Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Airline considers a "fat tax".

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by 2up, Apr 23, 2009.

  1. Thursday, April 23, 2009 » 02:48am


    Irish airline Ryanair says it is looking at how it could introduce a fat tax after almost a third of travellers voted to penalise obese fellow passengers.

    Ryanair, which already charges separately for services like food onboard, asked customers to vote for their favourite 'cost reduction' idea on its website over the last two weeks.

    The move came after Ryanair's chief executive Michael O'Leary caused a storm earlier this year by suggesting passengers could be charged to use toilets onboard aeroplanes.

    Of more than 100,000 people who voted, 29 per cent favoured excess fees for very overweight passengers, making it the most popular option.



    Ryanair now says it will now ask travellers how any such charge could be levied. The four options include charging male passengers who weigh more 130 kilograms or females over 100 kilograms for every extra kilogram they carry.

    Another alternative is charging for a second seat if a passenger's waist touches both armrests simultaneously.

    'With passengers voting overwhelmingly for a 'fat tax', we are now asking them to suggest which format the charge could take,' said Ryanair spokesman Stephen McNamara.

    'These charges, if introduced, might also act as an incentive to some of our very large passengers to lose a little weight.'


    http://bigpondnews.com/articles/OddSpot/2009/04/23/Ryanair_consider_passenger_fat_tax_324709.html
     
     Top
  2. 'These charges, if introduced, might also act as an incentive to some of our very large passengers to lose a little weight

    No, you PC idiot, they will act as an incentive for people TO FLY WITH SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
     Top
  3. i hate the liars that talk about charges and taxes helping people. they are designed to rake in cash.

    admittedly weight is a real issue when flying, especially a 130kg passenger with luggage is potentially taking up the weight of 2 people, but the problem started LONG before any of those passengers stepped on a plane, the airline companies are just cashing in on it.

    no processed food, do a bit of exercise.
     
     Top
  4. Once one airline introduces it, the others will soon follow.
     
     Top
  5. Bear in mind that RyanAir is the airline that wants to put a toilet charge on as well...

    http://www.theage.com.au/travel/tra...g-passengers-to-use-toilet-20090228-8krt.html

    They also have the higest baggage charges in Europe and the smallest seats. I have friends who flew with them last year and were charged 5 pounds for a cup of tea on board - they also won't allow more than one piece of cabin luggage - but a small handbag or womens purse counts as one piece... So for a 20 pound flight they had to pay 100 pounds excess baggage for a small backpack!
     
     Top
  6. We may have to get used to it as fuel gets close to the price of gold...
     
     Top
  7. Is the tax for weight or size???

    I believe IMHO that they are using the weight excuse to charge the tax saying the plane needs to carry more, yet its aimed at the size issue of larger people making those sitting next to them uncomfortable.

    This is a nasty and double edged sword. Why should a "normal" sized person who fits in the seat be made uncomfortable for an entire flight because a "large" person is sitting next to them?? Also, why should a "large" person made to be humiliated and basically made to feel shit when buying the double ticket etc?? Are they aiming to please the majority?? Who is the majority??

    As I said, nasty double edged sword.
     
     Top
  8. We may have to get used to it as fuel gets close to the price of gold...

    :? :? A year ago oil was $120 a barrel :? :?
     
     Top
  9. depends if "majority" is defined by sample count or mass.
     
     Top

  10. Sorry referring to majority as in numbers of people.

    Say for random numbers plucked out of my arse, 70% "normal" weight/size, 30% overweight/large etc...
     
     Top
  11. Well, it does answer the age old question of, "If that guy weighs 100kg and can have 20 kilograms of luggage, why can't I (at 80kg) take 40kg of luggage?"

    Heh.
     
     Top
  12. i weigh 94kegs and i have no problem if they charge people for needing another seat. I consider myself a bit overweight but I manage to fit in a plane seat without encroaching on my neighboring passengers, so you'd have to be very overweight before it becomes an issue.

    I acknowledge that I am completely responsible for my weight and if i go over someones limit I'd pay, the same as I expect to pay for taking extra baggage.

    I mean its pretty disgraceful that people are letting themselves get so big these days and then complain that they can't be accommodated.

    If they can't put someone in a seat next to an overweight person then the airline loses revenue. Irrespective of fuel prices; with airfare sales dropping in numbers, airlines are likely to need to send fewer planes and make sure each is at full capacity to compete. Eventually they'll have to bear the costs of sending an extra plane on a route as everyone takes up two seats. The airline *could* just say if you can't fit one seat you can't fly for safety reasons. Imagine the complaints then.

    Theres sometimes comments in MX about overweight people sharing train seats (even saying they should buy 2 train tickets) and then the complains come that the train seats were designed for skinny people FFS.
     
     Top
  13. Harte; I was thinking after my last post, maybe they should charge once they start losing revenue due to seats not been able to be filled? For example;

    Say the plane holds 300. And for instance 100 people are book on the plane with only one 'large' person. Don't charge, no need, there are 199 other seats still there.

    However, plane of 300 capacity, 298 people booked in 'normal' size and one 'large' size that requires two seats. Then they should be charged IF a 300th person wants a booking. If they only get 299 booking with one person been 'large' then don't charge as the 300th seat isn't going to be used anyway.

    Anyone get my drift? I believe this would be the only fair way that isn't too harsh.
     
     Top
  14. If the problem was just weight and not size related, maybe they could charge for a combined passenger (P) +luggage (L) weight.

    ie, the price of the price of the ticket is for a maximum P + L total of say, 120kg. Anything over that could be charged at a price per kg rate.

    As far as I know, and again disregarding the other passengers' comfort concerns in this example, the weight is what costs the airline more money in fuel etc if it rises, so if you want to bring more weight, whether it be in your body or in your luggage, then why shouldn't you pay?

    As for the passenger's size. Should they bring in a metal frame thingo like they make you check your hand luggage in to see if it's small enough for onboard luggage? "Sorry sir, you don't fit in the frame, you'll have to purchase another seat." You'd have to be a pretty overweight person to really be encroaching on your neighbour's personal space. So this shouldn't affect too many people really. Should it? (Unless it's in 'Supersize me' America, I guess.)
     
     Top
  15. When I went to the UK last November the plane was chockers full, but I dont recall seeing any of these issues....

    Oh, thats right, I flew Buisness Class. :LOL: :LOL:
     
     Top
  16. I believe this is a size issue. When your stuck in between two fat people who overhang there own seats, it is very uncomfortable. If they can afford to eat at McDonalds every day, they can afford another seat!

    "Normal Size" is a tough issue. I think the self induced eataholics who's diameter is too much for an average seat should pay extra. Other size issues are also a problem. I'm fairly tall and the lack of leg room is a pain for me. It does not bother those around me though.
     
     Top
  17. This is something our parents should have addressed when we were growing up, by placing weights on our heads or something. :cool:

    Most companies stop caring after the 95th percentile, which for height is 5'11". Or at least, it was back in 2003. May have changed by now.

    Tall people should receive subsidies to buy Lotus cars - the CEO is 6'5 and has essentially told his engineers that they must make cars which fit the 99th percentile (6'6), or they will be fired. ;)
     
     Top
  18.  Top
  19. Which is an interesting contrast with the long ago days when Chunky Chapman was still in charge. He was 5'8" and saw no reaon to add weight and size to his cars by accomodating anyone bigger :shock: .
     
     Top
  20. *chuckles* True, though they seem to share the same design doctrine - "Simplify and add lightness (so long as the guy in charge can fit inside with a helmet on)". :grin:
     
     Top