June 9, 2008, 10:38 am
A story on Yahoo news mentions that the Philadelphia newspapers are running advertisements for a fake airline, Derrie-Air (get it?). The airline advertises that it is carbon-neutral, and that it charges per passenger pound — $1.40 from Philadelphia to Chicago, $2.25 from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.
Screen shot from flyderrie-air.com.While quite mythical, this pricing structure is not unreasonable: the heavier people cost more to ship; and at a time when fuel prices are so high, this seems especially important and a good way of letting price reflect marginal cost.
Also, heavier people spill over onto their neighbors’ seats, generating negative externalities for the other passengers. So I hope a few real-world airlines take notes and think about charging heavier passengers extra.
Might the women in question still have high standards, ruling out the blokes from Mount Isa?”
2008
10:40 am
Don’t just take the weight of the passenger, you should also consider the weight of the luggage.
— Posted by doug
2008
10:46 am
Being an obese person, you may find it surprising that I do not object to paying (at least partly) based on weight. But I have 2 suggestions:
1) The airlines should show how they arrive at their price per pound.
2) Those paying substantially more should get wider seats, perhaps in the back.
— Posted by Craig
2008
11:00 am
I would love this as I’m grossly underweight.
— Posted by Joe
2008
11:03 am
I think an approach similar to the one taken with smokers should be followed. Just as it is illegal to smoke aboard an airplane, it should be illegal to be overweight aboard an airplane. If one wants to be overweight in one’s own home, so be it, but regular people should not have to be exposed to it.
— Posted by colin
2008
11:04 am
As “The Largest Poster on Freakonomics” (will that get me in the Guinness book?), I have some thoughts….
First, I certainly understand that a big buy costs more to transport than a small one. But consider that the big man is NOT receiving the same sort of service the smaller man is.
While the small guy can sit comfortably in the seat, the big guy (who is presumeably paying more) must shoehorn his fat behind into a seat made, really, for a large toddler–or else pay four times as much to go first class.
Not fair.
And then there’s the food. If I’m going to pay more, then I’m thinking that the Coke and bag of peanuts that fully satisfies the small man should be upgraded to a LARGE Coke and three bags of peanuts in order that I get similar treatment.
Instead of separate but equal discrimination, the big person is getting “same but UNEQUAL” discrimination.
Very simply, I would be happy to pay more to fly. But to pay more to fly while STILL being painfully strapped into a flying baby seat…that’s not right.
Second, is weight the only factor in “cost of shipping”? I’m thinking that a troublesome, drunken passenger is more expensive (in wasted time and lost goodwill) than a guy who weighs 350 lbs. Or how about the parents with the screaming children that ensure that everyone is on edge (not their fault–but maybe my weight isn’t my fault)?
Here’s a possible list of charges:
X dollars per pound.
Will you be drinking? If so, add X dollars per pound.
Will you be travelling with children under the age of 4? If so, add X dollars per pound.
Bad breath? Flatulence? Add X dollars per pound.
Like to talk controversial politics or religions? Add X dollars per pound.
Will you be sleeping? If so, do you snore? If so, add X dollars per pound.
All of these have a “cost” to the airline. If not in measureable costs, then in goodwill and customer satisfaction (which may cost even more).
Just my 14 cents.
— Posted by AaronS
2008
11:19 am
Bad idea, in fact extremely bad. You pay not only for the fuel, but for the seat, out of a limited number, so there should be a fixed price for that at least. And the miniscule increase in rationality in the pricing, which would benefit a minority, would be outweighed by it being a pointless irritant to people of normal weight, and an outrage to those above normal. How many of you want to be weighed at the airport?
That said, anyone who requires two seats to sit comfortably should be able (and if necessary required) to do that, both for their own benefit and that of their neighbours. Or perhaps that’s how it is already?
— Posted by Bjørn Stærk
2008
11:21 am
Why not start charging for babies since their weight supposedly makes a difference? Why not charge more for people who just ate before boarding since they weigh more?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to sit next to some guy in a speedo because he wants to save $4.50 from lessening his weight because he isn’t wearing clothes to save money on his airfare.
— Posted by Matt, Ohio
2008
11:28 am
Terrific! I can’t wait until everyone has to stand on a scale before buying tickets at the airport! Goodbye internet sales, hello long lines at the airport waiting for the reps to measure our waists, putting us on scales, and measuring our height!
— Posted by Ubu Walker
2008
11:34 am
AaronS’s ideas are not bad.
But there are also monitoring costs. Weight should be relatively easy to check — flatulence, bad breath, or snoring might not. (Drunkenness is: even today, the flight crew can prevent drunk people from boarding the plane. And if they do not comply with the crew’s instructions on the plane, they can go to jail.)
Charging for pound is a good idea. But the setup of the seats has to change: it must be long rows along the length of the planes (people would face each other, Military c-130s are configured in this way). This would solve most of the “my seat is not big enough” issues.
— Posted by MS
2008
11:38 am
Looks like anorexia will be back in style among frequent flyers.
This also hurts tall people, also. Tall, skinny people can weigh as much or more than short, overweight people.
— Posted by Chris
2008
11:41 am
So will us mesomorphs get to pick on the ectomorphs on these flights? I mean, we’ll be paying more - not because we’re fat, but because we’re fit. We should at least get to bully the nerds :)
— Posted by skelly
2008
11:43 am
To the list of travelers who should be be subjected to new fees or charges, I’d like to add clumsy people who can’t manage their luggage without assistance, stupid people who don’t understand even the simplest instructions from security or airline personnel and rude people who disrupt the otherwise joyous flying experience to which the airlines treat us today.
My suggestions are a joke of course, but the proposal made in this post is at least semi-serious, which is what makes it so dangerous.
As long as we continue to blame passengers for the failure of legacy airlines to devise sustainable business models, we might as well pick on everybody.
