Phony airline ads and website almost too close to reality
June 11, 2008 6:01 PM Subscribe
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.
Do you get a bigger seat if you pay for a more expensive fare?
posted by artifarce at 6:08 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by artifarce at 6:08 PM on June 11, 2008
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?
posted by lostburner at 6:10 PM on June 11, 2008
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?
posted by lostburner at 6:10 PM on June 11, 2008
Okay I love the name of the airline, but where's the "outrage", poly?
posted by JaredSeth at 6:11 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by JaredSeth at 6:11 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by yhbc at 6:12 PM on June 11, 2008
a bad feeling about this.
posted by yhbc at 6:12 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by polysigma at 6:17 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by polysigma at 6:17 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
hint: it has to do with the poster's lack of additional participation, contact information, and identifying characteristics
posted by yhbc at 6:17 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by yhbc at 6:17 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
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
posted by pyramid termite at 6:17 PM on June 11, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 6:17 PM on June 11, 2008 [4 favorites]
Do you get a bigger seat if you pay for a more expensive fare?
You'd have to lose the weight before you fly.
posted by tkchrist at 6:17 PM on June 11, 2008
You'd have to lose the weight before you fly.
posted by tkchrist at 6:17 PM on June 11, 2008
Is the NAAFA real or another joke?
posted by gottabefunky at 6:19 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by gottabefunky at 6:19 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by gottabefunky at 6:21 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by gottabefunky at 6:21 PM on June 11, 2008
Here's a bit of the ads.
Link to the outrage, please? I can't find any outrage.
posted by iconomy at 6:25 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
Link to the outrage, please? I can't find any outrage.
posted by iconomy at 6:25 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:28 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:28 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by kitchenrat at 6:43 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by kitchenrat at 6:43 PM on June 11, 2008
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...
posted by Maias at 6:44 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by Maias at 6:44 PM on June 11, 2008
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.?
posted by kiltedtaco at 6:46 PM on June 11, 2008
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.?
posted by kiltedtaco at 6:46 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by rokusan at 6:49 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by rokusan at 6:49 PM on June 11, 2008
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?!
posted by Shen at 6:49 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Shen at 6:49 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
They might well have just put ass burger on the inflight menu for us...
Mmm. Assburger. The favorite fast food of ADD fatties everywhere.
posted by rokusan at 6:50 PM on June 11, 2008
Mmm. Assburger. The favorite fast food of ADD fatties everywhere.
posted by rokusan at 6:50 PM on June 11, 2008
Sucks to your ass-burgers!
posted by danb at 6:53 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by danb at 6:53 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
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!).
posted by SassHat at 6:57 PM on June 11, 2008 [8 favorites]
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!).
posted by SassHat at 6:57 PM on June 11, 2008 [8 favorites]
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.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:10 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
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.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:10 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
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.
posted by christonabike at 7:14 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
Right, because being tall is genetic, while 99.9% of the time, if you're fat, it's your fault.
posted by christonabike at 7:14 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
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.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:25 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:25 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
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
posted by pyramid termite at 7:27 PM on June 11, 2008 [8 favorites]
you'd better hope and pray there's never a bullshit shortage then
posted by pyramid termite at 7:27 PM on June 11, 2008 [8 favorites]
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.
posted by Dreama at 7:35 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by Dreama at 7:35 PM on June 11, 2008
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!
posted by Tehanu at 7:36 PM on June 11, 2008 [3 favorites]
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!
posted by Tehanu at 7:36 PM on June 11, 2008 [3 favorites]
Also, some financial context about Philadelphia Media Holdings.
posted by Tehanu at 7:41 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by Tehanu at 7:41 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by SassHat at 7:44 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by SassHat at 7:44 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:46 PM on June 11, 2008
But the extra weight requires more fuel regardless. There are really two issues: fuel and space.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:46 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by matty at 7:48 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by matty at 7:48 PM on June 11, 2008
Dick's longing to plunge into Derrie-Air...
I think I can see how some people might have thought the company was for real.
posted by mexican at 7:59 PM on June 11, 2008 [4 favorites]
I think I can see how some people might have thought the company was for real.
posted by mexican at 7:59 PM on June 11, 2008 [4 favorites]
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!
posted by SassHat at 8:12 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by SassHat at 8:12 PM on June 11, 2008
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!
