HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Samoa Air has become the ...

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 03:28 AM

Samoa Air has become the world's first airline to implement "pay as you weigh"

Samoa Air has become the world's first airline to implement "pay as you weigh" flights, meaning overweight passengers pay more for their seats.
"This is the fairest way of travelling," chief executive of Samoa Air, Chris Langton, told ABC Radio. "There are no extra fees in terms of excess baggage or anything – it is just a kilo is a kilo is a kilo."

Like many Pacific island nations, Samoa has a serious obesity problem and is often included in the top 10 countries for obesity levels. As such, Mr Langton believes his airline's new payment policy will also help promote health and obesity awareness.

"When you get into the Pacific, standard weight is substantially higher ," he said. "That's a health issue in some areas. has raised the awareness of weight."

Under the new system, Samoa Air passengers must type in their weight and the weight of their baggage into the online booking section of the airline's website. The rates vary depending on the distance flown: from $1 per kilogram on the airline's shortest domestic route to about $4.16 per kilogram for travel between Samoa and American Samoa. Passengers are then weighed again on scales at the airport, to check that they weren't fibbing online.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/airline-to-charge-overweight-passengers-more-20130402-2h495.html#ixzz2PHy17923

81 replies, 5287 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply Samoa Air has become the world's first airline to implement "pay as you weigh" (Original post)
Ichingcarpenter Apr 2013 OP
idwiyo Apr 2013 #1
DetlefK Apr 2013 #2
DollarBillHines Apr 2013 #54
idwiyo Apr 2013 #71
Franker65 Apr 2013 #3
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #60
Ichingcarpenter Apr 2013 #4
eridani Apr 2013 #5
Ichingcarpenter Apr 2013 #6
eridani Apr 2013 #9
Ichingcarpenter Apr 2013 #12
eridani Apr 2013 #17
snooper2 Apr 2013 #14
eridani Apr 2013 #48
MADem Apr 2013 #26
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #61
Thor_MN Apr 2013 #7
Ichingcarpenter Apr 2013 #8
Thor_MN Apr 2013 #10
Floyd_Gondolli Apr 2013 #16
eridani Apr 2013 #11
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #13
eridani Apr 2013 #15
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #18
Apophis Apr 2013 #35
Marr Apr 2013 #43
Sgent Apr 2013 #56
Thor_MN Apr 2013 #81
mainer Apr 2013 #19
A HERETIC I AM Apr 2013 #20
RobinA Apr 2013 #25
pangaia Apr 2013 #30
MADem Apr 2013 #37
pangaia Apr 2013 #51
AndyA Apr 2013 #27
pangaia Apr 2013 #31
Marrah_G Apr 2013 #39
A HERETIC I AM Apr 2013 #40
Marrah_G Apr 2013 #41
A HERETIC I AM Apr 2013 #42
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #62
A HERETIC I AM Apr 2013 #65
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #69
etherealtruth Apr 2013 #21
eridani Apr 2013 #22
etherealtruth Apr 2013 #24
MADem Apr 2013 #28
napi21 Apr 2013 #53
MADem Apr 2013 #59
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #63
treestar Apr 2013 #80
liberal_at_heart Apr 2013 #23
MADem Apr 2013 #29
eridani Apr 2013 #45
friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #47
MADem Apr 2013 #49
eridani Apr 2013 #55
MADem Apr 2013 #58
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #64
Sheldon Cooper Apr 2013 #34
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #66
Tracer Apr 2013 #32
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #67
Comrade_McKenzie Apr 2013 #33
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #68
FarCenter Apr 2013 #36
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #70
FarCenter Apr 2013 #72
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #78
we can do it Apr 2013 #38
eridani Apr 2013 #46
we can do it Apr 2013 #52
MADem Apr 2013 #73
we can do it Apr 2013 #74
MADem Apr 2013 #75
we can do it Apr 2013 #76
Hekate Apr 2013 #44
MADem Apr 2013 #50
rrneck Apr 2013 #57
bravenak Apr 2013 #77
treestar Apr 2013 #79

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 03:51 AM

1. K&R I guess cargo is a cargo is a cargo, human or otherwise. Total equality.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:25 AM

2. When it comes to the gas the plane needs, then yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:58 PM

54. Overweight passengers place more burden on the carrier than does overweight baggage

Wear and tear on seats and other cabinet elements gets really expensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #54)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:08 AM

71. My ticket will be very cheap under this deal, but it leaves very bad taste in my mouth.

That and comments like "it might motivate some people to follow healthy lifestyle".

By pure chance my DNA make up enables me to eat whatever I want, whenever I want, and screw the exercise or healthy eating habits. Butter, cream, cheesecake and steaks, that's what for dinner.

On the other hand someone else were dealt a shitty hand, try to look after themselves, try their best to be healthy, but doesn't matter what they do they will have to starve themselves or they will ALWAYS pay more.

Feels like I am rewarded for being a lazy slob. See what I mean?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:35 AM

3. It might actually inspire and motivate people to keep fit

But it stil seems very much to be a form of discrimination...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Franker65 (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:12 AM

60. Humiliation has never resulted in weight loss...or anything good that I can think of.

Obesity is a complex problem....partly a fat gene, partly bad lifestyle, partly addiction. Every time an obese person looks in a mirror, he sees an incentive to lose weight. But he cannot.

So this added humiliation and fee for excess baggage will do nothing to spur weight loss.

Next we'll be lining up the overweight kids at school into the "fat line" for lunch, making them pay extra. Maybe we should have the fat kids sit in the back of the classroom, since they may obstruct the view if they sit in the front.

Fat people should pay more to ride the bus, and taxis.

Fat people should pay more for potato chips, since chips contribute to obesity.

We can make a lot of money off of fat people, now that I think of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:57 AM

4. The most obese country in the world is




he most obese country is the South Pacific island nation of Nauru (population 13,287) which has more obese people, per capita, than any other country, with an incredible 80.2% of men and 78.6% of women totalling a body mass index greater than 30. Neighbouring South Pacific countries Tonga and Samoa have the next largest populations of obese citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:59 AM

5. Wonderful. Their ancestors took a lot of very long ocean voyages

--making ability to store fat highly favored genetically. Let's punish them for that now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 06:33 AM

6. Have you ever traveled on a small plane?

and been in inclement weather?

This is not punishment but safety, weight restrictions on your baggage are a concern as is the weight of the payload capacity of the plane which includes passengers.

Island hopping is not a 747 job but small planes


Your genetic, historical and ethnological argument is very poorly stated and inaccurate.


BTW
Samoa Air is the National Carrier of Samoa. 100% locally owned and operated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 07:00 AM

9. Explain the genetic inaccuracy

Japanese sumo wrestlers would like to know why they don't find it as easy to gain weight as Polynesians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 07:26 AM

12. Read this study : The Obesity Epidemic in the Pacific Islands Michael Curtis United States Departme

LINK: https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/moynihan/dst/curtis5.pdf?n=3228

They didn't have a problem until....... well, you read it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #12)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:52 PM

17. In other words, they were large, but not sick

Although the people experienced frequent periods of drought and starvation because of poor soil on the island, early European visitors noted that “Nauruans were plump, and that they admired big, fat people and put girls on a diet to fatten them and so make them more attractive”


Complicating the task for health officials and policy proponents is the common attitude among Pacific Islanders that obesity traditionally has been a sign of high social position and wealth (Ringrose and Zimmet, 979, p. 1340).


Guess what? If you weigh 300 lbs and lose 15 pounds, YOU ARE STILL FAT!

Native Hawaiians were fed a diet exclusively made up of foods available in Hawaii before Western contact. Such a diet was determined to be both low in fat and calories, compared with the Western diet most Hawaiians consume. The participants were encouraged to eat as much as they liked and unlimited quantities were made available. Weight loss was dramatic. In just three weeks, the average weight loss was 3.5 pounds or 6.4% of total weight (Shintani et al., 1991). Adherence to the diet was excellent and this was attributed to a sense of cultural pride that developed among the participants during the program (Shintani, et al., 1991). A long-term follow-up to the Waianae Diet Program (i.e. “Hawaii Diet”) was conducted in 1999. The follow-up period ranged from 12 months to 90 months. The average weight loss was found to be 15.1 pounds, maintained over a period of 7.5 years (Shintani, Beckham, Tang, Kanawaliwali O’Connor and Hughes, 1999), suggesting that this program approach may have long-lasting effects.


Traditional diets for Polynesians result in better health, but not significant weight loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 03:17 PM

14. That is one persons theory FYI

Only the fat ones on the boats survived, mkay....


Or--

"Specifically, traditional foods of past generations have
been supplanted with food purchased from Western
nations, such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand
and Japan (Ringrose and Zimmet, 1979). The traditional
foods of the islands such as fresh fish, meat, and local
fruits and vegetables have been replaced by rice, sugar,
flour, canned meats, canned fruits and vegetables, soft
drinks and beer. The diet is high in calories and with little
nutritional value (Zimmet, 1979). Many Pacific Islanders
have come to depend on food imported from abroad.
Consequently, commercial ventures on the islands tend
to stock these high-fat, energy-dense foods."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:18 PM

48. Switching to a traditional diet results in an utterly trivial level of weight loss

Complicating the task for health officials and policy proponents is the common attitude among Pacific Islanders that obesity traditionally has been a sign of high social position and wealth (Ringrose and Zimmet, 979, p. 1340).


Guess what? If you weigh 300 lbs and lose 15 pounds, YOU ARE STILL FAT!

Native Hawaiians were fed a diet exclusively made up of foods available in Hawaii before Western contact. Such a diet was determined to be both low in fat and calories, compared with the Western diet most Hawaiians consume. The participants were encouraged to eat as much as they liked and unlimited quantities were made available. Weight loss was dramatic. In just three weeks, the average weight loss was 3.5 pounds or 6.4% of total weight (Shintani et al., 1991). Adherence to the diet was excellent and this was attributed to a sense of cultural pride that developed among the participants during the program (Shintani, et al., 1991). A long-term follow-up to the Waianae Diet Program (i.e. “Hawaii Diet”) was conducted in 1999. The follow-up period ranged from 12 months to 90 months. The average weight loss was found to be 15.1 pounds, maintained over a period of 7.5 years (Shintani, Beckham, Tang, Kanawaliwali O’Connor and Hughes, 1999), suggesting that this program approach may have long-lasting effects.


Traditional diets for Polynesians result in better health, but not significant weight loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:47 AM

26. Most families are finding it cheaper, as it turns out.

Individuals are paying more, but a family that includes children and elderly are paying less.

It works out to about a dollar a kilo for short hops. It's a bit more for longer jaunts.

They're also paying that same price for their baggage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #26)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:18 AM

61. The unfairness of discrimination is not that "most" are okay with it.

It's that a selected group, or even just one person, is harmed by it, simply because of who they are.

Although it's logical to charge by the weight, it is a form of discrimination, IMO.

(Note: I am not fat, so I'm not being defensive.)

It does help take the edge off that everyone pays by weight. Still, it's aimed at charging more for fat people. People are not baggage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 06:37 AM

7. Body Mass Index is a bullshit over-simplification.

If we lived in a one dimensional world, it would be science. BMI reduces the comparison of weight to just one dimension, Height. Humans are three dimensional beings and have width and depth in addition to height. I'm not talking about layers of fat, I'm talking skeletal dimensions. Pacific Islanders trend towards shorter and barrel chests. East Africans trend tall and narrow. The notion that the weight per inch of height between the two being even remotely comparable is ridiculous.

In addition, it is based on actuarial data, that is, information on people when they died. If one didn't die a sudden death, one typically wastes away to some extent or another at the end of life. I know very few people who were healthy when they died. Once they come up with a measure of living three dimensional people, rather than one dimensional corpses, then they have something useful.