— Posted by jeff
2008
11:46 am
The formula really shouldn’t be:
Ticket price = multiplier x passenger weight
A better formula would be
Ticket price = base price + (multipler x passenger weight)
For a given plane flight there are fixed and variable costs. The fixed costs would include the pilots and crew (they are getting paid the same ), the payments for the aircraft and airport, and other overhead. This would all factor into the base price.
The variable costs would mostly have to do with fuel (for weight). This would factor into the multiplier.
It is also important to keep in mind that there is a “fixed” component to fuel. An empty 737-800 weights about 90,000 lbs. When you add in crew, supplies and the fuel required to carry an empty plane the total would be up around roughly 125,000 lbs. With 180 paying passengers, there really should be a weight allocation of almost 700 lbs per person.
This means that a 100 lb person should be given a total weight assessment of 800 lbs, and a 300 lb person with 2 50 lb bages would be given a weight assessment of 1100 lbs.
or:
Ticket price = base price + multiplier x (700 + passenger weight + baggage weight)
This shows that a ticket price based strictly on a multiplier x weight (as is the case in the ficticious derrie-air example) is quite unfair for heavier folks and a significant bargain for lighter folks in terms of capturing the airline’s total cost of providing the transportation service.
— Posted by Cory
2008
11:49 am
Nice in theory, but as people above have said, who wants to be weighed at the airport?
Perhaps, if seats could be made so they are size flexible, people would be required to:
a) pay a fee per square inch/feet(/desired increment of size) of seat space
b)pay for a seat in which they fit comfortably (to avoid forcing oneself into a smaller seat, and suffering ’seat creep’)
This way people could also pay for extra space, should they so desire.
— Posted by OMW
2008
11:51 am
Makes complete sense: shipping-wise. I can’t send all of my packages through USPS, UPS, etc, for the same price. It costs more to transport a bulkier, heavier package.
As @Ubu says, though, how does it work out logistically?
— Posted by E
2008
11:53 am
“Also, heavier people spill over onto their neighbors’ seats, generating negative externalities for the other passengers.”
The day airlines provide seats that even AVERAGE can fit into will be the day I’ll begin to consider this. I’m a fairly average male with slightly broad shoulders. I still wear a size Large t-shirt and find myself having to squeeze my arms in on every airline so that I’m allowing my neighbors to have some sort of armrest to use.
“If one wants to be overweight in one’s own home, so be it, but regular people should not have to be exposed to it.”
And the list goes on and on…
- If one wants to not shower in one’s own home, so be it, but regular people should not have to be exposed to it.
- If one wants to eat garlic and onions in one’s own home, so be it, but regular people should not have to be exposed to it.
- If one wants to snore loudly in one’s own home, so be it, but regular people should not have to be exposed to it.
- If one wants to read Freakonomics in one’s own home, so be it, but regular people should not have to be exposed to it.
When traveling by air, you’re going to face every walk of life. It’s part of traveling. Plus, while banning smoking makes sense because of the dangers of second-hand smoke, I’ve never heard of someone becoming fat by sitting next to an overweight person. Inconvenienced? Sure. But who isn’t, in some sort of fashion, including those listed above, when they ride these cracker tins with wings they call airplanes?
— Posted by Fred
2008
11:54 am
Why not… they eat cheaper too.
— Posted by albert
2008
11:56 am
what about setting a maximum limit of (person_weight + luggage_weight) above which you pay extra? Going on the scales together with the luggage would spare the embarassement for larger people to have their exact weight known. Quite a few women I know think it’s unfair that they are charged if they go one or two kg above their luggage allowance, even if, together with their bags, they still weight considerably less than an average man without luggage.
PS I was in an airport on the Aran Islands in Ireland once where people got weighted at the airport so as to determine where exactly they should sit on the minuscule aircraft.
— Posted by Tobia
2008
12:02 pm
I agree with Cory on the
Ticket price = base price + (multipler x passenger weight) proposal.
However, I also agree with Doug that the “passenger weight” also has to include luggage.
I am a larger guy, but if I am a business traveler with little to no luggage, I shouldn’t be penalized. If I save 50 pounds of luggage and weight 50 pounds more than the “average”, then it should be a wash. Especially after looking around a little while traveling in airports it becomes very obvious that amount of luggage typically is inversely related to the weight of the person. Picture the 80 pound person dragging the suitcase as tall as they are. We’ve all witnessed them.
— Posted by Troy
2008
12:03 pm
Creative idea, but I think Ubu Walker (#8) and Cory (#13) nailed it: the difference in cost to transport a 200 lb passenger versus a 150 lb passenger must be pretty negligible (can any experts weigh in on this one?), and certainly not worth the cost of making people wait in line to be weighed.
— Posted by Michael
2008
12:03 pm
My wife weighs 115 lbs. She and her bags together weigh as much as a normal male adult - let alone an obese male adult.
If fuel is indeed the major contributor to the cost of a ticket, and fuel spent correlates to weight, then my wife should at least be able to check her bags for free, while the obese person should be charged extra, because they are already packing all of their weight allowance on their body.
Essentially, tickets should be priced according to some “normal” body weight, and then any excess weight should be counted just like excess baggage.
— Posted by denis bider
2008
12:07 pm
Yes, by all means. Force people to be weighed at the airport. There’s a weigh to drive customers to your business. A few more of these innovative ideas (paying for EVERY bag??) and the airlines will finally complete their self-immolation. Then maybe we can start with a fresh, non-stupid model of air travel.
— Posted by matt
2008
12:11 pm
I would totally be okay with a formula that would factor in weight of person and baggage together. Unless you’re moving from one city to another, or have to transport a large amount of equipment or materials, there is no reason anyone would need to fill two giant checked bags, one carry-on, and one personal bag. I’d hate to think of how much carbon is emitted in the name of transporting so much unnecessary baggage.
