Overweight people should pay more on flights, says ex-Qantas economist
Just heard this on JJJ, apparently it is doing the rounds in mainstream media as people foam and froth at the mouth: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-12/charge-airline-passengers-by-weight-call/3768804
Tony Webber, who spent seven years with Qantas before becoming an economic consultant, says overweight passengers should be covering extra fuel costs incurred by airlines.I know there are a few engineer types in the airline industry here - how much difference does it really make for fuel costs, does anyone know? |
12:07pm 12/01/12 Permalink
that generates more fuel burn and higher fuel costs hahahaha, i cant beleive this... its like how the banks have recently recored record profits and are laying off thousands of ppl :/ Its all about the benjamins last edited by Sc00bs at 12:11:12 12/Jan/12 |
12:10pm 12/01/12 Permalink
does that mean skinnier ppl will have cheaper tickets with this system then seeing as they use less fuel than an 'average' person... i bet that s*** wont come into play
|
12:12pm 12/01/12 Permalink
does that mean skinnier ppl will have cheaper tickets with this system then seeing as they use less fuel than an 'average' person... i bet that s*** wont come into play That was mentioned in the news story I heard. There would be an average weight, under it you get cheaper tickets, over it you pay more. Most tickets are sold even before you set foot in an airport. Are the airlines going to ask you to estimate you weight to purchase the ticket online and then weigh every passenger on check in and ask for more cash or issue refunds? |
12:16pm 12/01/12 Permalink
How about beefcakes with a lot more muscle mass that weigh more than the average joe, like body builders etc.? People with large frames in general. Ridiculous.
|
12:22pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I bet they want to be able to advertise cheap flights, but charge an extra fee if you're over 60kg.
|
12:26pm 12/01/12 Permalink
pretty unfair against tall ppl, unless they are going to have an average weight per height sort of thing.
|
12:30pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Surely factoring the average weight a plane full of passengers carries and the subsequent fuel consumption that generates would be part of ticket pricing already? Some people will be lighter than average, some heavier but ultimately it averages out to a number that they should be basing their costings on.
Not to mention that some fat people won't weigh as much as what some people that would be considered healthy due to muscle mass and height would. |
12:30pm 12/01/12 Permalink
F*** the fatties. Im sick of a fattie taking up half my seat on a plane. IMO make em buy 2 seats.
|
12:32pm 12/01/12 Permalink
kinda sucks for people who have no control over their actual weight due to size, i.e people who are just big, 6ft4+ etc. always going to weigh more than the 'average' the airlines come up with.
the article i read, does some quick maths about how much it would cost an airline going brisbane to london via singapore 3 times a week for a year on an A380. think it was just 7 figures over the course of a year. i get charging people more who are taking up more than one seat (or enough space that i makes it very uncomfortable for someone to sit next to them) but doing it on weight alone without anything else seems a bit dodge. do children that need a seat but weigh well under the average for an adult get a commensurate reduction in price? as what mission says, do you write your weight in when you buy your ticket and then get charged more at the gate/luggage drop off after they weigh you and find out you lied about your weight? |
12:35pm 12/01/12 Permalink
This is going too far IMO.
If you are too big to fit into a single seat, then yes, you should have to pay for two seats. If I'm perfectly able to fit into one seat but I'm 90kg, I shouldn't have to pay more than someone who is 75kg. |
12:35pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I love the theory, in practice would be be difficult.
I think that it should be a ticket should entitled you to 120kg of cargo (person + baggage must not exceed 120kg). edit: totally agree if you are so big taht you can't fit in one seat, you buy two. |
12:37pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Funky you make me sick.
Agreed this is going too far, but at the same time fat people who are too big to actually fit in one seat and splash out onto their neighbours should be paying extra for special seats. Fat people seats. But to be honest, while I haven't flown that much, I've never sat next to a fat person who was so big that I could feel his fat beat, so maybe this point is moot? |
12:39pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Surely factoring the average weight a plane full of passengers carries and the subsequent fuel consumption that generates would be part of ticket pricing already? Some people will be lighter than average, some heavier but ultimately it averages out to a number that they should be basing their costings on.I'm sure they do this, but the system proposed by this guy is actually better for all the non-overweight consumers, who will no longer get punished by having their per-seat fuel cost dragged up to the "average" because of the overweight ones. The guy mentions in the article that the cost difference on a Sydney to London flight is going to be in the single-digit range - so less than $10/person for an overweight person. This says to me that the maximum difference per seat that fuel really has on customer weight - ranging from "underweight" through "average" to "overweight" is probably no more than about $20 - and that is on an international flight! So it barely seems like it is worth messing with the numbers to me. Surely there is other more low hanging fruit that would save them more money? Though I know fuel costs are the biggest expense that airlines have. |
12:40pm 12/01/12 Permalink
<--- 6'10" 110kg
they try to charge me "overweight" they will see an angry 6'10" 110kg guy overdose on ragemohol! (and out of curiousity... does anyone else "lose" their cursor if they try to go back into text they already wrote in this forum? wierd bug, had it for a while but only with Ausgamers?) |
12:41pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Well you have a luggage limit, which must mean weight does come into it. Jet engines are not a magical propulsion device that can just carry infinite weight.
Maybe you should step on a set of scales and get your ticket price? 200 People at average of 70kgs weigh 14 tonnes. 200 Fatties average of 130 kg's weigh 26 tonnes. 12 tonnes more fat the engines have to transport. In conclusion, get the fat bastards off planes. |
12:41pm 12/01/12 Permalink
they should charge black people extra and stop muslims from getting on flights because discrimination always works out in the end.
|
12:45pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I'm overweight. I'm also tall (albeit not as tall as some of the freaks here :P) and have fairly broad shoulders. I don't fit comfortably in airline seats and never really have. Even when I was fit and athletic, my shoulders were broader than the seats.
I would be *EXTREMELY* happy to pay an extra $20 etc to get a larger seat with extra leg room. I just can't justify paying the several hundred dollars more for Premium Economy or thousands more for Business class... Seriously though, if I ever become rich enough to be able to afford business class, I'm never flying anything else :P |
12:45pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I really don't think people have a right to fly on airlines. The thing is, if you allow yourself to get that fat, you lose your rights. Being fat is your own fault. You ate too much! So you suffer the consequences of having to pay more.
Why do normal people, who eat normally and don't allow themselves to become giant fat slobs, have to pay for the cost of the increasing amount of fat in our society? completely unfair. If you're a fatso, lose some weight. I'm not going to pay for your expensive jet fuel needed to haul your fat ass around cos you can't walk. |
12:48pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Trog, yeah that's my first instinct - that unless you are talking someone who weighs 150kg, it makes no significant difference.
Take virgin for example, who charge $12 for up to 23kg luggage one-way. I'm sure that $12 includes "handling" costs too, so in real terms I doubt the fuel difference between someone who weighs 50kg and someone who ways 100kg is more than $5 The "average" customer+luggage weight is probably dominated by luggage weight differences any way. So from that point of view, they should charge per kg of luggage too rather than being included, or a fixed fee for "up to X kg". If an airline were to implement this scheme, you have just taken on additional costs in terms of providing weighing scales for passengers, a mechanism to reduce/increase the price per person, lost revenue from people who dont want to reveal their weight. It just seems like an impossible business case when you can just use the law of averages to brush over passenger weight variations that are not individually significant. |
12:48pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I really don't think people have a right to fly on airlines. The thing is, if you allow yourself to get that fat, you lose your rights. Being fat is your own fault. You ate too much! So you suffer the consequences of having to pay more. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the new Bogan King! |
