Why dont the airlines do this?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by peilthetraveler, Dec 4, 2008.

  1. They have the whole issue with people bringing in too much luggage and they have to charge more if its over a certain weight because the airplane gets worse gas mileage if its heavier, and then charging extra for fat people and all that, so why not do this airlines....

    Charge by the pound! People would think twice about bringing 7 bags of clothes for a 1 week vacation. Fat people would try to lose weight a few days before going on a vacation. People like me that do not like to bring anything bigger than a backpack would get a lower fare, instead of me having to split the cost with the guy that brings 200 pounds of luggage. Personally I think that would be fair and people that watch their weight and dont take alot of crap with them on vacation would get rewarded instead of punished.

    For instance. Say there is a fare to europe from California. The price charged could be 5 dollars per pound. A 200 pound man who has 20 pounds of luggage would pay 1100 dollars. A 300 pound man would pay 1500. Now i know what you are thinking...women would automatically get cheaper fares because they weigh less naturally and thats not fair...WRONG! You ever seen a woman travel...a 120 pound woman will normally carry her weight in luggage, so she's talking 1200 dollars!

    And if you are a light guy like me who weighs 150 pounds, you get a nice discount fare of 750 dollars!

    There ya go...charge by the pound and get better gas mileage on those planes!
  2. Or simpler: Just hedge here. Plenty of cheap oil to be bought right now so this is all non-issue.
    Any airline not buying outright oil or calls here out long term is foolish
  3. jtnet



  4. Lucrum


    Fat people would scream discrimination and the PC obsessed liberals/media would back them up.

    It's not a bad idea, but a non starter in the real world.
  5. Pekelo


    Actually, now that gas and kerosine are cheap again they should stop this silly practice.
    And yes, they should load up on oil futures. that's how SoutWest made its money...
  6. thedewar


    its entirely discriminatory (sp?). People who have a tall family now cant afford to go on vacation. Some people might just have alot of muscle mass, or w/e the case may be. You cant bias pricing or service or the access to based on genetics... its complete b/s. I'm in great shape and personally i think the system would be fine... tax the fatties its their own damn fault yadda yadda... but there's alot more to weight other than just neglect.

    Taxing luggage is fine.... that can be lightened if you pack properly and travel according to your needs... taxing genetics is blatent discrimination
  7. no it is not - it is the "user pays principle"

    or do you expect the same for food too? Can really see you stating; "I eat three loafs of bread a week and the skinny guy one , why do I need to pay for three?" Yeah right (as the Tui beer ad goes here)

    fuel is major cost for travel and weight has a major influence. or have you never travelled enough and where a few times weighed before boarding?

  8. euclid


    It's not about fault. It's about fairness. Be it aircraft fuel, healthcare, food, water or electricity. How do you distribute the cost?

    1. You can charge each person according to what they use.
    2. You can charge each person the same.
    3. You can charge each person according to what they can afford.

    Which is the best system? Why is number 1 not aceptable for a luxury like air travel, when it is acceptable for an essential like food?

    You're in a queue at MacDonanlds behind a big guy who orders three fries to your one. Do you offer to pay for one of his fries? It's only fair. He can't help that his genetics make him feel hungrier.
  9. euclid


    Ha ha. You beat me to it.
  10. All I can say is the bean counters create a lot of aggravation and the airlines aren't making any money.
    #10     Dec 4, 2008