Comments on: Phony airline ads and website almost too close to reality

Phony airline ads and website almost too close to reality

polysigma — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:01:34 -0800

A fairly convincing website for a fake airline added to the outrage some felt in Philadelphia when newspaper ads promised airfares based passengers' weights. "Philadelphia to L.A., $2.25/pound" read the ads.

By: Ms. Saint

Ms. Saint — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:06:53 -0800

I'm confused. If this is a hoax or something, why were there newspaper ads?

By: artifarce

artifarce — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:04 -0800

Do you get a bigger seat if you pay for a more expensive fare?

By: lostburner

lostburner — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:10:42 -0800

The Derrie-Air campaign is a fictitious advertising campaign created by Philadelphia Media Holdings to test the results of advertising in our print and online products and to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens. The newspaper ads were part of the hoax. The post confuses me. Are you saying that the website exacerbated the outrage that started based on the newspaper ads? Is there any commentary or news about the reaction to this experiment?

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:11:43 -0800

Okay I love the name of the airline, but where's the "outrage", poly?

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:12:41 -0800

er, or what lostburner said.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:12:47 -0800

I just made almost the same comment as lostburner, but deleted it before I posted it, because I suddenly had - wait for it - a bad feeling about this.

By: polysigma

polysigma — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:17:07 -0800

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:17:11 -0800

hint: it has to do with the poster's lack of additional participation, contact information, and identifying characteristics

By: aubilenon

aubilenon — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:17:16 -0800

yhbc: I'm still waiting for it

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:17:17 -0800

it's a test blimp, i mean balloon - clearly, the rest of the airline industry will not be left behind - they will weigh their options, not to mention their passengers, and soak up the gravy from the larger biscuited fares, and make tons of money - what seems to be a light-hearted joke will soon change as transport arteries clog with hefty hunks who will pay chunks of cash to fly the fatty skies

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:17:40 -0800

Do you get a bigger seat if you pay for a more expensive fare? You'd have to lose the weight before you fly.

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:19:59 -0800

Is the NAAFA real or another joke?

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:21:20 -0800

Last summer I was at the Entebbe airport in Uganda for a domestic flight and they were making people step on a scale before giving them their boarding pass.

By: polysigma

polysigma — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:22:02 -0800

Oh, NAAFA is real all right.

By: optovox

optovox — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:22:43 -0800

Derrie-Air possible slogan: "When Pigs Fly!"

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:24:44 -0800

Is this a viral campaign for a new Queen Latifah movie?

By: iconomy

iconomy — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:25:10 -0800

Here's a bit of the ads. Link to the outrage, please? I can't find any outrage.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:28:53 -0800

On the one hand, I can see any corporate behaviour that stigmatizes fat people starting down a slippery slope that will end with the overweight feeling like the lepers and schizophrenics of yore. However, it does actually make sense to surcharge passengers based on the weight of the person plus luggage.

By: kitchenrat

kitchenrat — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:43:05 -0800

i flew out of a remote island in fiji after my luggage and i were both weighed on a copra scale in the tea shack at the airfield. when the pilot was given the manifest with the weights on it, he totalled it, shook his head, and walked up to a fat guy and told him he couldn't get on the plane. easier, i thought, than having two skinny guys pissed off at you.

By: Maias

Maias — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:44:22 -0800

Ok, I'm a person notorious for taking things literally-- but did people *really* believe there was an airline called derrie-air? They might well have just put ass burger on the inflight menu for us...

By: kiltedtaco

kiltedtaco — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:46:41 -0800

However, it does actually make sense to surcharge passengers based on the weight of the person plus luggage. Does it also make sense to charge handicapped people more to fly since they require more assistance, special facilities, beeping carts in the terminal, etc.?

By: rokusan

rokusan — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:49:12 -0800

Yeah, if there was outrage, you should really link to it in the FPP. I like this, actually, and if there is outrage, I think that's a very good thing. If people just "meh" this and accept it, I'm pretty sure the airlines will implement it for real. I even wonder if that's the balloon they're floating here. Harmless, after all, since it's "just a joke." Maybe I'm a pessimist, but between security theatre and people's desire to trade dignity to save a few bucks, I really don't expect airline travel to get better until it gets much worse. For example, I fully expect to see passengers required to fly in paper hospital gowns with their jewelry and carry-on possessions in a transparent baggie.

By: Shen

Shen — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:49:16 -0800

Well as someone who often has excess luggage (musical instruments) but who doesn't have so much excess fat, I have often thought this is the way to go. Why should someone carrying 50kg extra on their body get away with no charge when I can't take my musical instruments without having to haggle excess baggage fees down?!

By: rokusan

rokusan — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:50:06 -0800

They might well have just put ass burger on the inflight menu for us... Mmm. Assburger. The favorite fast food of ADD fatties everywhere.

By: danb

danb — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:53:44 -0800

Sucks to your ass-burgers!

By: SassHat

SassHat — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:57:00 -0800

It's too close for comfort with Southwest and some other carriers arbitrarily deciding that some fat people have to buy an extra seat on the plane (this decision does not seem to go by body weight/volume/any other clearly defined metric, either). I will gladly pay by pound for my fat ass if others will be billed for the amount of crap they bring on board (purses, shopping bags, comforters, strollers, golf bags, gym bags, hockey bags, guitars, illicit booze, glazed hams), the amount of times their baby cries or their five year old kicks my seat, the amount of times I have to listen to someone's stupid phone conversations ("Yeah we're waiting to take off. I think I want to go to Chili's for dinner. Did you see American Idol last night? I know. I can't believe what Randy said."), the minutes in total someone spends in the bathroom (hey, why should we all suffer because you hit the tequila too hard last night or ate from a shady taco drunk and got the shits?), the degree to which the snacks they brought on board smell (yes I'm talking to you Atkins dude with your hardboiled egg, smoked sausage and tuna fish ), the amount of times they hit the "stewardess button", the amount of sound from their snoring or that leaks out of their earphones while they blare Nickelback on their iPod, the times they guffaw out loud to whatever filmic atrocity they show on the flight, every time Tall dude knees my seatback and bitches that he doesn't have enough room (but it's not your *fault* if you're tall! Only if you're teh fatz!).

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:09:39 -0800

Note to self: take the bus.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:10:09 -0800

but it's not your *fault* if you're tall! Only if you're teh fatz! Well, ya gotta remember that it is easier to lose weight as opposed to height, so that example doesn't really help your point. I suppose the fairest thing would be for airlines to assign a certain weight to each seat, say 150 lbs and then everyone has to pay for weight over that amount, be it from luggage or personal weight.

By: christonabike

christonabike — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:14:58 -0800

but it's not your *fault* if you're tall! Only if you're teh fatz Right, because being tall is genetic, while 99.9% of the time, if you're fat, it's your fault.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:25:22 -0800

Does it also make sense to charge handicapped people more to fly since they require more assistance, special facilities, beeping carts in the terminal, etc.? Probably not. The incremental cost of helping a handicapped person (e.g. the work done by the flight attendant) is probably minimal, since the flight attendant has to be on hand anyway. Trying to pass the cost of capital expenditures to handicapped people (e.g. facilities, ramps, etc.) probably doesn't make any sense, since the expenditures are mandated by law. The end result would likely be that handicapped people didn't fly much and the costs ended up being absorbed by the non-handicapped anyway. Flying a fat person around really does incur additional fuel costs that are presently being paid for by the thinner customers as a group. Additionally, fat people take up more space, and this cost is often subsidized by whatever random thin person the fat person happens to sit next to. I don't see anything wrong with charging people based on actual amount of resources they consume--that is, resources that would've been saved or available for another paying customer if they weren't on the flight.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:27:36 -0800

I don't see anything wrong with charging people based on actual amount of resources they consume you'd better hope and pray there's never a bullshit shortage then

By: Dreama

Dreama — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:35:52 -0800

If you're going to treat people as cargo, then you're going to have to recognize that people, like cargo, are three dimensional. If I'm paying more for a seat because of my weight, then I want more space to go along with it. So until they make adjustable seats that can expand and retract based upon the occupant, this is not going to -- forgive the pun -- fly.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:36:07 -0800

