Conquer Club

Given an airplanes travel costs are directly related to the amount of weight they must carry, should the cost to the passenger reflect that? IE a 100 pound young lady pays far less than 350lb fat man.

It doesn't cost the same to fly a fat person as a little person. Maybe a flat fee for the seat, and then charged by the pound from there up.

bedub1 wrote:350lb fat man.

Does a 350 lb person of average height really fit in a single seat in most airplanes?

I once saw a very fat guy that obviously had paid for two seats.. well the plane was full and he had two seats so I´m assuming he had.
Hell, I´m feeling uncomfortable now that I´m over 200

Naw... By the seat.

bedub1 wrote:Given an airplanes travel costs are directly related to the amount of weight they must carry, should the cost to the passenger reflect that? IE a 100 pound young lady pays far less than 350lb fat man.

It doesn't cost the same to fly a fat person as a little person. Maybe a flat fee for the seat, and then charged by the pound from there up.

should you pay tax by the amount of miles you drive?

bedub1 wrote:Given an airplanes travel costs are directly related to the amount of weight they must carry, should the cost to the passenger reflect that? IE a 100 pound young lady pays far less than 350lb fat man.

It doesn't cost the same to fly a fat person as a little person. Maybe a flat fee for the seat, and then charged by the pound from there up.

If you want to talk economics, airliners should charge whatever they believe will get them maximum profit. Most likely this policy would reduce profits merely due to the type of message it's sending out.

The 250 lbs is virtually negligible afaik in costs that such a difference would matter as well.

Also considering that you're not going to get a 350 lb person often, it's once again better for image to just make "less" of a profit on the 350 lb person (because he's heavier) and give him the same rate. Things might change if 50% of people were over 350 lbs.

... Charging by the kilo seems quite reasonable.

... To avoid embarassment for customers, airlines should employ a large scales in front of the check-in area. Passengers will be weighed, along with their baggage to calculate a total.

... Very reasonable.

... Bust some folks are just big, and not necessarily fat. But screw em'. Airlines don't give a crap about customer service anyway.

...

First I want to know HOW MUCH extra it COSTS the airline to move a 350 load as compared to a 100 load....I would be willing to bet the difference is miniscule.

Get us THAT info and we can make edu-muh-cated replies.......otherwise we are simply shooting in the dark (as with most discussions around this place)

I dunno either but if you air-freight anything, the cost increases hugely with wieght, presumably for good reason.

They are also very careful with fuel, only putting in enough to get from where they are to where they're going, to avoid the extra weight of the fuel.

jonesthecurl wrote:I dunno either but if you air-freight anything, the cost increases hugely with wieght, presumably for good reason.

Actually, being self employed and shipping my product every day all over the world, there are standard sizes that you pay a flat rate on and the WEIGHT doesnt matter - I can ship lead bricks and it is the same cost as shipping feathers - the SIZE is the key factor (this is with the USPS - I hate UPS).........I still say the COST of the fuel differential for a few hundred lbs in a human is nominal.......

Interesting - I used to ship stuff internationally from the UK and the weight was certainly the main factor there.
I must look into this, I might do some selling again in the future.

by deduction:... coughIt'sGonnaBeLameCough...

If you are heavy you should have more money (think about it - let's be big everywhere... big tummy, big wallet, big willy ... then you should just pay more...

I think it could be related to the same deduction as if a flower has a shadow and you have a shadow, it means "by deduction" that you are a flower! Right

a hammer left on an airplane during it's production and not removed will cost the purchaser of the airplane more than $100k over the lifetime of the airplane due to paying for fuel to ship the damn thing all around the world....I bet a hammer weights like a pound...16 oz....

My buddy works for Boeing...and let me tell you...weight is everything. Why do you think they are building the new ones out of carbon fiber? Aluminum just weighs too much....

bedub1 wrote:a hammer left on an airplane during it's production and not removed will cost the purchaser of the airplane more than $100k over the lifetime of the airplane due to paying for fuel to ship the damn thing all around the world....I bet a hammer weights like a pound...16 oz....

My buddy works for Boeing...and let me tell you...weight is everything. Why do you think they are building the new ones out of carbon fiber? Aluminum just weighs too much....

I would love to see where you got your hammer information. And my buddy works for IBM but I am no computer whiz because of it....lol. Lastly, carbon fiber apparently is more than 20% lighter, easier to work with, more resiliant and cheaper - add that to improved wind resistance and engine design efficiencies and the 20% fuel savings of the Dreamliner is born (my cousin is a commercial pilot and gave me that......unknown if it is true....lol).

The United States Postal Service is no small fry either and their Flat Rate Priority shipping service is super popular.....intra- and international. It has saved me (my buyers) a ton of green. The packaging is free too, as an added bonus.

Here is a REAL example - quotes from the shipping websites. I can ship a 12 x 12 x 6 box weighing 20 lbs across the country (3,000 miles) in 3 days for $13. Same box to England in less than a week for $50. UPS charges $198 for this service (and is damn near guaranteed to destroy and / or lose said parcel - did I mention I cant stand those idiots?).

2 very different though processes on shipping. I choose the more reliable, less expensive one.

Anyhow.....back to COST per pound and / or cubic volume to ship....I cant find any reliable data on the net to quote. I see tons of people spouting hammer-like facts, but nothing proven / defendable........

Airlines used to charge by weight in the early years.

I work in purchasing for a manufacturing firm. In general, when we are receiving shipments by air, size is a bigger factor in domestic shipments while weight becomes more of an issue when it is going overseas. I guess the longer flights make them more fuel conscious while domestically the biggest costs are simply in handling.

"When it comes to weight, each pound shed from a plane saves the company 14,000 gallons of fuel a year."

$3.85 per gallon = $53,900/year
20 year life span = 20*53,900= $1,078,000.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25592648/

So how much have the duty-free watches cost them by the time they're sold?
Or the bottle of spirits?

KoolBak wrote:I can ship a 12 x 12 x 6 box weighing 20 lbs across the country (3,000 miles) in 3 days for $13. Same box to England in less than a week for $50.

Use the thirteen dollars option. We don't want a 12x12x6 box weighing 20lbs from America. We can make our own 12x12x6 20lb boxes.
(Could you elaborate if you are talking in inches, feet or yards.) [If it's in yards we might want you to make it]

lol....silly bastid....you been sniffin grout dust in yer kitchen again? Of course I be talking inches / etc....I be an ignorant Ameruhkan

OK...thanks bedub for posting that.....

A close punt for COST per POUND to transport in fuel is $0.10 per 3,000 miles...I have backed into this in 2 different ways so I am relatively comfortable with it....I would love someone else to try it too.

What I am having trouble with is this pound or "hammer" issue....as reported, losing a pound saves 14,000 gallons a year. I cannot see an airplane flying more than 7,000,000 miles a year (and I cannot find any averages info on this)...so at saving 14,000 gallons per POUND, that means the airplane weighs 500 pounds. That is a quick example...I have tried many others and it doesnt pan out.

It also says a 3000 mile flight across country takes in $54000 on average. There are approx 250 seats on board....thats $216 if it is full, which is less than half of the real price I believe. I am using my knowledge of flying to Hawaii from Oregon, also about 3000 miles.....prices are CHEAP right now at $550...I already paid $650 for our tickets in May. Sounds like they are making WAY too many half filled flights.

Interesting stuff -

Heres another way to look at it I guess - say there is 50,000 pounds of "passenger" weight and we use the fuel cost only for that as the plane etc is going either way - that means it costs $0.70 per pound per 3000 mile trip. That gets us closer on the hammer theory...lol

It would become more expensive to fly football teams to the next game.