12:49pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I really don't think people have a right to fly on airlines. The thing is, if you allow yourself to get that fat, you lose your rights. Being fat is your own fault. You ate too much! So you suffer the consequences of having to pay more. I really don't lthink gay people have a right to fly on airlines. The thing is, if you allow yourself to become such a massive arse slammer, you lose your rights. Being gay is your own fault. You sucked to much c***!, so you suffer the consequences of not being allowed on a plane. Seriously though, we all bare the cost in society of people we don't want to. Case in point, tax dollars going towards unemployed lazy people. Making them pay extra on a flight is conceivable but seriously I'd like to know the validity of the cost claims here. Does x amount of extra kilos really equal x amount of extra fuel usage. Not to mention the whole fact the notion is discriminatory , similar to not allowing black people on a plane because they smell? (sound bigoted enough for u?) |
12:58pm 12/01/12 Permalink
It just seems like an impossible business case when you can just use the law of averages to brush over passenger weight variations that are not individually significant. Exactly. |
12:58pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I really don't lthink gay people have a right to fly on airlines. The thing is, if you allow yourself to become such a massive arse slammer, you lose your rights. Being gay is your own fault. You sucked to much c***!, so you suffer the consequences of not being allowed on a plane.Careful, he's in Rockhampton and probably agrees with that. |
01:01pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Gayness doesn't affect me. I don't have to pay more for gay people. I don't have to rub up against fat on a plane with gay people. Gay people don't suck up jet fuel.
Invalid point. |
01:05pm 12/01/12 Permalink
What a load of toss. Just figure out how much the average person weighs and charge according to that. It's already what they do. Then for every fatty who gets on the plane there is an equally likely statistical probability that someone skinny will board the next one, and the fuel costs all balance.
edit - maybe I should read threads before posting. /Puts on master of the obvious cap. |
01:06pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Seriously though, we all bare the cost in society of people we don't want to. Case in point, rescuing whaling activists from Japanese vessels |
01:06pm 12/01/12 Permalink
We should also charge disabled people extra for hogging all the space with there wheelchairs.
|
01:06pm 12/01/12 Permalink
fat people could just load their pockets with helium balloons to lighten up! if you had enough the airline would have to pay you to fly with them! ;p Hell, if they were fat enough, they could offer their own seating arrangements :P |
01:09pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I don't expect you to get the point. Don't worry. don't act like you made sense, cos you didn't. Fat people - irresponsible, over eating, lazy, own fault, choice to overeat, massive cost to society, health, plane fuel etc, fast food demand, fat kids Gay people - born like that, no cost to society, no issue If you're comparing fat people to gay people, you're insulting gay people and are a homophobe. Go back to school, gay basher. |
01:11pm 12/01/12 Permalink
punish overweight people in other ways... or get the government to subsidise gym memberships... remove centrelink and healthcare for people that are overweight for any other reason than a medical one.
I hate sponsoring fat families with my tax doll0rs to buy mcdonalds to make their kids fat too. And then I get to sponsor Medicare to look after them when their hearts start failing at 35 due to obesity. F***. Let's be realistic about it though, as one of the most politically correct countries in the world, changes like this will never happen. |
01:15pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Lets punish gay people too. Tiny can head the secret police that hunts them down.
|
01:17pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Lets punish gay people too. Tiny can head the secret police that hunts them down. and immigrants! we'll get the fat people, gays & immigrants. TO THE HATE MOBILE! http://www.hybridredneck.com/content_images/2/r wanna truck.jpg |
01:33pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I hate sponsoring fat families with my tax doll0rs to buy mcdonalds to make their kids fat too. The problem is more complicated than that. Maccas is actually cheaper than healthy food these days, so low income families end up eating s***** food and getting fat. It's a downward spiral. |
01:36pm 12/01/12 Permalink
It amazes me that a proposed few bucks for a plane ticket gets traction when the health costs for fatness to the general public are so staggering.
Seriously we could rip the s*** out of our health budget if we could fix the fatness issue. |
01:36pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I think we need to bring back Eugenics and start eating Soylent Green!
^.^ |
01:38pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Maccas is actually cheaper than healthy food these days, huh? How much is a meal at Maccas, $8+? How much is 200grams of chicken - say $2 ($10 a kilo) How much is various vegies for one meal (carrot or two, handful of beans and a chunk of cauliflower) - say $3, $4 max. So that's $6 max for a far better meal. |
01:43pm 12/01/12 Permalink
lawl greazy, i hope you're being silly
i flew to adelaide last year for work and was stuck next to the fattest person i've ever seen on a plane. i got shafted with the middle seat also, so was crammed next to this huge fat dude and then a normal girl on my left, who kept giggling at my predicament. worst flight of my life, so uncomfortable i don't think this will get off the ground (due to the fatties, lulz) but i can see how it could be considered with some tweaks. agree with the people talking about that there needs to be other incentives elsewhere (welfare, gym, exercise etc) to keep the fatness down |
01:43pm 12/01/12 Permalink
yeah it isn't cheaper mission, it is easier, which is why they do it. why spend time cooking up a better meal, when you can swing by the drive through
|
01:44pm 12/01/12 Permalink
The "average" customer+luggage weight is probably dominated by luggage weight differences any way. So from that point of view, they should charge per kg of luggage too rather than being included, or a fixed fee for "up to X kg".Yup. My standard "international pack" weighs, almost every time, around 14kg. Last time I flew back to .au there was a family in front of us with two girls who both had packs that were around 22-24kg. I would have guessed the girls would have weighed 60kg. |
01:45pm 12/01/12 Permalink
It's about time someone said this.
When I go around to national rounds, I take 30kg of luggage with me. Myself, my cameras and my bike weigh less than the guy sitting next to me, and he still spills over in to my seat and pays less! Last time, coming home from Hobart, we went to the Cadbury factory on the way back and loaded up, which put my luggage over the limit by a kg or so. We spent ages repacking it, despite the fact that the two of us were a 65 and 70kg frame. What a joke. |
01:45pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Overweight people should pay more on flights completely agree.. there has been many times where i have been suck on a fight with a fat f*** sitting next to me and taking up my space.. make them pay for 2 seats for GTFO |
01:46pm 12/01/12 Permalink
^ yeah that's pretty s*** Raven.
You and all your gear probably weighs less than one fatty not including his/her luggage. |
01:47pm 12/01/12 Permalink
huh? actually he's right if hes talking about premade food like sandwiches from shops. most of the shops around my work sell sandwiches for $8+. all they have on them is a bit of salad and meat. it is a lot cheaper if you make your own sandwiches though. |
01:48pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Well they aren't buying maccas to save money then are they?
They are buying it because they are lazy f****, not prudent money handlers. It's amazing how some people miss the basic concept that the food you eat is the fuel to run your body. Most people wouldn't knowlingly put s***** fuel in their car, that will have long term reprocussions to the cars engine, to save a few bucks, would they? But s***** food that f**** up my body in the long run, no worries! Note that I'm no awesome 'never eat crap' guy, I limit when I can and try to make somewhat good choices when I'm getting take away. last edited by mission at 14:03:07 12/Jan/12 |
01:57pm 12/01/12 Permalink
What would you say about a scaled pricing system for clothes based on weight then - 2xl shirts use almost double the fabric of say, M, yet are the same price?
What about public transport pricing? Same deal as what is being discussed about airlines? |
02:02pm 12/01/12 Permalink
What would you say about a scaled pricing system for clothes based on weight then - 2xl shirts use almost double the fabric of say, M, yet are the same price?Given the price of bikinis I think its reasonable to assume that the cost of materials is generally a minor component of clothes pricing :) |
02:12pm 12/01/12 Permalink
they should charge black people extra and stop muslims from getting on flights because discrimination always works out in the end.I wouldn't say stop muslim people getting on flights, just charge them 3 times as much as fat people because of all the security measures that have been put in place because of them. If you're a fat muslim, you're f***ed. |
02:12pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Good point there mission with s*** fuel in cars simile.