It was a bit of an expensive hoax, actually, since the print ads cost a fair bit. Some of the aforementioned outrage was whipped up by the local chapter of NAAFA, the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, which called it a clear case of discrimination. Others objected to the founder's bio (hunting alligators from the back of a truck). People just take themselves and everything else too seriously these days. Dear Mefites, I suggest that you go to the main page of the linked site and scroll down before you read the rest of what I'm posting here. No? Seriously, go do it. Pay particular attention to that last sentence. It wasn't a hoax, since there is a disclaimer on the website telling you it's fake. This was a very clever ad campaign run by the Philadelphia Enquirer and another paper meant to catch the attention of potential advertisers and simulate traffic driven to a advertiser's site by an ad placed in the paper. And it did. And now not only have advertisers heard of this ad, there's site traffic data from the day that the ads ran to show to those advertisers when they call. I've seen this mentioned in at least 3 separate places now in the form of an AP news article that seems to be making the rounds. The first was the Washington Post. Now Metafiter. This is the first place where I've seen outrage even mentioned. Also, please tell me you didn't find this "pretty convincing": What amenities will your jets offer? First of all there will be no class distinctions inside of a Derrie-Air jet. Every passenger will be treated like royalty. Every seat will be first class. There will simply be too many extras and treats on our flights to list here, but highlights will include: gorgeous air hosts and hostesses, golden-age Rat Pack films, top-shelf vodka Martinis, on-demand video blackjack, spacious private washrooms outfitted with porcelain fixtures and gilded faucets, gourmet snacks, on-board masseuses, loofah scrubs and, of course, digital cable!

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:41:22 -0800

Also, some financial context about Philadelphia Media Holdings.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:42:08 -0800

Could Airlines Start Charging A "Weight Fee"?

By: SassHat

SassHat — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:44:58 -0800

Right, because being tall is genetic, while 99.9% of the time, if you're fat, it's your fault Oh great, I'd love to see some data on that. Oh wait, I can do that too: Studies show that tall people use 99% more oxygen than short people! The Height Epidemic must be stopped! Our precious resources are being drained by the evil giants! When will the menace end? * * Study sponsored by Small Yet Mighty clothing store, where Napoleon Complex isn't just a name, it's our promise.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:46:27 -0800

If I'm paying more for a seat because of my weight, then I want more space to go along with it. But the extra weight requires more fuel regardless. There are really two issues: fuel and space.

By: matty

matty — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:48:36 -0800

What most of you are ignoring is that when oil went over $120 a barrel, everything changed. Hell, it actually changed back at $70 a barrel, which is what most of the airlines (except Southwest, bless their hedged souls) were dealing with. You better face the facts. Weight = Money. In the realm of $100+ barrels of oil, your paradigm of what makes a cheap flight is shot out the very small, scratched window. Here's a good read on why it's not about you, or your fat ass, or about what perks you want when flying... http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121304736426558641-lMyQjAxMDI4MTEzMDAxNDA3Wj.html It's all about the GAS.

By: netbros

netbros — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:56:18 -0800

I can get on board with that.

By: mexican

mexican — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:59:39 -0800

Dick's longing to plunge into Derrie-Air... I think I can see how some people might have thought the company was for real.

By: SassHat

SassHat — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:12:52 -0800

If weight = fuel, then I guess tall bodybuilders are so getting screwed. Males across the board will pay more, as will those of Anglo Saxon descent in general. And short models will be able to fly practically for free. Stack them in there like a box of matches!

By: matty

matty — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:16:48 -0800

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:21:55 -0800

Could something like this (some sort of economic incentive to bring less weight on a plane) be worth it? How much weight would have to be removed from a typical commercial airplane to make it worthwhile? Honestly, flying these days is the pits. It really couldn't get any worse. Anything that could make it cheaper is fine by me, since my experience there's nothing airlines can do it to make it any more fun.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:22:51 -0800

By "worthwhile", I mean worthwhile financially to the airlines in any way that could keep tickets cheap.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:33:21 -0800

If they started to bill by the pound, people would start flying naked, or in insufficient clothing. This is not a good thing.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:35:02 -0800

Remember the rumor that they were going to start making people fly standing up? I'm up for that. Chairs are heavy!

By: small_ruminant

small_ruminant — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:36:38 -0800

Or they could start using more fuel efficient planes... This is clearly all a racist plot, possibly by the Chinese; everyone knows that on average Chinese people weigh less than Anglos.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:40:06 -0800

The next step will be clothing being priced according to the amount of fabric used. And maybe elevator surcharges, 'cause surely it costs a lot more to haul a humongous person 100 stories up, than it does a wee person. Man, dwarves are gonna have it made in the shade in the next decade!

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:44:14 -0800

I just wish they'd charge people extra for stuffing their bags in overhead compartments well forward of their seats so that people towards the front run out of space and have to put their bags further back, and have to wait until the plane is practically empty before they can get their bag and leave.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:46:45 -0800

And shoes! These shouldn't cost more than these!

