athwong said:I think it is a great idea to charge by the pound. You are afterall just cargo. If the post office ships by weight, why not airlines? Perhaps the fat surcharge could go towards a price discount for anorexics and super skinny people. Ryannair should be all over this idea.

The airlines already have scales at each counter. I don't see anything wrong with this idea. It forces people to pay for the resources they consume. Fatties need more jet fuel to get from point A to point B, and should pay more than light people. We'll probably never see this come to fruition, but it is the most equitable.

For now, if you take up 2 seats, you should pay for them.

Now only if they charge people a shower fee. I have sat next to some people that smell like sh*t! They can require these people to take a shower in the airline lounge. Second they can require parents to purchase either a gag or sedatives for their obnoxious little loud mouthed children!

lb9123 said:HawkeyeNFO said:athwong said:I think it is a great idea to charge by the pound. You are afterall just cargo. If the post office ships by weight, why not airlines? Perhaps the fat surcharge could go towards a price discount for anorexics and super skinny people. Ryannair should be all over this idea.

The airlines already have scales at each counter. I don't see anything wrong with this idea. It forces people to pay for the resources they consume. Fatties need more jet fuel to get from point A to point B, and should pay more than light people. We'll probably never see this come to fruition, but it is the most equitable.

For now, if you take up 2 seats, you should pay for them.


I beg to differ on the weight issue. Muscle weighs 2x as more than fat, so a person can weigh much more than your chicken leg self, and not be a fattie!

Irrelevant.

Cost per pound per mile for flying on an airliner has nothing to do with muscle, fat, or anything else.
It requires the same amount of JP-5 to fly 60 x 200-pound individuals 1000 miles as it does to fly 30 x 400-pound fatties the same 1000 miles. Either way, its 12,000 pounds of people.

henare said:so do the folks stuck with this charge get 2x mileage for their 2x fare?
Pay half and share the seat.

Last I checked - pregnant women didn't spill over onto my seat and force me to hold my breath till the plane landed!

sooperman said:Go United!

Are they going to charge pregnant women too?

hmm....

athwong said:I think it is a great idea to charge by the pound. You are afterall just cargo. If the post office ships by weight, why not airlines? Perhaps the fat surcharge could go towards a price discount for anorexics and super skinny people. Ryannair should be all over this idea.

From a strictly cost-efficiency perspective, yes, passengers are just cargo. But air travel is a service industry, and delighting your customers is your top priority. Most customers I think would prefer not to be thought of as 'cargo.' True, this policy might sound like a service pleaser for some, but I can't REALLY see this improving my overall travel experience too dramatically-- at least not enough to offend a large percentage of your customer base.

Some of these comments are downright mean. Funny but mean, and I'm a little ashamed for laughing.

If Mr. or Ms. Doublewide pays for 2 seats, does the airline guarantee that the seats will be adjacent?

markbyte said:squirrelproductions said:markbyte said:I think United is justified in this practice because United is forced to expend more resources to accommodate an obese person. More weight = more jet fuel used. This is a simple matter of physics.Conversely, when I fly with my 7yo, should he pay a fare relative to his weight (< 50lbs) as well? I'm all for that!

I wish it worked that way so that I could take my dog on a trip at a fraction of the cost. But, in the case of your 7 year old, they have to reserver a full seat for him thus the full charge.

Apparently, you are talking out your @$$ on this topic as I have flown my pets numerous times and have never been charged full fare or even anything close to it for them. If they will fit in a carrier that will go under a seat, there is one rate. If they are too large for that, they pay the cargo rate and go into a special area of the cargo holds.

tedmales said:This hits home for me. I am not what you would call small. I stand 6'6" tall and weigh in at 380 lbs. Size 15 shoe. I hate flying. There is no room for me. Its not the width, but the leg room. I can buckle in without the extension, so I guess I will not get charged extra. But what's next. I know to most it's ok attack fat people, smokers, etc. But what comes next. The airlines need to take a hard look at their business plan. I don’t think this will work out for them in the end.

You are not being attacked. It's just that I don't want to sit next to you on a cross-country flight. You wouldn't want to sit next to someone your size, either. Normal-sized people would flock to United to avoid sitting next to the big-boned, especially since the other airlines will get stuck with all the over-sized passengers.

Southwest and other airlines already do this