NationStates Jolt Archive

Ryanair is apparently now considering a "Fat Tax" (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/travel/ryanair-may-charge-a-lsquofat-taxrsquo-for-its-overweight-passengers-14277561.html) on its flights....

First there was the ‘wee fee’, then the charge for the privilege of checking-in, now it seems budget airline Ryanair has finally tipped the scales by announcing it is considering a fat tax.
...

The budget airline (and more largely — pardon the pun — its boss Michael O’Leary) has never really concerned itself with political correctness when it comes to brash promotions, and it would seem this latest headline-grabbing idea is no different.

According to the airline, it was you, the consumer, who voted for this fat tax on its website after it launched a competition giving customers the chance to win free flights by coming up with strange new ideas to save or make the company money.

Around 100,000 passengers took part in the online competition and of those 30,000 (29%) voted for a fee for overweight passengers.

A quarter voted to charge €1 for toilet paper — with Mr O’Leary’s face on it — and 24% voted to pay €3 to smoke in a converted toilet cubicle.

As a result of the response to the so-called fat tax, Ryanair says it was now seriously considering implementing it.

But for those who are only slightly overweight, do not fear, airline bosses have assured the tax — if implemented — will only apply “to those really large passengers who invade the space of the passengers sitting beside them”.

There was no mention of Ryanair making seats larger.

But, just when you thought they couldn’t possibly take this any further, there’s more.

The company needs customers’ help to figure out how to charge the fat tax and its offering the following options:

* Charge per kg over 130kg/20 stone (male) and 100kg/15 stone (females).
* Charge per inch for every waist inch over 45 inch (male) and 40 inch (female).
* Charge for every point in excess of 40 points on the Body Mass Index (+30 points is obese).
* Charge for a second seat if passengers’ waist touches both armrests simultaneously.

Stephen McNamara, spokesman for Ryanair, explained the four options being offered appeared to be the most “simplest”.

“With passengers voting overwhelmingly for a fat tax, we are now asking them to suggest which format the charge should take,” he said.

“The four points seem to us to be the simplest, fairest and administratively easiest to apply.

“In all cases we’ve limits at very high levels so that a fat tax will only apply to those really large passengers who invade the space of the passengers sitting beside them.

“These charges, if introduced, might also act as an incentive to some of our very large passengers to lose a little weight and hopefully feel a little lighter and healthier.”

I think it's a joke, especially since they would probably lose more than half their customers straight away were they to implement that.
But this sure brought some headlines for the company again.
What do you think? Joke? Serious? Outrage?

Bah. They should have called it a "chubby charge" or a "lardarse levy"

It would certainly face legal challenges. Though, I agree with the concept because it would encourage people to be more healthy and take better care of themselves than they would otherwise.

One half of me says 'I applaud this approach'

I had to endure a long flight back from Delhi next to an overweight man and it was not pleasant

My more sensible half says WTF!!.....what next, an odour tax? ugly people free flights? people sitting on the wings?

It would certainly face legal challenges. Though, I agree with the concept because it would encourage people to be more healthy and take better care of themselves than they would otherwise.

You seriously think that people battling with their weight will make an extra effort in order to fly Ryanair?
I know I wouldn't.

One half of me says 'I applaud this approach'

I had to endure a long flight back from Delhi next to an overweight man and it was not pleasant

My more sensible half says WTF!!.....what next, an odour tax? ugly people free flights? people sitting on the wings?

Yes, but do you think making him pay more, without making the seats wider, is going to help you in a situation like this?

Though, I agree with the concept because it would encourage people to be more healthy and take better care of themselves than they would otherwise.Nah, it'll just encourage them to not fly Ryanair. Even if other airlines adopt the same fee structure, they'll remember that Ryanair was the lousy so-and-so who started that!

I don't know. Not all of them but maybe one or two. Ryan Air just needs to know if one or two complying with the new rules would be worth the potential litigation that can come from the rest.

It would also give Ryanairs competitors a great chance to say 'We don't charge more for extra weight'

Seems fair enough to me. I weigh fuck all, and if I have to pay to bring an extra bag with me, some fat person should pay to bring his belly with him.

Twenty-four per cent voted for a smoking area, which would involve Ryanair providing an extra service for passenger while twenty-nine per cent voted for this tripe, which involves Ryanair actively discriminating against it's passengers? Unbelievable.

Charging the passengers by their total mass (Proportional to the amount of energy needed to lift them into the air, therefore semi-proportional to company expenses in terms of fuel), their bodies as well as their baggage, is perfectly sensible, is it not?

For that matter, IIRC, this was, in fact, practiced, back in the twenties or thirties... And, logistical issues (Weighting everyone before they go on board? Kinda impractical) aside, not a bad idea.