By: SassHat

SassHat — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:59:36 -0800

FFF - they do charge more for bigger clothes ...the exact same items in plus sizes will generally run 10-50% more, occasionally even higher. Big and tall shops for men also seem to be pricier.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:02:12 -0800

Also, everyone's food each month should cost the same, irrespective of how much (and what) they eat.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:20:20 -0800

In the realm of $100+ barrels of oil, your paradigm of what makes a cheap flight is shot out the very small, scratched window. They had a stat on ABC News that a round-trip flight from NY to LA costs $448 in gas alone. (Now, personally, this sounds like bullshit since I just took a flight longer than that which cost less, but it's still fascinating.)

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:23:12 -0800

If they do this, it seems most fair to also remove weight categories and excess charges (although it still makes sense to retain size categories) for luggage, and add passenger weight and baggage weight together. You, and your stuff, make up the total weight-cost of your travel. The way the system is set up now, the per-seat cost is based on average weight. Charging heavier folks (who are not all fat, it's the same as BMI) extra without charging light folks less amounts to double-dipping. This scheme has at least the advantage of being fairer than a weight surcharge. Space reasons are another question entirely. A very tall and muscular person may weigh the same as a fat person, but not take up anywhere near as much seat room. Even two fat people, with the same weight but different builds, may not take up the same seat room. The fair measure IMO is not weight, but butt and shoulder widths. With that in mind, perhaps passengers could be more comfortably accommodated if the airline set its seats up with more variety in their width, eg out of 25 normally 4-seat rows, make 5 of them 3-seat rows, and 5 of them 5-seat rows, at the same total width. Although, families want to sit together, and this wouldn't work well with that goal ... maybe some {1.25,.75,1.25,.75} rows? If you knew in advance everyone's butt size and desire to sit together, it'd be a much easier problem.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:14:55 -0800

And short models will be able to fly practically for free. Stack them in there like a box of matches! I'll pay extra for a seat in that section. I may need a privacy blanket, though.

By: grae

grae — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:56:22 -0800

According to this article, which I read in the newspaper this morning (although the print version was more extensive than the online version), airlines are finding fuel savings by washing their planes more often. Apparently Southwest has already saved $1.6 million by doing this. If they're seeing cost savings like this simply by washing the planes, discouraging overweight people from flying might actually significantly improve their profit margins. According to Northwest, every 25 pounds they remove from the planes translates to a $440000 cost savings. Even a 5% reduction in the average weight of passengers is probably worth a few million dollars to their bottom line... If airlines are talking about changing their silverware (according to the print article, JAL is reducing their international cutlery by an average of .07 oz per piece) I would imagine that airlines might come up with ways, either directly or indirectly, to get overweight people to fly less.

By: 1adam12

1adam12 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:20:10 -0800

It really couldn't get any worse. Great. You just jinxed us all.

By: mek

mek — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:49:27 -0800

By: pracowity

pracowity — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:28:46 -0800

You know those little wire measuring frames that you have to put your carry-on luggage into to make sure it will fit in the overhead compartment? And the "You must be this tall..." signs for amusement park rides? When they sell tickets, you ought to have to sit in a sample of the seat (small, medium, or large, and a couple of different sizes of leg room) that you are buying without exerting too much pressure on the sides. (You shouldn't be allowed to buy a small when you are really a large who would overflow into the seats around you.) Based on customer analysis, airlines might regularly offer seat combinations to accommodate parents and children (small/medium, small/large, small/large/small, whatever works out best), and make sure those combinations are in a separate section with some soundproofing. Quickly adjustable seats would be best. And charge a flat fee per seat plus a per-kilo charge at check-in, regardless of what complaints you have about what life has done to you: you, your giant titanium suitcases stuffed with too much clothing and souvenir detritus, plus the babies, crutches, wheelchair, platform shoes, iron lung, monkey on your back, Siamese twin, lunch, bottled water, favorite concrete block, and everything else you intend to carry on to the plane or stow in the baggage compartment. If you can't find a seat on the plane that suits you, try a different plane, different airline, different day. Schedule ahead. The first airline that tried this would at first lose a lot of fat customers and people who love to lug luggage, though it would rake in a lot of cash from thinner people who weren't taking half their wardrobes with them. Airlines that kept offering a flat fee for ass shipment would end up with the bulk of the bulkier people and would have to raise prices for everyone to make up for it. In the end, the per-kilo shipping method would win.