|
02:13pm 12/01/12 Permalink
3x is conservative, surely. Mulims should buy their own f*****g planes.and crash them into their own f*****g buildings! |
02:16pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Well they aren't buying maccas to save money then are they? Its a fact that s***** food is cheaper than fresh food. Just go to your local supermarket and look at the cost of buying mass produced s*** like sausage rolls and chips compared to fresh fruit, veg or meat. You're also telling me that your time is worth nothing when you're factoring in the price of fast food vs cooking at home and not including prep and cooking times. Most people wouldn't knowlingly put s***** fuel in their car, that will have long term reprocussions to the cars engine, to save a few bucks, would they? So everyone you know fills up on premium? |
02:21pm 12/01/12 Permalink
How much is a meal at Maccas, $8+? 3 cheeseburgers was $6 back in the day, it has enough fats and carbs to survive until the next day, i lived like that for a couple of weeks, its pretty sad using credit to pay for a $4 meal. was the cheapest I could manage without going bread and water though, i doubt you could survive on the 200grams of chicken indefinitely though, its only 390 calories and you'd need about 2,000 a day. a single cheeseburger for $2 will provide ~315. i must of consumed the rest by stealing the milk out of the work fridge. |
02:21pm 12/01/12 Permalink
and crash them into their own f*****g buildings! Now we're talking! Lateral: you probably could have gone cheaper with home made rice dishes. You can buy rice seriously cheap and the s*** lasts forever, there's a reason poor c**** in asia live on it! |
02:25pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Quick honey, take a s*** before we board so we get a discount!
|
02:25pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Lateral: you probably could have gone cheaper with home made rice dishes. You can buy rice seriously cheap and the s*** lasts forever, there's a reason poor c**** in asia live on it!insta noodles was an option as well. but i think I would have offed myself in the second week if i lived on rice alone. at least the cheeseburgers had flavor, was satisfying and was something to look forward to in my relatively bleak existence at that point in time. I figured it was worth paying the very little extra for a more satisfying meal. mind you, i didn't just indulge, i was surviving, so i think i lost weight during that time. so its not really relevant to the topic, i just thought i'd voice my experience living on the brink of starvation and its influence on my dining choices at the time. last edited by Captain Lateral at 14:41:09 12/Jan/12 |
02:40pm 12/01/12 Permalink
You're also telling me that your time is worth nothing when you're factoring in the price of fast food vs cooking at home and not including prep and cooking times. Time factor? Sounds like the same excuse used to not exercise or be active. It's easier to blame something such as 'lack of time' than admit you cbf. Would you put poor quality fuel in your car (knowing that it's bad for the car)for $1.00 a litre at the servo around the corner or drive a few kilometers away for quality fuel at $1.40? Anyway, way off topic... back to the fatties ponying up the extra cash. last edited by mission at 14:46:50 12/Jan/12 |
02:43pm 12/01/12 Permalink
It's not about if people are fat or not, it's about weight vs costs from what I can gather. The same reason why you have a luggage limit. If they charged your ticket for weight or person + luggage for a fee based on the end kg result - I would be ok with that.
It's purely cost vs weight to move the items from one place to another. |
02:47pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Funky it's cause you quoted in imperial. Horrible, terrible person. Metric of GTFO of this fantastic metric land.
|
02:51pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Discrimination is discrimination. I'll be a volunteer fat c*** to be told by quantus that I have to cough up $150 more to fly so I can be the first to sue.
|
03:51pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Doctor: You have lost so much weight Mrs Nipplehead, what gives?!
Mrs Nipplehead: I starved myself to save money on my overseas trip! Doctor: Congratulations, you now have airline induced anorexia and are anaemic. Mrs Nipplehead: It's the airline's fault. |
03:57pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Would you put poor quality fuel in your car (knowing that it's bad for the car)for $1.00 a litre at the servo around the corner or drive a few kilometers away for quality fuel at $1.40?http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/working.png |
03:58pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Would you put poor quality fuel in your car (knowing that it's bad for the car)for $1.00 a litre at the servo around the corner or drive a few kilometers away for quality fuel at $1.40? . I'm pretty sure 9/10 people would pay for the $1.00 fuel. That's why most people buy regular fuel instead of premium, even though regular is s***e. I'm not saying that its a good way to go, but if you don't think that processed s***e food is cheaper than quality fresh food then you're delusional. |
04:01pm 12/01/12 Permalink
lol fatties.
but seriously, i'd be all for them charging per weight if that money goes into special seats for people with huge shoulders like me. |
04:03pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I suffer from giant c*** in the pants syndrome.
Those freaks lining up for fuel (lul) at Coles & Woolies only to save a few cents! FOOLS |
04:13pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Doctor: Congratulations, you now have airline induced anorexia and are anaemic. I'm pretty sure 9/10 people would pay for the $1.00 fuel.i'm pretty sure 9/10 people have no idea what constitutes "bad" fuel. just like 9/10 people have no idea how premium is different to regular. Would you put poor quality fuel in your car (knowing that it's bad for the car)for $1.00 a litre at the servo around the corner or drive a few kilometers away for quality fuel at $1.40?I'm really keen to here what you think the difference between "good" fuel and "bad" fuel is. "bad" fuel has lots of sediment in it, and clogs your filters, your main fuel filter is a normally a $20 part and if replaced during your services there should be no problem with "cheap fuel". occasionally, people get "bad fuel" where they're getting the bottom of the servos fuel tank where the sediment and water accumulate, but ALL fuel tanks have this problem, paying an extra 40c a liter doesn't protect you. |
04:17pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I'm pretty sure 9/10 people have no idea what constitutes "bad" fuel. Agreed, and I think mission's analogy is apt in that it still extends to food as well. Most people dont give a s*** about nutrition either, hence why maccas gets called "food" alongside fresh fruit and veg. |
04:19pm 12/01/12 Permalink
The best system is cost/weight. You and your luggage gets weighed and the price charged as applicable. No discrimination at all. Anyone who is over 120kg is Obese and should pay more whether it is fat or muscle (Refer Body Mass Index).
I used to be part of MATU in the RAAF and part of my job was determining weight and the resulting fuel requirements for C130s, Caribous, CH-47Cs and B707s. You would not believe just how much weight affects aircraft ranges. |
04:23pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Discrimination is discrimination. I'll be a volunteer fat c*** to be told by quantus that I have to cough up $150 more to fly so I can be the first to sue.Is it discrimination? If it is quantitatively more expensive to move larger people then it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to make them pay more. What they do now - working on averages - is the easy, sane choice - but now fuel prices are much more than they were, airlines are looking to save dollars everywhere. The article suggests that mainstream airlines like Qantas might not ever go for this because of the image issues - having people step on scales before they hop on a plane could be humiliating. But its the sort of thing the budget airlines would probably go for (plus it would make a great addition to all those reality TV shows about budget airlines!) |
04:24pm 12/01/12 Permalink
(plus it would make a great addition to all those reality TV shows about budget airlines!)"Coming up next, 'Too Fat To Fly'" |
04:35pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I don't think you'd actually be paying less if something like this was ever implemented. In fact I'd say it'd be naive to assume that a company would even approach this idea from a position of making it cheaper for the average punter. They are more likely looking at a way to increase profits by commoditizing an aspect of their user base. So if you meet their weight requirements you will pay the same as you always have and if you don't they will charge you more. Why would Qantas charge you less when they can create the illusion that they are doing so by charging someone else more?