— Posted by EK
2008
12:15 pm
There’s no good reason to charge passengers by the pound. The weight of passengers is rather small compared to the aircraft itself, and the weight of the fuel itself. For example, a Boeing 747-400 weighs 200 tons empty, seats about 400, and has the capacity for 60,000 gallons of jet fuel (density of about 7 lb/gal). If we assume the passengers are all fairly big, average 200 pounds, that means there’s 200 tons of aircraft, 210 tons of fuel, and 40 tons of passengers. Saving some weight on passengers is not going to help with fuel costs–but shorter flight segments will, since it’s less fuel that has to be carried.
— Posted by Matt
2008
12:16 pm
“heavier people spill over onto their neighbors’ seats, generating negative externalities for the other passengers”
That’s not always true. I’m 6′5 and am in good shape. Being as tall as I am, I weigh 220lbs. So someone who is only 5′5, but weighs 200lbs will be spilling over the seats, but paying less than me?
— Posted by Mike
2008
12:27 pm
This article does make a good point, however, if weight is to be involved in the ticket price, it should be logical. For instance, their should be a fixed price like previously mentioned, which should cover the cost of the plane flying empty to its destination, after all, that amount of gas is needed no matter how many or how much people weigh. The additional portion of the fare should be calculated by the amount of weight (passenger and luggage) taken to fly that amount of weight. As an example, it takes an extra 30 galloons of jet fuel to fly a 300 lb man with no luggage. That man shoudl pay as much as the 200 lb man who has 100 lbs of luggage. Like I said though, the fuel for flying the empty jet should be included in the base fare, and people should only pay for the extra cost of gas to fly their weight. It would be very complicated to figure this out i believe and when you are talking about a 200,000 lb jet, is there enough of a difference between a 300 lb man and 200 lb man to really make things worthwhile? I would assume the difference is very minimal.
— Posted by Steven
2008
12:33 pm
Wow.
You wrote: Also, heavier people spill over onto their neighbors’ seats, generating negative externalities for the other passengers.
And the airlines making more money makes the person in the neighboring seat more comfortable how?
I’m a young woman with a normal BMI, and in some of the smaller aircraft I fly I notice that the width of my seat isn’t much wider than my reasonably average posterior. That’s really not large enough for even a fit man with a large frame.
If airlines weren’t cramming us in like sardines to keep prices so low that they’re going bankrupt, this might not be such an issue.
I suspect that Derrie-Air, if real, would be packed with infants and young kids. Doesn’t that sound like a pleasure cruise?
The legalistic need to regulate travel unpleasantness is myopic and immature. How about fining the person with too much cologne? Or the person who sits next to you with opposing political beliefs? What about the person who always hits you in the head with their carry-on when they walk down the aisle?
Let’s blame and fine everyone! I’m sure that will make the whole travel experience that much more pleasant.
— Posted by adrienne
2008
12:33 pm
I can hardly wait to see “Flight Prep” programs offered by NutriSystem, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers and others.
20% of the population is genetically gifted when it comes to weight, and the rest simply don’t measure up. To me, it doesn’t matter whether the person next to me is of ideal, average or above average weight — I still feel boxed into a tiny abysmal compartment because, in addition to an obesity epidemic, we are also undergoing a height epidemic. The average passenger is getting taller while the average seat pitch has shrunk to an all-time low. Ask a female fashion model (the majority of whom are over 5′10″) how comfortable they are in coach.
The big question is whether it is appropriate to apportion costs for services like this based on human factors that are relatively uncontrollable at a given point in time for the majority of the population.
Should students who get lower grades have to pay a surcharge because obviously they would have taken up a disproportionate share of the teacher’s attention and focus?
Maybe movie-goers should be required to wire up to their seats and submit to galvanic skin response monitoring for the duration of a film. Those with a relatively higher level of GSR presumably found the film more engaging and thus more enjoyable. On the way out, depending on their GSR measurement, the appropriate relative surcharge could be applied to people who enjoyed it the most, and a pro-rated discount applied for those whose GSR reveal they felt the movie was less than par.
— Posted by Jay, Vancouver
2008
12:38 pm
um, people who do drink DO pay more ($5 a drink…)
And people with kids DO pay a (children’s seats are not discounted. ie, they are paying more per pound, presumably)
And if there were a way to charge people with bad breath or who wanted to sleep, they would. (maybe they will sell breath mints for $1 a piece or charge for blankets and keep the cabin excessively cold…)
You underestimate the airline industry.
They get their incremental $$$ whereever they can.
— Posted by FrankTheTank
2008
12:48 pm
I think this is a Fabulous Idea…
— Posted by Mayur
2008
12:51 pm
This s a ludicrous suggestion and will never get implemented for business reasons that have nothing to do with the inevitable political firestorm (if 30% of the population is obese, they’re a powerful, if silent, voting bloc that no politician would dare cross).
Let’s do the math. Max takeoff weight of a 747-400 is about 900,000lb. It carries about 400 passengers.
Assuming the FAA “standard passenger” weight of 150lb per passenger, you have 60,000lb of human flesh out of 900,000lb of total weight. In other words, about 6.6% of the total weight is passenger payload. This is generally proportional with smaller aircraft (737’s, commuter jets, etc).
An extra 20 pounds per passenger is less than 1% extra weight for the plane, leading to 1% extra fuel burn if every single passenger were overweight by 20lb. (Why 20lb per passenger? Every passenger 20 lbs overweight is equivalent to 30% of passengers — the % of the population that’s obese in the US — overweight by 60+ lbs.)
A 1% fuel savings can be accomplished by removing more paint from the airframe (a source of drag), removing the 8,000lb of life rafts (which have never, to my knowledge saved anyone “in the event of a water landing”), going to “free flight” next-generation air traffic control which offers more direct routing en route, etc. Those are just short-term tweaks. Longer term, there’s always improved laminar flow fuselages, better high-bypass engines or other fundamental improvements in technology.
