Speakeasy forum


$ per pound, well it's been coming for a few years

by Roger NC / April 11, 2013 11:52 PM PDT

Airline finally charging by the pound for passengers as well as luggage.

Samoa airline by the pound charges. One tv story mentioned Samoa has one of the highest population obesity rate.

I know it's a problem when you're sitting next to someone as large as me, but I don't like it either.

I don't like a screaming baby or kid on a flight, but I've not asked they be banned. Or kids and young teenagers that bounce against the back of their seat and against the back of the seat in front of them the entire flight.

It was argued here before that it's only fair because more pounds mean more fuel. Maybe so, in that case I guess you'll have to weight everything and charge everything by the pound to make it not discriminatory. Of course fat people clothes weight more too, too bad, you shouldn't eat so much. Maybe it'll finally be so expensive to take bags with me I'll do the ship it to the hotel route like so many recommend but cost so much.

Perhaps it's most unfair to really tall people that aren't obese, but normal for their height. They're going to pay more and still be fitted in a too small a space for their height.

Oh well, it's not hate speech to insult fat people.

I'll probably not be flying anymore anyway since my wife died. Visiting her family once or twice a year was most of our flying anyway. I guess I'll never take a cruise to Alaska anyway alone, I sure won't fly to the West Coast once this practice spreads.

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: $ per pound, well it's been coming for a few years
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: $ per pound, well it's been coming for a few years
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
So we're now considered as freight?...
by Steven Haninger / April 12, 2013 12:32 AM PDT

just the same as if we were boxing ourselves up and having someone dolly us into UPS? Maybe it's cheaper to travel by plane as cargo. Take oxygen and extra blankets if you can.

Collapse -
I can understand if you make it impossible
by Roger NC / April 12, 2013 1:29 AM PDT

for someone to sit reasonably comfortably next to you the policy (seldom used though threatened) you have to buy two seats. I remember once news story a year or so ago, a family flew from NC to Chicago no problem. When they went to return the parents were "too large" and was refused boarding without two seat purchase even though they flew out on round trip tickets. And of course the extra seat was at the short time prices, multiple times what the round ticket cost for a one way. Like so many other problems, it disappeared after the family was interviewed stuck in the airport and the story was broadcasted.

Of course outside the rich seats in first class, there are no comfortable seating for anyone large, even if not obese.

Last time I checked, first class costed over 3 times as much as coach on the two class planes.

Seat wise, there are two first class on each side. There may be a bit more room between rows, I'm not sure.

However, I'm willing to bet that there is not a 1/3 reduction in seats per sq ft. So they are high profit margin compartively, however that's business.

Flying is headed back to being for only the upper half, or a even smaller section, of our society anyway. Not all the airlines fault, lots of their costs are outside their direct control. I wonder if bus lines will make a comeback? their costs are up too though. It probably will mean going back to less travel for the less fortunate, c'est la vie I guess.

Collapse -
soon, only...
by James Denison / April 13, 2013 2:58 AM PDT

women and children will be flying? "you and the kids fly, I'll drive, and enjoy the break the trip gives me".

Collapse -
(NT) It isn't only grown men that might cost a lot charged by lb.
by Roger NC / April 13, 2013 3:39 AM PDT
In reply to: soon, only...
Collapse -
I thought of another idea

I believe that some shipping fees or road taxes are based on gross versus tare weight. Tare weight is that of an unloaded vehicle. An aircraft will have a maximum load it can carry above and beyond it's own fully fueled weight and the costs incurred for any flight would depend somewhat on the gross weight (with passengers aboard). A lighter plane burns less fuel, etc. So why not base the cost of a ticket based on a flat fee for a seat plus whatever percentage of the total weight available for passengers? Suppose that a plane had 200 seats and the airline needed $200 per passenger to meet all costs plus reasonable profit. Charge the majority of the ticket price against the seat and scale the rest based on weight as it relates to projected fuel cost. There would be a fuel cost even if the plane flew empty so I have to be sure there are already statistics available to show how much extra is burned when laden.

Collapse -
ahh, but that violates supply and demand captalism
by Roger NC / April 13, 2013 7:30 AM PDT

Afterall, some flights are much more or less popular. At a minimum you have to make enough extra to cover any negative profit flights. Those are certainly much less now, with the reduction and redistribution of flights the last 5 years.

It would be nice if the seat prices didn't change every week starting about 6 weeks before departure.