By: dowcrag

dowcrag — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:43:25 -0800

I used to fly in South America (Guyana) and this happened. Every pound over 10 stone, you had to pay for, plus the weight of your baggage. Every time I get in my car, I'm paying for fuel in proportion to my weight and the amount of crap I'm carrying. If you're heavy, it costs more in energy terms to move you around. This isn't discrimination, it's just physics.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:50:11 -0800

I like the idea of small/medium/large seats as paying the same exact price for my daughter the day she turned two years as a full-grown adult would pay crossing the atlantic burned man. She snuggled in my chair (in my lap) the entire flight across the atlantic and that just felt silly. A wee kid seat next to us might have had her actually use it. ;)

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:47:53 -0800

GenItalia is not the national airline of Italy.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:32:53 -0800

I suppose the fairest thing would be for airlines to assign a certain weight to each seat, say 150 lbs and then everyone has to pay for weight over that amount, be it from luggage or personal weight. You all realize major airlines have charged you for luggage over a certain weight for, like, 40 years now, right? That's why there's a weight limit on luggage.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:16:35 -0800

Oh, NAAFA is real all right. Yes, we know. You just still haven't linked to any "outrage" from anyone. yhbc's right; this post really smells: it's a link to a newspaper experiment about driving traffic to a web site, posted by someone who faked an outrage element to make the story seem sexier. polysigma, where did you see any "outraged" reaction to this story? And do you have anything to do with the experiment?

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:21:26 -0800

Ross Perot was right about NAAFA. That giant sucking sound? That's them, drinking your milkshake. This comment comes preflagged by the hypocritical fat commenter. No worries, lardos! I'm on your side! (even though I had to take a train and two buses to get there.)

By: tzikeh

tzikeh — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:48:01 -0800

I'm calling bullshit on the idea that charging more for heavier people is economically important until I see real stats on weight adding significantly to fuel costs. Where's the cut-off? Let's say that four people on a flight are 250 pounds each. Now let's say that there are also six children on the flight, who weight between 50-70 pounds each. Doesn't that balance out? How will the airlines know what the total weight of the flight will be, and if they don't, how can they justify charging heavier people more? What if all of the "overweight" adds up to what would be two or three people, and the flight isn't full? Just how much does it cost in fuel for a 160-pound person to fly? Without these (and more) real numbers, the whole thing *is* fat discrimination.

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:36:17 -0800

tzikeh, scroll up. If they're seeing cost savings like this simply by washing the planes, discouraging overweight people from flying might actually significantly improve their profit margins. According to Northwest, every 25 pounds they remove from the planes translates to a $440000 cost savings. Even a 5% reduction in the average weight of passengers is probably worth a few million dollars to their bottom line... If airlines are talking about changing their silverware (according to the print article, JAL is reducing their international cutlery by an average of .07 oz per piece) I would imagine that airlines might come up with ways, either directly or indirectly, to get overweight people to fly less. Weight matters. In this NY times article, airlines are talking about removing the pilot manuals that weigh 30 lbs from flights. Every lb matters. There is no such thing as "balance out" in terms of weight and fuel costs. The lighter the plane, the less fuel used, the less the flight costs to operate.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:41:01 -0800

FFF - they do charge more for bigger clothes ...the exact same items in plus sizes will generally run 10-50% more, occasionally even higher. Big and tall shops for men also seem to be pricier. That's called supply-and-demand. I'm afraid the wee folk also pay a premium if they're purchasing adult clothing. tzikeh: as stated above in this thread: According to Northwest, every 25 pounds they remove from the planes translates to a $440000 cost savings. Which, granted, sounds like bullshit. Maybe a half-million over the lifetime of the aircraft. I'd be surprised if it were a half-million per year.

By: Science!

Science! — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:43:50 -0800

mek: "the exact same items in plus sizes will generally run 10-50% more, occasionally even higher. Big and tall shops for men also seem to be pricier. posted by SassHat at 8:59 PM on June 11 [+] [!] This isn't true at all, within reasonable sizes. 38-38 jeans are the exact same price as 30-30 jeans. If you're buying some bizarre 8X-L clothes at Big Fat Al's, well, I can't speak to that. But within my experience, you are very wrong." In my experience YOU are very wrong. Lot's of stores charge more for anything bigger than Large and say 40" waists.

