Airliners to charge by the pound?

Kludge

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
21,719
Airlines May Start Treating Passengers `Like Freight' (Update1)


By Michael Janofsky
data



June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Imagine two scales at the airline ticket counter, one for your bags and one for you. The price of a ticket depends upon the weight of both.
That may not be so far-fetched.
``You listen to the airline CEOs, and nothing is beyond their imagination,'' said David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group. ``They have already begun to think exotically. Nothing is not under the microscope.'' He declined to discuss what any individual airline might be contemplating, including charging passengers based on weight.
With fuel costs almost tripling since 2000, now accounting for as much as 40 percent of operating expenses at some carriers, according to the ATA, airlines are cutting costs and raising revenue in ways that once were unthinkable. U.S. Airways Group Inc. has eliminated snacks. Delta Air Lines Inc. is charging $25 for telephone reservations. AMR Corp.'s American Airlines last month became the first U.S. company to charge $15 for one checked bag.
Even a cold drink may be harder to come by aloft.
Singapore Airlines Ltd., whose shares have fallen 8.9 percent this year, is ``trying to eliminate unnecessary quantities of extra water'' to save weight, Chief Executive Officer Chew Choon Seng said in an interview.
``When you hear some people talking about putting showers on their planes, that strikes me as counterintuitive,'' he said.
Logical Step
After U.S. airlines reported combined first-quarter losses of $1.7 billion and crude oil jumped to a record $133.17 a barrel on May 21, almost double from a year earlier, fares based on a passenger's weight may be a logical step, said Robert Mann, head of R.W. Mann & Co., an aviation consultant based in Port Washington, New York.
``If you look at the air-freight business, that's the way they've always done it,'' he said. ``We're getting treated like air freight when we travel by airlines, anyway.''
``Laughter aside, the airlines are just in a desperate situation,'' said David Swierenga, president of consulting firm Aeroecon in Round Rock, Texas, who dismissed weight-based ticket sales and steep price increases as unrealistic.
Since December, eight companies have ceased flying, largely because of fuel costs -- MaxJet Airways Inc., Big Sky Transportation Co., Aloha Airlines Inc., ATA Airlines, Skybus Airlines Inc., Eos Airlines, Silverjet Plc. and the charter- flight operator Champion Air. Air Midwest, a division of Mesa Air Group Inc., is ceasing operations this month.
$6.1 Billion Loss
Airlines may report combined losses of $6.1 billion this year, the worst since 2003, the International Air Transport Association said yesterday in Istanbul. Swierenga said the only meaningful way for them to reach profitability is to idle a portion of their fleets, which would allow them to reduce costs associated with fuel and labor.
``The solution lies in capacity cuts,'' he said.
That's already begun. Ryanair Holdings Plc, whose shares have dropped 38 percent this year, will ground 20 aircraft this winter, equivalent to about 10 percent of total capacity, Chief Financial Officer Howard Millar said today. American said on May 21 up to 45 planes, most of them aging Boeing Co. MD-80s, would be dropped from its 655-jet fleet along with as many as 40 aircraft from its 305-plane Eagle regional unit.
``Most other airlines will have similar cuts as well,'' said Jim Corridore, an analyst for Standard & Poor's in New York.
Measures Taken
Airlines have also taken shorter-term steps even if they have stopped short of weighing passengers.
Japan Airlines Corp. is using crockery in first-class and business-class cabins that is 20 percent lighter than the service items they replaced.
Southwest Airlines Co. is flying slower -- by 72 seconds, for example, on Houston-Los Angeles flights, which now take 3 hours 14 minutes. That saves 8.7 gallons of fuel for each of the airline's four daily nonstops on the 1,387-mile route, 34.8 gallons a day overall, said Marilee McInnis, a company spokeswoman.
Southwest comes closest to charging for weight, asking passengers to buy a second seat if their girth prevents the armrest from lowering.
Power Change
American Airlines has switched from using on-board power units that draw down jet fuel while planes are parked at gates to electrical generators on the ground, said Steve Lott, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association.
Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Europe's second-largest airline, is one of several that has begun washing planes more frequently, said Lott, pointing out that dirt on a fuselage increases wind resistance.
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., Hong Kong's largest carrier, is ordering money-saving changes that passengers won't notice, said managing director Tony Tyler, who declined to cite them.
``Customers notice quickly if you start to take away service elements,'' he said. ``We operate in a very competitive market and can't afford to let the competition get a march on us.''
One airline that is unlikely to start weighing its customers is Dubai-based Emirates, the largest carrier in the Gulf region.
``That is something that when I was a check-in agent in the early 70s I used to do and it was the most horrific experience, trying to get people to stand on scales,'' said Tim Clark, the airline president. ``It's not something that we would do.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Janofsky in Los Angeles at [email protected]
Last Updated: June 3, 2008 11:55 EDT
 
Is hauling heavy people more expensive than defending your airline against a slew of discrimination suits?
 