Oh, and don’t forget how difficult it would be to actually bill for this. How would you book your travel on-line? Do you just estimate your weight on the honor system until you get to the airport and then have to wait in line to be weighed and either get a refund of the difference or have to cough up the incremental fare to cover the few pounds I may have gained since buying the ticket?
What about pregnant women who may have gained 40lb in the 3 months since booking the ticket?
Finally, if airlines starting to charge more for heavier passengers became a reality, then they would optimize their marketing to attract overweight passengers, since their revenue per seat would be higher than if flying planeloads of anorexics.
Other commenters to the post who are in favor of the idea should think extremely carefully about endorsing an idea that could actually create incentives for the airlines to engage in behavior that’s the opposite of what they would like to see. Your preference for skinny seat-mates will take a back seat (so to speak) to an airline’s desire to maximize revenue and stave off bankruptcy.
— Posted by Brent
2008
12:52 pm
If the airlines are so concerned about weight their formular for addressing flights should begin with the BMI for your height. You are then penalized if you are more than 5% over your BMI at Xrate. However you can minimize your excess overage by packing lighter based upon a two baggage system where you can get up to 30lbs/bag. If you lose a bag, you gain half the difference back for your own personal weight, reducing the “penalty”. Of course then, will the airlines also penalize their own workers on the plane for being overweight as well? Or how about their heavy seats? Or the mail that they store in the cargo hold as they move it across the country?
— Posted by Roger, Ohio
2008
12:55 pm
Regarding #8 and subsequent comments, I can’t imagine the government NOT wanting all of our weight records for data mining, if the airlines were getting it.
Regarding #5 and #14, particularly (seat space) it would be interesting if seat widths were adjustable, and there was a surcharge for seats over a certain width. They could have seats at the gate that you have to fit into, like the carry-on testers, to get your low-cost, skinny seat. (I’m kidding, of course.)
Regarding #24, on short segments. The planes may have to carry less fuel on a short flight, but they also end up taxiing more and the ascent portion of the flight uses quite a bit of fuel compared to the level flight portion, so you may actually use more fuel for many short hops. Not to mention ground congestion.
— Posted by Brian
2008
12:57 pm
there’s also Naked Airlines, but their tickets are only slightly cheaper
— Posted by frankenduf
2008
1:00 pm
I assume this whole thing is tongue in cheek - making fun of the legacy airlines efforts to raise fares without looking like they are raising fares. In that spirit I suggest that plane fares come with a maximum allowed weight/passenger - and if a passenger plus baggage (checked and carry on - including the bag of junk food and the bottles of whatever beverage- cups of coffee, women’s handbags, briefcases, salesman’s sample suitcases, skis, golf bags and clubs, you name it). Over that weight - one pays by the pound.
Set the weight at something fairly reasonable for the average adult - 300-350 lb. that way the overweight among us can learn to travel light - and pay less while the thin among us who bring the chickens and the pigs on board will pay more.
This might have the effect of cutting down on carry on baggage as well as encourage those who must travel with 2 oversized suitcases for a weekend at the beach to learn to travel light.
This could be tweaked to decrease the weight allowance for those of us who score the few cheap seats! And of course a hefty weight allowance for those overweight puffed up business men flying in B class on the company tab.
— Posted by anonflyer
2008
1:03 pm
I think a much better idea is to have seats of varying sizes. So larger people could pay more to have a larger seats. You don’t have to force them to do it, but I suspect that as long as the premium isn’t too excessive then most people will gravitate towards seats that are appropriate for their size.
— Posted by Andy
2008
1:06 pm
I’d save a ton if we did it by weight. Not only am I light (110#), but I pack light (my toddler son [25#] and myself in under 50# of luggage). However, I would be most in favor of a combination of weight and square inch/foot calculation. My extremely tall husband could get the space he needs (6-7, 230# athlete) when he needs it, and I could avoid worrying about fitting my son’s car seat in to a plane seat.
As for the large man wanting to charge extra for a baby– my son has traveled internationally and domestically without crying. Every flight we’ve been on, the other passengers were unaware of his presence until landing. (Obviously that changed when he became a toddler and could be seen walking around prior to takeoff.) Not all children are terrors. ;-)
— Posted by Maria
2008
1:07 pm
I think the principal is basically sound — the heavier the craft, the more fuel it must use to obtain and maintain velocity; it seems reasonable to pass that cost on.
There would, of course, have to be a base cost, since just taking up a seat has a minimum fixed cost to the airline.
However, a point I didn’t see anyone make is the potential ramifications of charging extra for someone who is heavy as the result of a disability — e.g. a thyroid condition. It might be a lot more rare than claimed, but it is a real disability, and I think there might be liability issues with charging someone extra as the result of a disability.
At the very least, it could be a PR disaster.
— Posted by Darren
2008
1:11 pm
Bad idea, but its an interesting thought. How would the people be weighed efficiently? There is already too much going on at the airport, why add 1 more step. And in order for this to happen, how would you buy tickets online? The price of the ticket is determined long before the passenger arrives at the airport. And then what happens if you gain/lose weight between the time you bought your ticket and the date of the flight. Think people, think.
Also, assuming that somehow all of these problems are taken care of, the airline would end up with only light weight passengers. Why would an overweight person fly this airline, they would be paying more than average fares. Which bring up my final argument, how much gas does 100 lbs of weight cost to fly? $5-$10? Not significant, but its an interesting post.
— Posted by Jake
2008
1:25 pm
As always let’s start with a personal bias; I’d probably break even or come out slightly ahead in this sort of situation as I’m 6′3″ with a slender build but a light packer.
