2051
2052

Extra Weight (imgur.com)

ThoseTidess が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Andrew5329 149ポイント150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 17ポイント18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 32ポイント33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 8ポイント9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 13ポイント14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 4ポイント5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 2ポイント3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 28ポイント29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.

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

There is not a safety reason to charge people more for more weight. There is a safety reason to limit the total weight, and therefore total number of passengers, that can board an airplane, but charging passengers according to their own weight would provide no safety benefit whatsoever.

The only argument they can make for charging people according to the total weight of themselves and their belongings, is an economic argument: more weight = more fuel. Economic arguments for discriminating against classes of people are only valid when not discriminating would be an "unreasonable" burden on the business. For example, small or struggling businesses are allowed to inadvertently discriminate against the disabled by not implementing wheelchair access, if they can't afford to. Airlines can absolutely afford not to discriminate against taller people or pregnant people, so if height discrimination were against the law as disability discrimination is, it would not be allowed.

I think height discrimination should be just as illegal as disability discrimination, so I would not be in favour of allowing airlines to do that. However, height is immutable, excess body fat is not. So I'd be more OK with them charging people more for fat. In the US and much of Europe, most of the population is now overweight or obese, so airlines could charge all of those people enough extra in body weight fees that they wouldn't actually lose money overall by not penalising the tall and thin. The fat fee could be used to fully compensate for the reasonable accommodation of not charging tall, thin people for what they can't help.

[–]vuuvo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not sure about the US, so I'm basing what I say on what I know of EU laws.

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.

Furthermore, based on the fact that the EU in particular recently brought in new anti-discrimination laws specifically directed towards (insurance) companies giving tariffs based on gender, I think the legality of charging based on weight would, on an international level at least, be very uncertain.

[–]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 0ポイント1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 2ポイント3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.

[–]linguaphilia 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right, but at the same, healthy, BMI a 6'3 person weighs much more than a 5'3 person and would therefore have to pay more? That's dumb and not the way we price services.

[–]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 -4ポイント-3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.

[–]vuuvo 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm intentionally relating it to race in an attempt to show you how ridiculous the idea sounds when applied to other physical attributes.

Treating people differently based on physical genetic attributes they can't do much about is basically the cornerstone of racism/discrimination. It doesn't magically become okay when it's about height and muscle mass as opposed to skin shade. I believe that charging tall people more for the same service is discrimination. Please clarify how you disagree with this statement.

[–]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 8ポイント9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.