It's not like they want to do you any favours. |
04:43pm 12/01/12 Permalink
they are doing this all wrong.
they should create a voluntary system where you can elect to get a discount on your flight by weighing less and weighing in on check in. then jack up all the standard prices to pay for the scheme. hey it is voluntary, you don't have to do it. |
04:52pm 12/01/12 Permalink
You wouldn't step on scales, there would be a walkway with a scale inside it and as you passed the point with the scale you would show your boarding pass. It would be discrete and seamless. Like a clean and bright sci-fi set.
|
04:56pm 12/01/12 Permalink
You wouldn't step on scales, there would be a walkway with a scale inside it and as you passed the point with the scale you would show your boarding pass. It would be discrete and seamless. Like a clean and bright sci-fi set. Put the scales at the security detector, ticket with a smart chip. Overweight/underweight then bills/credits your fight account making either drinks cheaper or return flight cheaper. |
05:09pm 12/01/12 Permalink
IMO, standard price of a ticket is $x, for a discount, come up to the front desk and get yourself weighed. The savings in fuel (minus the company cut) will be refunded to you.
its OPT-in, non-discriminatory, non-confrontational. most people won't waste their time so they can charge almost everyone as a "heavy" load. |
05:14pm 12/01/12 Permalink
more discounts if we opt to exit the plane early via para?
|
05:38pm 12/01/12 Permalink
9B and 37D haha
All you little fatties getting up in arms about this it isn't the people that are 120KG or even 130KG It is the massive motherf*****s that are like 150 and as wide as two seats They should just have a gate you need to walk through to get to the terminal that is as wide as 1.5 seats, that would sort the problem out |
05:45pm 12/01/12 Permalink
That would be a great idea, except the person next to them will still get their fat spillage and the fat people will pack very light, meaning everyone will get more 'show' during their holiday.
|
06:33pm 12/01/12 Permalink
That would be a great idea, except the person next to them will still get their fat spillage and the fat people will pack very light, meaning everyone will get more 'show' during their holiday. If you spill over you get sent to the cargo hold. I hate riding the train and being forced to sit next to a barge arse. They take up half your seat and really never try to fix it. Luckily I've never had to sit next to one on a plane. |
06:45pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I really don't think people have a right to fly on airlines. The thing is, if you allow yourself to get that fat, you lose your rights. I really don't lthink gay people have a right to fly on airlines. The thing is, if you allow yourself to become such a massive arse slammer, you lose your rights. We should also charge disabled people extra for hogging all the space with there wheelchairs. Aga, you should have to also pay a height tax. I'm sick of having to pay extra because they have to build planes with ceilings that are so high! they should charge black people extra and stop muslims from getting on flights because discrimination always works out in the end. I reckon if any airline ever set up a brand that had a sign "Double Ticket Price for anyone who is Gay, Black, Disabled, Muslim, Fat or Tall" they'd still have an easier time dealing with PR than Qantas does. |
07:08pm 12/01/12 Permalink
they'd still have an easier time dealing with PR than Qantas does. QFT, but good on qantas for not being pushed around by unions. |
09:44pm 12/01/12 Permalink
I would be *EXTREMELY* happy to pay an extra $20 etc to get a larger seat with extra leg room Pretty much this. If they want to charge me extra just for being fat, then fix your f*****g sardine can seats and have my 6'5 legs not be crushed up against the seat in front of me to the point where it dislocates my knee cap if they so much as fart into the seat. |
09:49pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Oh and let's not forget Kevin Smith got kicked off a flight for being too fat as they told him he'd have to pay more (if I remember right) and he told them to go f*** themselves by leaving the flight. And I always considered him a smaller fat guy so jeez.
|
10:00pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Haven't read the whole thread, but I'd support a weight-based pricing structure. Humans on plans are just cargo - the same as shipping a parcel overseas. You pay for the cubic-weight with cargo/parcels, in this case they can't just cram more people into the cabin so you'd be paying for dead-weight. I don't see the problem.
|
10:02pm 12/01/12 Permalink
Oh and let's not forget Kevin Smith got kicked off a flight for being too fat as they told him he'd have to pay more (if I remember right) and he told them to go f*** themselves by leaving the flight. And I always considered him a smaller fat guy so jeez. He was a lot bigger than what you saw in the movies when this happened... This is just his face. http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/ap/people kevin smith-1627403990.grid-4x2.jpg edit for another pic. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/15/article-1251099-06BFCE72000005DC-528_233x510.jpg |
08:36am 13/01/12 Permalink
