- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should airlines charge by the pound?
Posted on 6/16/23 at 8:25 am to GumboPot
Posted on 6/16/23 at 8:25 am to GumboPot
The way to do it would be to calculate the cost to fly the aircraft with no passengers vs. the cost with passengers. Then you could get the average incremental cost for a 180 lb guy. They you could drop/add on a scale from there.
From Wiki:
The projected operational empty weight is 168,560 kg (371,610 lb) in airline configuration. That 371K pounds = 2,064.5 men weighing 180 lbs each.
If the plane itself weighs over 2 thousand guys the variations from guy to guy over 350 passengers wont' amount to all that much I wouldn't think.
Somebody else can look up the operating cost per mile and divide it up.
If you do this will men and women have a different standard? or will there be one allotment and 80% of men will pay a premium while 80% of women get a discount?
I see I am adding to Slapahoe's post, too much thread to check all of it
From Wiki:
The projected operational empty weight is 168,560 kg (371,610 lb) in airline configuration. That 371K pounds = 2,064.5 men weighing 180 lbs each.
If the plane itself weighs over 2 thousand guys the variations from guy to guy over 350 passengers wont' amount to all that much I wouldn't think.
Somebody else can look up the operating cost per mile and divide it up.
If you do this will men and women have a different standard? or will there be one allotment and 80% of men will pay a premium while 80% of women get a discount?
I see I am adding to Slapahoe's post, too much thread to check all of it
This post was edited on 6/16/23 at 8:26 am
0
Posted on 6/16/23 at 8:25 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
I'm 145 so I support this.
look at this guy 
Posted on 6/16/23 at 8:37 am to GumboPot
All I'm saying is, when I flew military, they weighed me with my bags for the manifest.
Posted on 6/16/23 at 8:39 am to h0bnail
quote:
Not fair to tall people. We're going to charge more to the least comfortable people on the plane?
The least comfortable people on the plane are the ones who have to sit next to fatasses.
Posted on 6/16/23 at 8:40 am to GumboPot
Yes and no. For an individual, they take up a seat regardless, so a smaller person may not be optimizing the cost-effectiveness of the airline. I would think you needed a minimum per seat based on a weight that reasonably estimates what size person optimally fills the seat. Then charge a per pound premium for people who exceed that minimum. I would probably have to pay a premium.
Posted on 6/16/23 at 8:44 am to GumboPot
Why should someone at 15% body fat who is 6'2'' get charged more than someone who is 15% body fat who is 5'9''. In all likelihood the person who is 6'2'' will weigh 20 pounds more so they get punished because they are taller?
I think there can be some sort of workaround. If you are within these ranges then no fee, then %s above that range.
So I don't think by the pound works in isolation, but in compilation with height
I think there can be some sort of workaround. If you are within these ranges then no fee, then %s above that range.
So I don't think by the pound works in isolation, but in compilation with height
Posted on 6/16/23 at 8:56 am to Buckeye06
How about having to submit to a psych test before being allowed to fly?
I think I'd rather deal with a "person of weight"(
) over a certified lunatic who's triggered by their surroundings. 
I think I'd rather deal with a "person of weight"(
) over a certified lunatic who's triggered by their surroundings. Posted on 6/16/23 at 9:22 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
All I'm saying is, when I flew military, they weighed me with my bags for the manifest.
everything is based on weight, airlines use averages for normal ops, when we do military or athletic charters where weights are above averages they go into a little more detail
Posted on 6/16/23 at 9:40 am to RedFoxx
quote:How much the weight of the passengers matters depends on the size of the airplane and the mix of what it's carrying. I've had this conversation (we started discussing the circumstances of the Gimli Glider (Wikipedia)) within the last week or so, with a pilot who's flown everything up to at least 767s. He said that for a typical U.S. scheduled commercial flight in a multi-engine jet, the amount of fuel carried and the cargo weight are more important than the weight of the passengers. That's not to say that the weight of the passengers doesn't matter, or that in less-common cases the weight of the passengers becomes important. And of course, if you're close to the weight limit on a hot day, then you need to be extra-careful that you don't get too heavy.quote:The weight of passengers absolutely matters. We use 195lbs per adult in the winter and 190lbs in the summer and 85lbs for children to help calculate total takeoff weight. This includes passengers and their carry on bags. Over 40% of Americans are obese these standard average weight numbers are way too low. If it means weighing passengers and using an actual weight system to be more accurate (and safe) so be it.
Relative to commercial flights on decent-sized airplanes, the weight of the passenger is not really so much the issue. (If flying on a puddle-jumper, that may not be true.) Also, there has to be a minimum; a toddler still occupies a whole regular seat
Posted on 6/16/23 at 9:43 am to NOLATiger163
quote:
the amount of fuel carried and the cargo weight are more important than the weight of the passengers.
old baw wasn't referring to performance/fuel consumption, he was talking about revenue yield, freight pays a lot more than you obese and obnoxious slobs
Posted on 6/16/23 at 10:10 am to 777Tiger
quote:We were discussing all three. If the airplane is lugging around more fuel than it needs to safely reach its intended destination with a reasonable reserve, then that's weight that can't be taken up by revenue-producing passengers and/or freight, and/or weight that reduces performance. But relevant to our discussion here, he said that in typical commercial flights in decent-size jets, the cargo weight is considerably more than the passenger weight.quote:old baw wasn't referring to performance/fuel consumption, he was talking about revenue yield, freight pays a lot more than you obese and obnoxious slobs
the amount of fuel carried and the cargo weight are more important than the weight of the passengers.
(And as for obese, last I checked maybe a month ago, my BMI was < 25, i.e., not even overweight much less obese, by the most common medical criterion.)
Posted on 6/16/23 at 10:15 am to NOLATiger163
quote:
If the airplane is lugging around more fuel than it needs to safely reach its intended destination with a reasonable reserve,
the airlines rarely take a teaspoon more fuel than is needed for the safe conduct of the flight, not only would it decrease payload it would burn more fuel to carry the additional weight of the tankered fuel
Posted on 6/16/23 at 7:36 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
airlines use averages for normal ops
The "average" American is fat AS frick in 2023.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News