By: LionIndex

LionIndex — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:47:31 -0800

the exact same items in plus sizes will generally run 10-50% more, occasionally even higher. Big and tall shops for men also seem to be pricier. posted by SassHat at 8:59 PM on June 11 [+] [!] This isn't true at all, within reasonable sizes. 38-38 jeans are the exact same price as 30-30 jeans. If you're buying some bizarre 8X-L clothes at Big Fat Al's, well, I can't speak to that. But within my experience, you are very wrong. It probably depends on where you go, but in my experience of ordering shirts from Land's End and L.L. Bean, tall sizes definitely cost more, typically something like $5 per item, although I haven't noticed a size premium based on whether I'm buying an L or a XXL. Nordstroms is the only department store I've seen tall shirts at, and they don't charge a premium for them. Pants are different, since they're typically made unfinished and then hemmed up, so the length wouldn't matter. I hardly ever see pants longer than 34" in stores, however.

By: rusty

rusty — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:53:06 -0800

ThePinkSuperhero: ...some sort of economic incentive to bring less weight on a plane... Rising ticket prices will do it. The McSuperSize family can't afford to fly without artificially low rates.

By: jedicus

jedicus — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:57:08 -0800

How will the airlines know what the total weight of the flight will be, and if they don't, how can they justify charging heavier people more? They don't have to know the total weight ahead of time. More weight equals more fuel consumption. Think about loading a car: if you have 4 adults you will use more gas than if you have 1 adult or 1 adult and 3 small children. But you don't have to put more gas in the tank ahead of time. Instead, you always start with a full tank, but you'll have less left over at the end the more weight you carry. (Planes don't necessarily have full tanks, of course, if the trip is short enough, but you get the idea). Without these (and more) real numbers, the whole thing *is* fat discrimination. It requires roughly 1.3 gallons of fuel to transport 100 pounds 1000 miles on a 777. Here in St. Louis, Jet A costs about $6.50/gallon right now. So that's $8.45/100 pounds/1000 miles. The average weight for an adult male in the US is 190 pounds. So assuming you get the first 190lbs included in the base price of the ticket, a severely overweight passenger weighing, say, 390lbs would have to pay all of $84.50 or so extra on a roundtrip NY-LA flight (~5000 miles). That's not an unbearable or unreasonable surcharge. As dowcrag said, it's just physics.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:10:48 -0800

Yes, the heavier you are, the more fuel it takes to fly you somewhere. If you don't understand this, something is seriously wrong with your understanding of physics. A few people commenting here seem to have some experience flying on small aircraft. Anyone who has ever flown in a bushplane will be familiar with being weighed before a flight. For a small aircraft, the weight of the passengers needs to be known with a fair amount of precision for any fuel calculation to be accurate. I think the fairest way to price airline tickets would be to take the weight of an empty plane divided by its capacity, and add this weight to the total weight of the passenger plus baggage, plus the weight of your share of fuel, and use that to calculate the price. There would certainly be a weight premium in this case, but it probably wouldn't be very large.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:13:11 -0800

It should be mentioned that the pricing scheme addressed below only considers the cost of fuel. Of course there are plenty of fixed costs to consider, but basing a fuel charge on such a system would be pretty damn fair, methinks.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:13:31 -0800

Addressed above, damnit.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:17:04 -0800