That said, there are a lot of people carrying around too much weight, but no where near as much as BMI would suggest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 06:41 AM

8. OK nobody is overweight and obesity is not a problem

and their is no scientific way to describe obesity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 07:01 AM

10. Sorry that someone pissed in your Cherrios this morning.

I never claimed that no one is overweight, nor that obesity is not a problem. I'll leave it to you to explain why BMI says that many top athletes, at the peak of their health, are morbidly obese. I am making a slight assumption that you believe BMI is scientific, after all it uses a ruler and a scale. >THERE< may be scientific ways to measure obesity, but BMI isn't one.

BTW, BMI being bullshit and weight distribution and gross payload on small planes being very important are not mutually exclusive concepts. I've made no comment on paying per mass, I agree with you that Island hopping on small planes deserves careful consideration of gross payload, and I am certain BMI is most assuredly a bullshit oversimplification.

Have a better day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:49 PM

16. Careful, don't get in the way of their bigotry

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 07:07 AM

11. Obesity is much less of a health problem for people with a genetic inclination towards fat

Diabetic Pima Indian women (the human population with the largest known genetic concentration of insulin resistance) experience the lowest levels of mortality when they weigh twice the actuarial ideal. (Pima men with the longest life spans weigh 45% more.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 03:06 PM

13. there are many factors involved in health and weight.

most distressing to me are things like the widely-seen weight increases in things like lab animals, who have seen weight gains for unknown, probably environmental reasons.

It's also worth investigating how many of these environmental factors may be geographically specific, and where.

Do you happen to know, eridani, if the Pima have experienced similar statistical increases in weight?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:35 PM

15. Since they now live in communities with enough to eat

--(and your typical poor people food options) instead of farming native vegetation with crop failures 3 out of every 7 years, they've been fat. I think they've pretty much maxed out, but I haven't checked the literature for a few years.

Environmental factors in general are very poorly tracked--this could really use some work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:55 PM

18. yeah. That data -on the lab animals- is frightening.

I mean, who knows what's doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 09:17 AM

35. You're right.

I'm 5'5" tall but I weight around 200 lbs. According to the BMI, I'm obese, even though I lift weights regularly and run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:27 PM

43. Very true.

BMI is worthless. I do triathlons, have a bodyfat percentage around 14-15%, and am not just "overweight" according to the BMI chart, I am "obese".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:36 PM

56. Why is BMI wrong?

There is little evidence, and almost none when it comes to high quality studies, that body fat or muscle mass indicates a lower mortality rate given the same BMI as someone with a higher fat body make-up.

What is known without questions is that the higher the BMI, the more likely you are to suffer from various maladies including heart disease, diabetes, etc. Just because you are muscular now doesn't mean you'll always be (look at pro football players), and BMI is the best researched method we know of to quantify that risk.

That being said, there is some research and ongoing study about weight distribution being more important than BMI; however, the science is still out on that. What we know is that the higher your BMI regardless of reason, the higher your chance of weight related health issues.

It makes intuitive sense that a muscular person would have fewer issues, but without evidence its merely a hypothetical conjecture. Counter-intuitive items are a part of science every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Reply #56)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 06:26 PM

81. BMI. being based solely on height and weight is unable to account for differences

in body frame. Some people are built on a narrow frame others have a wider frame. BMI is completely incapable of making any distinction, it only sees the human body as a line segment, a one dimensional view. I know of no person that exists only in one dimension. BMI is a gross oversimplification to make use of easy measurements, then misses it's goal by having a complicated formula to elicit a meaningless number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:57 PM

19. I worked for a while in Micronesia.

And those on the outer, almost inaccessible islands who adhere to their traditional diets (sweet potatoes and coconut and fish) are still pretty slim. I had to travel on the copra boat to reach those islands, where I met children who had never, ever, tasted a soft drink. But on Ponape (Pohnpei), those with access to western foods (Spam, rice, sugar, etc) are quite a bit fatter. Some of them were incredibly obese. Sadly, because their traditional sweet potatoes provided vitamin A, those in places who'd stopped eating sweet potatoes were showing signs of vitamin A deficiency -- blindness.

I've also worked in Hawaii, where starchy foods like rice and poi don't help.

