5 ms·

This seems unnecessarily discriminatory. It also means that taller people get a worse deal - already having to deal with cramped seating, now there is a premium

by quasque 14y ago

This seems unnecessarily discriminatory. It also means that taller people get a worse deal - already having to deal with cramped seating, now there is a premium on the extra body weight due to height.

DoubleCluster 14y ago
I'd think that with the extra money you're paying they could offer you more legroom. I'd have no trouble with paying more if I'm taking up more weight and space.
smky80 14y ago
You need to do the Sydney to Los Angeles 14 hour flight in economy with someone who weighs 350 lbs in the seat next to you, their body spilling over into your seat. If nothing else I think they should charge more by the horizontal area you take up.
chrismorgan 14y ago
Much the same thing happens with cars. Assuming the same car, a heavy person will find the car costs more to run than a light person. This sort of pricing model would simply be continuing doing that sort of passing the cost on to the customer. As it stands, small and light people are being discriminated against: they are subsidising the large heavy people. People just don't talk about it that way, normally.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  I don't think you understand what discriminate means.
  - gambiting 14y ago
    It would have been discriminatory if there was no reason to charge them for being obese other than the fact that they are obese. This is different - it literally costs the airline more to fly if you weight 50-60kg over the average. Your car uses more fuel as well, that's why he gave this example - roughly 0.5L/100km for every additional 50kg inside the car. It's not a discrimination thing, it's just technical fact that the airplane uses more fuel the more you put in it.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      You are conflating unfairness with discrimination, but they are unrelated concepts. E.g. you might want to discriminate between smokers and non smokers in assigning health insurance premiums. This would be fair, but it would still be discrimination. Not discriminating would be unfair in that smokers are more likely to have health problems.
      - mpyne 14y ago
        I think you're correct, but I also think that the comments you were replying to were taking "discriminatory" in the sense that it was actually meant in the original comment, which complained of this being "unnecessarily discriminatory".
        seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        Word choice makes it very difficult to determine what the original comment means, which is why I brought it up.
panacea 14y ago
You're cargo on an airplane. I think it's fair for airlines to charge by weight. My reasoning blurs a bit though when it comes to height. I'm tall and skinny. I'd pay for extra leg room, but I don't cost the airline extra carbon burning and neighbouring passenger discomfort to get me somewhere. Ideally, we could computer model our desired seating arrangement and pay accordingly. If you don't want to pay for your waist-line, you don't travel.
- chiph 14y ago
  Pay for the "Economy Plus" seats. They're like $20 more on Delta, and you get 2-3" more legroom. Totally worth it. But in general, airlines like tighter seat pitch as it lets them (perhaps) get another row into the cabin, and that's another 4-9 passengers per flight. Seatguru has a sortable grid of seat layout. I won't be on airberlin anytime soon (29" seat pitch, no way!) http://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_economy.php http://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_economy.php
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    “Pay for the "Economy Plus" seats. They're like $20 more on Delta, and you get 2-3" more legroom.” I wanted to try that last December, traveling with Delta from AMS to TPA. Turns out, it was $120 more for each leg of the trip. So no, I chose not to, even though I'm 6'1". Instead, I got a seat at one of the emergency exits.
    - chiph 14y ago
      Ah, Amsterdam to Tampa -- that's why it was that much more. I'm surprised you could get an exit-row seat. They're usually snapped-up by their diamond-level frequent fliers.
      - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
        Right, no doubt the prices you mentioned are valid, but for domestic flights. I mostly fly transatlantic with Delta, that's why the upgrade (and its associated costs) is not a no-brainer for me. Also, I only snagged the exit row seat for the return flight. I don't qualify for Diamond level with Delta, as I fly with several different airlines (non-Skyteam). With Delta, I do qualify for 50% discount on upgrades, I listed the fees that basic members would pay.
madaxe 14y ago
I find a fiery death due to a poorly trimmed light aircraft caused by the family of human blimps sat in the back row discriminatory. Weight distribution matters, particularly when you're in a single prop 8 seater. If some dude rocks up on the tarmac expecting to fly, but weighs as much as four other passengers combined, you'll have a hard time distributing that mass. Also, with light aircraft, your incremental fuel cost per pound of fat is that much more noticeable. For the record, I'm both a pilot and a, um, Rubenesque, fellow.
ohwp 14y ago
Excluding or rejecting people without arbitrary reason is called discrimination. Since weight is a big issue in fuel consumption I don't think you can call this discriminatory. But when you are charged extra because your weight is above X, it is discriminatory. So airlines should not charge extra but should charge by kilo-distance.

by quasque 14y ago

DoubleCluster 14y ago

I'd think that with the extra money you're paying they could offer you more legroom. I'd have no trouble with paying more if I'm taking up more weight and space.

smky80 14y ago

You need to do the Sydney to Los Angeles 14 hour flight in economy with someone who weighs 350 lbs in the seat next to you, their body spilling over into your seat. If nothing else I think they should charge more by the horizontal area you take up.

chrismorgan 14y ago

Much the same thing happens with cars. Assuming the same car, a heavy person will find the car costs more to run than a light person. This sort of pricing model would simply be continuing doing that sort of passing the cost on to the customer. As it stands, small and light people are being discriminated against: they are subsidising the large heavy people. People just don't talk about it that way, normally.

seanmcdirmid 14y ago
I don't think you understand what discriminate means.
- gambiting 14y ago
  It would have been discriminatory if there was no reason to charge them for being obese other than the fact that they are obese. This is different - it literally costs the airline more to fly if you weight 50-60kg over the average. Your car uses more fuel as well, that's why he gave this example - roughly 0.5L/100km for every additional 50kg inside the car. It's not a discrimination thing, it's just technical fact that the airplane uses more fuel the more you put in it.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    You are conflating unfairness with discrimination, but they are unrelated concepts. E.g. you might want to discriminate between smokers and non smokers in assigning health insurance premiums. This would be fair, but it would still be discrimination. Not discriminating would be unfair in that smokers are more likely to have health problems.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      I think you're correct, but I also think that the comments you were replying to were taking "discriminatory" in the sense that it was actually meant in the original comment, which complained of this being "unnecessarily discriminatory".
      - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        Word choice makes it very difficult to determine what the original comment means, which is why I brought it up.

panacea 14y ago

You're cargo on an airplane. I think it's fair for airlines to charge by weight. My reasoning blurs a bit though when it comes to height. I'm tall and skinny. I'd pay for extra leg room, but I don't cost the airline extra carbon burning and neighbouring passenger discomfort to get me somewhere. Ideally, we could computer model our desired seating arrangement and pay accordingly. If you don't want to pay for your waist-line, you don't travel.

chiph 14y ago
Pay for the "Economy Plus" seats. They're like $20 more on Delta, and you get 2-3" more legroom. Totally worth it. But in general, airlines like tighter seat pitch as it lets them (perhaps) get another row into the cabin, and that's another 4-9 passengers per flight. Seatguru has a sortable grid of seat layout. I won't be on airberlin anytime soon (29" seat pitch, no way!) http://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_economy.php http://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_economy.php
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  “Pay for the "Economy Plus" seats. They're like $20 more on Delta, and you get 2-3" more legroom.” I wanted to try that last December, traveling with Delta from AMS to TPA. Turns out, it was $120 more for each leg of the trip. So no, I chose not to, even though I'm 6'1". Instead, I got a seat at one of the emergency exits.
  - chiph 14y ago
    Ah, Amsterdam to Tampa -- that's why it was that much more. I'm surprised you could get an exit-row seat. They're usually snapped-up by their diamond-level frequent fliers.
    - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
      Right, no doubt the prices you mentioned are valid, but for domestic flights. I mostly fly transatlantic with Delta, that's why the upgrade (and its associated costs) is not a no-brainer for me. Also, I only snagged the exit row seat for the return flight. I don't qualify for Diamond level with Delta, as I fly with several different airlines (non-Skyteam). With Delta, I do qualify for 50% discount on upgrades, I listed the fees that basic members would pay.

madaxe 14y ago

I find a fiery death due to a poorly trimmed light aircraft caused by the family of human blimps sat in the back row discriminatory. Weight distribution matters, particularly when you're in a single prop 8 seater. If some dude rocks up on the tarmac expecting to fly, but weighs as much as four other passengers combined, you'll have a hard time distributing that mass. Also, with light aircraft, your incremental fuel cost per pound of fat is that much more noticeable. For the record, I'm both a pilot and a, um, Rubenesque, fellow.

ohwp 14y ago

Excluding or rejecting people without arbitrary reason is called discrimination. Since weight is a big issue in fuel consumption I don't think you can call this discriminatory. But when you are charged extra because your weight is above X, it is discriminatory. So airlines should not charge extra but should charge by kilo-distance.