Having said this, an easier way to implement this sort of system might be a [base price] minus [weight discount] system. For weight purposes, include luggage with body weight. I’d establish a “base weight” of the the expected 95th percentile of toal weight including luggage per person; my educated WAG is 250 pounds, taking men, women and children into account. If your total load was less than this, you would put yourself and your luggage on a scale and after weighing, receive a check or credit to your credit card or account based on how far you were under the limit. Your luggage would then be tagged. If you were not taking a discount, you’d get your luggage tagged in a separate queue; there would also need to be a charge per bag for these customers to remove the incentive for underweight travelers to give their bags to an already-overweight companion. Only tagged luggage could be checked in or carried on, probably excepting for a small bag or laptop subject to a strict weight limit and weighed on a scale at the gate.
[Prepares for holes to be shot through plan]
— Posted by James
2008
1:28 pm
Not necessarily a bad idea, but one that needs some refinement.
It would make sense to divy up costs as below:
- base cost of moving an empty airplane from A to B, including staffing costs. Divide by proportion of passenger space occupied by each seat. Thus, if a large person requires more space, this is the only portion that should be increased based on seat size.
- additional cost of fuel burn as weight is added. Both passenger and luggage weight should be charged equally.
- a-la-carte pricing for food, entertainment, and other optional niceties.
- add profit margin. (This could also be distributed between the other charges if you want to keep it hidden).
As I see it, each individual passenger represents only a small increase on the total weight of the plane. So to be fair, everyone should be paying the base cost.
— Posted by Neil
2008
1:37 pm
You people are just flat-out mean. There are so many nasty, hateful comments in this thread, including those made by the blogger himself.
I don’t know exactly how total passenger weight is estimated by the airlines, but I would guess that it’s based on long term moving averages. Chances are this average has gone up over the past few decades, but it will still account for per-passenger variances, and will still leave a significant cushion so the flight is never at risk, even with a passenger list full of sumo wrestlers.
If I seem defensive, it’s because I am. My mom is a senior citizen and she’s not skinny. Will you all give her dirty looks as she is taken by wheelchair on her flight this week to come visit me? What’s better - that she sit at home and do nothing, or that she get out and be as active as she possibly can be?
— Posted by sarahmas
2008
1:39 pm
@Craig - “Those paying substantially more should get wider seats, perhaps in the back. ”
You just undid the whole purpose here. The extra charge is for FUEL. You don’t use less fuel by sitting in a wider seat. If you want more space comfort for extra money, go 1st class.
— Posted by Tom
2008
1:44 pm
Maybe it was mentioned above, but Southwest charges for two seats if you can’t fit into one.
http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_qa.html
— Posted by seth
2008
1:48 pm
It’s a great idea, but they will have to allow smoking and free coffee and diet coke. Also, does it mean super models fly free?
Of course Al Gore who would be to fat will have to continue flying on his private jet producing 100 times more green house gas per hour than my evil car.
— Posted by M Todd
2008
1:50 pm
I don’t think pricing your services above market to what is (literally) a growing segment of the U.S. market is a rational decision for any U.S. airlines.
The airlines must adapt to the higher price of fuel by encouraging technological innovations and horizontal integration with ground transportation providers to make more efficient use of their fuel dollars.
— Posted by Helen
2008
1:51 pm
Passenger weight is only one part of the equation. You’re not going to fit two skinny people in one seat. However, I do believe that a mixed passenger/cargo price scheming would be best. A fixed price for the cost of seating, with a rate cost added for weight. Even better would be a way to price in cargo volume, as well. That way, the next time someone wants to put their string bass on the overhead compartment and take up the entire space, they’ll have to pay extra. A lot extra.
— Posted by Joel
2008
2:04 pm
I agree that there has to be some kind of a better system. I am an “average” sized woman and I have been stuck in the aisle seat next to a very large gentleman who was overflowing into my seat. Although I don’t think that weighing people is the option. You would have to completely discontinue internet sales. If only obese or overweight passengers are to be charged the extra fee who is going to be the one to tell them, “Well, um, sir, you look like you exceed the “normal” size limit for our aircraft, you will be charged an extra $X.” Why can’t the airlines just make it easy on us. Leave the coach seats the same size as they are now, and make another section of seats that are larger like the first class, but they aren’t given all of the first class benefits. It’s just a larger seat. Then the airlines wouldn’t have to struggle with this embarrassing issue so much, they would just be able to suggest that larger guests choose to sit in the new section.
— Posted by Petra
2008
2:33 pm
I think that the best way to do it would be for each ticket to be based on a certain weight (say 200 pounds or so). At check-in each passenger would be weighed along with his or her baggage. The amount of weight over would determine the fuel surcharge which would have to be paid at check-in (much like current bag charges).
— Posted by CannibalCrowley
2008
2:43 pm
I feel it is time I “weighed-in” on this topic. I will agree with the majority and state that the cost difference would probably be negligible and that any system involving weight would absolutely need to factor in the cost of traveller+luggage. This system would probably be attractive to parents travelling with small children though since currently full fare is paid for children over two years of age. The weight of the children would easily off-set the potential cost of overweight parents. My family of 4 weighs a total of 550 lbs and probably on average travels with about 150lbs of luggage (car seats, strollers, etc.). This means individually we weigh on average less than an “average” adult male with luggage. Sounds good to me (overweight as I am). But charging based solely on weight won’t make the seats anymore comfortable for me or the person next to me and now everyone can enjoy a plane full of kids because its now cheaper to fly with little ones :)
— Posted by Jason
2008
2:53 pm
Personally, I like the idea (in some form), but it will never happen in reality, unless there is a law requiring it. Which airline would be the first to humiliate its customers?
It would great if every good and service in America charged a premium based on customer weight. That would be enough of an incentive to reverse the trend toward an increasingly obese population.
— Posted by WholeMealOfFood
2008
3:01 pm
All cute ideas but there is a hidden cost to such complex pricing models. The world is littered with further examples where variable pricing could make things more accurate - starting with the postage stamp. Same price to go next door as across the country? Still, keep is simple.
— Posted by Heavy D
2008
3:02 pm
Wow.
