Waldo Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 I'm 6'3 and weigh around 100k. I'm in reasonably good shape, run marathons etc. Why should I pay more than a 5'2 dwarf bloke who is in the same sort of shape, but weighs 50k because he's a foot shorter than me? Either that, or the dwarf should get 50KG more baggage allowance than you do; before he has to start shelling out for extra baggage weight etc. Airlines charge extra for baggage for the reason that it's extra weight, so costs them more in fuel. Surely the same principle (more weight = more fuel) equally applies to human bodies? Do you not agree with that point? With regards to this argument, only your weight matters. This issue of body shape and size, is a different issue (affecting space within the cabin, and passenger comfort, rather than how much fuel is required for a journey). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 But that charge has nothing to do with adding weight to the plane. That's an issue with baggage handling and health and safety laws. The airlines say it is an issue of more weight means more fuel means more cost (which they pass on to the consumer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagger Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 It's more discriminatory calling people shorter than yourself "midgets". It's entirely possible for a very tall person to weigh exactly the same as a very short person. I'm suggesting the problem is "space". I would guess an aircraft could still take off with TWICE the payload on a passenger flight. But space is a premium. And I think that is what people have a problem with. It's discriminatory calling people fat but no one seems to think so on here. Someone who is over 6 foot could easily weigh over 100kg without being F.A.T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 Someone who is over 6 foot could easily weigh over 100kg without being F.A.T. Quite agree. Again, it's not about being FAT, it's about weighing more (irrespective of body size and shape). A person who is short and fat, may weigh less than a person who is tall and medium build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
04jessops Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 What a ridiculous thread. Are we to presume that tall people would have to pay more as they take up more space on the plane than an average-sized person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Why don't airlines do this? Because it would be a nightmare for them to manage. It's much easier if everyone pays the same price for a seat. And can you imagine the arguments you'd get at the check in with people saying scales were wrong - they were half a stone lighter half an hour ago etc. Weight of individual passengers is pretty small in comparison to the weight of the plane and it's fuel load anyway so makes a miniscule difference to the fuel consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slacko Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 It's discriminatory calling people fat but no one seems to think so on here. Someone who is over 6 foot could easily weigh over 100kg without being F.A.T. I'm not disputing that. 15 stones isn't that big either for someone "over" 6 foot. Not in a sense they would upset their neighbor on a flight anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Weight of individual passengers is pretty small in comparison to the weight of the plane and it's fuel load anyway so makes a miniscule difference to the fuel consumption. If that is true, there should be no charge for extra luggage - an extra 10kg suitcase makes far less difference than a person weighing 16 stone instead of 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 If that is true, there should be no charge for extra luggage - an extra 10kg suitcase makes far less difference than a person weighing 16 stone instead of 14. It isn't the weight particularly - more the fact that the more luggage, the more baggage handling costs are. If they didn't charge for extra bags etc some folk would take another 5 bags with them (well our lass would). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slacko Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 If that is true, there should be no charge for extra luggage - an extra 10kg suitcase makes far less difference than a person weighing 16 stone instead of 14. 10kg = 22lbs The difference between 14st and 16 st = 28lbs not really "far less" I think the extra charge for overweight luggage is partly to do with baggage handlers having to lump it around and the health and safety issues of handling baggage above the generally accepted 20kg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.