Why would passengers be stripping down? Their coats and shoes and pants and socks and luggage will all be getting on the plane.
Passengers should be given a total weight allotment - self+luggage (carry-on or checked). The plane doesn't know the difference between shoes on your feet, shoes in your carry-on, or shoes in your checked luggage.
I agree it would probably be be discriminatory but the program can be structured to only penalize the upper extremes and possibly some incentives for the light packers? This would leave the overwhelming majority of travelers unaffected and prevent penalizing everyone from chipping in for those pax that weigh as much as (or pack for) three people.

Does anyone remember www.flyderriair.com?
"Pack Less. Weigh Less. Pay Less."
It was a fictitious airline created by a marketing company.

Here is the only trace I could find.
http://web.archive.org/web/200806082...yderriair.com/

Given the amount of system gaming that we hear about on FT, and combining that with the "get over on Big Evil Corporation" mentality that pervades in the US, I would not be surprised in the least to see travelers who are within a few pounds of the upper limit stripping down to shorts and a t-shirt for the weigh-in, but leaving their clothing with a traveling companion and putting it back on after the weigh in is over. If you + your clothing is 2lb over the limit, stripping 3 or 4 lb of clothing off for the weigh-in would get you on the plane.

Weigh-ins would be impractical anyway, because your weight will actually change between check-in and boarding, as you eat, drink, use the bathroom, and buy stuff in the terminal shops. The only way to make it accurate would be to weigh the pax and carry-ons at time of boarding, thus slowing down an already-tedious process, and causing many more pax blow ups ("Whataya mean I can't get on the plane!? Because I'm too FAT? HOW DARE YOU!")

LOL

Loving the ideas of bmi or body fat! Lol would only have to get to the airport six hours early and get checked in by someone trained to measuure body fat? Measure everyone's height and weight?

Maybe make fares by the pound/kilo if Going that way. YYZ-YYT seat sale $.50 pound each way. round trips 100$ for a 100 lb lightweight or 300 for a beefy 300lber and apply a similar rate for all luggage. I like the idea for fairness but logistically looks a nightmare for generally small differences in fares.

Like the picturephone, this is a bad idea that refuses to die.

Unless you meet the child age requirements, you won't get a DISCOUNT for weighing below average. For really, really small aircraft they have to do it (I once flew on a 6-seater from Manila to Caticlan that was like that). For most aircraft including RJs, though, they don't have to.

The fundamental problem with this line of reasoning is the implicit presumption that the other party your dealing with is fair and dealing in good faith. I suggest you re-evaluate that when it comes to airlines, which have had in their history such practices as training phone agents not to quote the lowest fare, imposing "fuel surcharges" and not backing off when fuel prices drop, or charging $400 for a non-competitive 100-mile route vs. $99 for a competitive one to go all the way across the continent. And charging $250 plus fare difference to change an international ticket.

Their take would be, "Wow, maybe there'd be consumer acceptance of charging by weight. Let's try doing that AND this other invented fee we were planning to introduce."

You're acting like Elin Nordegren when they're Tiger Woods.

Didn't Elin eventually chase Tiger out of the house with a golf club, beat the crap out of his car, and divorce him in a horrendous public spectacle that negatively impacted his reputation and career for several years?

Tall people are as bad as fat people. Fat people try to steal part of the seat next to them. Tall people try to bully people into not leaning back. A surcharge would seem to be in order for both.

At least tall people have the benefit of substantially higher lifetime earnings.

In general, the average male passenger would end up paying more under this scheme because most men are heavier (and taller) than women. I don't see it happening simply because it will lead to a lot of arguments and ill will. If you think the boarding process is a headache now, wait until they make everyone get on a scale before boarding a plane.

Besides, this plan is too egalitarian. Any airline that implements it will have to introduce a free allowance for elite passengers, who already get free checked luggage. On United, it could be something like this:

Weight exemption for elite passengers who are 18+ years old. Children between 14-17 will receive 75 % of adult allowance and those under 14 will have a prorated allowance of 5 % of adult allowance for each year of age plus a minimum of 5 % for those under 1 year old (i.e. a 13 year old gets 70 % and a two year gets 15 %).

Global Services: The first 250 lbs is free
1K, Platinum: The first 150 lbs is free
Gold: The first 100 lbs is free
Silver & Credit Card holders: The first 50 lbs is free

Yeah, I guess when the count of women coming forward exceeded the number of majors won it was just too much by any standard. The analogous thing with the airlines will be after the tipping point is past and even Joe Sixpack believes he's got a better chance at the lottery than redeeming an award for a decent number of miles.

We'll probably also eventually need legislation to put a floor under things like seat pitch, change fees or refund or cancellation policies. Airlines like Spirit are just determined to keep pushing the boundaries otherwise. Hopefully no one is repeating the experience of the old ValuJet and trying to see how many corners they can cut on safety.

Heheheh...they really need to rename Global Services to something jazzier.

Rather than fight it on gender discrimination, males will do what they always have done and just assert power to make sure it doesn't happen.

They don't have to weight every passenger, they can simply charge a flat 25$ fee to every passenger that looks fat.

Wouldn't this essentially be a tax on men, as they are on average bigger than women.

Or tall. We are talking weight here.

Yes. For the most part.