Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Should overweight people flying economy class be required to pay for an extra seat?

97 Comments

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

97 Comments
Login to comment

It depends on how overweight we are talking here. If that person manages to fit into his/her seat and not get onto my seat, I'm fine. However, if that person is so overweight that he/she is about to take half of my seat, then that person ether needs to pay for two seats or plane should have seats for overweight people what is larger. In ether case, as long as I don't pay for others and don't suffer discomfort because of the others, I don't really care.

22 ( +24 / -2 )

@James53

Have you tried to purchase an additional seat online? Since the policy is not standard across all airlines in the industry, website will not allow a customer the option to enter the same name twice when attempting to purchase an extra seat.

The issue is that large passengers basically have to gamble with expensive airline tickets with no guarantee of what they are going to get. A gamble that ‘average’ sized passengers are not expected to take. Airline seats are not the same size. There needs to be some standardization in seat sizes so that passengers know what they are getting when they purchase one seat. There should be a online sample seat size prior to purchasing a ticket.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Good Lord yes! If you allow yourself to get so fat that you can't fit into an airline seat without your lard spilling into the next seat then you should either go as cargo or take a ship. Or buy two seats.

23 ( +31 / -10 )

Extra seat. No. I would say airlines should start providing a row of "super fatty" seats for those who cant fit into normal ones. And one double seat would be the price of 2 singles. Obviously.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

Good Lord yes!

SimonB -- agree 100%. U.S. domestic flights especially.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Yes they should! If your body requires an extra seat, then you should be obligated to pay for it. I think obesity deserves the slightest amount of public sympathy. There are verifiable cases of eating and psychological disorders that contribute to obesity. But, in general, obesity needs to be frowned upon and not accepted as an "alternative lifestyle". It affects everyone through increased medical problems and associated costs to a depleted pan of cheesy au gratin at the buffet line because some tub of lard just wiped it out with one swoop of the spatula; and now were talking less seating on an airplane.

2 ( +9 / -8 )

No. I don't see why they should charge in addition, that would like the companies that charge if you use the toilets on board. The fares are high enough.

I would say airlines should start providing a row of "super fatty" seats

They should provide a variety of seats. For instance, have a few ranks that can modulated in length/width/height. You don't have to be "super fatty" to get too tight in standard size, just moderate overweight (that many get as they age) makes it uncomfortable. Tall people also get problems to fit whatever their BMI. So do people with different types of disability, and that can be you if during your next trip, you break your arm and try to come back with your return flight. And children would be better in children seats... I mean maybe 60% of passengers are OK with the standard offer, so they could start thinking about the other 40%.

-6 ( +8 / -13 )

I really don't care what they are charged. That is up to the person and the airline to work out. I would like to be able to use MY seat, however, all of it, regardless of who is sitting next to me, instead of being pushed to the side by the overflowing fat of the person next to me. That is uncomfortable.

20 ( +21 / -1 )

plane should have seats for overweight people what is larger.

I would say airlines should start providing a row of "super fatty" seats for those who cant fit into normal ones.

They do, it's called Business Class.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

People that take up more space than what a standard sized airplane seat will fit should be made to buy two or more seats. When Sumo wrestlers fly, I bet they don't just buy one seat, they probably but the whole row so why not have the obese pay for the space they use too. Maybe a pay by the kilo/pound should be implemented just like when you have more than a certain weight of baggage you must pay extra. Also make the overhead bins really small so you can only carry small stuff and not your entire belongings. This would make planes faster to load and unload therefore reducing flight delays.

There should also be dress codes on flights. Passengers should be made to wear shirts with sleeves, trousers, socks and closed shoes, why because In the US, people will wear just about anything and many times you have to sit next to some overweight guy with a sleeveless t-shirt and hairy armpits which is gross and unsanitary.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Weight and size are not always as closely connected as some may think. As long as they aren't spilling over into adjacent seats and making others uncomfortable, overweight people shouldn't have to pay extra.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

If the person in question requires two seats in order to sit comfortably and not spill over into the space of neighboring passengers, then yes. An emphatic yes.

Otherwise, no.

The issue is that large passengers basically have to gamble with expensive airline tickets with no guarantee of what they are going to get. A gamble that 'average' sized passengers are not expected to take.

A passenger who would even need to consider booking two seats can scarcely be categorized as a simly "large" passenger. Anyone who requires two seats in order to sit comfortably, short of sumo wrestlers, has a severe weight problem.

Besides, any "gamble" these drastically overweight folks might be facing is quickly mitigated by, dare I say it, calling the airline and speaking to an actual customer service representative.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

It depends what you consider as "overweight"? My BMI is average and I'm tall, but in economy I feel cramped and it gets worse every year as the seats and legroom get smaller and smaller. The problem isn't my weight, it is simply a question of my shoulders.

The average economy seat is 17 inches wide, which is the "average" adult female shoulder width. The "average" male is 18 inches wide, which means that economy class seats are already too narrow for the average adult male's shoulders.

So while I'm not a fan of sitting next to hugely overweight people I also think that airlines are being unreasonable when they design a seat that is narrower than the average male's shoulders, and I don't support any more profiteering by airlines when they're constantly reducing seat size and then trying to blame passengers for the resulting discomfort.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Obese yes. Just tubby, no. Maybe introduce weight bands and differential charging for the seat. and over a certain weight have to buy second seat. Nicer would be airlines making seats bigger, but that isn't likely.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

There are a number of reasons why this is even an issue, starting with the fact that airlines first used the hip width of the average US Air Force pilot to decide how wide airplane seats should be. Not only has that average hip width gotten wider but women very often have wider hips than men and your hips are not the widest part of your body anyway. Your shoulders are. So, you might be fine in the seat but find yourself uncomfortably close to your neighbor in your upper body. Second, airlines have starting putting in more seats per row which means narrower seats. Third, human beings, on average, are two inches taller than they were less than a century ago.