Philly False Airline Ads Draw High Responses, Ethics Concerns

"Did the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News cross an ethical line Friday when they ran a slew of false ads for a non-existent airline in an attempt to gauge the power of print and online advertising? Some journalism ethicists and observers say yes. The fake airline ads that ran Friday in both Philadelphia dailies and their joint Web site apparently drew a higher-than-usual response rate, at least online, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. An Inquirer story reported that the ads for 'Derrie-Air,' which promoted the fictional airline in several ads as a way to test the paper's ad reach in print and online, drew in a 1.25% 'click-through' rate for the online version, compared to a national click-through average of 0.05%. 'The full- and partial-page ads for Derrie-Air, a fictitious environmentally friendly airline purporting to offer fares based on a passenger's weight, appeared 21 times in sections of The Inquirer, 15 times in the Daily News, and on the Philly.com home page,' the story said, adding later, 'The ads carry no disclaimer, but one does appear on the Web page to which readers are referred in the ads. It says, in part, 'The Derrie-Air campaign is a fictitious advertising campaign created by Philadelphia Media Holdings to test the results of advertising in our print and online products and to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens.'' ...The lack of full disclosure on most of the ads prompted some concern from some journalism veterans. 'It is clearly deception,' said Bob Steele, the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values at The Poynter Institute. 'Newspapers should not be in the business of deception. I can't imagine the Inquirer and Daily News would run fake ads from other companies.' Kelly McBride, Poynter ethics group leader, said: 'anytime you deceive your audience, you run the risk of compromising their ability to trust you. 'Market research is a good goal in terms of understanding how advertising is going to work in this era,' she added. 'I wonder if there is a way to do that that doesn't deceive the audience. Is there something you could create that could measure responses without tricking the audience?' Officials from Philadelphia Media Holdings did not return calls seeking comment Monday. Clint Brewer, president of the Society of Professional Journalists and executive editor of The City Paper in Nashville, Tenn., worried that a false ad might spark distrust in the news product. 'My concern would be, given how thirsty the public is for affordable air travel, if readers were to be miffed about this being false, would they then transfer those feelings to the news side of the papers?' he said. 'I would be concerned if I was in those newsrooms.' Inquirer Editor Bill Marimow and Daily News Editor Michael Days were not reachable for comment. John Kimball, chief marketing officer for the Newspaper Association of America, defended the newspapers: 'I think the public is pretty understanding. [The ad] is so over the top, it is hard to think anyone would see it any other way.' The Inquirer story did not say if such false ads would run again soon in either paper or on the Web site."

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:21:10 -0800

Derrie-Air's Lesson for Media Buyers

"...Online, marketers and Internet users are quite familiar with this type of ruse. It's not uncommon for brands and their agencies to dream up elaborate viral marketing campaigns in an effort to generate more buzz than would typically be accomplished by a straight media buy....In most cases where the masses are meant to be duped, the media and its ad placements play an essential role in distributing the fake information, whether publishers know it or not. For Philadelphia Media Holdings, its media buy was central to the campaign in every way. Companies investing in this type of alternate ad campaign often leverage their existing media buys and publisher relationships to secure inventory through which to promote their unconventional efforts. Here, convention meets innovation, and it works. To buyers and planners, this point should be of great interest. We're always looking for ways to make our client's buys more creative through customization and unique site partnerships, believing this is the best way to draw attention to their ads. In fact, the most standard of ad buys, whether online or in a print newspaper, can deliver extraordinary results when used in conjunction with an extraordinary campaign. What a great reminder of the importance of campaign concepts and ad creative and how they work in tandem with our buys. Even though Derrie-Air was meant to demonstrate the power of Philadelphia's newspaper advertising, it did the whole practice of media buying a favor by drawing attention to the close relationship between media buys and ad effectiveness. Without a sure-fire way to reach the masses, Derrie-Air would have been nothing but a funny idea that made its way around the office before growing cold with the coffee. Most marketers take their work very seriously, but there's still room for fun and games -- the more unexpected, the better. We, along with everyone else, will continue to be fooled, but when it comes to our turn, it's our media buys that will help our client's heavyweight campaigns take flight."

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:23:42 -0800

What's Wrong With Putting A Fake Ad In A Newspaper?

... any time you trick some people, someone's going to get upset -- and that's exactly what's happening. Suddenly people are charging the company with some sort of ethical lapse for not making it clear the ad was fake. Of course, if they did that, the whole purpose of the ad would have been lost. Plus, it's difficult to see what the 'harm' is. If a few people thought it was real, they would quickly be disabused of that notion, with no harm done. The people complaining that this would somehow make people trust the news in the paper less apparently haven't been paying attention to the various reporting scandals over the past few years. People have plenty of reasons not to trust the news that they read. Seeing a fake (and mildly amusing) ad in a paper isn't going to make them trust the newspapers any less."

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:28:37 -0800

"So, should passengers be prepared for airfare pricing by the pound? In that same Bloomberg article, aviation consultant Robert Mann lays out the logic, saying, 'If you look at the air-freight business, that's the way they've always done it. We're getting treated like air freight when we travel by airlines, anyway.' Mann has a point, and maybe a good one. Why shouldn't a person be charged a fare equivalent to the actual cost of transporting his or her weight? The obvious answer is discrimination, as per-pound pricing essentially penalizes larger passengers for simply being larger, a condition some individuals can't help. Something tells me the airlines will be wary of bad press, lawsuits, and other forms of unwanted attention that could accompany this pricing model. Of course, controversial policies regarding larger passengers are not exactly new. Southwest has had a 'Customer of Size' rule for years that requires passengers who cannot fit into a seat with the armrests down to purchase a ticket for the adjacent seat. No other major carrier has a similar policy. Again, I doubt per-pound pricing will be a reality any time soon, so don't get on the treadmill yet. But if the airline industry has taught us anything lately, it's that nothing is beyond reason."^*

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:31:04 -0800

Interview with Jay Devine, spokesperson for Philadelphia Media [video: 1:34].

