Discrimination against fat people?

[Jaiden]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

airlines may soon be charging obese passenger first-class far for a special coach seat big enough to accomodate them due to rising oil costs (more fat people = more weight on the plane = more wasted fuel).

Do you really think that whether someone weighs, say, ten stone or twenty stone makes a discernible difference to the fuel economy of a plane that weighs thousands of tonnes? A quantifiable difference that can be translated into a specific extra charge?

Now, I'm not scientician, but I don't. It's nothing to do with weight and it's all about flagging airlines looking to where they can bring in some extra cash by forcing some people to pay first class rates. If they were talking about making bigger seats available in coach and charging slightly more for them to accommodate people who have difficulty fitting into one ordinary seat I'd view it differently, but this doesn't seem quite fair to me.

That said, I do sometimes wonder why a thin bloke whose luggage exceeds the weight allowance should have to pay more than a obese bloke with no luggage who still weighs far more in total. That's probably about harsh and restrictive luggage allowances as much as anything though.

[itsme]

Originally Posted by Jaiden

Do you really think that whether someone weighs, say, ten stone or twenty stone makes a discernible difference to the fuel economy of a plane that weighs thousands of tonnes? A quantifiable difference that can be translated into a specific extra charge?

Yes actually, the 747 weighs only 200 tons (American). That may seem huge compared to a 300-400 pound individual, but all of these things add up, particularly since the weight and balance for these aircraft was determined quite some time ago when the average weight of a person was less.

The Center of Gravity does not have to shift very far for drag to be increased a significant amount. $100-$200 dollars worth? No, but enough so that a plane full of obese people takes significantly more fuel than one filled with average sized people. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against overweight people, I have struggled the last few years to get my own weight under control, and it finally is. Even still I believe it is justifiable for the airlines to charge more for overweight individuals.

[Darkfinn]

Personally... it depends on how fat you are. A little extra around the middle is acceptable... and I know some guys who are 300lbs and all muscle... we call them football players. But someone who is 5'6" and 300lbs is definately overweight... not to mention the 400lb blimps I see wobbling their way around town.

I realise it's not always their fault. Americans are fat b/c that is what is cheap. I can get a cheeseburger, fries, and a coke from McD's for $3... or I can get a 6" sub from Subway for $5... you tell me where I'm gonna eat if I am on a budget. There is also no healthcare for the masses... so many don't have the opportunity to go to a doctor for a physical , or to see a dietician... or to get a gym membership.

Is it fair to everyone... no. But when they banned smoking on aircraft people cried that it was descrimination then too... but guess what... the smokers got over it.

The way things are set up right now it is illegal to deny someone service based upon their physical charactaristics, nation of birth, or sexual orientation. However if it is costing the airlines more to accomodate large persons then they should have a right to pass this cost increase on to their customers.

I also think that airlines and restaurants should have designated "family" sections. I.E. if you have undisciplined rug-rats that are going to be running around kicking and screaming the whole trip you should sit somewhere that does not disturb my peace and quiet. I hate nothing more than to be eating a fine meal at a nice place when a family with 2-3 young children gets seated immediately beside or behind me.

[Jaiden]

Originally Posted by itsme

Yes actually, the 747 weighs only 200 tons (American). That may seem huge compared to a 300-400 pound individual, but all of these things add up, particularly since the weight and balance for these aircraft was determined quite some time ago when the average weight of a person was less.

Heh, you know I checked the weight of a 747 on Wikipeida before I wrote that but it seems I misread it and added a couple of zeros on the end or something. It's hundreds, not thousands in either imperial long or short tons or metric tonnes. I really should have thought that seemed outlandish. My mistake.

That obviously changes things though I would still doubt the individual significance of how much difference eight or ten stone would make. Fair enough, it's significant if the whole plane is packed with obese people but each individual is responsible and accountable only for themselves and and does the extra ten stone they're carrying make a difference that can be fairly given a particular price? I still think that size rather than weight is more notable and I'm not sure that you can fairly and reasonably charge different amounts to people based on their size.

[Mr Alex]

I need more fatassery, I am soo small (Heavy Quote sortof...) I do not float well.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by Jaiden

Do you really think that whether someone weighs, say, ten stone or twenty stone makes a discernible difference to the fuel economy of a plane that weighs thousands of tonnes? A quantifiable difference that can be translated into a specific extra charge?

Now, I'm not scientician, but I don't. It's nothing to do with weight and it's all about flagging airlines looking to where they can bring in some extra cash by forcing some people to pay first class rates. If they were talking about making bigger seats available in coach and charging slightly more for them to accommodate people who have difficulty fitting into one ordinary seat I'd view it differently, but this doesn't seem quite fair to me.

Actually, YES. The mass of an aircraft is DIRECTLY related to it's fuel economy. We're talking about sending a tube of steel sent flying thought the air. Pilots actually have to calculate the weight of an aircraft and it's cargo to measure fuel economy. Aircraft have limits as to how much they can weigh to even take off, because the increased weight means it needs more lift to take off.

A Boeing 767 for example in a standard two class config holds 225-250 passengers, depending on it's variant. So let's average that to about 237 passsengers. 237 passengers with an average weight of 170lbs is 20 tons of cargo. That's not even including their baggage. Some people will travel with up to 50lbs of stuff if you combine their carryones and 1-3 suitcases. Now, 237 passengers at an average of 225lbs is 26 tons.

Planes are also not 'thousands of tons'. On average, an empty 767 is only 90 tons. Do you know how any thousands of tonnes 90 tons is? It's 0.09 thousand of tonnes. It's not even a thousand. :P

As it stands, aircraft don't even fly with full fuel tanks. They calculate their weight and travel distance and only take a some more fuel than they need. Why? Cause carrying a full tank of gas if you don't need it, actually wastes gas, cause the engines have to push harder to make up for the added weight they are carrying.

You want another piece of argument? How about this?

Airlines shed weight as fuel costs soar | The Courier-Mail

Japan airlines making it's forks and knives thinner to save weight. Smaller magazines. They even try to make the fixtures in aircraft lighter now. And remember, the forks fly for FREE.

[ballucanb]

I think all people should pay by the weight when they fly, if you get one skinny girl with 52 peices of luggage she should pay more.

And if your 400 lbs you should pay more, they should take a base weight of 100lbs for adults and after that pay by the pound by your weight plus what luggage you drag with you.

And for kids a base weight of 50lbs, and the same scale applies.

As for those people who beleive fat people have big bones, I like to know where my big bones went when I lost my weight.

And metabolism can't be blamed for getting fat, fat people don't have slow metabolisms, they just have fast hands, that shove food into there face twice as fast as anyone else.

There is no excuse for being fat.....

[Pramrider]

If memory serves me correctly, at one time not in the too distant past, if you were sending a letter airmail you had to use thinner paper to write on and a special airmail envelope. Postage was higher too, and the stamps were called "Airmail Stamps" with a plane usually depicted on them. Of course, passenger planes were smaller then with even less weight capacity. This was here in the US, probably other countries as well. So, even weight of individual pieces of paper used in letters has been a factor to the airlines.

Today, any first class mail traveling over a certain distance is routed via the airlines instead of by surface transport. But I'm certain limits are in place on how much weight allowance per flight there is for the mails.

~Pramrider

[kite]

so if the airlines are so up in arms about this then why is this whole fee idea coming about so recently? trains aren't doing it, neither are buses, but so far the airlines tried to take away the tips and levy a fee on the skycaps (the ones that help you with your baggages outside the terminal) and failed at that sooo... you see where i'm going with this? it's common sense.

[Chillhouse]

Folks, lets keep in mind the idea the airlines want to implement. They are NOT charging peopled based on weight. They are simply offering a bigger seat for a higher price for the morbidly obese. This makes it more comfortable for EVERYONE in coach.

Originally Posted by Pramrider

If memory serves me correctly, at one time not in the too distant past, if you were sending a letter airmail you had to use thinner paper to write on and a special airmail envelope. Postage was higher too, and the stamps were called "Airmail Stamps" with a plane usually depicted on them.

But... But... Why didn't you just use e-mail?!