 Poster: A snowHead
|
I'd get loads of baggage allowance as my kids weigh next to nothing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
glasgowcyclops, AirFrance is going to charge 75% of the cost of the second seat, not 25% of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
hyweljenkins, it's also interesting to note that it won't be a compulsory charge...
""People who arrive at the check-in desk and are deemed too large to fit into a single seat will be asked to pay for and use a second seat. They will be charged 75 per cent of the cost of the second seat, which is the full price excluding tax and surcharges, on top of the full price for the first."
and
Spokesman Jean-Pierre Lefebvre clarified: "It is not an obligation; we suggest to such passengers they buy a second seat for their own comfort and in order to be sure the seats are adapted to their needs. If the plane is not full, they can get a refund."
So fatso passengers will have no obligation to pay for two seats; just a suggestion that they do so. That'll work well. I can just see plenty of arguments at the check-in counter. "You're too fat to fit in a seat". "No, I'm not, I'm just big boned" etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Dav, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
alex_heney,
Perhaps my wording could have been beter. I was referring to allowance per person that different airlines impose, not weight by individual case.
Not sure where the max 23Kg per case came from. I know it is certainly used by TUI and Chambery airport. However, when i flew to Kenya and Tanzania 2 years ago one of our cases was about 27Kg and it was not an issue on any flight. But I guess you get better treatment and allowances with larger airlines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Dav, yes, but if they are too large for one seat they will only get two if they pay. I think airlines should make it compulsory, with different-sized doors for people to try to fit through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| hyweljenkins wrote: |
| Dav, yes, but if they are too large for one seat they will only get two if they pay. I think airlines should make it compulsory, with different-sized doors for people to try to fit through. |
I agree. And maybe they can install a special "fat alarm" that goes off when one particular heffer can't fit through the smaller door. Just to give us something to laugh about in the check-in queue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It does make sense, however it could be disasterous for the one or two airlines that actually tried to do it - I am a big guy at 17 stone, and I would just fly with somebody who didn't have such charges. Unless every airline did it, I'd go elsewhere. I actively avoid airlines that only have 15kg allowance and those that charge excessively for sports equipment, or negotiate deals that inlcude these things at a good price.
One the theory that women would complain if they had to pay more for bras because they have larger breasts, this effectively happens already. I have a few friends and a girlfriend who are rather well endowed, and you can walk into Primark, Top Shop and the rest, and you won't find much over D cups in there. You end up having to buy from certain brands to get the larger sizes, and at the really extreme end of the scale have to buy from specialist shops. These places are not cheap, having seen the cost of some underwear it definitely isn't high street prices. Up to £50 for a decent quality bra isn't uncommon, and they need to be decent quality or the sheer weight/size of those babies becomes pretty uncomfortable (as I understand it).
With XXXL clothing for bigger people it does cost more for the large part. If you want to buy a good suit at 50+" chest, you end up having to go to specialist retailers again, and this means less choice, higher prices as they don't have the same economies of scale as others. Same is true for the XXXS, though clothes do tend to get to very small before you end up at a specialist shop.
The advantage to being big is that you get some great deal in the end of season sales - the XXL salopettes that only fit 5% of the potential customers out there are lovely, and the XXL jacket that they had to discount a lot to shift and would be like a tent on a "normal" sized bloke is great. Unfortunately the choice is still limited, but when you do find something that fits you can haggle hard knowing that there's not likely to be many other customers who need that size.
Having seen a huge number of obese passengers getting on planes, it would generate more money (or force people to cut back on baggage) but it could also cost them millions in passengers lost to other airlines.
Also worth considering is that if flights costs go up due to cost of fuel increasing, charge for every gram over 15kg, charge fat people, charge for water, charge to go to the loo, people like me will just drive to the resort. As this increases you will find that the flight you really want to go to some regional airport near your favourite ski resort or somewhere you've bought a property gets axed, then you whinge about it. Boo hoo. Airlines have got to make some money somewhere, and if that's out of the thin people who travel with very little baggage, fine by me.
The idea that there aren't many skiiers over 100kg is laughable. Watching them get on the flight last week I'd say 20% of the flight were over 100kg, maybe more. And that was just the girls. We, as a nation, are becoming bigger and bigger, and there are far more people moving towards the heavy end of the scale. Just because someone is bigger, doesn't mean they don't want to do active holidays - of course whether they could benefit from losing a few pounds is another matter.
I do have a friend who can't travel on economy airlines or regular seats on a plane. He has to travel in Business Class or better to be able to fit in a seat. He wouldn't impose his own size on someone next to him on a normal plane seat, but also it's not comfortable on a longer flight. With that comes a higher price tag, and more luggage allowance, so in some ways there comes a point where people select themselves as needing to pay more to get more space.
What's the deal if a seatbelt won't go round you? Surely the cabin crew have got to ask you to leave the plane or something surely? You've got to be strapped in, and I'd say at about 120kg the belts just won't go round. As a result you wouldn't be going anywhere, unless they could find a bigger seat with a longer belt. And I bet you wouldn't get a refund from the airline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
But the overall weight of the passengers makes up only a small fraction of the aeroplane; when you take into account the weight of the plane, equipment on board, total fuel load, food & drink etc, the actual weight of passengers is only a small fraction of this. A few stones here or there for the odd passenger make no material difference. What's next with this approach; would you ask the airline for some money back after a half-full flight, as the plane would have used less fuel than a full flight?
|
Actually I think it does. On my last few connecting flights between Aberdeen and Gatwick, the plane has been at most half full, usually less. Yet passengers aren't allowed to choose a seat, we still get allocated one and instructed not to move, as the plane is trim sensitive - ie where the weight is will affect the plane's performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarky999, I would imagine they do that just to maximise weight distribution, particularly on the smaller planes.
Let's assume Ryanair here for a minute; they predominantly use Boeing 737 aircraft. Now, according to wikipedia, the Boeing 737-800 has a seating capacity of 189 passengers, and has an empty weight of 98,500 lbs. If you averaged the 189 passengers at, say 12 stones each, which is an extremely generous allowance, that gives a total of 31,752 lbs. So, added to the weight of the empty plane, the passengers make up just a quarter of the total weight.
The Boeing 737 has a maximum take off weight of up to 187,000lbs, which I guess allows for fuel, equipment on board, food and drink, passengers, luggage etc etc. So, with that in mind, the weight of the passengers on a fully laden flight would only be 17% of the total weight of the flight. That needs to be to borne in mind when considering the suggestion of charging people according to weight; it really doesn't make much difference at all in the grand scheme of things.
Right, that's enough geekery from me for one day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
Airlines have got to make some money somewhere, and if that's out of the thin people who travel with very little baggage, fine by me.
|
There are always two sides to every argument and plenty of side roads to take along the way.
| Quote: |
Having seen a huge number of obese passengers getting on planes, it would generate more money (or force people to cut back on baggage) but it could also cost them millions in passengers lost to other airlines.
|
What if a new budget airline actively targeted people with flights that included a max total weight? You could see a reasonable shift towards the new airline by many people that want clear pricing and no expensive add ons. Just playing Devils Advocate, I know it is unlikely as most budget airlines actively discourage travel with anything but hand luggage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| queen bodecia wrote: |
| hyweljenkins, When I go to the swimming pool I do not want to be confronted with the terrifying sight of an old fat hairy man in nowt but a pair of small pants. |
You going on any of the Bashes this year? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Dwarf Vader, no bashes for me. I'm getting the idea that it really isn't my thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Mike-H wrote: |
...we may struggle to keep under weight restrictions and endure the ‘will it be OK’ nerves as we queue for check in. I have never been over and often sacrifice my own ‘luxuries’ to keep the weight down. |
I have perfected the art of jamming my foot under the scales at check in to 'offset' any axtra we have over the limit. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| queen bodecia wrote: |
| Dwarf Vader, no bashes for me. I'm getting the idea that it really isn't my thing. |
What? Skiing and enjoying yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Dwarf Vader, LOL! Sounds more like an alcoholic orgy in the mountains reading these threads!
In any case, I don't have the budget for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Shouldn't the underweight pay more to fly too then?
They eat less so buy less food and their clothes cost less (and some even fit into tax free kids clothes), so their total VAT contribution is lower, therefore they owe the fatties in a roundabout way.
And the ones who are skinny streaks of p!ss simply because they have spent the last 20 years being dirty chain smoking fag ashes should pay more too, to compensate for the fact that they spread their foul smelling smoke breath to nearby passegners.
In fact there is a general point smelly people should pay more too. What about people who are fat and smelly ?
Basically everyone should pay more than me, because (in my little world) I am perfect... 
Then again I should pay more as I blight the plane load of passengers with noise polluction from taking my toddlers, and I should chip in a dribble and snot tax by the same token. But then again kids aged 3 who pay a full price ticket weigh less then a quarter than even a lightweight fully grown adult (ignoring the size 0's) so I should get a partial refund or a free bag...
Bah, lets be honest, the whole concept of price discrimination for baggage charging by passenger weight is utter toilet. But charging for toilet usage..... 
Fat people probably do bigger more frequent poo's so they would, accordingly pay more in toilet usage fees on board the flight.... But should you charge by weight of waste dumped in the wc, per visit, or time spent in the cubicle.... Or perhaps per sheet of paper used, but then the mingers who don't wipe properly would get a cheap ride... Imagine the hours of fun in the BrianSleazyAirJet new product development team office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The disabled, tall people, injured... anyone a bit different needs to pay more,
Even if one could pool ones weight my family would still be knackered as the four of us pool in at 62 stone..... and there is only me that's fat  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole fat people should pay more debate is massively retarded.
The weight of baggage is a red herring used by the airlines to maximise profit.
The weight of baggage is a very small proportion of the total weight of a plane. Size, and the cost/time of loading and unloading are the real issues with baggage. Hence why low cost airlines try to prevent you putting a bag in the hold at all and charge per bag, but most will let you take unlimited weight in your hand luggage as long as it fits on the plane.
The weight limit is simply a method of restricting the size of the bag (imagine if they tried to measure every bag at check in). Lower weight limits are to encourage people to pay for excess.
Edit: The article linked to in the bump is a good example of scaremongering using badly presented statistics.
| Scaremongering newspaper wrote: |
| An airline sending an A380 from Sydney to London three times daily would fork out $1 million per year to compensate the cost of carrying two extra kilograms per person. |
What they don't say is that the total revenue generated from a 3 times daily A380 flight from London to Sydney will be around £1 billion pounds (1.5 billion AUD) so the increase in fuel cost is less than 0.07% of revenue generated.
Its what they leave out that is important and the fat people should pay more is just subtle PR to persuade people the punative baggage charges are justified due to costs rather than a handy way to generate profits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
GAZZA, spot on. My usual response to folks whingeing that they don't have kids and shouldn't have to pay to educate other peoples' is to point out that it's other peoples' kids that are going to finance the country in their retirement. Not having kids is selfish as you are actively shrinking the tax base of the country 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ricklovesthepowder wrote: |
| what are you going to suggest next, females with a breast size of say 32cc will pay less for a bra than a woman with a pair of 34ee breasts. Your point is ridiculous and embarrasing to even suggest it. |
Hate to break it to you, but this is exactly what happens. If you fit into anything in the standard sizes you can buy cheap underwear (if you choose to) and if you don't, then you have to spend a lot. Believe me, I am never going bra shopping with Mrs Monium again - its like burning tenners in the street!
In the same way I have to pay more for my shirts because a 15" collar standard fit shirt doesn't fit me, and if I buy XL shirts from Tesco they are like a potato sack. Same for trousers - clothes that fit me cost more because I am not a standard size (same as you by the sounds of it) and companies that market to guys like us charge a premium for their products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Fly from the grass airstrip at Lands End to Scilly isles & they weigh you on a a big set of scales
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Ghost Dog wrote: |
| Not having kids is selfish as you are actively shrinking the tax base of the country |
The World is far to crowded & Western Europe is way over crowded.
A China Style One Child Policy should be implemented for a few years but only if you have sufficient means to upkeep the child.
Income Tax should be abolished & replaced by Taxes on what you use or buy. It is far more efficient way of collection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stanton, how would you measure how fat someone is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
You don't have to be fat to be heavy, I'm 6'4" and 17st and not fat. Honest.......
BMI is a bit of shitty guide really IMO, I think I'm morbidly obese or obese at least by BMI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| stanton wrote: |
| Flet©h wrote: |
| The whole fat people should pay more debate is massively retarded. |
No. Fat people should pay more, a lot lot more, period!
Lets just take a pair of Jeans.
Why does some fat lump pay the same price for 52" waistline pair of jeans as to someone who buys a 28" waistline pair, A huge amount of extra material in the product & shipping cost to stores? |
That is b0llocks, both for airline seats and jeans.
Why? Well there are lots of reasons price shouldn't be proportional to waist size.
- The price of jeans is only slightly related to the cost of jeans. The price is market based, i.e. what people are willing to pay.
- The cost of raw materials is only a fraction of what goes into the total cost of the jeans. All the other costs related to selling jeans don't vary with size such as design costs, manufacturing costs, store rents, marketing costs, etc.
- The added complexity for the seller would increase the admin costs related to selling jeans, this would increase prices for everyone, including thin people.
You can apply the same argument for airline seats. The amount of fuel used is only a small part of the cost and the amount of fuel used is only increased in a very small way by your weight. The extra element of charging by weight would just increase complexity and the price would go up for everyone to cover the additional admin.
This only holds to a certain level though, once you are outside certain thresholds of what "normal" people fit in you do pay more as Monium has explained, this is because you don't just need bigger versions of the same thing, you need different things. This is true for airline seats when you are forced to pay for 2 seats since it is the seat that is actually affecting the price, not your weight.
So while fat people may be a drain on the NHS and it may be annoying to be limited to 20kg when the bloke next to you has this much in his spare tyre, charging fat people extra for things is just shoddy economics.
If it annoys you that much fill your pockets next time you board a flight or buy jeans larger than you need, take them in a use the excess fabric for profit.
(and I'm not even a fatty!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| provenjohn wrote: |
| Fly from the grass airstrip at Lands End to Scilly isles & they weigh you on a a big set of scales |
basically that's becasue on a smaller plane they have to be more accurate with their overall weight so it's important to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| stanton wrote: |
| Ghost Dog wrote: |
| Not having kids is selfish as you are actively shrinking the tax base of the country |
The World is far to crowded & Western Europe is way over crowded.
A China Style One Child Policy should be implemented for a few years but only if you have sufficient means to upkeep the child.
Income Tax should be abolished & replaced by Taxes on what you use or buy. It is far more efficient way of collection. |
Are you a high earning but low spending miser who doesn't buy food in the hope that one day it will get him slightly lower prices on low cost airlines?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Mike-H,
In the spirit of Viz Top Tips:
Simply eat some of your ski kit before boarding the plane, so that it travels with you as part of your free 'body weight allowance'. Once in resort you can then regurgitate everything and head for the slopes!
To start with, probably best to restrict yourself to smaller items such as socks and gloves, before working your way up to helmets, boots and skis in due course.
chemistry
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Hello stanton,
"BMI Normal Weight + 20kg of Hold Luggage + 10kg Hand Luggage"
Using BMI, is i'm afraid complete cobblers my friend.
This is why.
if someone weighs 12 stone and is short in height they will have a high BMI and would be classed as obese.
if someone weighs 15 stone and is tall they will have a normal BMI and would not be obese
Therefore in your world the lighter person would have to pay a surcharge, which is clearly ridiculous.
Many powerfully built individuals are classed as clinically obese due to using BMI.
Most rugby players, to give you an easily visualised example are obese according to their BMI.
Cheers Geoff
PS personally i don't like the idea of surcharges due to an individuals weight at all, just another money
making scam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Why? If someone is pregnant, that is (usually) their choice, why should someone else pay fot it? |
I'm suprised that Mr O'Leary hasnt worked out that a pregnant person is actually 2 persons and therefore that should be 2 tickets
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Monium wrote: |
| Ricklovesthepowder wrote: |
| what are you going to suggest next, females with a breast size of say 32cc will pay less for a bra than a woman with a pair of 34ee breasts. Your point is ridiculous and embarrasing to even suggest it. |
Hate to break it to you, but this is exactly what happens. If you fit into anything in the standard sizes you can buy cheap underwear (if you choose to) and if you don't, then you have to spend a lot. Believe me, I am never going bra shopping with Mrs Monium again - its like burning tenners in the street!
In the same way I have to pay more for my shirts because a 15" collar standard fit shirt doesn't fit me, and if I buy XL shirts from Tesco they are like a potato sack. Same for trousers - clothes that fit me cost more because I am not a standard size (same as you by the sounds of it) and companies that market to guys like us charge a premium for their products. |
No way - if you're an average size you never get anything cheap, because they never ever get to the sales. So you are forced to pay full price all the time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