'course, those logistical issues are the key issue, alas.

Seems fair enough to me. I weigh fuck all, and if I have to pay to bring an extra bag with me, some fat person should pay to bring his belly with him.

I agree although it might hit my 'wear everything I have' method of avoiding the extra baggage charges.

Oh and if you take sports allowance instead of paying for extra weight at the airport you'll save a bit. I've never had them look inside my bags when i've done that.

I think it's a joke, especially since they would probably lose more than half their customers straight away were they to implement that.
But this sure brought some headlines for the company again.
What do you think? Joke? Serious? Outrage?

I think they're pretty serious. I don't know what UK law looks like on the issue, but in the states we have 9 carriers operating that do it (United being the latest). United's policy seems reasonable enough to me. A passenger that cannot sit in the seat and buck their seat belt and lower the arm rests. Some people have complained that people aren't too big but that the seats are too small, though I don't buy it. I'm siginificantly larger (1.88 meters, 100 kilos) than the average American man (1.6 meters, 86.6 kilos) and can easily lower the arm rests and fasten the seat belt without trouble, though my knees pretty much preclude the use of the tray table if I don't have an aisle seat or don't fly business (mid) class.

Yikes...

Democracy, all about screwing over 49% of the population.

I think they're pretty serious. I don't know what UK law looks like on the issue, but in the states we have 9 carriers operating that do it (United being the latest). United's policy seems reasonable enough to me. A passenger that cannot sit in the seat and buck their seat belt and lower the arm rests. Some people have complained that people aren't too big but that the seats are too small, though I don't buy it. I'm siginificantly larger (1.88 meters, 100 kilos) than the average American man (1.6 meters, 86.6 kilos) and can easily lower the arm rests and fasten the seat belt without trouble, though my knees pretty much preclude the use of the tray table if I don't have an aisle seat or don't fly business (mid) class.

True, but how is an extra-charge going to fix that? Ryanair is not going to install larger seats, after all.
and forcing people to buy two seats is just as silly, seeing as Ryanair doesn't allow you to reserve a seat. So you buy two tickets and end up with the only two seats left being at opposing ends of the airplane?

True, but how is an extra-charge going to fix that? Ryanair is not going to install larger seats, after all.
and forcing people to buy two seats is just as silly, seeing as Ryanair doesn't allow you to reserve a seat. So you buy two tickets and end up with the only two seats left being at opposing ends of the airplane?

Extra charging allows for the extra fuel costs incurred by the extra weight. How is it fair that the extra cost should be spread equally amongst all passengers when it's the larger ones who are the cause.

It would certainly face legal challenges. Though, I agree with the concept because it would encourage people to be more healthy and take better care of themselves than they would otherwise.
You cannot possibly believe this.

Look, folks, it's fine if you find fat people physically unattractive. It's fine if you, personally, don't like fat people. But it's completely bonkers to assume that all fat people are STUPID. When the percentage of adipose tissue on the body increases, it does not immediately kill brain cells, so fat people are no more likely to be blithering morons than are thin people.

So let's ditch this absolutely gobsmackingly stupid notion that if a company decided to charge fat people MORE then suddenly fat people would decide to become skinny and give more of their money to that company. If Ryanair decided to charge extra for dark-skinned people, do you really think black customers would be "encouraged" to start buying skin lighteners?

Extra charging allows for the extra fuel costs incurred by the extra weight. How is it fair that the extra cost should be spread equally amongst all passengers when it's the larger ones who are the cause.
If that's your argument, then tall people need to be charged more than short people, as well. Men, on average, should be paying more for the same ticket. If a woman gets pregnant she should expect to start paying more for her own tickets, too.

Frankly, I don't mind fat passengers nearly as much as I mind the tall ones, who always want to stick their legs over in my foot space. Those tall people weigh as much as twice what I do, so I don't see why I should have to pay for their hefty asses.

If that's your argument, then tall people need to be charged more than short people, as well.

If they're heavier, sure

Men, on average, should be paying more for the same ticket

If they're heavier, sure

If a woman gets pregnant she should expect to start paying more for her own tickets, too.


If she's heavier, sure.

Those tall people weigh as much as twice what I do, so I don't see why I should have to pay for their hefty asses.

So you agree then?

If they're heavier, sure



If they're heavier, sure



If she's heavier, sure.
What a brilliant business plan. I'm sure that the idea of being weighed by their ticket agent will have people positively flocking to your airline...

What a brilliant business plan. I'm sure that the idea of being weighed by their ticket agent will have people positively flocking to your airline...

If they can pull it off then fair play to them but i'm under no illusion that such an idea would be an easy sell.

You seem to confuse my being fine with the concept of charging by weight with the belief that such a model is wise.

