Should fatties pay more to fly?

27col

The last time that I flew, I had a lardarse next to me. They should have been charged an extra 50% to pay for the 50% of my seat they thought that they were entitled to.

Rotor

Airlines would have to be very careful how they implemented the weight rule. A straight weight weighting (intended) would be nailed on 'indirect sex discrimination' cos men are bigger than women on average.

ILW

Rotor wrote: »

Airlines would have to be very careful how they implemented the weight rule. A straight weight weighting (intended) would be nailed on 'indirect sex discrimination' cos men are bigger than women on average.

Couriers seem OK to charge purely on weight.

mcfisco

ILW wrote: »

Couriers seem OK to charge purely on weight.

they tend to use volumetrics these days rather than purely weight

Anyway, with the rush to NFCs [Near Field Communications] for all sorts of payments these days, the airline could simply have you walk through a scanner at the gate and deduct the relevant surcharge from your phone

chewmylegoff

Airlines should introduce an additional cage next to the one you have to put your hand luggage in to prove that it isn't over the allowed size. If you can't fit in the cage then you shouldn't be allowed on the plane unless you've bought two seats (or alternatively a fixed width gate that you have to be able to fit through). It's unfair and unreasonable for airlines (and for very fat people) to expect people to pay large sums of money to then spend several hours with someone else taking up half of their seat.

PaulF81

Fat people should be put on a cage in the hold.

N1AK

SingleSue wrote: »

My son has damage to his brain which means his metabolism/appetite control etc is damaged, this means that when he eats, the chemical that should be released is not, so it is pretty much all stored as fat, so no matter how careful he is with what he eats, it doesn't make a downwards difference to his weight.

I have no intention of dismissing the idea that there are people with conditions that make weight loss harder however there is no condition on earth that changes a fundamental thing: You can't be alive without using energy.

If someone consumes less calories than their body uses then they will lose weight unless they are not subject to the 1st law of thermodynamics.

None of which means that there aren't people with far better reasons that normal for being overweight or that they don't deserve sympathy and support.

ILW

N1AK wrote: »

I have no intention of dismissing the idea that there are people with conditions that make weight loss harder however there is no condition on earth that changes two fundamental things: You can't be alive without using energy.

If someone consumes less calories than their body uses then they will lose weight unless they are not subject to the 1st law of thermodynamics.

None of which means that there aren't people with far better reasons that normal for being overweight or that they don't deserve sympathy and support.

The vast majority just eat too much though.

brook_son

I suppose it also brings up that alcoholics, smokers, overweight etc should pay more for NHS.

lostinrates

N1AK wrote: »

I have no intention of dismissing the idea that there are people with conditions that make weight loss harder however there is no condition on earth that changes two fundamental things: You can't be alive without using energy.

If someone consumes less calories than their body uses then they will lose weight unless they are not subject to the 1st law of thermodynamics.

None of which means that there aren't people with far better reasons that normal for being overweight or that they don't deserve sympathy and support.

This is how I live, and its really not as simple as that. You suffer the impact of malnutrition even with supplementation. I fear greatly for my bone density, and take supplements. (Initially prescribes, now I sort it myself). It's very easy to get it unbalanced living this way.