Unfortunately, you're right.
posted by matty at 8:16 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:21 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:21 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
By "worthwhile", I mean worthwhile financially to the airlines in any way that could keep tickets cheap.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:22 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:22 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
If they started to bill by the pound, people would start flying naked, or in insufficient clothing. This is not a good thing.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:33 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by blue_beetle at 8:33 PM on June 11, 2008
Remember the rumor that they were going to start making people fly standing up? I'm up for that. Chairs are heavy!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:35 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:35 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by small_ruminant at 8:36 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
This is clearly all a racist plot, possibly by the Chinese; everyone knows that on average Chinese people weigh less than Anglos.
posted by small_ruminant at 8:36 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
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!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:40 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
Man, dwarves are gonna have it made in the shade in the next decade!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:40 PM on June 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
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.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:44 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:44 PM on June 11, 2008
And shoes! These shouldn't cost more than these!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:46 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by five fresh fish at 8:46 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by SassHat at 8:59 PM on June 11, 2008
posted by SassHat at 8:59 PM on June 11, 2008
Also, everyone's food each month should cost the same, irrespective of how much (and what) they eat.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:02 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:02 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
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.)
posted by smackfu at 10:20 PM on June 11, 2008
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.)
posted by smackfu at 10:20 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:23 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:23 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by rokusan at 11:14 PM on June 11, 2008
I'll pay extra for a seat in that section. I may need a privacy blanket, though.
posted by rokusan at 11:14 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by grae at 11:56 PM on June 11, 2008
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.
posted by grae at 11:56 PM on June 11, 2008
It really couldn't get any worse.
Great. You just jinxed us all.
posted by 1adam12 at 12:20 AM on June 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
Great. You just jinxed us all.
posted by 1adam12 at 12:20 AM on June 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by mek at 12:49 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by mek at 12:49 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by pracowity at 1:28 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by pracowity at 1:28 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by dowcrag at 1:43 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by dowcrag at 1:43 AM on June 12, 2008
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. ;)
posted by dabitch at 1:50 AM on June 12, 2008
posted by dabitch at 1:50 AM on June 12, 2008
GenItalia is not the national airline of Italy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:47 AM on June 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:47 AM on June 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
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?
posted by mediareport at 5:16 AM on June 12, 2008
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?
posted by mediareport at 5:16 AM on June 12, 2008
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.)
posted by Eideteker at 5:21 AM on June 12, 2008
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.)
posted by Eideteker at 5:21 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by tzikeh at 6:48 AM on June 12, 2008
Without these (and more) real numbers, the whole thing *is* fat discrimination.
posted by tzikeh at 6:48 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by Stynxno at 7:36 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by Stynxno at 7:36 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:41 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:41 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by Science! at 7:43 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by Science! at 7:43 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by LionIndex at 7:47 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by LionIndex at 7:47 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by rusty at 7:53 AM on June 12, 2008
Rising ticket prices will do it. The McSuperSize family can't afford to fly without artificially low rates.
posted by rusty at 7:53 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by jedicus at 7:57 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by jedicus at 7:57 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:10 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:10 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:13 AM on June 12, 2008
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:13 AM on June 12, 2008
Addressed above, damnit.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:13 AM on June 12, 2008
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:13 AM on June 12, 2008
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.posted by ericb at 8:17 AM on June 12, 2008
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.”
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.posted by ericb at 8:21 AM on June 12, 2008
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."
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.posted by ericb at 8:23 AM on June 12, 2008
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."
“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.”*posted by ericb at 8:28 AM on June 12, 2008
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.”*posted by ericb at 8:28 AM on June 12, 2008
Interview with Jay Devine, spokesperson for Philadelphia Media [video: 1:34].
posted by ericb at 8:31 AM on June 12, 2008
posted by ericb at 8:31 AM on June 12, 2008
Please apply this pricing scheme to Health Insurance and bridge tolls as well
posted by Fupped Duck at 11:26 AM on June 12, 2008
posted by Fupped Duck at 11:26 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by CruiseSavvy at 11:27 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by CruiseSavvy at 11:27 AM on June 12, 2008
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...
posted by johannahdeschanel at 11:28 AM on June 12, 2008
posted by johannahdeschanel at 11:28 AM on June 12, 2008
> 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.
posted by CruiseSavvy at 11:30 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by CruiseSavvy at 11:30 AM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by MadDog Bob at 12:18 PM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by MadDog Bob at 12:18 PM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by quin at 1:38 PM on June 12, 2008
Eventually, they are going to run out of tricks and the whole industry will fall apart. Then, hopefully, we can get something better designed.
posted by quin at 1:38 PM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by smackfu at 2:55 PM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by smackfu at 2:55 PM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:58 PM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:58 PM on June 12, 2008
And bridge tolls go up by weight too. That's what the per-axle tolls is a shorthand for.
posted by smackfu at 4:07 PM on June 12, 2008
posted by smackfu at 4:07 PM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:04 PM on June 12, 2008
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.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:04 PM on June 12, 2008
« Older Cinematic Renderings of Broadcast Television | "What are they gonna do, send you to Vietnam?" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Ms. Saint at 6:06 PM on June 11, 2008