Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares • Hacker News Board

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#11

Post by masklinn » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:06 AM UTC

antihero wrote: post #4

I don't think 75KG is a good standard weight. I mean, what about people who are muscular? I go to the gym and nobody I know would say I am obese (I am a little overweight) but because of muscles I'm around 109KG - I was 100KG and overweight, now I'm thinner and stronger but actually heavier. So should people who are muscular be exempt? Do we do it based on height vs muscle or body fat percentage? Unless we consider t…

> I don't think 75KG is a good standard weight.

I'm sure that can be discussed, focusing on this detracts from the article's main point.

> I mean, what about people who are muscular?

They're completely irrelevant, this is not about people being healthy versus not healthy, this is about weight being a direct driver of costs for airlines.

> So should people who are muscular be exempt?

No, why should they be>

> Do we do it based on height vs muscle or body fat percentage?

No, "we do it" based on weight.

> Unless we consider this, there's no way to do it fairly

How's it not fair to say "baseline of Xkg total (person + baggages), surcharge is Y/kg extra"?

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#12

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:07 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #9

slimdizzy wrote: post #3

The author dilutes and weakens his argument by bringing up obesity. Whether a 80kg person is 40% fat or 10% fat doesn't matter; the central point is that a person who weighs more, consumes more, and thus ought to pay more. I wish he stuck more to that point instead of running off on the tangent about health and the environment. Friends with whom I discuss this proposal often say that many obese people cannot help bei…

There is a lot of evidence that obesity is not hereditary/predetermined, but is a choice (or a consequence of a weak mind/bad incentives). I was in Vietnam 5 years ago. I didn't see any fat people. Look at photos/documentaries of Africa. No fat people. To take it to the extreme, there were no fat people in Auschwitz. That is not to say that it was good in any way and that people should starve, but just that it is not…

[deleted]

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#13

Post by mjburgess » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:21 AM UTC

Should we charge more for disabled people?

Does any additional cost to a company mean that it can treat its customers differently?

We must have a society where the equality of people is incontrovertible, and we make accommodations for the fact. That a thin small woman weighing 50Kg is worth the same as a muscular or fat person weighing 100kg.

To ask one to pay more for a service because of what they are is unequal treatment.

The people weighing less are charged more than they would be otherwise, so that everyone has the same price.

But their arbitrary birth characteristics that make them under the average weight should not entitle them to benefit in "proportion" nor equally should the characteristics of another cause them to be disadvantaged proportionally.

I would prefer a society where neither the state, nor private citizens, were able to reward birth-lottery success at the expense of birth-lottery failure.

And im not talking about genetics. Being muscular or fat, a result of a series of choices (no doubt), is still a result of birth lottery. So you had a single mum in a por community that fed you cheap fast food?

Do members disadvantaged communities (who are more overweight and unhealthy than the average) have their disadvantage compounded by being responsible for their parents and community?

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#14

Post by heretohelp » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:22 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #9

slimdizzy wrote: post #3

The author dilutes and weakens his argument by bringing up obesity. Whether a 80kg person is 40% fat or 10% fat doesn't matter; the central point is that a person who weighs more, consumes more, and thus ought to pay more. I wish he stuck more to that point instead of running off on the tangent about health and the environment. Friends with whom I discuss this proposal often say that many obese people cannot help bei…

There is a lot of evidence that obesity is not hereditary/predetermined, but is a choice (or a consequence of a weak mind/bad incentives). I was in Vietnam 5 years ago. I didn't see any fat people. Look at photos/documentaries of Africa. No fat people. To take it to the extreme, there were no fat people in Auschwitz. That is not to say that it was good in any way and that people should starve, but just that it is not…

Obesity is 100% calories in/calories out.

Good thing I'm at a startup trying to help people eat healthy and in reasonable portions without feeling unduly hungry.

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#15

Post by vacri » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:23 AM UTC

Yet, in terms of the airplane’s fuel consumption, it is all the same whether the extra weight is baggage or body fat.

... because as we all know, there is no cost whatsoever in handling large amounts of luggage. Which do you think would cost more: 100kg per person, with fat people who had little luggage, or 100kg per person, 50kg in person, and 50kg is excess luggage.

As a tall man, I hate this stupid point. I can't help the fact that I'm tall. I'm perhaps 10-15kg overweight, but if I go below 110kg, I am unhealthy. I already have to pay more to get a seat that doesn't screw me up - a seat that still doesn't fit me properly. Meanwhile Ms Slight Asian Woman is getting a much more comfortable seat. She's getting a better service for the same price.

The thing is, it's swings and roundabouts, and wanting to charge people a 'fat fee' is oversimplistic.