Yes, it's uncomfortable to have someone "spill over" into your seat. By the same token, it's also uncomfortable for that person, both physically and emotionally to be "spilling over". Yes, they could probably lose weight but at the end of the day, your typical airline seat isn't really comfortable for anyone. I have a brother who's 6'3 (1.9 meters) with legs up to my shrimpy 5'5 (1.65 meters) shoulders. Neither or us is at all overweight and neither of us finds flying comfortable, nor does most anyone I know besides those fortunate few who can afford first class. With his legs it's nearly impossible for my brother to sit comfortably without bothering the person in front of him or next to him. My legs aren't really an issue but I do find that I have a hard time comfortably keeping my shoulders and arms in my space, as apparently do many of those I've sat next to while flying.

Making seats at least moderately comfortable wouldn't solve the problem of what to do for those who are greatly overweight but it would make the experience more comfortable for a greater number of passengers.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

This is such a touchy subject among most above average size people that we refer to as obese passengers. Many people would argue that obese passengers who cannot fit into a standard sized seat must buy a second seat at their own expense. We are talking about people who are unable to fit into a single seat, are unable to properly buckle the seatbelt or who are unable to put the armrests down when seated. I believe that many overweight people already buy seats on flight to avoid embarrassment . However, how do you judge how fat is fat? What we know about measurements for obesity is that actually if we took those same measurements and applied them to some of our elite athletes, our rugby players they'd be judged to be fat as well, which is obviously is not the case. Do we do the same to thin people? Do we say you've been judged to be have been half the size of all fellow passengers, so we're going to give you a 50% discount. To charge them extra for their size would be discriminatory and the airlines would probably have to allow people with disabilities free extra seats for their carriers to avoid any potential law suit. Its seems clear why customers who are functionally disabled by obesity, a medical condition are entitled to two airplane seats for the cost of one, as passengers who can't fit into one seat and not pay more money for plane tickets at the present time.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This is one of those instances where I am lucky that I am little: 5' 2 " (157 cm). I have lots of leg-room and feel quite comfortable in economy seats. I even have room to exercise gently in order to avoid thrombosis.

I got bumped up to first class once and found the seats too large! (Goldilocks, anyone?) I had to get up and walk two steps (funny how big a hardship that can be) to be able to get a magazine. Mind you, after the complimentary glass of champagne I minded less.

What irks me (if I stop to think about it--strictly a first-world problem) is that I have to pay the same as a 350 pound person carrying on baggage weighing 30 + pounds and checking in another 50-70 allowed pounds. I am 125-130 pounds and always take only one carry-on suitcase within the weight limits, but I pay the same price. It costs the airline less to fly me than them, but I pay the same price.

Therefore, I think that all airline charges should be weight-related: That's your weight, your carry-on luggage weight and your checked in baggage rate. That would be fair. Otherwise people legally get to holler about 'discrimination'. If all airlines used the weight as the baseline they could legitimately say that it takes X amount of fuel (plus our services) to fly your X number of pounds. It works for parcels you mail and ship, why not people?

9 ( +12 / -4 )

no.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Good Lord yes! If you allow yourself to get so fat that you can't fit into an airline seat without your lard spilling into the next seat then you should either go as cargo or take a ship. Or buy two seats.

Exactly. Nothing more unsettling than seeing someone's love handles resting comfortably on your armrest. Gross.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

There should also be dress codes on flights. Passengers should be made to wear shirts with sleeves, trousers, socks and closed shoes

Ridiculous.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Yes and no. If they are so fat that an empty seat next to them cannot be occupied as a result, then yes. Airlines are already starting to require special seating for mothers with babies, though, so why not install a larger seat here or there, and just make a SINGLE ticket for such a seat a little higher than the norm? And what's the standard of measurement in the first place? Do they charge the person online if they check the 'fat' box? do they wait until the flight and see if they spill over onto the next seat and then charge them on the ground at the terminal?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

definitely and not just extra seat but all the row, or fly cargo. there is no reason why someones inability to stop eating should bother and inconvenience others in public transport

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

If they have to take someone else's space ... then "yes" (or buy a business class seat). I agree with Farmboy's post above (as well as many others).

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Of course they should! If they take the space, they should pay for it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I am not sure if seats and spacing between them have actually diminished since a couple of decades ago. It might be carrier related. What I do know is that airfares today are less than half those of more than 3 decades ago. The competition is cut throat so airlines have a hard time to accommodate everyone and stay profitable. No one wants to be the first to levy extra charges. But it seems clear something needs to be done. Every person who is clearly obese, whether because of bad diet habits or disease, is aware of that and of the probable discomfort to fellow passengers. This fact should be divulged when booking a flight. On the other hand the aircraft need to be equipped with a certain number of wider seats for the 'quite larger than average size' passenger. A surcharge is then of course justified.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

How do you decide WHAT is overweight?..................and by that toke, "underweight" people out to go 1/2 price !!! > > LOL

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

How do you decide WHAT is overweight?

There are official definitions. Or else the airlines could create their own. It's not that hard.

by that toke, "underweight" people out to go 1/2 price

No, because the reasoning behind charging overweight people more is that they take up more than a single space on the plane. Underweight people will still be taking up their single space, even if they aren't using it all.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It's the shoulder width and leg room that are the real issues. I don't think I have ever seen anyone morbidly obese attempt to get into an economy class seat. But for most males over about 5'5" flights are terrible. The tiny amount of space you were provided usually disappears when the selfish person in front of you reclines their seat. 12 hours to London with your knees crushed and your shoulders pulled in is deeply unpleasant.

There should be rows of reasonably-priced economy seating for taller people with shoulders. We can't all afford business class upgrades, but could they not have more 18" wide seating with a 35" pitch without doubling the price? The small amount of extra space would make all the difference to people like me. I would happily pay a little more money for a little more room, but on UK-Japan flights there is no such option. The only option is paying a lot more (about double) for premium economy or about 8-10 times the price for business class. As long as the airlines refuse to have slightly better seating at a marginally higher price, people will have to deal with someone else's shoulders infringing on their space. People don't mind reclining their seats and infringing on the space I paid for vertically anyway.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

some smaller airlines around the world now charge people based on the weight.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes; if you can't FIT in a normal size seat, then YES.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Charging per weight makes sense.

The airlines assume a certain weight per customer (customer + luggage + carry-on), extra weight requires more fuel to get the plane to its destination.

One reason why many airlines dropped full body paint jobs on planes, a weight saving of a few tons

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oughtn't the question be: "Now that the average person is getting larger in size, why are airline seats all getting smaller and closer together?"?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I am lucky that I am little: 5' 2 " (157 cm). I have lots of leg-room and feel quite comfortable in economy seats.

I'm like you and I had that leg-room on all airlines 20 yrs ago. Now on some of them I have just enough when the person before reclines the seat. So anybody taller than us would have to pay 2 seats to obtain more leg space ? And if they are wide, they will need to pay 4 seats ?

if you can't FIT in a normal size seat

It was measured that for a seat of 17.5 inches, if your hips are wider than 92 cm, you feel "squeezed". Is that the definition of "overweight" ?

Which is a "normal size seat" :

AA - 18.2 CO - 17.9 SQ - 777-200 17.5; 777-300 18 KLM - 17.5 BA - 17.5 DL - 17 KAL - 17 EK - 17 ANA -- 16.5

The average in 1950 was 17 inches, for new planes delivered in 2013, that was 16 inches. While in 1950, the average passenger was 14 inches and now it's over 15 inches. The expert recommendation is to set 18 inches as a norm.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The rule should be simple; if your neighbor is overflowing into your seat then you get to eat their dinner and have full control of the armrests

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If the overweight person infringes on the space of someone next to them, then that problem needs to be corrected. It is not fair for a person to pay for a seat and then end up only being able to comfortably use 80% of that seat.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The current pricing system is discriminatory against Japanese and Asians, especially women.

"Luggage allowance" should be a combination of personal weigh AND luggage.

At present,

a 50kg woman is allowed 30kg luggage = 80kg.

a 100kg (220lb) person is also allowed 30kg = 130kg.

50kg disadvantage

Capacity is the same, weight uses up more fuel and produces more pollution.

A more fairer system would be to set an average weight, say 70kg, and allow each individual

a combined allowance of 70kg + 30kg = 100kg

Anything over 100kg is charged as excess baggage.

This would also have the dual advantage of,

a) encouraging Japanese women to do more shopping overseas, b) encouraging overweight individuals to lose weight if they want to travel!

[c) hopefully ensure I never get squashed by one ever again].

1 ( +5 / -4 )

an average weight, say 70kg

That is a tiny, tiny man weighing 70kg.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

if your hips are wider than 92 cm, you feel "squeezed". Is that the definition of "overweight" ?

Yes, you probably are a little.

A 17" seat will be claustrophic on long haul, but fine on short-hual. 18" is fine on long-haul.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Mister EdMay. 06, 2014 - 09:42PM JST The current pricing system is discriminatory against Japanese and Asians, especially women.

Nonsense. Height and weight are directly correlated. The modern generation of Japanese are much taller than the generation that grew up in post-war Japan because they're eating more (especially meat) and fulfilling their genetic potential.

Anything over 100kg is charged as excess baggage.

So a healthy person who's 6 foot tall and weighs 85kgs would be allowed only 15kgs of baggage under your system, and be charged excess baggage for every kilogram over that.... yeah, right.

This would also have the dual advantage of, a) encouraging Japanese women to do more shopping overseas,

And this would be great for China's economy and lousy for Japan.

b) encouraging overweight individuals to lose weight if they want to travel!

Nonsense. It would penalise healthy people who are a healthy height and encourage anorexics and bulemics to travel more.

[c) hopefully ensure I never get squashed by one ever again].

Nope, because when the average flyer's size decreases the airlines will see $$$ signs and decrease the seat sizes again so that eventually we'll all be sitting in children's seats with out knees touching our chins like we're parents visiting an elementary school.

The seats are already NARROWER than the AVERAGE male's shoulders, which means that if you're between two average males of a healthy weight then you're going to get squished.

Your energy would be better spent telling off your airline than buying into the false notion that anyone who doesn't fit into a standard airline seat is automatically a fatty.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Should overweight people flying economy class be required to pay for an extra seat?

It's all about the money and if you are willing to pay more then you shall. Whatever the market will bear.

My biggest complaint when I have the misfortune to fly Economy is the legroom. My knees take a beating from the lack of space.

Now, as for flying, well, I hate flying and no, I don't hate flying because of overweight people. I just can't stand flying and avoid it like the black death.

Sure it gets you there quicker, but unless I am going Business or First Class there is no way in hell that I will ever get onboard one of those deathtraps.

Yes, flying in an airplane is safer than driving. But, when was the last time you read about 200+ people dying in a single car?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

That is a tiny, tiny man weighing 70kg.

Balderdash.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

My biggest complaint when I have the misfortune to fly Economy is the legroom. My knees take a beating from the lack of space.

Have you tried getting exit row seating? How tall are you? I'm 6'8" and have gotten exit row seating priority on, literally, every single flight I have ever been on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I really don't care about the weight of a person even if they are next to me. However, airlines are supposed to ensure the comfort and safety of passengers. I never sat next to a person that took up half my seat but if I ever did, I would hope that the cabin staff would relocate my seat and/or airline refunds me money or mileage particularly for long haul flights.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That is a tiny, tiny man weighing 70kg.

Balderdash.

No, it is not. my 14 yo son is about 70 kg at 14 and 182 cm... 70 kg is tiny!

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Balderdash.

A 70 kg male either is well below average height or has zero muscle mass.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

@bfg

You reckon?

I was 71kg and 181cm when I arrived in Japan, twenty-four years ago. And I was a big, muscly, rugby-playing thug.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

That is a tiny, tiny man weighing 70kg / Balderdash. / No, it is not. my 14 yo son is about 70 kg at 14 and 182 cm... 70 kg is tiny!

Interesting trivia. I concede these males exist. Exactly what this topic is about. But what makes you think your son sets a standard for the average male?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

First of all, why should someone be forced to pay double if they only need 1.25 seats? And if they are paying for a larger seat, then it should be a seat that doesn't have a hump in the middle (as many airline seats do, especially Boeing).

By the same token, why should a passenger have to pay for a full seat when they only need 0.75 seats? And, if some passengers need only 0.75 seats and others need 1.25 or 1.5, why are all economy seats the same size???

Economy seats should come in three sizes, at least. Further, the exact price of the ticket should be based on both the size of the the selected seat and the aggregate weight of the passenger plus their luggage. At check-in the passenger should get on a scale along with his or her luggage and then either pay or receive an adjusted amount. (And also be moved to a larger size if it's clear they won't fit in the size selected.)

Finally, if passengers are going to pay for a larger seat, they should also have access to a larger toilet.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That is a tiny, tiny man weighing 70kg

According to an NHS UK chart, 70kg is a healthy weight between two extremes: 5'6 to 6'4". It is the perfect wieght for someone about 5'10".

We have got so used to being fat, that we are unaware of what is normal.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

lucabrasiMay. 06, 2014 - 10:54PM JST I was 71kg and 181cm when I arrived in Japan, twenty-four years ago. And I was a big, muscly, rugby-playing thug.

Muscle weighs a little more than fat, and is far more dense (roughly 3 times as dense). Usain Bolt (the olympic sprinter) weights 94kgs and doesn't look at all fat. Ian Thorpe weighs 104kgs and looks positively skinny.

When I exercise heavily I put on a huge amount of weight very quickly, often much faster than I lose body fat, but in Japan they just take your weight and then tut tut about how your BMI isn't great, without checking body fat percentage and seeing that you're packing a lot more muscle than body fat.

Ah_soMay. 06, 2014 - 11:15PM JST According to an NHS UK chart, 70kg is a healthy weight between two extremes: 5'6 to 6'4". It is the perfect wieght for someone about 5'10". We have got so used to being fat, that we are unaware of what is normal.

Normal? Normal (according to the CDC) is 88kgs and 176cm, which is overweight (28.7 BMI) for someone with average body fat to muscle ratio (always a dangerous assumption).

0 ( +3 / -3 )

We have got so used to being fat, that we are unaware of what is normal.

So true. Not meaning to offend anyone, statistics show that 2 out of 5 Americans are obese and more than 3 out of 5 overweight. Percentage wise for American males the obesity rate is 44% and in comparison for the Japanese male it is 2%.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Frungy

What's the "CDC"? Thanks.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Frungy

No, anyone over weight would just have to pay their own way ... instead of everyone else have to pay for them.

I chose average weights for Italians as an example of generally quite healthy Westerners.

Average weight: men 72.5kg, women 59kg

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

lucabrasiMay. 06, 2014 - 11:48PM JST @Frungy What's the "CDC"? Thanks.

Center for Disease Control. They keep a mass of useful statistics on health matters. Their stuff is primarily for the U.S., but given the ethnic diversity in the U.S. it is often a useful reference point.

Mister EdMay. 07, 2014 - 12:26AM JST @Frungy No, anyone over weight would just have to pay their own way ... instead of everyone else have to pay for them. I chose average weights for Italians as an example of generally quite healthy Westerners. Average weight: men 72.5kg, women 59kg

You're engaging in what is referred to as "cherry picking". Women in France and Italy have the lowest BMIs in Europe, and Italy has the lowest percentage of men and women with BMIs over 25 which skews the data considerably. You're not presenting any sort of "average", you're presenting a very skewed view by focusing on a country that is internationally renowned for having a low BMI. Italy lies at the extreme on a number of issues, such as health, economic equality, etc. These things are all connected, and you can't just point to a single factor and say that is responsible for all the variation.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ta, Frungy ; )

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bfg487,

That is a tiny, tiny man weighing 70kg

A 70 kg male either is well below average height or has zero muscle mass.

If I may be so bold, these claims are indeed complete balderdash. The worldwide average male body weight is 67.7kg based on data collected by BMC Public Health:

Adults males from across 7 broad geographic regions:

Africa 60.7 kg (133.8 lb) Asia 57.7 kg (127.2 lb) Europe 70.8 kg (156.1 lb) Latin America and the Caribbean 67.9 kg (149.7 lb) Northern America 80.7 kg (177.9 lb) Oceania 74.1 kg (163.4 lb) World 62.0 kg (136.7 lb)

And no, the 80.7kg figure for North America is not because it's populated with giant, manly-men. It's because 74% of the North American population is overweight, as defined by guidelines set by WHO.

A 70kg male is fairly normal.

This is one of those instances where statistics simply can't lie or be massaged to paint a more flattering picture. Outliers like 70kg, 182cm tall boys. Respectfully, your son is normal, no matter how much one might like one boy to stand as representative of all 3 billion males on the planet.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was 71kg and 181cm when I arrived in Japan, twenty-four years ago. And I was a big, muscly, rugby-playing thug.

For someone playing a heavy contact sport like rugby, 71kg at 181 cm is really skinny.

The worldwide average male body weight is 67.7kg based on data collected by BMC Public Health:

Included africa, with malnutrition galore, and asia, where men are statistically small. Bad statistics.

And no, the 80.7kg figure for North America is not because it's populated with giant, manly-men. It's because 74% of the North American population is overweight, as defined by guidelines set by WHO.

I never said that, but Americans are, on average, taller than asians, and have better food access than africans. I know there is an obesity problem in America, but you cannot ignore that there are real, physical, structural differences between races.

Moreover, the person who I was originally replying to was ridiculous for saying that they should base airline fares around an average weight of 70 kg. The fuel cost difference for someone weighing 100kg vs weighing 70kg is negligible. The issue, here, is space consumed, and the comfort of the passengers.

I'm 200+cm, 96 kg. I fit in one seat just fine, provided I have exit row seating, which, as I previously stated, I have always gotten priority on. There's no reason for a plan like that to punish me for being tall.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Charge everybody by weight. TOTAL weight. Luggage, carry ons, checked bags.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Airlines shouldn't discriminate and be forced to supply seating for anyone at the same price.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

you cannot ignore that there are real, physical, structural differences between races.

I could ask the the same of you when you make comments like, "That is a tiny, tiny man weighing 70kg." North Americans constitute fewer than 5 percent of the world's total population. When we're talking about an industry, airlines, that serves a global population, making material and economic concessions to serve a small fraction of the marketplace makes little practical business sense.

The Top 3 airlines in the world are all European carriers. And while US travelers are No. 2 on the list of Top 10 world travelers by nationality, Germany takes the top spot, the UK the second spot, and China the fourth, currently spending only marginally less than the U.K. annually, something that's going to change very, very soon. The list is rounded out by France, Italy, Japan, Canada, Russia, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, with the arguable exception of some regions in China, there isn't one country on that list that doesn't enjoy as high or higher a standard of living than the U.S.

Americans . . . have better food access . . .

And that's part of the problem the airline industry is being forced to wrestle with.

Okay, let's say I just decide not to include Asia and Africa in the calculations, as per your implication that these regions represent statistical outliers. Even then, the world average weight for males still only bumps up to 73kg.

There's nothing ridiculous at all about airlines perhaps basing their fares on an average size in the realm of 70kg. It makes economic sense to aim for the average when the vast majority of your potential customers are not 6'5" tall, weighing in at 190kg. It bears noting that the two airline markets in the world where the debate over charging obese passengers more to fly first emerged are the U.S., where 74% of men are not simply overweight, but technically obese, and Samoa, where 74% percent of the male population is also technically obese.

The point is that this question of charging extra isn't aimed even remotely at simply tall or large-framed passengers. It's aimed at the issue of an ever-increasing population of obese passengers in a single market, and not the expression of some broader industry contempt for the 6'5" Adonises of the world, and their Venusian-hipped Classical sisters. That comes in another form entirely, which we could talk about for another 100 posts if we were to we look at the actually methodology used to decide seat sizing and spacing. Now that boggles the senses.

The fact of the matter is Americans just don't wield the sort of economic clout they once did, and the industry is responding accordingly.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Even if you are going to charge extra by weight, 70kg is still a small man in the world. Or a really skinny one.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Bugger off! I'm overweight and can sit in an economy seat just nicely thank you very much.

@hampton

It's the shoulder width and leg room that are the real issues. I don't think I have ever seen anyone morbidly obese attempt to get into an economy class seat. But for most males over about 5'5" flights are terrible. The tiny amount of space you were provided usually disappears when the selfish person in front of you reclines their seat. 12 hours to London with your knees crushed and your shoulders pulled in is deeply unpleasant.

I agree with you about the reclining passengers in front, but I've never had a problem with space on a flight from UK to Japan. I always pick either a window or aisle seat (or this year, at the emergency exit). As noted above I'm one of these dreaded overweight passengers but I've never had problems with shoulders or encroaching into another passenger's space. Then again, maybe KLM have broader seats in economy class, and they certainly have plenty of legroom - well for me anyway, and I'm around 5' 10". I always fly KLM. (Can I have my free upgrade now?)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Even then, the world average weight for males still only bumps up to 73kg.

Nope. I thought I knew exactly what you did to calculate that, and I was right: You simply removed asia and africa from the numbers you gave above and recalculated the average. Anyone who has taken elementary statistics will tell you that is horrible science. You are forgetting that there are not an even distribution of people in the world, so weight those numbers appropriately and try one more time.

the U.S., where 74% of men are not simply overweight, but technically obese

Does your statistical illiteracy know no bounds? Did you go to the wikipedia page for obesity and just look at the first statistic you found? If you take longer than 1 second to actually check your facts, you'll see that 74% are considered overweight AND obese, total, while simply overweight people account for over half of that.

There's nothing ridiculous at all about airlines perhaps basing their fares on an average size in the realm of 70kg.

It is ridiculous. The difference between a passenger weighing 70 kg and a passenger weighing 100kg is the difference of roughly 0.01% of the MAXIMUM flight capacity for an aircraft. The additional fuel costs may add up to...a few cents? Maybe a dollar?

If the airlines charge on weight and base it at 70kg, you know what will happen? Skinny people won't save any money, healthy people will pay a considerable amount more, and obese people will be charged about as much as it would cost for them to just pay for an additional seat.

Charging them for an additional seat makes sense, they are taking up space which the airline could have given to another passenger and made more money. Charging based on weight makes no sense, and will only serve to line the airline executive's pockets. Or do you honestly think airlines are doing so badly they need this policy?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I just decide not to include Asia and Africa in the calculations, as per your implication that these regions represent statistical outliers.

Classy discussions you're having guys... Lots of of difference is genetic and people don't chose. A 198 cm Russia man can be sickly underweight, just skin and bones, and a 130 cm Vietnamese lady can be very obese... and he won't fit in the "average seat" and won't be in the "normal weight range" , while she will probably. What do you call it when prices are calculated depending on people's ethnicity and DNA ?

if your hips are wider than 92 cm, you feel "squeezed". Is that the definition of "overweight" ? Yes, you probably are a little.

I was not asking about your preference (as interesting it can be it's OT here). 92 cm is size M for women, in clothing industry, a standard established in pre-obesity era. The 16 inch seats are designed for women size S. We are not talking "super-obese" extreme cases, I'm pointing that's everybody or his auntie that doesn't fit in "standard seats" of 21st century.

if we were to we look at the actually methodology used to decide seat sizing and spacing.

The methodology is double. PRIMO : FILL MORE. Tthey had 30 rows of 8 seats and reasonable space to walk in the alley. Then a genius said "Mmmm, we can reduce the padding of the wall of 1/2 inch each side, reduce the alley of 5 inches, each seat of 3 inches, space the arm rest bar between seats, reduce space leg, get rid of useless space for hand luggage... and I put you 35 rows of 10 seats. 240 seats >> 350 seats ! INCREASED PROFITS. $$$ These 350 bring more luggage weight and we have less cargo space for profit ? No wait, let's tell the passengers they have to get smaller hand luggage, smaller checked luggage allowance (so we charge excess luggage to more people). $$$ SEGUNDO : BULLY PASSENGERS INTO PAYING MORE. Make a mega fuss in media about the case of super-obeses, so everybody says you are so right. Then tell average people they have become FAT, that they should feel ashamed to bother other people, so they should pay 2 seats if they don't want to live a torture. Or pay even more if they want to be able walk in the alley (instead of crawling through it with their bag on the head in cattle class). $$$ Of course, they now that even the skinny small framed backpackers have never traveled in so bad conditions. That's the plan : they want a maximum of people to find the cattle class so hard on the body, so they will beg to upgrade (for a fee !) even if they need to sell a kidney for that. $$$

The difference between a passenger weighing 70 kg and a passenger weighing 100kg is the difference of roughly 0.01% of the MAXIMUM flight capacity for an aircraft. The additional fuel costs may add up to...a few cents? Maybe a dollar?

EXACTLY. It's to get more profits. People wouldn't accept that from any other businesses.

There's nothing ridiculous at all about airlines perhaps basing their fares on an average size

Then make people test their lung capacity, so they should be surcharged if they breath too much... . What is scary is the same management is trusted to make planes fly safely ! Like that Malaysian Airlines Jet where it seems they had switched of the GPS to save on the batteries...as they cut absolutely every corner.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@ Mr Ed

It is now "offensive" to call people fat incase it hurts their feelings. Don't get fat then is my answer. The main problem for airlines is that the heavier the person the more fuel it takes to carry you from A to B.The bottom line is fat people put the prices up for those who look after themselves . Higher prices for bigger people are justified. ISomeone who has a disability or health issue that makes it hard to be slim should have this taken into account.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@ falseflagsteve

Of course, and airline tickets is not the only, nor the greater burden on society the trend places.

Looking at the calculations above and the individuals stating, "it's only .01%" etc ... calculate it differents;

A Boeing 777 carried 450 passengers.

450 Asian women weigh 22,500 kg

450 Average American men weigh 37,350 kg

A difference of 14,850 kg. What are the freight cost of sending 14,850kg by air?

And yet both pay the same ticket price.

Why should Asian women subsidise American men's airfares?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

450 Asian women weigh 22,500 kg; 450 Average American men weigh 37,350 kg; A difference of 14,850 kg. What are the freight cost of sending 14,850kg by air?

Ridiculous. If the only way you could show your point was to pit a group 450 people who are 15% smaller than the world average against 450 people 15% larger than the world average, that should be a pretty clear indicator that you are grasping for straws at best, and likely stooping to intellectual dishonesty.

Your logic leads not to the conclusion you were looking for, but to the conclusion that men should be charged more than women. Why should asian women subsidize asian men's airfare?

Also, humans are not freight. You cannot load freight into a passenger seat on a 777. Well, I mean, you could, but I don't think the passengers would be happy about it.

What about taxis, should they charge overweight people more? They use more gas, after all. How about hotels? Heavier people put more stress on the beds, floors, etc. Amusement parks, too, more weight means more stress on the rides.

You see how ridiculous that argument is? The only option that makes sense is to charge someone who takes up an additional seat. That person is not only taking revenue from the airline, they are worsening the flight experience for the passengers who they would otherwise be spilling over onto.

Charge based on seats used: Yes. Charge based on weight: Absolutely not.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Heavier duty trucks and motor vehicles, and motor vehicles in comparison to motorcycles and scooters, all pay more road tax due to the greater damage they do.

Therefore, the principle is already used in excess luggage where it is the weight, not size that matters.

Weight, not volume is the problem. The volumetric limits do not change. You could squash 450 Samoan into the same space.

That is why it is absolutely unfair to charge a 50kg Japanese women for 5 kg of excess luggage when a 100kg American man pays the same airfare.

All flyers should have a single weight allowance of body plus bags combined and pay for anything extra above that limit equally as excess baggage rates.

To be fair, call it 80kgs ... an 80 kg male with 30kg bag would pay a 30kg excess.

A 40 kg Japanese woman with 20kg bag should be awarded and credited for 10kg.

It's all about encouraging what is good and economical and discouraging what is bad and uneconomical.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The bottom line is fat people put the prices up for those who look after themselves . Higher prices for bigger people are justified.

What about people like me and mine who like lifting weights? We look after ourselves, but we are much bigger than your "average" 70 kg skinny-fat man who can't do a single push-up without having a coronary.

I fit in a seat without much of a problem, but I am much heavier than 70 kg. Why should I pay more for a healthy lifestyle choice I made?

Additional seat charges make a lot of sense, paying per weight over an "average" weight is absurd.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Therefore, the principle is already used in excess luggage where it is the weight, not size that matters.

Have you ever flown? The weight AND size matter, because it's freight. With people, only size matters.

Weight, not volume is the problem.

You can keep saying this as many times as you want, it will never become true. In the passenger area, volume is the problem. There is a fixed limit on seats. You could have an overeater's anonymous convention book an entire plane, and the airline would incur next to no additional running cost than a normal flight.

That is why it is absolutely unfair to charge a 50kg Japanese women for 5 kg of excess luggage when a 100kg American man pays the same airfare.

No, it's fair because they both consume 1 seat in the passenger area. If they consume 2 seats, they should be charged for 2 seats.

It's all about encouraging what is good and economical and discouraging what is bad and uneconomical.

What you're suggesting would accomplish neither of those things. It would accomplish saving skinny and smaller-than-average people no money, charging many people within a healthy weight range much more money, and not change anything for obese people. No one would lose weight to save money on flights. In the end, only the airline execs would gain from this.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Well Presto, there's nothing standard about my kids, that's for sure. They enjoy working out and have the body to show for it as well. Should they be penalized for making right lifestyle choices and a heck of a good set of muscular genes? I believe not, but that's mostly because I would end-up being the one who has the pay for their airfares, so I might be a little biased here, I admit.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Mister EdMay. 07, 2014 - 09:08PM JST A Boeing 777 carried 450 passengers. A difference of 14,850 kg. What are the freight cost of sending 14,850kg by air?

Considering that a fueled Boeing 777 weighs 170,650kg without any passengers the actual percentage rise in fuel consumption is minimal, no more than a few percentage points at best after you factor in baggage, safety equipment, the pilot and crew, the meals and other assorted sundries etc. the weight of actual passengers becomes a minor factor.

Why should Asian women subsidise American men's airfares?

Probably because no airline could fill a plane if it said, "Asian women only". Asian women have husbands, most of whom weight more than their wives, and who would be offended and would cancel both tickets if the airline said they couldn't fly or had to pay extras.

And when you consider that you're lifting 170 000kgs into the air you really do need a full airplane to make it worthwhile.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Yes, unless they have a condition that a doctor can sign off on, you chose to eat what you eat, and every extra pound on a plane means gas costs and less passengers, as a plane has a max km load with cargo.

I am sorry but for a nations like America or others who refuse to see this is mostly a issue about choice, you live with those choices.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

People are getting larger, but the greedy airlines keep shrinking their seats. At the airport you can often see devices for checking hand luggage size: if your bag doesn't fit in it's not allowed. Airlines should be forced to have a similar device for passengers. If the passenger cannot fit in he can either obtain a full refund from the airline, or choose to pay extra for a larger seat. By making the full refund option compulsory the airlines will be prevented from making their seats too small: they will have to make them large enough to minimise the number of refunds they have to pay out.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

70 kg (154 lbs) is actually literally an IDEAL weight by BMI for the average US Male at 5'10". 70 kg is considered "overweight" under 5'6". Just because you're bigger than that doesn't mean that people at that weight are the ones who are unhealthy.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Good idea Scrote. It's already a reality in the Samoan Islands where it has already become a safety factors. Passengers are weighed to make sure the airplane can take off.

What's interesting is to observe how sure some defensive individual can be of positions absolutely contradicting reality.

Bearing in Air Canada has already removed life vest from some plane to save 25kg in extra weigh, for those who claim there are no differences I offer the following ...

Dr. Bharat P. Bhatta, prof economics at Sogn og Fjordane University, Norway published a paper in the Journal of Revenue & Pricing Management noting, “a reduction of 1 kilo weight of a plane will result in fuel savings worth US$3,000 a year and a reduction of CO2 emissions by the same token.”

Note, it not just about money, it's also about environmental costs & pollution.

Using 1998 figures, Aircraftinteriorsinternational.com compared a 1st percentile UK females weighing 44kg with a 99th percentile UK males weighing 117kg flying LHR - JFK.

Female 44kg - Fuel, 93kg - Fuel cost, $65 Male 117kg - Fuel, 249kg - Fuel cost, $172

Almost 300% more.

Comparing 5th % UK female and 95th % UK male on a short haul

Female 49kg - 5kg excess baggage - Fuel, 20kg - Fuel cost, $13 Male 103kg - standard allowance - Fuel, 33kg - Fuel cost, $23

(Average passenger was calculated at 73kg)

A typically Asian adult female, carrying 5kg of excess baggage, would consume 40% less than that of a typically heavy male carrying the prescribed allowable baggage.

Other problems arise. Larger passengers require larger seats which mean less seats in each aircraft which means higher costs for all passengers, between 10% to 15% losses or increase in unit price. We all pay more for fat flyers. Heavier loads also increase material and maintenance requirements.

Ludicrously, in the US, air companies are afraid is instilling such policies for fear of being sue as discrimination against disability. Individuals who have eaten themselves into obesity are claiming they are being discriminated against and want the rest of us to pay for them.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

What's interesting is to observe how sure some defensive individual can be of positions absolutely contradicting reality.

Indeed.

a reduction of 1 kilo weight of a plane will result in fuel savings worth US$3,000 a year

K. How much is that per flight? Per mile? What kind of plane? Passenger or cargo? Was the weight they were referring to actual load weight, or the weight of the frame of the plane? Link, maybe?

Aircraftinteriorsinternational.com compared a 1st percentile UK females weighing 44kg with a 99th percentile UK males weighing 117kg flying LHR - JFK.

Again, grasping for straws when you have to use an anorexic high school girl in order to try and demonstrate your point. These are the 1% you're talking about here, meaning that for the vast majority of passengers, this price discrepancy does not occur. The majority of people, being in a much tighter price range, will only be 'underpaying' or 'overpaying' by a matter of a few dollars.

Larger passengers require larger seats which mean less seats in each aircraft which means higher costs for all passengers

Which is why people who take up multiple seats should pay for multiple seats.

in the US, air companies are afraid is instilling such policies

Because passenger flights are a hospitality industry, and not a freight industry.

Should your idea of weight-based pricing occur, here's what will NOT happen:

Skinny people will not save much money. Obese people will not lose weight. The environment will not be any better off (laughable that you included that)

Here's what WILL happen:

Many healthy people will be charged a significant amount more money. The airline executives will line their pockets with the rates they will charge (Laughable that you think its a cost issue). Obese people (i.e. the problem, here) will pay as much as they would have had to under the 'buy two seats' policy.

You're slipping further and further into intellectual dishonesty, so I'll end the conversation here.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yes, run away as soon as someone starts quote financial and industry experts on the issue. I gave you the references the industry is producing. Please go and study them and question their authors, rather than personally insulting me. Of course you know better than a professor in the industry ...

You clearly don't understand what and how industrial designers though, nor how financial analysts have to think, when they design something like an aircraft, or even public transport (which also has to carry the burden).

44kg is by no means "anorexic" for an Asian woman, especially an older one. It was the figure given by the industry for a British woman.

The papers prove there is a significant cost to greater weights, up to 300%, and you cannot deny more fuel equal more pollution.

They should pay for their greed and gluttony, not the rest of us.

At the very least, in a fair world, skinny people should be rewarded a bigger baggage allowance equal to their obesity. Does that sound unfair?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

No more bickering please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am 5'8, or 173cm - 3cm above average height in Japan (5'7), 5cm under average height in Australia (5'10). Worldwide, the average height for a man is reportedly 5'6. Kelly Slater, the world's greatest athlete and most enviable human on the planet, is 175cm, and 73kg.

I weight 71kg, exercise a lot and am fit.

I fit quite comfortably into a airline seat, and by that I mean it's a snuggish fit without being uncomfortable, however I have definitely thought a few times that I wouldn't want to be much bigger.

I think fat people should pay more. Sorry, but I do. And that they should be seated in the fat section of the plane. Because it's obnoxious and very inconvenient to sit next to someone who is fat. They have great difficulty manoeuvring into the space provided for them, which means it's a big production if you have to get out, or go past them for any reason, or if there is any movement at all. And what about in an emergency? My guess is that the presence of a fat person in a confined space like a plane greatly increases the level of danger to those around him/her, and probably significantly impacts on your likelihood of survival.

They obviously spill over into your space, which I detest and simply don't think I should have to be subjected to anywhere I go, at any time, and certainly not as a paying customer to an airline. Why? Why should I have to tolerate someone impinging on my space?

So, it's a big yes from me.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

if you have more than XXX Kg of luggage you are charged, so if someone is around 90-100kg thats about right so if someone is 200kg + why shouldn't they pay extra? the aircraft uses extra fuel to carry the extra weight, this is why the charge for extra luggage, in economy thing are pretty tight size wise, I think that someone who is 200kg + siting next to some one of that size is going to be so uncomfortable its just not fair! if they need the extra room go business class where there is extra room or travel in the cargo hold ( with a hot water bottle)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I feel that yes, an obese person should buy more than one seat, you are paying for the space you occupy and if you fill any fraction more than a single seat, you should buy another. I am just over 200kg (down 26kg BTW) and I think it just makes sense, but the airline better give me both seats,the seats better be next to each other, I should be able to lift the armrest, receive a seat belt extension without hassle and give me TWO bags of peanuts!

Those of you that feel ashamed to admit that you think that overweight people should pay more, don't. Why should you be uncomfortable because I am spilling over my armrest into your space. You paid for that space and you deserve to have it.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Yes, fat people should buy two seats, out of comfort and respect for their seat neighboors. Airlines should also restrain the number of fat people per flight, for the same reasons. I have fat friends, they're nice, but there are situations where being overweight is really an issue, not prejudice.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

if the overweight are required to pay more for spilling over, can i pay less for being forty pounds underweight and a twig of a human being? if i'm traveling with an overweight friend, can i use my lack of weight to cancel out his fatty fee? who's going to be in charge of wrapping measuring tape around people to determine whether or not they're going to be charged for a second seat? what if you showed up at your airport and some skinny woman working for the airline said to you, when you've already paid for your ticket in advance, "we're going to have to charge you more for being too big. if you can't pay, you can't fly" that's like directly asking for a shouting match concerning morality and fairness, because i guarantee introducing such a policy silently won't be taken sitting down.

without a doubt it's uncomfortable being seated between overweight people. you kind of want to use the armrests, but this usually involves skin contact, a bit awkward if you're unfamiliar with both parties, and not the best way to strike up conversation "for the next eight hours, i am going to be touching you, and there is nothing you can do about it". then again, you're strapped into a twenty thousand ton tin can speeding through the air. rather than worrying about swapping sweat with strangers, i tend to think about the fact that if anything goes wrong, we're all boned.

and rather than having a fat-shaming 'obese class' can't we solve an age old problem that everyone complains about? give all the restless kids their own class, separate from the adults who want to rest. just strap child seats to the wing, put them inside the overhead compartments, or let them play in the cargo bay, anything is fine with me.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

No. The answer is for airlines to make bigger seats. You are primarily paying for the carrier to transport you from one place to another. You are not really paying to occupy 'a space' on an aircraft. A seat is really just a convenient place to put you to stop you rolling around and falling down in flight. Otherwise they could have cheap standing tickets like they do on trains.

Make the seats bigger. Airlines will of course complain about reduced margins but they can cut costs in other areas. For example, why offer food as standard? I would rather bring my own bento box onto a flight. The airline won't have to pay for that. Passengers can easily request a meal when they book a ticket, thus allowing airlines to order exactly what they need.

And what's with these fuel surcharges, when we all know airlines buy fuel futures in order to avoid fluctuations in fuel prices.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Theoretically, a designed distribution of seat lengths and widths which matches the expected distribution of leg lengths and body widths of the passengers would allow for the cheapest fares while ensuring minimum sufficient room for all. Of course there are other details, like how to price tickets and allocate seats so small customers are not lost to other airlines. In the end, capitalism might dictate price differentials where small customers pay less than large.

For a person who is 1.3 times average width to pay for 2 x width seems like a predator pricing policy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes, very fat passengers should pay premium for 'fat' seats. I'm sick and tired of seating next to someone whose lard or fat overflow into mine. Plus these 'people' tend to sweat a lot more and are mostly North Americans. The stench!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

As someone of average height and weight (175cm, 70kg), even I find it offensive that this is even a question. The onus should be on the airlines to stop making economy seats and leg room smaller and smaller to cram more passengers onto each flight. To charge people extra just because they don't fit into seats that even I barely find comfortable is just blatant discrimination. Seating onboard aircraft needs to be standardised to accommodate even the 'reasonably' obese (ie. those who can still fit into cars and other modes of transport independently without inconveniencing others or themselves.)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If i pay $x for an airline seat, then i expect to have access to 100% of that seat. If another passenger starts to encroach on my space that i have paid for, then i ask the flight attendants to either move myself or the other person to another seat so that i can have "what i have paid for." Explain to them that if they refuse then they are not abiding by the contract of sale for that seat, and you would have cause for redress.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If a person is so large as to need two seats than he/she must pay for the second seat.

The only two things that are guaranteed in life are taxes and death yet even in death you pay through the nose to get there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I flew from Naha to Narita on a JAL flight and I always pay extra for the better seats as i have long legs, but once there was a giant Polynesian sumo wrestler on my flight who had to overflow into two seats.

My Japanese wife who is very petite and loves shopping when she comes home with me looked at him and started complaing to me that on her flight back from UK, JAL would limit her baggage allowance or charge her extra even though her total wieght including her baggage would be no where near as much as some passengers.

I think all passengers should be wieghed along with their luggage and charged by the kilo. The airline could charge a price for a specific weight and you get a refund if your below it or its up to you to pay the extra lard allowence.

People accept it at the post office when they go to send an overseas parcel so why not their flight ticket

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would love an airline that just charged by weight. Tag everyone to a version of the BMI (body mass index) give like a 5kg tolerance for body and a 10kg tolerance for luggage then charge incrementally for every 5kg the total.

After the initial SJW backlash, team up with an athletic apparel/fitness app provider and some global gym associations to encourage weight loss based discounts (ex; book your next holiday 2 months in advance and lose 7kg and get an extra 7% off your flight or an extra 7kg of luggage allowance.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've had the misfortune to be on long haul flights sat next to obese individuals whose bodied encroached into my personal space. They should have to buy two seats. If your blubber is in my personal space then you are too big for the seat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow the weight nazis are out in force on this thread. What do you suggest... all online booking sites ask for your height, weight and waist size now?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I can’t believe some of the comments on here. I am extremely over weight and I do try and get a business class sit when I fly, but not all flights have business class on short trips. I am not overweight cause I eat the whole buffet as some people are implying. I have to take High doses of steroids for autoimmune diseases. I also use a cane for balance. So why do I have to be charged extra for a medical condition. I try to be curious and ask for a sit that is empty next to me. All I am saying here is not all of us “tub of lards” are over eating and doing this to ourselves. Be curious to people around you cause you don’t know there stories.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites