3 ms·

You should pay more because it costs more money to fly you. The airline doesn't care if you're overweight, only what your weight is.

by zeroer 10y ago

aplummer 10y ago
It costs more to fly a disabled person. Obviously that is wrong, but your overly simplified logic "You should pay more because it costs more money to fly you" obviously makes no sense.
- gragas 10y ago
  >your overly simplified logic "You should pay more because it costs more money to fly you" obviously makes no sense. No, that logic makes perfect sense. Firms can charge whatever they want. If you cost more to fly, then firms can charge you for that.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  It costs a lot more to do a lot of things for disabled persons. To that end the US government passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which dictated that most of those things should be done for the person at no additional cost to the person. Like most mandates, it acts a bit like a tax, in this case paid by the population at large, to benefit the disabled population. In the case of an airline, it's generally not a large expense - capex on a few airport wheelchairs and opex in the form of someone to assist in the physical transfer of the disabled person. The ADA is generally regarded as a generally good thing, especially insofar as it influences the design of new construction to be more accessible to begin with, but it's not without flaws (e.g. turning disabled persons into liability factories - http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/10/serial-ada-lawsuit-filer-striking-bay-area/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/10/serial-ada-lawsuit-fil... ). It's far less clear that we should levy a similar mandate on every business ever in order to mitigate every single difference in life circumstances. In the case here, it should be quite reasonable for airlines to charge people for a portion of their carriage by the kilogram, like they already charge people for extra leg room - it'd make tons of sense, and the only reason that they don't do it everywhere already is because a standardized price makes the transaction easier to accomplish.
  - gaius 10y ago
    in this case paid by the population at large, to benefit the disabled population Let me quibble with that slightly as it is a pet peeve of mine: we are all going to get old. Facilities for "the disabled" benefit EVERYONE eventually.
    - fennecfoxen 10y ago
      While it's worth pointing out that the elderly are frequent beneficiaries of accommodations required under the ADA by law, I quibble with the quibbling. I'm discussing the Americans with Disabilities Act and therefore I'm going to call people who use them "the disabled", not "less able" or even "differently abled" (though maybe where appropriate with specifics like "less able to walk", sure.)
syshum 10y ago
Then dispense with the formality and Start pricing tickets like UPS prices shipping Weight X Distance X rate Treat humans like Packages, I am sure that will go over well

You should pay more because it costs more money to fly you. The airline doesn't care if you're overweight, only what your weight is.

by zeroer 10y ago

You should pay more because it costs more money to fly you. The airline doesn't care if you're overweight, only what your weight is.

aplummer 10y ago

It costs more to fly a disabled person. Obviously that is wrong, but your overly simplified logic "You should pay more because it costs more money to fly you" obviously makes no sense.

gragas 10y ago
>your overly simplified logic "You should pay more because it costs more money to fly you" obviously makes no sense. No, that logic makes perfect sense. Firms can charge whatever they want. If you cost more to fly, then firms can charge you for that.
fennecfoxen 10y ago
It costs a lot more to do a lot of things for disabled persons. To that end the US government passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which dictated that most of those things should be done for the person at no additional cost to the person. Like most mandates, it acts a bit like a tax, in this case paid by the population at large, to benefit the disabled population. In the case of an airline, it's generally not a large expense - capex on a few airport wheelchairs and opex in the form of someone to assist in the physical transfer of the disabled person. The ADA is generally regarded as a generally good thing, especially insofar as it influences the design of new construction to be more accessible to begin with, but it's not without flaws (e.g. turning disabled persons into liability factories - http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/10/serial-ada-lawsuit-filer-striking-bay-area/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/10/serial-ada-lawsuit-fil... ). It's far less clear that we should levy a similar mandate on every business ever in order to mitigate every single difference in life circumstances. In the case here, it should be quite reasonable for airlines to charge people for a portion of their carriage by the kilogram, like they already charge people for extra leg room - it'd make tons of sense, and the only reason that they don't do it everywhere already is because a standardized price makes the transaction easier to accomplish.
- gaius 10y ago
  in this case paid by the population at large, to benefit the disabled population Let me quibble with that slightly as it is a pet peeve of mine: we are all going to get old. Facilities for "the disabled" benefit EVERYONE eventually.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    While it's worth pointing out that the elderly are frequent beneficiaries of accommodations required under the ADA by law, I quibble with the quibbling. I'm discussing the Americans with Disabilities Act and therefore I'm going to call people who use them "the disabled", not "less able" or even "differently abled" (though maybe where appropriate with specifics like "less able to walk", sure.)

syshum 10y ago

Then dispense with the formality and Start pricing tickets like UPS prices shipping Weight X Distance X rate Treat humans like Packages, I am sure that will go over well