Cheaper to operate and lighter because of composite building materials were the goal of the Boeing dreamliner, but battery fires have set it way back.

Reasonable is undefinable in this situation, everyone has a different idea of reasonable profit or income.

Besides, reasonable profit isn't the goal, maximum return for minimum investment is a business mantra, every company (I think) has a RONA goal, return on net assets. Most set one each year, two choices, either a bit more than they think they will meet to set a goal, or a bit less than they really expect so the planning looks good to the stockholders when they make the RONA or a bit more.

Companies set a minimum RONA as well as a desirabe RONA. Corporations shut down areas that make a profit but not enough.

Collapse -
I wasn't really being that serious
by Steven Haninger / April 13, 2013 9:59 AM PDT

but it's really a similar idea to how taxes are done. One pays a higher income tax percentage based on how big their paycheck is and not necessarily how they are served. One pays higher property taxes based on how much their property is deemed to be worth rather than how much space it occupies or what the homeowner gets in return from government. Personally, I can't see how weight alone should affect the cost of an airline ticket. I could see how an airline could find itself not able to equally and properly serve any and everyone just as our educational system cannot serve all children equally and properly. The design fits most but not all but laws are made to ensure inclusion and reject exclusion. I'd think health and safety should be utmost when allowing anyone to board a plane and that means all passengers. If a person's physical condition could be a problem to the crew and other passengers, I'd consider that a decision could be made not to board them. Otherwise, if they're fit for boarding, seating and able to handle air travel without being a distraction, they should pay the same price as anyone else.

Collapse -
no one pays the same price for flying
by Roger NC / April 13, 2013 10:07 AM PDT

or almost so, pick a flight, check the price once a day starting 6 weeks before, you'll get at least 6 different prices for flights the same day, and at least half of them will change every day, up and down.

That's beside discounts, incentives, etc.

There is nothng fair about airline tickets, no ryhme or reason or logic. They don't even follow greed all the time.

That's coach, but the few times I've checked first class, it seems the same.

Collapse -
another charge by the pound issue, health insurance
by Roger NC / April 13, 2013 2:17 AM PDT

does being fat always justify being charged more for insurance? CVS has joined another half dozen companies in reuiring more information about fat, weight, glucose levels, etc to set the insurance permium or charge several hundred dollors in penality for not reporting the information. In other words, raising rates for fat people. Obesity statistically causes more health costs, but all causes are not so well understood.

Will it come to having to report your caloric intake to prove you're not wantonly eating with disregard to health? Random glucose testing along with random drug and alcohol testing. Does anyone know if any employers are checking yet for nicotine levels to verify the self reporting of tobacco use for premium setting?

And drawing a line between overweight and obesity is a factor to some. I found these two standards for obese vs overweight. Either a BMI over 30, or more than 20% overweight from "normal" weight. Charts for normal weight for a 6 ft man puts weight from 149 to 188 based on frame size. A 6 foot man at 150 lbs is downright skinny, it may be normal and healthy for some, but a standard? How many of the men you know at 6 foot weight less than 200lb? I'd say less than 10% that I know, and that includes some that are runners and hard physcially workers. Only time I see that many people that most would be below the 6ft/200lb ratio range are pictures of a marathon race. That's excluding pictures of starvation shown to solicit contributions to a charity.

A more vague definition of obesity is overweight enough to affect your health, totally worthless of course for any limits.

Perhaps should be a different post, side track, related to diet, anyone familiar with quinoa? The more I read about it, the more it seems like a good choice for a regular large part of your diet. A lot of earlier claims are questioned, but more in relation to rather exaggerated claims for benefits than questioning the actual value of the food. One interesting discussion mention that it contained all the amino acids, unusual for any non-meat source. At least that was what I understood.

Not claiming a miracle food, just looks like a good substitue for a lot of other foods. Also gluten free, so for those that can't tolerate heavy wheat foods for that reason, perhaps worth checking out. Tried some last night, different from brown rice for certain. And even cooked without any seasoning, had some flavor, certainly better than brown rice plain. It did seem to overcook on the bottom later of a small rice cooker I have, never seen rice do that. And it somehow "exploded" so that the lid was covered, never seen brown or white rice do that.

Now there have been studies, more than once over the last 20 years, that say just barely above a starvation level of balenced nutrition will let you live longer. Not sure about the quality of life if you're hungry all the time, but there you go.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Big screens for the big game

Still looking for the best TV deals ahead of Sunday's game? Here are our top three big screen picks.