I suppose your next suggestion will be along the lines of allowing KFC to charge extra for black people at the buffet. Or at movie theaters for inconveniencing those around them by talking too much. I do not understand why this type of outright bigotry is allowed on the internet. I certainly believed this site would be above this.
You disgust me.
— Posted by Corn
2008
3:05 pm
Why not put in different size metal detectors to determine pricing. If you can fit through the 6 inch wide slot, you dont get charged extra. If you need to use the 4.5 foot model, you get the surcharge. Works out well because security is right there to deal with anyone who gets stuck…
— Posted by Dan Moultrie
2008
3:06 pm
Why not just make airplanes more fuel-efficient? (not money efficient ie. cramming passengers into ever-tinier spaces [refer to ‘Tango’])
Make the plane lose weight, not the passenger.
— Posted by Keith M
2008
3:10 pm
P.S.
I believe that smoking was banned from airplanes not for the inconvenience or the adverse health effects (this was 1989 that it happened) but simply because it was a flagrant fire hazard.
— Posted by Keith M
2008
3:17 pm
Keep it simple, just have two prices, over or under 200 pounds. You can book online at the under-200 price, but if it turns out you are over at the airport, you must pay the difference to board.
Women would LOVE this airline because all of the enormous, overflowing men would choose to take a different airline.
— Posted by sunshine
2008
3:21 pm
If passengers pay by weight, the airline should reutrn the money of the unused weight (both person and luggage).
Also, the airline should give you back the money of the food you don’t eat.
— Posted by Alex
2008
3:33 pm
I always thought it should be fair to offer ligheter passengers higher allowance for checked luggage. Charging solely by weight might be a bit tough but I can definitely see setting a max. weight limit per ticket.
— Posted by Liren
2008
3:40 pm
Negative externality is right! That’s why I don’t fly Southwest… as a slim person, I find that larger people gravitate toward my row. There’s nothing wrong with being large, but in all fairness, they should pay for the 10% of my seat room that they take up.
— Posted by Sandy
2008
3:45 pm
The interesting part is that airlines know how much seating room a normal person needs, because their gate areas are full of normal-sized, fairly comfortable seats. I’m 6′5″ and would be more than happy to pay more for my airline seat, as long as I get more room for my naturally longer legs and naturally broader shoulders. Today I literally have to cross my legs, forcibly wedge them under the seat in front of me, then not only cross my arms but hug myself tightly through the flight so that I minimize (but not eliminate) my encroachment on my neighbors. No amount of dieting would fix this issue for me.
I am outside the norm, and I am okay with paying more for that. Just give me a proportionally larger seat for my proportionally larger price and we’ll all be happy.
— Posted by Scott
2008
4:05 pm
I agree with everyone that a “pay by weight” requirement should obviously include luggage, not just body weight. Of course, someone paying more for being obese would then have every right to complain at being crammed into a “standard rate” seat - so a high-cost high-weight ticket, at some point, would need to translate automatically into an extra seat or otherwise into extra space.
Neil @41 - I think you’re “standard ticket price with optional discount for lower weight” idea is a clever one for making the general proposition non-offensive enough to possibly get a hearing. Obviously weighing everyone (and luggage) is a non-starter, both for logistical and embarrasment reasons. But if you charged more per ticket generally, and offered a discount for those willing to go to the trouble of being weighed, it just possibly could work.
Of course, if I were king of the universe I’d also start RIGOROUSLY enforcing the carry-on size restrictions - watching people cram steamer trunks into the overheads is FAR more annoying to me than watching people try to cram themselves into mini-seats. And I might also propose re-creating the old smoking sections in the back of planes, but for people travelling with children. Tickets back there could be moderately discounted, and full-fare payers would be somewhat insulated from annoyance. I have small children, and it would be a relief to worry less about their bugging the innocent.
Of course, that highlights an issue with most of these fanciful proposals - how on earth would they work in a universe where a family of 4 may currently be paying for all of their tickets the same amount as the lone business traveler in the row behind?
— Posted by Kathryn
2008
4:13 pm
Note that the airline is not only transporting humans, but their belongings. I’d be fine with charging more for more weight, as long as it doesn’t discriminate against fat people over those who want to carry on lead. You should be able to compensate for bringing more inside your body by bringing less outside it.
— Posted by Jimmy
2008
5:16 pm
Hey Corn, next time I’m sitting between two overweight people who are spilling into my seat from both sides, I’ll gladly switch seats with you.
— Posted by Anne
2008
5:21 pm
Awesome suggestions and thoughts.
Interestingly, i’ve seen this same argument on a forum for mountain bikers with much more enthusiasm to have this enforced. Granted they probably have very little knowledge of economics, but i’m also willing to bet that they weigh significantly less than the average Freakonomics reader.
— Posted by Ed
2008
5:21 pm
I have long thought this would be a great idea (as long as luggage is included). I think of the current system much as if gas stations charged per mile driven instead of per gallon. If every time you got gas they looked and saw that you’d driven X miles and charged (multiplier times x) for your gas, you bet that people driving a prius would be furious at the people driving hummers. As many have pointed out, there is no great way to build infrastructure around charging airline customers per pound, but it does seem like it is possible to charge a marginal cost per 50 or 100 lbs–the combined weight of the passenger and their luggage. And if it caused people to pack lighter, that’s only a good thing. Just put a pad by the check-in desk/kiosk, the passenger has to stand there while they are checking in anyway, and the marginal cost would be factored in to their ticket.
— Posted by Melissa
2008
5:57 pm
Sorry, haven’t read many of the replies here, so forgive me is this has been said already. The package carriers like FedEx and UPS and even the USPS use a technique called “dimensional weighing” to charge people. Basically, they are charging you for the number of cubic inches that you occupy on their planes. Since the airlines are cramming us all into the same number of cubic inches, we should all pay the same, unless you flop out into the next seat. I’m a big guy, but not grotesquely overweight like so many of us are, (most people when they hear my weight say that I don’t look that heavy. Hey, I guess I’m densely built) but I can’t fit in those damn airplane seats comfortably as they are currently configured. If they are going to charge me by weight or whatever, then I damn well expect a seat that properly accommodates my weight and size. Otherwise, I’m driving.