By: Fupped Duck

Fupped Duck — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:26:54 -0800

Please apply this pricing scheme to Health Insurance and bridge tolls as well

By: CruiseSavvy

CruiseSavvy — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:27:19 -0800

Rather than a direct weight charge I suspect airlines will take more indirect measures to further discourage larger people from flying. Here's why: Apart from the publicity / legal costs of an NAAFA uproar, there's just too much hassle involved in weighing each person and charging them accordingly. Can you imagine the lines? Even skinny, short, Asian people -- who would probably get hypoglycemic and faint in the queue -- would boycott flying. While less weight definitely means less fuel, on a per-pound basis the numbers just don't justify being super-exact. Based on the figures in the NYT/IHT article 1adam12 mentioned, I estimate ($440k/25lbs/365days/350planes/4flights) there's an incremental cost of 3.4 CENTS per pound on a trans-continental flight. My guess would be that Southwest will clarify their two-seats-required rules, and other airlines will follow suit.

By: johannahdeschanel

johannahdeschanel — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:28:59 -0800

My flights could have gotten so much cheaper. Skinny people should get first class AND cheap flights. When you reward skinny people, you get more skinny people, and isn't that what America needs...

By: CruiseSavvy

CruiseSavvy — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:30:48 -0800

> on a per-pound basis the numbers just don't justify being super-exact Sorry, I should've been more specific -- definitely worth being super-exact for things that are already weighed anyway (cargo) or under the airline's control (carts, flight manuals). Not worth being super-exact when you have to build in a whole new process ... that will also anger a lot of people ... when you can get a lot of the same result from simpler, Southwest-like policies.

By: MadDog Bob

MadDog Bob — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:18:02 -0800

Interesting timing. Current airline pricing desperately needs to be a lot more sane than it is now, but charging per pound isn't the lowest hanging fruit. The fact that airlines will give you a discount for flying a longer multi-leg route vs. a non-stop is lunacy. Let's say you want to fly to get to some small town equidistant from a major hub and a smaller airport. It's routine for a non-stop to the major hub to be significantly more expensive than a two leg flight to the smaller airport, stopping in the hub. I'm inured to it now, but the fact it doesn't surprise me any more doesn't make it right.

By: quin

quin — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:38:18 -0800

The airline industry as it currently stands needs to (no pun intended) crash and burn. It's horribly mismanaged and has been for years. Because of the logistics involved, I doubt they could actually roll out weight based pricing even if they wanted to, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't try something similar before too long to keep themselves afloat. Eventually, they are going to run out of tricks and the whole industry will fall apart. Then, hopefully, we can get something better designed.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:55:59 -0800

Here's why: Apart from the publicity / legal costs of an NAAFA uproar, there's just too much hassle involved in weighing each person and charging them accordingly. Can you imagine the lines? Although I would say the same thing about charging every person who has even one checked bag $15, each way, and yet American did it.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:58:28 -0800

Please apply this pricing scheme to Health Insurance and bridge tolls as well I'm sure the Health Insurance industry would love to charge more for everyone with a chronic disease or condition. Often, they do. I have a strong suspicion that in 30 years the scientific consensus will be that individuals' choices influence their height as much as they do their weight.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:07:31 -0800

And bridge tolls go up by weight too. That's what the per-axle tolls is a shorthand for.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:04:45 -0800

Southwest has had a 'Customer of Size' rule for years that requires passengers who cannot fit into a seat with the armrests down to purchase a ticket for the adjacent seat. An eminently sensible policy. I doubt people's weight really makes a big difference in transport cost (doubling the person's weight doesn't double the fuel consumed in transporting that person), but sure as heck if you take up twice as much width, that's one less seat that can be sold. Or, more likely, that seat is sold anyway, and both people end up having a miserable flight experience. Bad customer services is the hallmark of the airline trade after all.