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#16

Post by nodata » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:23 AM UTC

slimdizzy wrote: post #3

The author dilutes and weakens his argument by bringing up obesity. Whether a 80kg person is 40% fat or 10% fat doesn't matter; the central point is that a person who weighs more, consumes more, and thus ought to pay more. I wish he stuck more to that point instead of running off on the tangent about health and the environment. Friends with whom I discuss this proposal often say that many obese people cannot help bei…

Your point about arguing on weight is a good one, but what about the argument for seat size? Often the argument against obesity on planes is that they require some of their neighbour's seat, which the neighbour has paid for.

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#17

Post by piggity » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:24 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #10

VolatileVoid wrote: post #5

The reason, generally, you are charged more for heavier luggage has got nothing to do with jet fuel consumption and everything to do with higher baggage handling fees. Since handlers don't actually have to carry obese people (that's a job for the person's legs), it makes complete sense to charge for heavier luggage rather than heavier people.

Baggage handlers are not paid by baggage weight, so that does not make much sense. Jet fuel consumption, on the other hand, is heavily impacted by airframe weight.

I suspect the fees aren't always about cost, but rather a subtle encouragement to customers to do certain activities.

I had a bike bag weighing 27kg and a second piece weighing 15kg. Well under the 46kg I could take on for no charge.

The airline (Qantas) wanted to charge me an overweight charge for the bike bag - but were happy for me to park in front of the counter for 5 minutes while I moved heavy items between bags to balance them out.

I didn't really care; it was a financial motivation to keep my weights at an easier to manage level.

I imagine that overweight bags require different workers, who might be on a different pay scale - and so there is a cost to moving 27+15kg vs 22kg+20kg.

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#18

Post by daliusd » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:25 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #9

slimdizzy wrote: post #3

The author dilutes and weakens his argument by bringing up obesity. Whether a 80kg person is 40% fat or 10% fat doesn't matter; the central point is that a person who weighs more, consumes more, and thus ought to pay more. I wish he stuck more to that point instead of running off on the tangent about health and the environment. Friends with whom I discuss this proposal often say that many obese people cannot help bei…

There is a lot of evidence that obesity is not hereditary/predetermined, but is a choice (or a consequence of a weak mind/bad incentives). I was in Vietnam 5 years ago. I didn't see any fat people. Look at photos/documentaries of Africa. No fat people. To take it to the extreme, there were no fat people in Auschwitz. That is not to say that it was good in any way and that people should starve, but just that it is not…

Actually that's choice between eating cheap food and not eating at all. Food rich in carbohydrates is usually cheap and that's what majority of people eat - but for majority of people that means gained weight.

As well your examples are very weak and can be beaten in minutes using google:

* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15954744/ns/health-diet_and_nutr... - deciding about Africa from 0.01% of its population (specifically Bushmen that are usually covered in documentaries). I don't know.

* http://www.vietnewsonline.vn/News/Society/Health/9483/Childh...

* http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Auschwitz+fat+guard

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#19

Post by moonchrome » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:29 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #15

Yet, in terms of the airplane’s fuel consumption, it is all the same whether the extra weight is baggage or body fat. ... because as we all know, there is no cost whatsoever in handling large amounts of luggage. Which do you think would cost more: 100kg per person, with fat people who had little luggage, or 100kg per person, 50kg in person, and 50kg is excess luggage. As a tall man, I hate this stupid point. I can't…

>As a tall man, I hate this stupid point. I can't help the fact that I'm tall. I'm perhaps 10-15kg overweight, but if I go below 110kg, I am unhealthy. I already have to pay more to get a seat that doesn't screw me up - a seat that still doesn't fit me properly. Meanwhile Ms Slight Asian Woman is getting a much more comfortable seat. She's getting a better service for the same price.

Well even you admit that you require a special seat and that "Ms Slight Asian Woman" gets comfortable in a normal seat - so there is a reason for the price difference. Anyway this sort of things are best left to market competition, if it's efficient to charge for baggage more than body weight then the companies or if the decision hurts their image they will figure it out.

Re: Weigh more, pay more: Argument for charging obese people higher flying fares

#20

Post by vacri » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 10:32 AM UTC

slimdizzy wrote: post #3

The author dilutes and weakens his argument by bringing up obesity. Whether a 80kg person is 40% fat or 10% fat doesn't matter; the central point is that a person who weighs more, consumes more, and thus ought to pay more. I wish he stuck more to that point instead of running off on the tangent about health and the environment. Friends with whom I discuss this proposal often say that many obese people cannot help bei…

Weight of a 747-8: 442 metric tons.

Weight of its 467 passengers ex luggage, assuming 80kg average: 37.3 metric tons.

That 442 tons has to move as a whole regardless of how lean your diet is. So when you're paying for your flight ticket, extremely little of it is about moving the meat in your body. After all the overheads (salaries, fees, whatnot), whatever's left of the ticket that's paying for jet fuel has less than 10% of it spent on shifting your meat.

Extra luggage is more work for the airline - handlers, check-in staff, tracking, lost baggage recovery. It also means much longer queues resulting in poorer service for everyone. Extra meat weight is a trivial amount of work for the airline to deal with - it moves itself around and consumes the same resources as the 'little people'.