If they can pull it off then fair play to them but i'm under no illusion that such an idea would be an easy sell.

You seem to confuse my being fine with the concept of charging by weight with the belief that such a model is wise.
Why you would "be fine" with the idea if it isn't wise in the first place definitely does confuse me. But no, I'm not confused about the distinction between the two. I am well aware that many people are comfortable supporting ideas that are made of fail.

Why don't they just charge everybody by the kg? Then at least it would be fair. :p

Why you would "be fine" with the idea if it isn't wise in the first place definitely does confuse me. But no, I'm not confused about the distinction between the two. I am well aware that many people are comfortable supporting ideas that are made of fail.

I see nothing wrong with it other than as a business model is perhaps a simpler way of putting it so no i'm not supporting it. I'm not supporting it because I think it's unwise and will hurt the business financially not because I find the idea of charging by weight an 'outrage' or unfair

Edit: Assuming it's charged by weight rather than BMI or waist size. Sorry should have said that

True, but how is an extra-charge going to fix that? Ryanair is not going to install larger seats, after all.
and forcing people to buy two seats is just as silly, seeing as Ryanair doesn't allow you to reserve a seat. So you buy two tickets and end up with the only two seats left being at opposing ends of the airplane?

I think that forcing people to buy two seats prevents the neighbours of a large person (who paid just as much for their seat) from having half of it taken up by the person next to them. There was actually a lady who lost some use of her leg because her seat-neighbour was partially sitting on it and the flight attendants would not tell her seat-neighbour to shift over or relocate her on a transatlantic flight.

Why don't they just charge everybody by the kg? Then at least it would be fair. :p

Oddly, it would make sense too. Every kg that has to be lifted incurs extra cost. In order to facilitate a heavier airplane, the plane has to fly with a higher angle of attack, which causes more drag. The natural response to more drag is more power to counteract the drag (and achieve the same or similar airspeed). The natural outcome of more power is more fuel.

Badabing.

Why don't they just change their slogan to "We despise our customers, but we like their money". Sends out a similar message.

Why don't they just charge everybody by the kg? Then at least it would be fair. :p

The amount of pre trip diets would be staggering.
Not to mention people would cease trying to local food when they travel and only eat the diet food they know.

One half of me says 'I applaud this approach'

I had to endure a long flight back from Delhi next to an overweight man and it was not pleasant

This doesn't make any sense. If the airline had the fee then they would get the money and you would still be sitting next to him without any sort of compensation to you.

Why don't they just change their slogan to "We despise our customers, but we like their money". Sends out a similar message.How does 'If we have to burn more fuel to flit you in the air, you're going to pay more' and 'If you inconvenience our customers by taking up space they paid for, you pay more' equal 'We despise our customers'?

I for one, would prefer an airline that enforces a 'Two Seats' policy on the obscenely and sickeingly fat to one where their blubber is all over my left thigh. And I am quite willing to pay for any additional weight I happen to bring along, be it in my luggage or in my belly, since it is in fact a fair cost-distribution.

Fatties have no less rights than people who know how to exercise. Neither do they have more rights than them.

The amount of pre trip diets would be staggering.
Not to mention people would cease trying to local food when they travel and only eat the diet food they know.

Yep. :)

Why don't they just change their slogan to "We despise our customers, but we like their money". Sends out a similar message.

Which differs from other airlines in what way?

I have yet to find a company that seem to truly seem to appreciate their customers (and I have been a customer to a lot of airlines). Most put up a charade of behaviors that is meant to make you believe that but I have yet to find a company that actually do it.

Yep. :)

Honestly, they could help themselves a lot financially if they just made the fat people sit in the back of the plane. Aerodynamic principles as they relate to weight distribution, you know.

How does 'If we have to burn more fuel to flit you in the air, you're going to pay more' and 'If you inconvenience our customers by taking up space they paid for, you pay more' equal 'We despise our customers'?

Because people don't like it when they are treated as air freight rather than actual people. You know, customer service. Its the same reason why when you phone your customers you generally refer to them by their name rather than their customer number.

Which differs from other airlines in what way?

I have yet to find a company that seem to truly seem to appreciate their customers (and I have been a customer to a lot of airlines). Most put up a charade of behaviors that is meant to make you believe that but I have yet to find a company that actually do it.

What's wrong with them merely appearing to care? What are you looking for in an airline, genuine friendship?

Honestly, they could help themselves a lot financially if they just made the fat people sit in the back of the plane. Aerodynamic principles as they relate to weight distribution, you know.

I have a lot of good ideas. For example, they should pump helium into the cabin. Not only would it provide extra lift, but listening to eachother talk would be more entertaining than any movie. :)

I have a lot of good ideas. For example, they should pump helium into the cabin. Not only would it provide extra lift, but listening to eachother talk would be more entertaining than any movie. :)

More latter than the former, i think. :)

Oddly, it would make sense too. Every kg that has to be lifted incurs extra cost. In order to facilitate a heavier airplane, the plane has to fly with a higher angle of attack, which causes more drag. The natural response to more drag is more power to counteract the drag (and achieve the same or similar airspeed). The natural outcome of more power is more fuel.

Of course, weighing customers also incurs additional costs, and I would be willing to bet those costs would far exceed the fuel-related expenses.

For instance:

I fly a fair amount. I purchase my tickets online and I check in online. On the rare occasions when I have to check a bag, I do curb-side or electronic bag check in.

Thus, I'm already through security and physically at the gate before any employee of the airline so much as sees me in person.

So, at what point in this process would I (theoretically) get weighed to determine my ticket cost? Do I now have to go to the airline's offices or to the airport to purchase my ticket, so they can weigh me before they tell me the price? Or do they let me purchase a ticket online based on how much I claim to weigh, and then force me to get a confirmation weigh-in at the airport to make sure I didn't lie?

What if I gain weight between the time I bought the ticket and the time I board the plane? What if I buy a round-trip ticket home for the holidays and gain weight while I'm there? Does my return ticket suddenly go up in price?

I don't make much money. What if I bought a ticket that I could afford, but then I'm informed on my travel day that I need to pay extra because of my at-gate weigh in, and I can't afford the additional cost?

How many new employees will need to be hired, to supervise and monitor these weigh-ins?

How many new employees will need to be on hand to deal with angry customers who will (repeat WILL) debate the accuracy of the airline's scales? (Doesn't matter if the scales are accurate or not, there WILL be people who argue over a single ounce.)

How much new security will need to be hired, to deal with the obvious increase in tension produced when travel-stressed people are subjected to the additional stress of these weigh-ins?

How many new lawyers will the airline need to hire, to deal with the complaints that will be filed by people who claim they were inaccurately weighed? (Whether or not the complaints are valid, they WILL be filed.)

More latter than the former, i think. :)

Every ounce counts. :)

Of course, weighing customers also incurs additional costs, and I would be willing to bet those costs would far exceed the fuel-related expenses.

For instance:

I fly a fair amount. I purchase my tickets online and I check in online. On the rare occasions when I have to check a bag, I do curb-side or electronic bag check in.

Thus, I'm already through security and physically at the gate before any employee of the airline so much as sees me in person.

So, at what point in this process would I (theoretically) get weighed to determine my ticket cost? Do I now have to go to the airline's offices or to the airport to purchase my ticket, so they can weigh me before they tell me the price? Or do they let me purchase a ticket online based on how much I claim to weigh, and then force me to get a confirmation weigh-in at the airport to make sure I didn't lie?

What if I gain weight between the time I bought the ticket and the time I board the plane? What if I buy a round-trip ticket home for the holidays and gain weight while I'm there? Does my return ticket suddenly go up in price?

I don't make much money. What if I bought a ticket that I could afford, but then I'm informed on my travel day that I need to pay extra because of my at-gate weigh in, and I can't afford the additional cost?

How many new employees will need to be hired, to supervise and monitor these weigh-ins?

How many new employees will need to be on hand to deal with angry customers who will (repeat WILL) debate the accuracy of the airline's scales? (Doesn't matter if the scales are accurate or not, there WILL be people who argue over a single ounce.)

How much new security will need to be hired, to deal with the obvious increase in tension produced when travel-stressed people are subjected to the additional stress of these weigh-ins?

How many new lawyers will the airline need to hire, to deal with the complaints that will be filed by people who claim they were inaccurately weighed? (Whether or not the complaints are valid, they WILL be filed.)

Don't forget the medical cost incurred when the fat people get angry and start knocking the customer service people out cold in the middle of North Terminal.

Of course, weighing customers also incurs additional costs, and I would be willing to bet those costs would far exceed the fuel-related expenses.

<snippy the rest>

Valid, and quite possible. I'm not sure what it would cost. I'm not a business manager, and certainly not an airline business manager.

Extra charging allows for the extra fuel costs incurred by the extra weight. How is it fair that the extra cost should be spread equally amongst all passengers when it's the larger ones who are the cause.

You are aware that Ryanair sells flights for Euro 0.00?

Don't forget the medical cost incurred when the fat people get angry and start knocking the customer service people out cold in the middle of North Terminal.
I have seen a man turn purple as he screamed at a desk agent because she told him his carry-on wouldn't fit into the designated compartments on the plane. I've seen airline workers shoved or even slapped by people who wanted to bring more than 2 carry-ons and were told that this is not permitted. Hell, I've seen two passengers be arrested after they got into a physical fight over who got to put his briefcase in which spot. That time, a stewardess got her nose bloodied as collateral damage when she tried to break up the fight.

Of course most passengers would never do this shit. But if I've seen this shit happen over luggage, just imagine what would happen if people were told that their BODIES are too big or can't fit or won't be allowed on the plane.

I know guys who would hit somebody who called their wife fat; how much more insulting would it be if some asshole calls your wife fat and then tells you that you're going to have to PAY EXTRA?

What about parents with overweight kids? A friend of mine in high school was 6' and well over two bills by the time he was 15. I've met his folks, and I honestly would not want to see what his mom would do if somebody had called her baby "fat."

And let's not forget the glorious hijinx that can ensue if a woman is pregnant. How many people have horror stories about congratulating a woman on her pregnancy and then it turns out she's just fat, or remarking on a woman's weight and having her angrily reply that she's expecting. Tempers flare over that kind of thing when it happens in the grocery store; just imagine it happening to people who've spent the last hour getting through security and then found out their flight is delayed.

You are aware that Ryanair sells flights for Euro 0.00?

Yeah they run a loss leader

Valid, and quite possible. I'm not sure what it would cost. I'm not a business manager, and certainly not an airline business manager.

Considering that Ryanair are currently trying to reduce their ground staff to 0, I'd say this would be a move backwards....

Yeah they run a loss leader

A what?

A what?

A loss leader or leader[1] is a product sold at a low price (at cost or below cost)[2] to stimulate other, profitable sales. It is a kind of sales promotion, in other words marketing concentrating on a pricing strategy. The price can even be so low that the product is sold at a loss. A loss leader is often a popular article. Sometimes leader is now used as a synonym for loss leader and means any popular article, in other words one sold at a normal price.[3]

This

Because people don't like it when they are treated as air freight rather than actual people. You know, customer service. Its the same reason why when you phone your customers you generally refer to them by their name rather than their customer number.They'll be called by their names, not by their seat number. And logistically, they are freight, and shouldn't be treated any differently - otherwise, you're discriminating against everyone not fat.

Fat people flying cause higher fuel consumption, more CO2 emissions, global warming. I kind of expect them to pay up for it.

They'll be called by their names, not by their seat number. And logistically, they are freight, and shouldn't be treated any differently - otherwise, you're discriminating against everyone not fat.

Fat people flying cause higher fuel consumption, more CO2 emissions, global warming. I kind of expect them to pay up for it.

So, by what measure should we go for the prices?
Everybody who weighs more than, say, a toddler, as the lowest unit of weight, should pay excess?
Or should you pay per kilo?

And how do you determine the passenger's weight, as Ryanair sells tickets exclusively online?
Will they do away with all the self-checkin they spent all that money on in recent years and re-introduce ground staff to all airports? Back to the hourlong queues?

Sounds tempting indeed...

And here I thought 'fat tax' was coined by the media. I rather hoped so, anyway. Blimey.

One half of me says 'I applaud this approach'

I had to endure a long flight back from Delhi next to an overweight man and it was not pleasant

My more sensible half says WTF!!.....what next, an odour tax? ugly people free flights? people sitting on the wings?

Applaud what? Let's not suffer under the delusion that Ryanair is doing this for any reason other than to get headlines. It's just another obnoxious attempt at obnoxious free press from an obnoxious company. If no publicity is bad publicity, then these guys are geniuses, but if you believe that bad press is bad, then they're idiots. If these morons thought that charging black people more, or not letting Asians fly, or whatever, would get them more money, they'd do it. Ryanair should not be applauded. Ryanair should be boycotted until they're out of business or until their top executives are replaced with people who aren't unbelievable pricks.

They'll be called by their names, not by their seat number. And logistically, they are freight, and shouldn't be treated any differently - otherwise, you're discriminating against everyone not fat.

Fat people flying cause higher fuel consumption, more CO2 emissions, global warming. I kind of expect them to pay up for it.

If they're freight, then why not just box everyone up into FedEx boxes and ship them in the cargo hold?

So, by what measure should we go for the prices?
Everybody who weighs more than, say, a toddler, as the lowest unit of weight, should pay excess?
Or should you pay per kilo?I'd do it per kilogram (Always use the proper SI term! Kilo alone could mean anything!), yes.And how do you determine the passenger's weight, as Ryanair sells tickets exclusively online?
Will they do away with all the self-checkin they spent all that money on in recent years and re-introduce ground staff to all airports? Back to the hourlong queues?