I remember working with Hawaiian patients who were 800 pounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 06:08 PM

20. The people up in arms about this idea need to keep in mind ONE THING:

THIS is the primary aircraft Samoa Air flies;

The Britten Norman Islander


Here's the inside of one;



If you don't think paying by the pound is important in an aircraft that small, you don't understand airplanes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:43 AM

25. Claustrophobic Just Looking

at the picture of that thing. When my weight becomes important to an aircraft, I'm staying off that aircraft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:59 AM

30. Your weight is important on a 747.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:51 PM

37. There's much more "slop" when it comes to weight on a 747.

The thing can lift 875K lbs., unmodified.

The thing is much more powerful, has way more lift, and can handle more bounce to the ounce than a small plane where every kilo counts.

Remember--a 747 carried the fricken Space Shuttle on its back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:38 PM

51. As I said, weight is important on a 747 also.

Careful wgt and CG calculations are done before every 747 flight, indeed should be done before every flight on ANY aircraft.
You are right about the percentage of slop, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:50 AM

27. Looks like you'd need to be a gymnast to get in and out of that plane!

I've only flown on prop planes a few times, and it was enough to know I don't want to do it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 09:01 AM

31. What a fine, fine aircraft....

I flew a similar aircraft, the DHC Twin Otter into and out of St Barts and Saba.

THAT was exciting. Thanks for the photos...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:59 PM

39. How do you get into each seat?

Do the sides open up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #39)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:15 PM

40. There is a side door and the seats also fold forward, typical of most aircraft of that size. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #40)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:16 PM

41. So you climb over the seats?

lol... I am so confused!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #41)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:24 PM

42. Two ways to get in;

The co-pilots side (the right side) and his seat will fold forward, allowing access to the row behind. The other door is on the left side, and encompasses the window in the pic above. The seats on that side both forward and rear would fold forward, so yes, you have to do a bit of climbing.

Not quite enough room in that fuselage to put in an aisle!

On edit to add that there is a door for the Pilot, but generally as a passenger, you don't enter that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #20)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:22 AM

62. YOU miss the point. How much they pay has no effect on the flight.

Unless they intend to prohibit too many fat people on a single flight. But that's not stated. It's only that they charge by the weight, presumably a way to increase profits without upping fees for all. So that non-fat people won't protest. A lot of people don't protest unfairness to others....only for themselves.

Since a lot of people in Samoa are fat, presumably the airline already knows the avg weight of a plane full of its passengers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #62)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:34 AM

65. No, I DON'T miss the point.

"How much they pay has no effect on the flight."

You're right. It doesn't. But how much they weigh most certainly DOES have an effect on the flight.

The airplane doesn't care if it is carrying people or 6 foot long bags of wet sand with sticks in them (which is analogous to a human body). It is all the same to the wing loading and fuel burn. The heavier the airplane, the more fuel it burns getting off the ground and climbing to altitude.

If you want to ship 5000 Lbs of wet sand on an airplane the size of a Brittan Norman, they should be able to charge you a freight rate that makes sense to the airline.

The fact of the matter is, those aircraft are not large jetliners. They are small airplanes with limited lift capability. If carrying 4 large people instead of carrying 6 average people means they lose money, then I am all for them NOT losing money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #65)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:54 AM

69. As I said, the info is not that the plane will prohibit anyone from flying.

Only that the purpose is to charge more.

So it doesn't affect the flight in any way. Only the profits.

They are banking on teh idea that people don't protest unfairness and discrimination to others, only to themselves. So they get to raise fares w/o getting all its passengers angry. Just the ones who weigh more.

It's a smart move. It wouldn't be legal in this country, but it's a smart move to increase fares. I doubt people will object to humiliating others, as long as it's not them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 06:59 PM

21. This is not only going to effect the obese

What about large people? As a woman, I am on the short side of tall (again, for a woman) at 5'8 1/2" .... I am a bit thinner (neither of us is "fat") than my sister ... she is slightly shorter than 5' ... will always pay more than her despite a very similar hip span (in reference to sitting in an airplane seat).

What about folk that are 6'3, 6'4" ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 11:57 PM

22. Muscle or fat is still mass

For small planes I can understand the policy. Not for your typical passenger jet airplane though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:06 AM

24. ... or bone and connective tissue!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:53 AM

28. People are paying by the kilo--tall/short doesn't matter, it is how much the passenger and his or

her baggage weighs--that determines the price. Someone 100 lbs with a 25 pound bag pays half of what someone 200 lbs with a 50 lb. bag would pay.

In aircraft like that, they try to distribute the weight evenly so that all the heavy folk aren't concentrated in one spot. If they've got large enough people, that plane will take off "weight-full" but not all the seats will be occupied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #28)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:49 PM

53. I remember flying one of those small planes to tour through the G. Canyon.

When we were to board the plane, the pilot lined everyone up & assigned seats to distribute the weight as evenly as possible. It was a smaller craft than the one in the pic. on here, but that's the idea for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #53)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:07 AM

59. I went on one of those water planes between San Juan PR and one of the V.Islands.

We were just going for the day, last minute trip to fart around and bar hop a bit, and the pilot and co did the same thing--distro'd the weight, picked up our carry-ons to make sure we didn't have ingots in there!

I did feel more comfortable knowing the thing was designed to float...we taxied from shore into the water and took off like a speedboat with wings, and landed on water and taxi'd ashore up a boat ramp. Kinda fun...!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:25 AM

63. Instead of paying more, maybe they'll let you sew a star on your shirt sleeve and

stand in a separate line to get on the plane. As long as you are clearly identified as being what you are: heavier than some others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:51 PM

80. Or muscular people, as muscle weighs more than fat

Body builders have to pay extra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 12:01 AM

23. Why don't they charge tall people more? How about if they require that extra skinny people share

their seat with another skinny person? after all they are wasting space by not being big enough. This is discrimination and it is ridiculous. I will never fly on any airline that discriminates based on size.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #23)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:57 AM

29. Because height in and of itself doesn't burn additional fuel--weight does.

Families are finding that this is a cheaper option for them when they fly as a group. Large parents are paying more, but the cost for their children and little old granny is now much less.

Also, if you don't pack a lot of luggage, you can save money that way as well.

The airline's POV is you pay what you are shipping--no difference between people and luggage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #29)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:06 PM

45. It most assuredly does. More height = more mass.

Bone and muscle are mass as well as fat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:14 PM

47. All that matters is how much you mass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:27 PM

49. Nonsense.

A six foot four muscular person who weighs two hundred pounds weighs the same as a five foot six flabby person who weighs two hundred pounds. Height or musculature does not impart some odd "magic" where a pound is suddenly not a pound.

It ain't apples and oranges. Weight is weight. You pay by the pound, not by how much "room" you are taking up in the cabin. When the weight limit is reached, no more passengers can board, even if some of the seats are empty.


The flight crew then allocates the weight so that the distribution is appropriate to the lift capability of the aircraft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #49)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:32 PM

55. So if you have two people of roughly the same build--

--the taller one weighs the same as or less than the shorter one? Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #55)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:52 PM

58. No. That's not what I said at all. Not even remotely. This really isn't rocket science.

Get on the scale. Read the number.

Multiply the cost per kilo or pound by the number you see.

That's what you pay.

It doesn't matter how tall you are, how short you are, how wide you are, or how slim your hips might be.

The only thing that matters is the number that pops up--you pay by the kilo or the pound, and that's that. If you are muscle-bound, you might weigh more than someone taking up the same space who is flabby--muscle is much heavier than fat, after all.

Bottom line, though? Get on the scale. That determines your ticket cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #45)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:30 AM

64. Yeah...generally, taller people weigh more. Also, men will pay more. Blacks will

pay more (black people have a different weight of bones and more muscle mass, very generally speaking, so often weigh more than an anglo of the same size). Asians generally weigh less, if height and size are equal to an anglo, since they have smaller bones.

Yeah...there are all sorts of ways to divide people up, if that's what a company wants to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #23)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 09:09 AM

34. Look at the info in the posting below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2604643

If that is the typical plane they're talking about, and I was scheduled to get on that, I'd want everyone and everything weighed to make sure it was safe to fly. And I'm a fat person, so there is no discrimination in my opinion. I'd still want everything to be appropriately weighed before it took off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #34)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:44 AM

66. It's just a profit thing. The airline already knows the avg total wt of its passengers

in that area.

The weight argument applies whether the plane is small or large. Comfort varies, though.

But clearly, it's discrimination. It divides people up by what they are and were born to be. That is the essence of discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 09:01 AM

32. For small planes, weight is a concern.

Some time ago, my (hefty) friend and I missed the ferry to Nantucket and decided to fly (small plane).

At the check-in, the airline personnel required my friend to step on the baggage scale.

It was quite humiliating for her.

We paid the same price though, and I'm not sure how fair the Samoan system is, nor whether it would encourage anyone to diet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tracer (Reply #32)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:48 AM

67. Weight is a concern for all planes. Since when is it an airline's duty...

to encourage losing weight? Like the airline is trying to convince people it has only their best interest at heart? Give me a break.

It's purely a way to gain profits w/o getting ALL passengers angry. Looks like it's working...for some.

Generally, men will pay more than women, blacks will pay more than whites, whites will pay more than Asians, fat will pay more than skinny, tall will pay more than short. That's discrimination, if I ever saw it.

I can't believe people are actually thinking this is okay. Legally, I can't see that this would be allowed in our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 09:05 AM

33. Just another way for holier-than-thou fitness freaks to feel superior... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #33)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:50 AM

68. And for an airline to raise fares in such a way that not all passengers will be angry.

They are banking on the idea that people won't object, if it's the OTHER guy who is discriminated against and humiliated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 10:20 AM

36. As energy costs rise, this is necessary to offset the cost of fuel

Fuel is now the largest single cost of airline travel. It makes no sense to impose fees on baggage without also taking passenger weight into consideration.

Extra weight requires more lift from the wings, more lift causes more drag, more drag uses more fuel.

That's why FedEx charges by the pound.

In 2000, fuel costs were just 10 percent of airline operating expenses. Fuel costs peaked at 40 percent of expenses in 2008, outdistancing payroll as the airlines' biggest expense. Last year, fuel accounted for 35 percent of expenses.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/25/travelers-can-expect-more-fees-from-airlines-report-says

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #36)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:59 AM

70. Food is a large expense in schools. I think there shud be extra fee for kids who weigh more.

Maybe we should have an "above-avg wt" line at schools for the fat kids (or tall kids, or black kids...all the kids who weigh more than average)...then they can easily pay the extra amount for their school lunch, because presumably they eat more. It doesn't matter if they actually do eat more.

We don't need to weigh them, if we simply require them to sew, say, a star on their clothing so that they are easily identifiable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #70)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:20 AM

72. When I was in school, all kids got the same amount of the same food items for lunch.

So there would be no reason to charge by the weight of the kid.

If this has changed, then the kids should be charged by the amount and selection of foods they consume -- just like in any other cafeteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #72)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:38 PM

78. You get food from the skinny kids. Sometimes, if there's a lot of something,

you're allowed 2nds.

But that's not the point. The point, which you missed, is that there all sorts of ways we can segregate people who are "not like us," and make it seem logical.

It's important to stand up for differences that have nothing to do with useage by choice, but because of what or who someone is. Black people generally weigh more than their anglo counterparts of approx same size, while Asians weigh less. Tall people generally weigh more. These things are not choices.

I can't believe the people who are falling for this and failing to see how similar it is to the Jewish thing. The way discriminatory people get things to fly is of course for there to be some reason for it. There's always a reason given for segregation.

The Patriot Act was made to fly by giving a sound reason, but of course, the end game is....it took away citizens' right to privacy. Even though there was a good reason to do so. There is always a good reason given to take away rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:57 PM

38. Cape Air weighed all passengers everytime we flew in one of those itty bitty planes

more than 10 years ago. They then told us where to sit. No one complained. We wanted to fly safely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #38)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:10 PM

46. That's standard for flying in airborne paper towel tubes

Rearranging passengers is the norm. To get to anyplace in Central Illinois from Chicago or St. Louis by plane, you fly Ozark or the equivalent. If Ozark never charged by weight, why would other airlines with similar planes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #46)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:40 PM

52. Who knows? Is Samoa Air's policy upsetting those who use it the most or just DUers?

Is it possible that since they expect very large passengers this keeps the over all weight in the plane at a safe level? Just wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #52)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:43 PM

73. Samoans travelling regionally are used to being weighed before they fly. It's no biggie, pardon the

pun...!

Travelers in the region already are weighed before they fly because the planes used between the islands are small, said David Vaeafe, executive director of the American Samoa Visitors Bureau. Samoa Air's fleet includes two nine-seat planes for commercial routes and a three-seater for an air taxi service.

Langton said passengers who need more room will be given one row on the plane to ensure comfort.

The new pricing system would make Samoa Air the first to charge strictly by weight, a change that Vaeafe said is, "in many ways... a fair concept for passengers."

"For example, a 12- or 13-year-old passenger, who is small in size and weight, won't have to pay an adult fare, based on airline fares that anyone 12 years and older does pay the adult fare," he said.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100612926


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #73)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:23 PM

74. (!) Though I love this place, sometimes I think we tend to overkill some issues.

Honestly, I am personally fine with being weighed (and I'd pay my weight) in the interest of safety alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #74)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:51 PM

75. Too much enthusiasm for "battle" sometimes, I'm thinking.

Since the Samoans have always been weighed, they aren't getting annoyed about that part of it at all--it's business as usual....and if they're travelling as a family, with a smaller teen or two, or a skinny old granny, they could end up getting a discount on their travel expenses!

It's not just how big a person is, it's how much luggage one is carrying, too--Lindsay Lohan could end up paying more than the sumo wrestler, depending on how much baggage was in tow...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #75)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:55 PM

76. We also go light with a small carryon only, so I know we would save money, too.

It would be most fair if seats were adjustable to what you paid as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:42 PM

44. Airplanes can only carry so much fuel and load, regardless.

In the early days of flying, they definitely accounted for it (old movie "Journey for Margaret" -- American woman taking two orphans out of Blitz-torn London to America; two passengers had to give up their luggage, obese woman weeping as she explains she can't take any luggage anyway). If you fly an ultralight, your weight is accounted for (friend of mine went up in one for her birthday).

Even now -- the only time I got a free ticket for being bumped it was because the flight attendant announced that our jet was overweight, and that either 5 passengers could volunteer to be bumped, or we could all wait an extra hour or two while cargo was offloaded. (I had my kids with me, and when the deal got sweet enough I raised my hand and said, "Here's three!")

Anyhow, when the weight of the average American ballooned, airlines had to take note of the extra fuel it was taking. Not that they expanded the size of the seats or gave us extra legroom, but they did notice the fuel issues.

Hmmmm. Wouldn't we all howl here in the US Mainland if the Samoan Solution were applied here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:32 PM

50. You'd probably see fewer people using the onboard restrooms if the "Samoan Solution" were commonly

applied here.

People would make it a point to have a good poop and a wee before they got weighed in by the gate agent--after all, a good dump and pee could save one five or ten bucks, depending on the cost per kilo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:40 PM

57. First the glass greenhouse, now this.

Tony Rocky Horror is gonna be pissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:12 PM

77. Living in Alaska we have to fly in those small planes to get to rural areas.

If the people in this state were heavy I can see the bush airlines charging by weight of passengers. In some places they have to order coca cola and fly it in by weight, and if you want to fly out there they will weigh you too. Very large people will sometimes have to wait or pay the company to leave some cargo behind so they can fly. Small planes go down here all the time, we lost Sen Stevens and the father of Sen Mark Begich in small plane accidents.
Weight matters a lot on small planes.
A pound is a pound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:50 PM

79. They may lose revenue

Obese people who can no longer afford to fly. And if it is a large proportion of that country, they could well lose money on this and end up with empty seats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread