Airlines to start weighing passengers..

Some of the issues with people sizes lie at the hands of the designers (well money focused parts of the companies) who dealt with the layout of the planes etc because they design to maximise the numbers that can fit by using the smallest sizes they can get away with. There are so many anthropomorphic studies showing average sizes out there that companies can pick and choose one that best suits their needs.

Even though 6ft 4 (my height) isn't exactly tall these days when it comes to fitting into seats on buses/planes etc then it is outside of the average/standard they've used for 'leg space'. Then you've got body width, they take your shoulder width as the max width but we all know that when sitting our arms spread a little more, but not only that they usually half the width so you need to argue over an armrest.

These sorts of issues are things that anybody outside of the standard sizes has come to accept and expect when using 'public' transport.

The problem that we are facing now is people who are excessively overweight encroaching into your space at waist level as well as the usual shoulder area.

If you're on a long haul flight you don't want someone else squashing you during the flight, not to mention the other aspects of body odour etc which can occur with some overweight people.

Yes I know there are medical conditions and I fully understand people with those situations but in most cases being excessively overweight is a choice and in these cases I fully support additional charges being applied to them in EVERY area where it affects the service being offered.

Simply put in my view, even with the current 'it's ok to be fat' movement, it isn't acceptable to be excessively fat unless you're ill. Yes people have different body shapes/sizes but EVERYONE has a point where they are defined as being overweight. (Actually I think excessively drunk people should pay for medical treatment on a 'night out' too)

And to put my view into perspective, I'm 6ft 4 and currently weigh 16 stones, I was at 17stone for a short period of time. A size that most people would say is ok for my height/build, I still fit in 36 inch jeans for example but I looked at the size of my stomach bulge and I made the choice to lose weight, something anyone can do.

All I've done to cut the weight is start a small amount of exercise (20 mins walking), stopped drinking coke (surprising how much this reduced my weight) and cut out the snacks I used to eat all day long. As you can see it's not exactly a massive amount of effort so anyone can do it.
 
Last edited:
It's all irrelevant really.
Airlines use an average weight for people. The numbers differ between airlines but it tents to be 88kg for a male, 70kg for a female, 35kg for a child and 0kg for an infant.
This forms a part of the load.

Bags and cargo also form the load. Some airlines use the actual bag weight when calculating the weight and balance of the aircraft whereas others also use an average for a bag.

If you weighed each passenger purely for charging purposes then that is one thing but using it for the balance is quite another. The weight of the passengers and baggage also needs to remain separate as they are not loaded in the same place.

im surprised how high the average weights are tbh
 
The baggage allowance is around 23kg due to the fact that it is a weigh that the people working lifting these bags should be able to easily lift.
Now you can weight 60kg and take a 1 or 2 extra kg and pay more and a person next to you weighs 100kg and has no extra and yet overall weighs more but the people lifting the bags arent lifting you so how much you weigh should not matter. Its the fact you are making them having to lift more than they should that costs you. The plane wont really save any fuel if your bag weighs 23kg instead of 24 or if the person weights 100kg instead of 60kg.

However if there would be a charge for larger people I hope they give them bigger seats as no matter how little the small person paid for tgeir flight they shouldnt have to lose half of their seat for a bigger peson.
 
Surely it is easier/fairer to impose a luggage weight limit as they have now as the weight of people is so variable?

Easier, yes. Fairer, no.

Weight is either relevant or not relevant to flying.

If weight is relevant, then weight is relevant. 100Kg is 100Kg regardless of whether it's a 50Kg person and 50Kg of luggage or a 90Kg person with 10Kg of luggage.

If weight is not relevant, then weight is not relevant and therefore there's no justification for any weight limit on luggage.

It's one or the other - weight is either relevant or not.
 
But it isn't fair to charge more for heavy people or that light people can carry more luggage surely?
In my opinion it is, a plane full of heavy people will use more fuel than a plane with people half that weight.

Heavy != fat/overweight
You are correct, but most of the time it is true, if you look at the average ''heavy'' person out there it's because they are stuffing themselves with crap and lead a sitting life. Not because they like bulking up & hitting the gym...

If weighting people allows light people to carry more luggage or be able to use the cheaper luggage options than I'm all for it. Then again, I see your point, if you're tall and not skinny then 100 kilo's isn't that much.

If total weight however is a major factor for flying, I'd find it fair that lighter people can fly cheaper...
 
If total weight however is a major factor for flying, I'd find it fair that lighter people can fly cheaper...

If that is the case, how would you feel about changes to say increase taxes for sick people that use the NHS more than someone that barely uses it at all, or say penalising people for throwing more rubbish away because they don't make any effort to recycle as a for instance?

People are using the logical arguement that because there is a fixed price, there is an inherent unfairness in usage of fuel from a heavier person and their fixed weight baggage to a lighter person and their fix weight baggage. There is no arguement that logically there is an unfairness.

You could logically argue that the taxation system and access to services is also unfair, in that poorer people have disproportionate access to services to which they contribute very little to nothing to. There is no arguement that logically there is an unfairness.

Should this unfairness be looked into if all people are concerned about is fairness?
 