Sounds tempting indeed...That'd be the logistical issues I already mentioned i an earlier posts, which make the whole thing a less-than-bright idea, yes. But there's a huge difference between 'It's logistically impractical' and 'It's discrimination!!!11one'. Calling it discrimination to share the burden proportional to the costs the individual passengers cause, and perfectly fair when the overweight pay less by this standard is just... Moronic.

If they're freight, then why not just box everyone up into FedEx boxes and ship them in the cargo hold?

If I was given that option at a good price i'd take it :p

If they're freightWhat are they, if not freight? Are they somehow, magically devoid of mass and volume? Does the passenger capacity of a plane no longer depend on how much space it has available, ad how much mass it can lift?

If they're freight, then why not just box everyone up into FedEx boxes and ship them in the cargo hold?

Just make sure the cargo hold is pressurized...

I'd do it per kilogram (Always use the proper SI term! Kilo alone could mean anything!), yes.That'd be the logistical issues I already mentioned i an earlier posts, which make the whole thing a less-than-bright idea, yes. But there's a huge difference between 'It's logistically impractical' and 'It's discrimination!!!11one'. Calling it discrimination to share the burden proportional to the costs the individual passengers cause, and perfectly fair when the overweight pay less by this standard is just... Moronic.

I'm not calling it discrimination. I'm calling it a bloody stupid idea.
And what worries me about it is that there just isn't any idea SO bloody stupid that people won't buy into it...

Mind you, I don't fly Ryanair. I find that their great offers usually turn out more expensive than other economy airlines, once you've sat down and did all the sums.
Their success just goes to show that apparently, many people are to bloody dumb to use a calculator.

Calling it discrimination to share the burden proportional to the costs the individual passengers cause, and perfectly fair when the overweight pay less by this standard is just... Moronic.
The article in the OP includes a direct and specific quote reassuring passengers that only "really large passengers" would have to pay extra, and that the rest of the passengers would NOT be expected to pay based on their weight.

Personally, I think it's moronic to try to claim that a proposed policy isn't discriminatory when the people advocating said policy specifically state that it's supposed to be discriminatory.

That's why these "fat tax" ideas are such crap. Because they're never about the idea of charging ALL PASSENGERS by weight, they're about making FATTIES pay. Because everyone knows that it would be a pain in the ass and a humiliation to be forced to weigh in for your airline seat, and only fatties deserve to be treated in that manner.

Put it another way:

My mom is fat. She is, it's okay for me to say that, it's the word she uses. But my mom is also 4'10" tall. She's fat for her height, but her body weight is actually the same as the "normal weight" for a woman of average height. So, why should my mom pay more for an airline seat simply because she's "fat"? From the airplane's perspective, my mom isn't any heavier than a much taller woman who is slender.

I'm not calling it discrimination. I'm calling it a bloody stupid idea.
And what worries me about it is that there just isn't any idea SO bloody stupid that people won't buy into it...

Mind you, I don't fly Ryanair. I find that their great offers usually turn out more expensive than other economy airlines, once you've sat down and did all the sums.
Their success just goes to show that apparently, many people are to bloody dumb to use a calculator.Yes, you. But my posts then weren't referring to anything you wrote :-p

The article in the OP includes a direct and specific quote reassuring passengers that only "really large passengers" would have to pay extra, and that the rest of the passengers would NOT be expected to pay based on their weight.

Personally, I think it's moronic to try to claim that a proposed policy isn't discriminatory when the people advocating said policy specifically state that it's supposed to be discriminatory.

How about if the airline did this instead - it proposed that it's adopting a standard weight pricing structure, and that anyone appearing to fall drastically outside a specified weight range (big or small) will be repriced accordingly.

If they really object to it, they can be weighed on your common bathroom scale.

How about if the airline did this instead - it proposed that it's adopting a standard weight pricing structure, and that anyone appearing to fall drastically outside a specified weight range (big or small) will be repriced accordingly.

If they really object to it, they can be weighed on your common bathroom scale.
Then that would simply be a way of treating all passengers in an equally-stupid manner. :D

Twenty-four per cent voted for a smoking area, which would involve Ryanair providing an extra service for passenger while twenty-nine per cent voted for this tripe, which involves Ryanair actively discriminating against it's passengers? Unbelievable.

Well people are inherently selfish, so I don't know how you couldn't believe it.:p

I myself would vote for the smoking area though, that is a great idea.

Just make sure the cargo hold is pressurized...

Why? If they're just freight, why make special accomodations for them? They can be treated the same as my package of books from Amazon.

Then that would simply be a way of treating all passengers in an equally-stupid manner. :D

But it wouldn't be discriminatory! :p

I still like the idea of making the fat people sit in the back. Moving the center of gravity towards the rear means less tail downforce would be required to hold the nose up, which results in less overall downforce (weight + aerodynamic = total), which means the plane would require less lift to fly, lower angle of attack to get that lift, less drag, less power, less fuel...

Why? If they're just freight, why make special accomodations for them? They can be treated the same as my package of books from Amazon.

Because it's kind of important that they arrive alive. That tends to be part of the deal.

I still like the idea of making the fat people sit in the back. Moving the center of gravity towards the rear means less tail downforce would be required to hold the nose up, which results in less overall downforce (weight + aerodynamic = total), which means the plane would require less lift to fly, lower angle of attack to get that lift, less drag, less power, less fuel...
As a small person who would be pretty much guaranteed a bulkhead seat by this policy, I strongly approve.

Uh oh. But what about First Class? You know, the only section of the plane that already has large, accommodating seats? What if fatties want to fly in First Class?

What are they, if not freight? Are they somehow, magically devoid of mass and volume? Does the passenger capacity of a plane no longer depend on how much space it has available, ad how much mass it can lift?

I would think that they're people, not packages. Do you wish to travel the same way your package from UPS travels? Why do we need seats on an airplane if we're just freight? Seems the seats probably weigh a good deal as well; we could always remove those and stack people up like firewood.

As a small person who would be pretty much guaranteed a bulkhead seat by this policy, I strongly approve.

Uh oh. But what about First Class? You know, the only section of the plane that already has large, accommodating seats? What if fatties want to fly in First Class?

Damn it. Back of the first class section?

That has less overall effect though...

Because it's kind of important that they arrive alive. That tends to be part of the deal.

Did you insure your package against damages incurred during delivery?

I would think that they're people, not packages. Do you wish to travel the same way your package from UPS travels? Why do we need seats on an airplane if we're just freight? Seems the seats probably weigh a good deal as well; we could always remove those and stack people up like firewood.

I think it's a pretty important distinction, from a business point of view: are you simply getting paid to transport cargo from one place to another, or are you providing a service for people?

If you view the airline's job as to simply move freight, living or otherwise, then sure, it makes sense to weigh people like objects and disregard their comfort. But if you view your airline as a service provider, who is seeking to give human customers a particular experience, then suddenly the desires of your passengers become directly relevant to what you're doing.

I would think that they're people, not packages. Do you wish to travel the same way your package from UPS travels? Why do we need seats on an airplane if we're just freight? Seems the seats probably weigh a good deal as well; we could always remove those and stack people up like firewood.

http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/AboutSkydiving/aircraft_JJ_Johnson.jpg

Did you insure your package against damages incurred during delivery?

Well I would, if I'm the package.

I generally do even when shipping packages, if it's worth anything.

Well I would, if I'm the package.

I generally do even when shipping packages, if it's worth anything.

Then there you go. If the package is damaged during shipment because they didn't pressurize the cargo hold, you can collect on the insurance. Otherwise, not sure what else you would want the airline to do.

Then there you go. If the package is damaged during shipment because they didn't pressurize the cargo hold, you can collect on the insurance. Otherwise, not sure what else you would want the airline to do.

My package would probably get damaged. :(

I would think that they're people, not packages. Do you wish to travel the same way your package from UPS travels? Why do we need seats on an airplane if we're just freight? Seems the seats probably weigh a good deal as well; we could always remove those and stack people up like firewood.That'd be because you're a moron who is intentionally missinterpreting everything? Freight as in, a given mass (Fuel-relevant) that has to be moved in conditions appropriate for the object this mass belongs to. I'm sure you'll agree that animals require different conditions than porcelain, porcelain requires different conditions than wood, wood requires different conditions than wine, wine requires different conditions than legos, legos require different conditions than bananas, bananas require different conditions than humans... Yet, would you not term any of these (Except humans, because you desire to be a obnoxious moron) 'Freight'?

Fair enough. It's their fault they're fat, and they will cause the plane to use up more fuel due to their weight. The airline should charge them for that.

Fair enough. It's their fault they're fat, and they will cause the plane to use up more fuel due to their weight. The airline should charge them for that.
See, now THIS is a much more honest response. The real motive behind this is for punishing fat people because it's "their fault" that they're fat.

Thus, tall people are clearly blameless for the fact that THEY require more fuel to transport, and since we don't blame them we won't charge them.

I guess pregnant women would also have to be blamed for their increased weight, which might make for a charming ad campaign for the airline...

See, now THIS is a much more honest response. The real motive behind this is for punishing fat people because it's "their fault" that they're fat.

So whose fault is it then?

Thus, tall people are clearly blameless for the fact that THEY require more fuel to transport, and since we don't blame them we won't charge them.

How can you blame them? They don't choose to be tall, whereas fat people know that stuffing burgers down their necks 24/7 will make them fat.

That'd be because you're a moron who is intentionally missinterpreting everything? Freight as in, a given mass (Fuel-relevant) that has to be moved in conditions appropriate for the object this mass belongs to. I'm sure you'll agree that animals require different conditions than porcelain, porcelain requires different conditions than wood, wood requires different conditions than wine, wine requires different conditions than legos, legos require different conditions than bananas, bananas require different conditions than humans... Yet, would you not term any of these (Except humans, because you desire to be a obnoxious moron) 'Freight'?

Humans require seats? Humans require bathrooms? Humans require stewardesses? Humans require in-flight food or drink?

No. Humans do not require any of those things on a flight. They're nice, they make the flight more enjoyable, but they are not required. They are ammenities that airlines provide because they increase the value of the service they provide. Airlines are not in the business of transporting cargo from point A to point B. They are in the business of providing a travel service for human beings.

If you're going to deconstruct the entire real purpose of airlines down to transporting freight, then there's no reason why such ammenities need to be provided. A person can get from A to B lying on the floor next to another person.

An airplane transporting boxes of Legos is providing a completely different service than an airplane flying human beings from Boston to Los Angeles.

TL: DR

United is also doing this.

Others charge a fee for the seatbelt extenders...

On one hand, I can see them doing this since their seats are rather thin and doesn't allow for much room even if you are NOT obease... so, should they raise the fees for everyone and put in larger seats? or just force those to buy two seats?

Why oh why do people - especially people who should know better - waste their breaths giving this airline the free publicity that it so blatantly craves???

That'd be because you're a moron who is intentionally missinterpreting everything? Freight as in, a given mass (Fuel-relevant) that has to be moved in conditions appropriate for the object this mass belongs to. I'm sure you'll agree that animals require different conditions than porcelain, porcelain requires different conditions than wood, wood requires different conditions than wine, wine requires different conditions than legos, legos require different conditions than bananas, bananas require different conditions than humans... Yet, would you not term any of these (Except humans, because you desire to be a obnoxious moron) 'Freight'?

This is one of my favourite types of flames. The obvious ones. No interpreting required on my part. All I have to do is give a warning and be on my way. So, here it is: take this red card and don't let me see you in my office again.

Humans require seats? Humans require bathrooms? Humans require stewardesses? Humans require in-flight food or drink?

Actually, they do require all these things, per current FAA and JAA regulations. There is an outline of how many seats (one per person) bathrooms (I think one per 50? 75? not sure) and how many flight attendants (0 for 1-19, 1 for 20-50, 2 for 51-100... etc).

I don't think food and drink are required by any regulation. Not that I'm aware of, at any rate.

Actually, they do require all these things, per current FAA and JAA regulations. There is an outline of how many seats (one per person) bathrooms (I think one per 50? 75? not sure) and how many flight attendants (0 for 1-19, 1 for 20-50, 2 for 51-100... etc).

I don't think food and drink are required by any regulation. Not that I'm aware of, at any rate.

That's the point, though. We afford these things on airplanes, through the law no less, as comforts for people precisely because air travel isn't simply about moving people from point A to point B. It's customer service, and in customer service you do things to make your customers happy. Treating people like freight by making them pay per pound is very customer unfriendly.

That's the point, though. We afford these things on airplanes, through the law no less, as comforts for people precisely because air travel isn't simply about moving people from point A to point B. It's customer service, and in customer service you do things to make your customers happy. Treating people like freight by making them pay per pound is very customer unfriendly.

Oh I'm not denying that. I'm just saying there is a certain amount of logic to it.

However, that being said, a very good point was made earlier on the cost of weighing everyone, not to mention the customer complaints. That would far outweigh any benefit of such a pricing structure.

So, yeah, bad idea... but I do see where they're coming from.


Now, to go off on a slightly related tangent -

When I was a student pilot, I think it was my... 5th or 6th cross-country flight (more than 50nm, by FAA definition), and I had calculated the weight & balance, weather, flight time, speed, etc.

It was the second time going to that airport, and my instructor asked me if we had any weight left over. We were 56lbs under max gross weight for that aircraft. So he asked me if we would still be within C.G (center of gravity) limitations with that much weight placed in the aft baggage compartment. I did the calculation, and yes we would still be within C.G.

Anyway, I went out and started doing the preflight checks on the airplane, and he came out a couple minutes later with 50lb in lead weight he had dug up somewhere, and threw it in the aft baggage compartment.

The previous time I had flown at that altitude, in about the same weather, we had an indicated airspeed of 122kt. That day, we had an indicated airspeed of 134kt at the same altitude and power/mixture settings.

Weight is important, yes, but its location is equally important. If we deliberately loaded aircraft so they would be just forward of the aft C.G. limit, it would increase their economy dramatically.