— Posted by Davey
2008
6:43 pm
Some other ideas…
First, just as they trade carbon credits, perhaps we can trade “weight credits.” That is, while I may pay more to FLY, I should get some sort of counter-balancing credit for easing up on all the pressure I am putting on the ground when I walk or ride.
Second, if it’s all by weight, I can send my baby boy FIRST CLASS from now on! My wife will have to go Coach, of course. Me? I’ll be back with the cattle.
Hey, maybe we ought to have a “Cattle Class” on airplanes! Why should I spend hundreds of dollars (even if by the pound) to be crammed into a too-small seat, and then have a headache the whole trip because I know I’m making the strangers on either side of me very uncomfortable due to my padding taking up a quarter of their space! Hey, I rather be loaded in the back into little stalls with beanbag chairs–IF IT MEANS RELAXING!
Further, even though I stand up for us big folks, I have to admit that it’s not fair to our average size brothers and sisters for them to pay for a flight, having the reasonable expectation of comfort, and then two women have to endure my arms and love handles making them uncomfortable throughout the flight (or, in my fantasies, very hot and bothered for me).
Thankfully, most of these folks are very polite. They could sigh and curse and make me feel like a worm (for which I would be imprisioned for sending them skydiving, and then punching the CEO of the airplane company right in the nose for putting me in that predicament), but usually they just smile and handle it as best they can.
That being said, I want to say THANK YOU to all the “good guys,” male or female, who are so kind in such situations. Believe me, being big is not a CHOICE someone makes. Yes, there’s an element of responsibility, but the responsibility is too great for a person to handle, for the most part.
So, thanks for being kind when some big guy waddles to your row and says, “Hello, looks like we’ll be flying together all the way to Rome!”
— Posted by AaronS
2008
6:50 pm
This happens presently. I pay less for my toddler’s ticket and even less for my baby’s ticket. Severely obese people are commonly required to purchase a ticket for their adjacent seat.
— Posted by Peter O'Reilly
2008
7:12 pm
> I’ve never heard of someone becoming fat by sitting next to an overweight person.
Well, actually if you know him well, yes. It’s a surprising result that obesity statistically looks like an epidemic, but bad eating habits are contagious.
> Should students who get lower grades have to pay a surcharge because obviously they would have taken up a disproportionate share of the teacher’s attention and focus?
You should consider externalities for the entire society to have poorly gifted students maing an effort, etc. All in all this is included in experimental attendance program (giving money to the student or his parents if he attends) that appear to be at least incentive.
As a person with legs one inch longer then what seat makers have in mind, I would advocate for adding space between the seats for a fee. (It actually exists, it’s called decent airlines.) I have to agree that the added fat if not such a cost to the airline to justify a full paying system — but the extra space. . . That would cost more. And it doesn’t sound like it is offered.
I’m assuming (if this is not a joke) that, in addition to the buzz, the airline is not only trying to have fit hostess, but also fit passengers, probably improving its image. People pay to fly with big boobs (it’s called Hooters) why not pay to avoid all the fatties? TV has been showing a America far slimer than it really is: why not maintain the illusion, or the ostracism, or avoid the contamination. . .
Regarding children: noone under 12 shoud be allowed to flight without a strong sedative. I used to favor corporal punishment, but I was told international law still applies in the US, so let’s go chemical.
Seriously, I don’t think this is the real problem. What are insurance allowed to do — and how do they organize their incentive programs is much moe important. I’m positive that a “if you loose 50 pounds, you save 500$ on your policy” program would be very efficient, and far more relevant then arlines. What portion of US incomes goes to air travel anyway?
— Posted by Bertil
2008
7:45 pm
I’d be in favor of the following formula: Seat price (flat cost for everyone) plus X dollars per pound including luggage checked plus X dollars per pound carried-on. Simple and fair. Yes it does cost airlines per pound to fly. You’ll be aware of this rule when taking smaller routes where you get bumped for too many people and luggage.
— Posted by Orlin
2008
11:33 pm
Anyone who proposes weighing customers (with or without their luggage) has a serious problem. The economic justification for this proposal is dubious at best. As others have mentioned, it’s impossible to implement without further delaying, frustrating, and humiliating people at airports.
Instead of trying to devise ways to further antagonize their customers, maybe the airlines should invest money and effort into giving better service. How about putting more than a single armrest between seats, so I don’t leave long flights with shoulder pain because the passenger next to me has muscled my arm out of the way? How about regulating the gigantic bags people try to get away with hauling on board in the guise of “carry on” bags?
Customers of any other service-based business would’ve demanded changes for service this poor. Why don’t airline customers?
— Posted by Brooke
2008
1:09 am
And…so….if I fly somewhere hot or that somehow requires me to exhert a lot of energy… like, a natural hike vacation…and, if i were to LOSE a lot of weight during the trip… when i get back on the plane for my flight home, do I get some kind of cash refund or other considerations?
Likewise, for people who fly somewhere, eat a ton, gain weight and hop back on their return flight, do they pay some corrective fee adjustment at the gate?
Ian
— Posted by Ian
2008
3:02 am
“I think an approach similar to the one taken with smokers should be followed. Just as it is illegal to smoke aboard an airplane, it should be illegal to be overweight aboard an airplane. If one wants to be overweight in one’s own home, so be it, but regular people should not have to be exposed to it.”
Some people have medical problems. Do you think that we should charge disabled people more because they take longer to get on the plane. No, they can’t help it. Therefore they should pay the cost of the negative externality.
I also think that it might not be a negative externality. As the large people might derive some pleasure from being large. In which case the social benefit could be even be postive depending on how effected the guy sitting next to the large person is.
I can also see many airlines getting on board with something like “We won’t charge you for being diffrent” and then getting a large group of people converting to that airline simply on principle.
— Posted by lee
2008
4:11 am
There could be a set “opt-out of of being weighed” price, and then a reduced price for people willing to be weighed (and weighing less than average).
— Posted by student
2008
11:24 am
I certainly agree with this to a point, but it needs to be dealt with sensitively.
Perhaps we can set an “acceptable” range, and once you are situated above that, you need to pay extra per kilogram unless you can prove that your obesity is caused by a medical condition - i.e. it’s out of your control.
And by no means should it be publicised, obviously, if you’re forced to pay more.
I am uncomfortable about getting a perceived discount for being thin (though I am), but less concerned if people who let themselves balloon are penalised.
— Posted by GP
2008
11:27 am
Well, considering that airplane companies all receive federal funding, meaning public funds, rather than receiving purely only private funds, issues regarding discrimination are of interest. 1) the fact that the companies are receiving public funds means that they could be considered state actors via entanglement. 2) seeing as these tend to be nationwide services interstate commerce would appear to be going on. Therefore, we would have to ask whether or not this is an unreasonable discriminatory act. Weight, is not generally a very protected class, let alone protected, and would probably fall under the lowest scrutiny. So, I dont know how I would come down on this, but I do have to ask, what is the “need” for the price?
Further, as far as I was aware, price discrimination, at least in certain forms is not allowed. What is the legality of such price discrimination? I know that economists are crazy about it, but can it be done?
Personally, I dont like something like this, this would further DISCOURAGE people from flying. Fat people dont like to be weighed in public, people dont like being weighed in public, these are PRIVATE matters, again making this a legal issue, illegal search? protections regarding privacies of the personal nature, your weight demands a certain amount of privacy. Along the lines of being weighed in public, women take this as a private matter as well. Could an already floundering industry with financial trouble risk losing customers over a simple thing? NO.
However, why dont they change costs such as that the prices of tickets would equal cost per flight prior to planes being sold out. This way anything above that number of people on a certain flight would represent profit. Further, maybe they could charge per pound of luggage. Like allow X lbs luggage for shipment at a base, then charge like 1.00 per additional pound. the additional price of 1.00, doesnt sound like much but it is enough where people may say, ok, i can pack some more if i need too, and then the industry still makes the extra bucks… see?? agree, disagree? thoughts??
— Posted by Mr. M
2008
5:52 pm
One factor that is not included is the airlines charge the same cost for a child who takes up a seat as an adult. Fact is the weight difference does not come close to the loss of revenue from unsold seats.
— Posted by M Todd
2008
6:14 am
I have noticed lately that airlines are decreasing luggage weight limits and charging more to those who exceed those limits. I find it puzzling that a 300 pound person with 30 pounds of luggage will not get charged extra while a 100 pound person with 60 pounds of luggage will be charged extra even though the 300lb person is bringing more than twice as much weight on board in total.
I don’t see how a system of ticket pricing based on total weight including luggage could be viewed as discriminatory as the planes themselves do not really care how many souls are on board, but rather, how much weight they are carrying with them.
— Posted by Bryan Hong
2008
10:07 am
If airlines want to start offering that deal they should by all means be allowed to do so.
— Posted by bulgarian solicitors
2008
11:49 am
I always assumed, before this extra-fee-for-everything absurdity, that overweight baggage was charged extra because of labor for baggage handlers, not for fuel. (Perhaps bags over 50# result in more hernias.) Was I wrong?
— Posted by HG
2008
7:17 pm
Easy solution, charge everyone a higher fare, but let people have the option of weighing in (with their luggage) to receive a rebate.
— Posted by Warren R
2008
8:30 am
If the fuel used by the plane is positively correlated to its overall weight then why not do the obvious and replace those heavy, fixed-sized “safety” seats with lightweight (and stretchy) hammocks.
Let’s face it - nobody is going to survive a 20,000 foot fall in a giant cigar tube by assuming the crash position.
— Posted by the inscrutable chicken
2008
12:50 pm
In a time when fuel has never been at a higher price, and the population has never been fatter, it just seems like a good idea to me… at first. I’m all about having someone who CHOOSES to be overweight (or have a BMI over 25 lets say) to pay more for the fuel they use.
What happens if that person weighs more because of genetics, or is just a big person? Take me for example - I am 6 foot 6 and weigh a lean 215lbs. Does that mean I should pay more because I was born tall and play sports? Should someone who has a disease that puts their weight out of control pay more? Doesn’t seem fair. The added fee is not ment to be a “fat tax”. If my BMI is a normal 21, but I weigh 215lbs, and someone elses’ BMI is an unhealthy 29, but they only weigh 190, who should pay the premium? Me because I was born very tall, or the other person because they eat more (assuming this is the cause)? If I pay more, it’s not fair, and if they pay more, than it becomes a fat tax because they actually weigh LESS than I do, which defeates the purpose of the premium. If that person was taller, then they wouldn’t need to pay; doesn’t make sense. Remembering this is not a tax for unhealthy people, it is a premium for fuel.
— Posted by Gavin of Ottawa
2008
12:16 am
I am certainly for this new proposal. I believe that obesity is not genetic and that personal weight can be controlled. It all comes down to how lazy people are now-days. If you wouldn’t want to pay more then do something about it. Isn’t it quite comical how “genetic” obesity only seems to show up in the western civilizations? Take a look in other civilizations and other countries like Africa for example. Take a look at the number of obesity in African compared to the number of obese Americans and it brings you right back to lifestyles. That terminates the idea of obesity being genetic. In order for this to work, airline companies should charge heavier people more just because of the simple fact that it cost more to ship their fat asses across the country.
— Posted by Jordan