]mynameispaulsimon 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Shitlord, you're not being punished. If you're so anorexic you can fit into a plane seat, you've probably got a little extra room to share with me. And don't act like you're not turned on by my luscious voluptuous folds puddling into your elbow for an 8-hour flight!

[–]couldyanot -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh how could I not be?! That's the sexiest thing ever! :D

[–]pablosito 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wish I knew that before! I had to sit beside a big guy (mix of genuinely being big and overweight) but I had to slouch my shoulder forward to sit because he wa so wide

[–]couldyanot -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah. It's actually a safety issue. You can bring that up as well. You can't be secured of someone else is pouring themselves into your seat.

[–]_exobot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't get it.

[–]robynmisty 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Something nobody has brought up is the fact that most (if not all) airlines do not charge a ticket price for children under a certain age. If passengers are charged based on weight, do you think these children should be charged for a ticket as well? Think about if you have 20 20lb children on one flight. That's an extra 400lb on that flight that is not being paid for. That's like having 2-4 extra adult passengers. That's not including any diaper bags/strollers/luggage needed for those children, which with most airlines, are free to bring on board.

[–]montyzac 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Don't they have to not be taking up a seat to be free?

Like a baby sitting on your lap?

[–]Goatfodder [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes. Infants, held in the lap, are the only ones that fly free. As for diaper bags, etc, they count towards the parents' baggage allowance.

[–]Rec1umWrecker 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The one that takes up 2 fucking seats

[–]TytalusWarden 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are a few airlines that are now charging by passenger weight, if I remember right. In 2013 I remember Samoa Air's news coverage as people discussed whether it made sense to charge by weight. I think another (very small) airline did this in 2014?

Either way that lady's probably fine. I was in line at SAT waiting to check my luggage and a large group of foreign police personnel were in line in front of me. Several of them had bags far in excess of 50 lbs, so they were juggling their luggage between bags trying to balance it out. For one of them once he hit about 52 lbs they said, "That's fine" and accepted it.

TL;DR: Make enough of a hassle and you'll probably be allowed to take a very slightly overweight bag as "normal" luggage.

[–]fgsfds11234 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

neither, most airlines let one pound slide.

[–]hockeykidjsp 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The weight of the passengers really only makes a difference in smaller planes like ERJs and CRJs. On bigger planes an extra 100lbs is nothing

[–]Acoustics1001 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is hardly the fault of the airlines. Can you imagine the uproar if they charged based on passenger weight? They have a hard enough time charging 600 pounders for an extra seat when they clearly can't fit into one without their fat rolls taking up half the seat next to them.

[–]SuperHighDeas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Several other people have to move your bag that weighs half as much as you! What if one of them throws out their back because they aren't qualified to lift more than 50lbs?

[–]kratFOZ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Neither. They allow a few pounds

[–]jnalfon17 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

FatLivesMatter

[–]himarnia [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ive been on smallers planes/flights, typically from knoxville TN to chicago and they actually will make fat people get up and preposition themselves around the plane if the weight balance is off. its supper embarrassing for the fatties and i love it.

[–]ThePrivilegedIf you can see this you have herpes 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Totally ignoring that the man's body + luggage total weight is much higher. Which is what matters re: fuel costs and also not crashing into the ocean.

[–]IanCal 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Totally ignoring that the man's body + luggage total weight is much higher.

Not sure what you mean by this, that's the entire point of the comic.

[–]patrick42tiet 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm really offended by this... I weigh 350 and wouldn't be caught dead in floral print! Asshole cartoonist

[–]-evolutionthrowaway- 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I race Ironman triathlons and it irks me no end when I have to pay a £70 surcharge to transport my bike and race kit when the guy I sit next to weighs more than me and more luggage combined.

[–]deadla104 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's cultivating mass

[–]Wargame4life -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

no profitable major airline will ever EVER charge based on weight, not only does it make a huge legal liability for disability discrimination law-suits it makes flying their airline more difficult for embarrassed passengers.

people cant help their height and therefore weight, and any metric of excess weight is a minefield for charging.

the only possible thing you can do is have excessive charges for extreme cases, else you end up in legal minefields.

any carrier who weighs passengers before entrance would be avoided by the majority of public because most people consider being weighed embarassing even if they are only 10lb or so over weight.

its business suicide

[–]thegreyhoundness 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think airline seats should charge by weight in general. If I mail a box of bricks and you send a single birthday card, I wouldn't be surprised that I was charged more. Same with eating at a restaurant. If you want a single seat at a table, you don't get charged anything extra. But if you want to reserve the whole restaurant for a party, it might cost you.

[–]GalahadThreepwood 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, there's nobody throwing the 300 lb man on the plane.

[–]ConradBHart42 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wonder why the cartoonist chose to make the lighter person a woman, when it would have worked just as well with a 200lb man.

Or with a 300lb woman and a 200lb man.

[–]JoeBlurb91 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hm, should I be able to bring 1 carry on bag OR 1 child under 40 pounds?
Oh wait, I can. Kids under 2 fly for free as long as you keep them on your lap. Funny, it's almost like they have some kind of concern about weighting on the plane in the passenger as well as freight sections.

[–]SuitsUp -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The man. Bc women don't work. So either way a man is Footin the bill.