Article suggests that pax be treated as freight...
Jun 5, 2008, 12:15 pm
#31
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ELP
Programs: AA EXP/LT PLAT, Marriott Titanium/LT PLAT
Posts: 4,120
they do in some countires...Brazil for instance sells buffets by KG -- load up your plate and then get it weighed on a scale...pay one price for the weight !!!
It is a very good idea...end up eating more greens that meat for sure !!
It is a very good idea...end up eating more greens that meat for sure !!
Jun 6, 2008, 10:52 pm
#32
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oxford, Mississippi
Programs: Delta Silver thanks to Million Miles; Choice Plat., point scrounger everywhere
Posts: 1,595
Actually there is a very strong correlation between weight and the amount of seat space taken up. Someone weighing 400 pounds, for example, is likely to need two seats. Why not go ahead and charge them double?
Apparently the airlines are too afraid to tell passengers they are overweight. Charging by the pound helps them get this problem under control while bringing in some revenue.
Apparently the airlines are too afraid to tell passengers they are overweight. Charging by the pound helps them get this problem under control while bringing in some revenue.
Jun 7, 2008, 10:51 am
#33
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 350
It was only a matter of time 
:
"The more you weigh, the more you pay." - flyderrie-air.com
There's more: ../tinyurl.com/6y5kgk
: "The more you weigh, the more you pay." - flyderrie-air.com
There's more: ../tinyurl.com/6y5kgk
Jun 9, 2008, 12:13 pm
#34
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: United States
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Amtrak
Posts: 4,647
Charging people who spill over into the next seat makes sense, but it is not the same as automatically charging people because they are heavy. There are plenty of 300+ pound people who fit into a single seat (because they are tall and muscular, not wide and flabby). The tall muscular people might not be comfortable due to legroom issues, but they do not require an additional seat.
Jun 10, 2008, 9:04 am
#35
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: DTW
Programs: Dirt Status w/ All
Posts: 5,040
The entire idea of charging by weight is 100% wrong as the current price model of airlines has to do with maximizing revenue by hitting the last minute/business traveler while filling the cheap seats with leisure travelers who book in advance. It would work if airlines went to a strict cost + desired profit model, but that will never happen.
Be careful what you wish for too. Want a cost based model? Say goodbye to those NYC-LAS $199 fares. Lets see - $.10 per seat mile X 2250 X 2 = $450 cost + 10% profit = $495 + tax. Now you can start adding weight surcharges if you like to this MINIMUM price.
Be careful what you wish for too. Want a cost based model? Say goodbye to those NYC-LAS $199 fares. Lets see - $.10 per seat mile X 2250 X 2 = $450 cost + 10% profit = $495 + tax. Now you can start adding weight surcharges if you like to this MINIMUM price.
Jun 10, 2008, 5:15 pm
#36
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Augusta, GA, USA
Programs: DL FC, NW
Posts: 3,522
The entire idea of charging by weight is 100% wrong as the current price model of airlines has to do with maximizing revenue by hitting the last minute/business traveler while filling the cheap seats with leisure travelers who book in advance. It would work if airlines went to a strict cost + desired profit model, but that will never happen.
Be careful what you wish for too. Want a cost based model? Say goodbye to those NYC-LAS $199 fares. Lets see - $.10 per seat mile X 2250 X 2 = $450 cost + 10% profit = $495 + tax. Now you can start adding weight surcharges if you like to this MINIMUM price.
Be careful what you wish for too. Want a cost based model? Say goodbye to those NYC-LAS $199 fares. Lets see - $.10 per seat mile X 2250 X 2 = $450 cost + 10% profit = $495 + tax. Now you can start adding weight surcharges if you like to this MINIMUM price.
Jun 11, 2008, 6:06 am
#37
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Houston
Programs: Too much flying; Lots of hotels
Posts: 555
Even a cold drink may be harder to come by aloft.
Singapore Airlines Ltd., whose shares have fallen 8.9 percent this year, is ``trying to eliminate unnecessary quantities of extra water'' to save weight, Chief Executive Officer Chew Choon Seng said in an interview.
``When you hear some people talking about putting showers on their planes, that strikes me as counterintuitive,'' he said.
Singapore Airlines Ltd., whose shares have fallen 8.9 percent this year, is ``trying to eliminate unnecessary quantities of extra water'' to save weight, Chief Executive Officer Chew Choon Seng said in an interview.
``When you hear some people talking about putting showers on their planes, that strikes me as counterintuitive,'' he said.
Wasn't Singapore Airlines the one that was proposing to put showers on the A380?
Jun 12, 2008, 1:46 pm
#38
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: United States
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Amtrak
Posts: 4,647
Jun 12, 2008, 3:51 pm
#39
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: LAX/BUR
Posts: 2,012
After introducing this method of charging passengers by weight, now imagine all frequent flyer programs becoming revenue based. The fatter you are, the fatter your mileage account gets 
(especially during double/triple miles/points promos!)
(especially during double/triple miles/points promos!)