Should fatties pay more to fly?

vodkawitch1

Do skinnies get a much cheaper seat then?

dktreesea

Generali wrote: »

I am a skinny wee thing and I live in Australia so fly long haul more often than most.

I've had plenty of thin people behave like boors on planes. If you value your personal space this much, go business. The choice is open to you.

Why should slim people be forced to pay more for their seat?

Airlines decide the size of seating. They have a duty of care, surely, to ensure you, as a slim person can occupy all of the space you have bought, not require you to give up some of that space to subsidise the fattie's requirements?

A planted tree doesn't expect someone to build a two storey pole house over it's head. Likewise, just because you have bought "the seat" doesn't mean you, a three dimensional person, shouldn't get to occupy the "cubic seat".

If airlines choose not to provide variable seating, then they should bear the cost of upgrading the fatty to larger seats, so that the slim person, who doesn't want to have to pay a premium to ensure the rights to space they have already paid for, gets to fly to Australia without having to play "let's squeeze up to each other" with the corpulent stranger next to them.

dktreesea

MacMickster wrote: »

Having just returned from a pleasant 3 weeks in warmer climes, I didn't see too many problems with larger passengers on my flights, despite using budget airlines and being crammed in like sardines. I did have a problem with a chap sitting behind me who was approaching 7ft tall but had chosen not to pay the extra for a seat with extra leg-room - then had the audacity to complain about me reclining my seat.

I do think that airlines should introduce a variety of seat sizes of varying comfort and price them accordingly. Everyone - thin/fat tall/short could choose to pay for the degree of comfort that they want - and accept that if they choose the cheapest seats then their journey may be less than pleasant.

I would rather everyone be forced to pay for at least the size of seat they need. What happens if the fatty, on an economizing drive, decides to buy a seat reserved for a size 6 person?

Generali

TBH, this dehumanizing of 'fatty' is pretty despicable IMHO. You lot should take a look at yourselves. Replace it with 'yid' or 'n!99er'and see how it reads.

FlameCloud

MacMickster wrote: »

I do think that airlines should introduce a variety of seat sizes of varying comfort and price them accordingly. Everyone - thin/fat tall/short could choose to pay for the degree of comfort that they want - and accept that if they choose the cheapest seats then their journey may be less than pleasant.

They do, its called First/Business/Economy Premier/Cattle, with different variations for different airlines.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

TBH, this dehumanizing of 'fatty' is pretty despicable IMHO. You lot should take a look at yourselves. Replace it with 'yid' or 'n!99er'and see how it reads.

I think calling it dehumanising is probably a little excessive but you're right that far too much of this debate is based on spite as opposed to reasoned thought.

I can appreciate why people don't enjoy spending a considerable amount to fly to then be forced to sit next to someone who cannot fit into the space allocated and so imposes into theirs. Yes, upgrading to business would avoid the situation however I don't accept that the status quo is fine because someone could choose to spend twice as much to avoid it.

One American airlines policy is to require people book an extra seat if they can't use a standard seatbelt, or 3 seats between 2, and if the plane isn't full then they refund the additional seat. This seems like a fair policy to me.

Tancred

StevieJ wrote: »

This Norwegian professor thinks so, after all you pay more to transport heavier goods items, even your letters, and just think of the extra motivation for getting in shape for your hols not to mention the health benefits and savings for the NHS. I myself would not be quite so draconian, preference would be for the link to be BMI .


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/airlines-charge-fat-passengers-more-014228443.html#xn2B8gH

The real idiocy of this idea is that it will discriminate not only against the obese (many of whom may be so due to health conditions) but also against tall people who weigh a lot. For instance, someone 6'6" tall weighing 110kgs is not going to be obese but will still have to pay more. Airlines should provide larger seats as standard and if necessary adjust all fares accordingly - why should 7 stone featherweights be given preference?

ILW

Generali wrote: »

TBH, this dehumanizing of 'fatty' is pretty despicable IMHO. You lot should take a look at yourselves. Replace it with 'yid' or 'n!99er'and see how it reads.

Rubbish, being obese is (in nearly all cases) a lifestyle choice. It is also an extra cost to airlines.

lippy1923

I apologise if this has already been answered, but how would the airline determine who is fat? What weight would be acceptable to pay standard fees and at what point would you be deemed overweight enough to incur more fees?

Perhaps you could have different sized seats in the check in section and pay a certain fee according to which seat you can reasonably fit into without spillage :rotfl:

PaulF81

ICAO defines standard weights for airline passengers plus baggage. I suggest this combined weight should form the basis, together with any extra width requirements on the seats.

EASA did extensive research which was published in '09 which comments on our, ahem, ballooning waist size.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/research/Weight%20Survey%20R20090095%20Final.pdf

Page 15 is interesting....

Global trends
Globally, there are more than 1 billion overweight adults. According to the US
Federal Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, a solid majority of 65% of
Americans were overweight in 2006. The average American man grew from
75,30 kg (166 pounds) in 1960 to 86,64 kg (191 pounds) in 2002, while the average women’s weight rose from 63.5 kg (160 pounds) to over 74 kg (164
pounds).2
The new federal guidelines, which came into effect in the US on August 11th
,
2005, mean that female passengers with carry-on baggage will be counted as
weighing 81 kg (179 pounds) in the Summer months, which is an increase of
almost 16 kg (35 pounds), and almost 83.5 kg (184 pounds) in the Winter, which
is a gain of more than 15 kg (34 pounds), with the average weight for male
passengers with carry-on bags rising to almost 91 kg (200 pounds) in the
Summer and 93 kg (205 pounds) in the Winter. Both increases are of almost 7
kg (15 pounds). In addition, youngsters aged between 2 and 13 years old will be
calculated at 37 kg (82 pounds) in the Summer and almost 39.5 kg (87 pounds)
in the Winter. The increase in weight takes into account the fact that recent
research in the US has revealed that passenger’s body weight has increased and
clothing is generally heavier in the Winter months.3
About 17.6 million children under five years of age worldwide are estimated to
be overweight. According to the US Surgeon General, in the US the number of
overweight children has doubled and the number of overweight adolescents has
trebled since 1980.4
Increased consumption of more energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods with high
levels of sugar and saturated fats, combined with reduced physical activity, have
led to overweight and obesity rates that have risen three-fold or more since
1980 in some areas of North America, the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe, the
Middle East, the Pacific Islands, Australia and China. Overweight is commonly
assessed by using body mass index (BMI). The BMI for overweight is over 25.
This development is not restricted to industrialised societies; this increase is
often faster in developing countries than in the developed world. In addition to
this, both adults and children from lower socio-economic groups are found to be
less physically active than those of a higher socio-economic status.