This actually makes the most sense and is the fairest system of all since the fuel used is directly proportional to weight and thus cost. I fail to see how discrimination is an issue here since everyone is literally judged on the same scale. The problem would be getting people to go along with this since 70% of america is overweight. Its kind of funny though because there are so many people who would refuse to get on a scale because they dont want people to see their actual weight. Seriously, we can see that you are a fat ass, putting a number on it isnt going to make it any worse LOL.
 
I kind of like the idea, but it'll never go over. Plus, a 90lb weakling takes up the same seat as a 200lb musclehead.

Perhaps a base charge for the seat, plus lbs x fuel consumption.
 
Seriously, we can see that you are a fat ass, putting a number on it isnt going to make it any worse LOL.

And yet I suspect that some people would rather be strip searched right in line than to prominently display that number.
 
I like this as a free-market approach to the trans-fat tax. Health insurance companies are starting to do a good job on focusing on preventative care as well.
 
Its about time this is getting talked about more. Ive been an advocate for it for a coupe of years now...I'm sick of subsidising those that can't keep their head out of the KFC bucket. :)
 
I would boycott airlines if they did this...well I'm already boycotting them.

The airlines would not have a problem with that. They need to cut down on capacity and boycotting only the makes the situation better for them.

Anyway, I like the idea. It might make me go to the gym more often... free market at work! yaaaayyyy
 
Hell they should do that at buffets! Mam, I see here you weigh 245lbs, if your gonna have your Golden Corral tonight you are gonna have to fork up 24.95 based on your fatassness! Then again, the individual does have the right to be a fatass without discrimination...damn, this is an interesting issue which I could deffinetely probably still be persuaded either way...
 
Hell they should do that at buffets! Mam, I see here you weigh 245lbs, if your gonna have your Golden Corral tonight you are gonna have to fork up 24.95 based on your fatassness! Then again, the individual does have the right to be a fatass without discrimination...damn, this is an interesting issue which I could deffinetely probably still be persuaded either way...

If I owned an all-you-can-eat buffet, I'd have a scale that declares by voice and display "You are too fat to eat here!" if over xxx lbs just for the laughs.
 
The airlines would not have a problem with that. They need to cut down on capacity and boycotting only the makes the situation better for them.

Anyway, I like the idea. It might make me go to the gym more often... free market at work! yaaaayyyy

You're joking right?
 
Ok, first they are going to scan us and see through our clothes,

Then we have to weigh in . . . . . . .

Hmmmmm -- I see a decline in female passengers . . . . .
 
Last edited:
This actually makes the most sense and is the fairest system of all since the fuel used is directly proportional to weight and thus cost. I fail to see how discrimination is an issue here since everyone is literally judged on the same scale. The problem would be getting people to go along with this since 70% of america is overweight. Its kind of funny though because there are so many people who would refuse to get on a scale because they dont want people to see their actual weight. Seriously, we can see that you are a fat ass, putting a number on it isnt going to make it any worse LOL.

It is only *partially* proportional to weight of passengers and baggage. The volume (and weight) of the plane itself (plus fuel & etc) still require fuel; an empty plane cannot fly on zero fuel.

I can see putting some type of minor "surcharge" on people over an average weight... but charging (directly and only) on a per-pound basis would be absurd.

And the flight planning and capacity of flights is still far too inefficient.

Of course it's not really a problem for me, since I don't fly commercial anymore (not since the idiocy of TSA was implemented -- it is truly amazing what you all can via internet these days if you simply draw that line in the sand). :D
 
You're joking right?

Of course not. The airlines are losing money and need to raise fares and cut capacity. Next time, learn some economics before you ask me if i am joking (while you are at it, learn some history).
 
Last edited:
Of course not. The airlines are losing money and need to raise fares and cut capacity. Next time, learn some economics before you ask me if i am jocking (while you are at it, learn some history).

No they need to increase the number people of flying. Not decrease them. They will start losing all their business if they keep this up; there are alternate forms of travel.
 
No they need to increase the number people of flying. Not decrease them. They will start losing all their business if they keep this up; there are alternate forms of travel.

The planes are full.

What they need to do is either what Dan said, or fly larger gauge aircraft less often to cut down expenses and increase yield.
 
The planes are not full....if they were full they wouldn't be having to increase rates at this rate.


Well I take that back, they are full, because they delay every plane until its completely full. They won't even take off with 75% of the passengers anymore.....crazy.
 
The planes are not full....if they were full they wouldn't be having to increase rates at this rate.


Well I take that back, they are full, because they delay every plane until its completely full. They won't even take off with 75% of the passengers anymore.....crazy.

High school economics. Corporations act on incentive. As demand increases, price increases.
 
The planes are not full....if they were full they wouldn't be having to increase rates at this rate.


Well I take that back, they are full, because they delay every plane until its completely full. They won't even take off with 75% of the passengers anymore.....crazy.

So are you saying if the are not 75% full, they don't take off?
 
Back
Top