Hacker News Reader

Comment by _coldfire | Hacker News Reader

I struggle to see the problem other than human vanity as to why passengers aren't weighed with their luggage.

If you can accept that your bag costs the airline more in fuel why not accept that your weight contributes also?

Someone I know whom I had talked to before about this issue put it quite succinctly: "the laws of physics don't care about equality or rights or discrimination or whatever else. If they say the plane isn't going to fly, it won't; and if you try to challenge them, you are going to lose."

A big point people in the thread below this comment seem to be missing is that airlines aren't aiming to break even. A tall person on a flight isn't going to make that flight unprofitable. Prices are set based on what people are willing to pay, not the cost of flying them. It makes much more sense to raise prices across the board by a couple $ than waste time and money weighing every passenger you fly, dealing with people who lie about their weight when booking and trying to charge them extra at the airport.

Not to mention there is probably a large section of the populace with an illness that effects their weight that would have to be ruled out of this anyway due to discrimination legislation.

The airline discussed in the article are not weighing passengers in other to charge them a different amount, though

Fuel is weak argument. Vendover Productions recently did a video on youtube around costs around flying. IIRC the cost was less than 10%.

That said I do not mind to be weighted as long as airline guarantees something in return for my height. I would be in favour for some government regulation that seats should be progressively sized from small to large.

Some airlines from taller nations like Lufthansa and SAS have extra row of more legroom, but back support is still a problem and its not easy to get them.

>Fuel is weak argument. Vendover Productions recently did a video on youtube around costs around flying. IIRC the cost was less than 10%.

I found that hard to believe so I Google'd it. I came up with 35%

You have fixed costs and variable costs. I would guess that is the reason for the discrepancy.

According to that guy its even less than that: https://www.google.co.nz/amp/bgr.com/2016/05/16/why-is-flyin...

2.5$ for 70$ flight

According to the Boston Globe it's 34% [1]

According to that link its claim that a fully loaded A320 uses $2.50 worth of fuel from DC to NYC @ 105MPG.

Solving for $, they're claiming jet fuel $ = 1.33/g

That puts jet fuel at half the price of unleaded in many states, including California.

I didn't believe that until I checked the price online and found it's currently @ $1.50. Didn't know jet fuel is cheaper than gas.

One additional note - DC to NYC is a very short flight. Ratio of fuel cost to ticket price likely increases with flight distance.

1 - https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/11/17/fuel-prices-...

It's not only about cost of the fuel, it's about putting the appropriate amount of fuel on the plane for the weight the plane needs to carry.

Right now airlines have to overcompensate for potentially fat passengers and fly with extra fuel that costs efficiency and what could have been more cargo room.

>That said I do not mind to be weighted as long as airline guarantees something in return for my height

Negotiating are we?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com