Last edited:
If that is the case, how would you feel about changes to say increase taxes for sick people that use the NHS more than someone that barely uses it at all,
This example, yes, it's ludicrous how most young people have to pay for health insurance, compared to older ''more risky'' people. Not specifically sick people, but certain age groups should have less health costs than others.

Up to 35 should get a decrease in premium, and above 65 or so should get increased premiums. I for one am sick of the fact that I've had to pay nearly 8k in health rubbish in the past 6 years, while I've only visited the doctor twice.

or say penalising people for throwing more rubbish away because they don't make any effort to recycle as a for instance?
Recycling is more expensive than a single dump box for all types of rubbish and we already had a tax on packaging ( since 2013 through the prices of products, as corporations have to pay tax for product packaging). So I don't see your point. We already pay extra for the handling of waste through the increased prices of consumer products because of the packaging tax.

People are using the logical arguement that because there is a fixed price, there is an inherent unfairness in usage of fuel from a heavier person and their fixed weight baggage to a lighter person and their fix weight baggage. There is no arguement that logically there is an unfairness.

You could logically argue that the taxation system and access to services is also unfair, in that poorer people have disproportionate access to services to which they contribute very little to nothing to. There is no arguement that logically there is an unfairness.

Should this unfairness be looked into if all people are concerned about is fairness?
I hold mostly libertarian views so yeah, most of these services that aren't economically feasible should be disbanded and I'm for a flat tax rate for everyone, not screwing people over who earn more with higher tax rates above a certain point. imho ofc.
 
Recycling is more expensive than a single dump box for all types of rubbish and we already had a tax on packaging ( since 2013 through the prices of products, as corporations have to pay tax for product packaging). So I don't see your point. We already pay extra for the handling of waste through the increased prices of consumer products because of the packaging tax.

Sorry I didn't pay attention to your location. All the same, there are EU restrictions on landfill with fines if not met if I'm not mistaken. Having lived in Holland, recycling was very good when I was there and was well in advanced of the UK in adoption of it.
 
It wasn't the fault of the crew in Air Midwest Flight 5481 as they were using the official estimates for passenger weight.


Not exactly a fair example though is it?
Planes of that size are far more critical with weight and load balancing. In fact, flights i take where the passenger limit is less than 22 everyone is routinely weighted prior to boarding, though its more for load balancing than anything else. With commercial jets i would imaging the fuel load would be the single largest load, and jets rarely fly with all their fuel tanks at capacity.

Find an example of a modern commercial jet that takes 70+ passengers and you would have a fairer example
 
Better to be over than under.




As a weight, no... As a head onboard, yes.

They aren't really over though!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11534042

So for men they are over by 5kg and for women they are just under. That's for the UK at least. That said for a worldwide population they probably are significantly over.

I found this article when looking for other averages which really does show the problem we face with "norms" now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...thy-So-greater-risk-heart-disease-cancer.html

The article has an air of surprise that these two "average" people are, by most definitions, overweight. The comment at the end by the woman about stick thin models and her being normal misses out the very important fact. Both of them are obviously overweight with a pretty high fat mass. Yes you can hide his weight with a suit but it's still there... The article suggesting surprise at that is probably more an indication of the person that wrote it than anything else.

It really does show the scale of the problem public health workers have with competing against what the general puic perceive as normal and healthy.
 
Why 32kg? Presumably they've worked out that ~23kg is a good number because it's enough for most normal people to pack what they need for a normal journey, so giving everyone 32kg would just mean loads of people packing ~9kg of unnecessary stuff just because they have the option to.

32 kg is the maximum weight people are allowed to carry for work IIRC, ask the HSE why that specific number. 23 kg is just an arbitrary number worked out by airlines, I assume it's probably based on the max weight most people's bags are and/or the max you can generally fit into an average sized hold bag.

You can currently fill a single bag up to 32kg if you want and the airlines will happily take it, they will just charge for those extra 9kg.
 
If that is the case, how would you feel about changes to say increase taxes for sick people that use the NHS more than someone that barely uses it at all, or say penalising people for throwing more rubbish away because they don't make any effort to recycle as a for instance?

People are using the logical arguement that because there is a fixed price, there is an inherent unfairness in usage of fuel from a heavier person and their fixed weight baggage to a lighter person and their fix weight baggage. There is no arguement that logically there is an unfairness.

You could logically argue that the taxation system and access to services is also unfair, in that poorer people have disproportionate access to services to which they contribute very little to nothing to. There is no arguement that logically there is an unfairness.

Should this unfairness be looked into if all people are concerned about is fairness?

No, people are pointing out that bags are charged extra over an arbitrary weight limit, whereas all people are charged the same whether they are 50 or 150kg. If one is based on weight why should the other one not be based on weight as well?

That said I've not been arguing for a system based on a persons weight, rather a system based on overall weight of the person and their belongings travelling. Someone of 90kg is not going to pay any extra, they just can't take as much other stuff as someone weighing only 50kg.
 
I find it funny that people assume that lighter people will fly cheaper. In reality you will pay the same as now and the one or two fat/bigger people on the flight will potentially pay a nominal fee more.

No ones fares are ever going to go down.... :) Its just another potential revenue scheme.. Nothing more or less. Oh and of course a good reason to bash big/heavier/fat people in absence of a good Muslim hate thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom