SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For a long time airlines has estimated the weight of passengers to determine how much fuel is required for a flight. Now a bunch of boffins have come up with a way to weigh passengers discreetly so airplane fuel can be tailored to the flight. This system would of course keep this data confidential.
I wonder if they'll add an autocharge to the passenger's credit card if they are overweight or a refund if they are under the average weight.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Airlines Ponder Weighing Passengers at Check-In to Curb Fuel Costs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 55 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
Not recommended for children.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:33AM (19 children)
imoral to charge differently because I have no control over my height, and weight does correlate with height.
I guess you could try to charge differently based on BMI, but that's also partially out of people's control (and BMI is broken for for weightlifting maniacs and others).
in terms of legality I actually don't know. does anyone know if the airlines can, for instance, enforce the buying of two seats by people who are ~200kg (~450 pounds)?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:44AM (4 children)
"Your ticket price includes 80kg at the gate. If you and your baggage exceed this amount, you will be charged $50/10kg/1000miles. We remind you that bathrooms are plentiful in the terminal"
It's actually about the fairest way to charge, since besides the fixed number of seats/meals, the other airline constraint is weight.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:13PM (2 children)
1) Seat cost:
Select as required:
- Minimum leg room minimum width: $100
- Extra leg room: $150
- Extra width: $150
- Extra leg room and extra width: $200
2) Infrastructure cost - hold luggage: $20 per item of hold luggage upto 23kg, $30 per item over 23kg
3) Infrastructure cost - hand luggage: $1 per inch of space in overhead locker
4) Weight cost: $1 per kilogram of total weight
That would be a fair way to distribute marginal costs.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 25 2019, @04:25PM (1 child)
I don't disagree, but getting to the airport two to three hours early is already a pain, and this would make boarding a ten-hours process.
The airlines will just end up selling/renting lightweight rigid containers you click in the overhead bin or the hold, because so much time is wasted dealing with the varied sizes. Big containers are already used in the hold, but the airlines will eventually push for the passengers to use individual ones, which will automate handling downstairs and speed up boarding upstairs.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 25 2019, @11:27PM
I get to the airport by driving past it and continuing to my destination in my car. If my luggage requirements exceed the trunk space, i throw the cargo carrier on the roof rack. I can get my family of four and a metric ton of luggage halfway across the country for under $100 in gas and tolls.
I do miss the TSA's intimate fondling though.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:33PM
The real issue would seem to be that while estimating the total weight of their passengers, they have to guess high for safety, which necessitates adding more fuel which itself has weight which requires more fuel, etc. diminishing to a point hopefully less than the fuel capacity of the aircraft (though, I have seen smaller aircraft take off with empty seats and still kick off a passenger or two for weight considerations...)
So, even if individual passengers aren't "incentivized" to lose weight, the airline is incentivized to get their actual weight correct so they don't burn extra fuel carrying around un-necessary fuel for misestimated load weight.
Seems like just putting scales under the wheels at the gate would be even more effective...
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:47AM (1 child)
If a person can't fit in the seat, then how do you expect them to get to destination? At least KLM requires buying of two seats.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/overweight-then-yoursquoll-have-to-buy-two-seats-1875084.html [independent.co.uk]
But this is not "weight related". This is because of "persons of size"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:32PM
If they made the seats an appropriate size for adults, I'd feel differently, but as it stands, my belly fit well within the seat last time I flew, but my shoulders were too broad to fit and as such I would up with a really uncomfortable ride.
The truth is that the seat size is fine if you're a child or a small woman, but if you're a typical man, you're likely to run into a problem that you have no control over. You cannot appreciably shave inches off your shoulders by losing fat.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:53AM (3 children)
Immoral to charge by weight? Well, maybe, depends on how you define it. IIRC, seriously obese passengers are required by some airlines to purchase two seats, because they do actually occupy two seats. Is that immoral? Mind, I've read about cases where the obese passenger was assigned two seats in different rows - now that is a problem :-)
Really, they are selling a service, and we are buying a service. They can price their service however they like: flat-fee regardless of anything (the way it used to be), or fee based on specifics like seat location (extra legroom!), weight, how early you book, or any other business-relevant attribute. Morality (well, really, ethics) only enter into if they are being unfair.
For example: some airlines charge a fee for overweight baggage. But if I am light, why can't my baggage be heavy? Either they care about weight, or they don't. If they do, then they need to charge for the passenger's total weight: body plus baggage. The current policy is, imho, just an excuse to collect extra fees. It's not about the weight, as you can see when someone is frantically repacking their baggage at the counter, moving items from checked-luggage to carry-on.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @09:27AM
Immorallity is increasing as the Earth's magnetic field weakens in preparation for the coming grand solar minimum and magnetic pole flip.
Scientists have verified that criminality in mice increases in weakened magnetic fields. Those mice began displaying rape, cannibalism, and violence.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday April 25 2019, @12:21PM
It costs the same amount to handle a bag, whether it's 5kg or 15kg, hence no extra charges.
Once it goes above 23kg/50lb it requires 2 people to lift it (depends on the contract with the baggage handlers, but 23kg seems to be standard), so charging extra for bags heavier than 23kg makes sense - you need twice as much manpower.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:36PM
No, they need to do what it takes to attract the most passengers, which currently involves deceptively low fares on the fare comparison sites that get jacked up with all kinds of tack-on fees at the gate.
Charging passengers for their total weight would be a non-competitive move, drive away business, piss off more people than it pleases. Although, I might prefer to fly the airline of the skinny people, as long as they don't shrink their seat spacing to take advantage of their slimmer average passenger "profile."
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday April 25 2019, @09:06AM (3 children)
RTFA. Nothing was said about height, and they are not talking about charging the passengers differently. It is to calculate how much fuel is needed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @09:14AM (1 child)
I was answering the comment by martyb.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday April 25 2019, @12:34PM
That was not my comment.
If you follow the Original Submission [soylentnews.org] link provided with the story, you will see that the comment was provided by the original submitter.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:45PM
You must not have read the entire article. They do treat you differently based on your weight:
History teaches us these systems will abused soon after installation. They'll be bumping people off flights based on their weight (already happens), you'll be charged based on your weight (always more, never less), your weight will be stored so they can dynamically predict fuel needs as soon as tickets are bought, the weight data will be published in research studies, the airlines will enter into partnerships with each other to share the weight data, a 3rd party will handle all the passenger data profiles, and finally the profiles will be sold to other data warehousing companies.
Expect an increase in ads harassing you. Weight loss ads, workout ads, baby ads if a female has a sudden weight gain, etc... Remember, the advertising industry looks for people's pain points and exploits them to guilt you into buying things. You are a horrible person if you don't spend money on X. You don't realize how must stress the industry puts on you until you go out to a cabin in the woods for a month.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @10:28AM (2 children)
Well, one could argue otherwise: If you are heavier (no matter whether it is your own fault or not), transporting you costs more, so why should the passengers who weight less subsidize the cost of transporting you?
Applying your argument elsewhere, a large burger should not be more expensive that a small burger because larger people need more food, which is not their fault, so why should they be forced to pay more for their food. Would you therefore argue for the same price for different-sized burgers? Or maybe make the price of the burger dependent on your size?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @11:46AM
I agree with you, but also with myself.
this is why i hate politics.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:35PM
Because not everything is fair. People who weigh less should pay the same, they're getting a better experience for the money as the seats are now so close together that a normal sized adult is going to have issues fitting their shoulders within the confines of the seat, even if they're slim enough for their belly to fit and then there's the seat pitch that favors short people.
Plus, this applies to any form of transportation, not just airplanes, I don't see anybody pushing for buses to start weighing people with an eye to charge heavy folks more money to compensate for the additional gas involved.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:22PM
Wrong. Eat until you become spherical. Eat more and your height will grow with the cube-root of your weight.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:37AM (1 child)
You honestly think you'd ever get a refund from an airline unless they are forced (either by law or by bad publicity) to give you one?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @12:45PM
it would be quite easier to get mandatory anal probes because kiddy porn, (non-US backed) terrorism or whatever nonsense they are pushing this year
(Score: 4, Insightful) by inertnet on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:51AM (9 children)
So planes don't have sensors in their chassis to measure its total mass when stationary on the ground?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @09:05AM (1 child)
That sounds like an excellent idea.
PATENT IT QUICK BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE DOES!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:17PM
Too late! Mwahaha!
(Score: 3, Informative) by b0ru on Thursday April 25 2019, @09:49AM (4 children)
IME, planes are refueled before passengers board for the sake of safety e.g. in the event of ESD igniting fuel and cooking them. I doubt this is something that will ever change, given how obstinate aerospace safety laws are to change.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Thursday April 25 2019, @10:25AM (3 children)
Not always, sometimes you board and the seatbelt signs are off and they tell you not to fasten them because they're still refueling.
Of course by the time that the gate closes and doors fueling has long finished, so weighing at that point doesn't really help.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Thursday April 25 2019, @11:30AM (2 children)
> Of course by the time that the gate closes and doors fueling has long finished, so weighing at that point doesn't really help.
I think it could help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:07PM (1 child)
The problem there wouldn't have been fixed if they'd weighed and found they were a little short. From memory, the problem there was they effectively asked for X gallons and got X litres. Indeed they measured the fuel several times, but they used the wrong numbers to calculate how much they actually had.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:19PM
Well, if the US would finally switch to the metric system then the whole world could be doing it wrong.
(Score: 4, Informative) by MostCynical on Thursday April 25 2019, @10:10AM
No.
Weighed empty every few years.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16307/how-does-a-commercial-airliner-measure-its-weight-mass [stackexchange.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:40PM
No, because that would:
A) cost money
B) add complexity
C) increase maintenance costs
D) increase downtime
E) add weight to the aircraft
I think it would be simpler and cheaper to install scales at the terminal gates.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2, Insightful) by gtomorrow on Thursday April 25 2019, @10:10AM (14 children)
Dear to whoever's comments gave an iota of serious consideration and/or justification to this latest idea of the airlines, large and small...
FUCK YOU!
Dear airlines executives/airline marketing/airline bean-counters who came up with this idea...
FUCK YOU!
Pardon my unusual outburst of ire. Check my past comments and you'll see it's not my style to comment so vehemently on the articles that appear here. Obviously this article, and the pertaining comments, touched a nerve.
I've been flying just about all my life, on the average twice a year. I used to love to fly. I remember when the airlines used to give pilot's wings and playing cards. I remember when going through security meant going through at most a metal detector without having to get undressed. Beverages and cocktails for most flights were offered happily. I remember when the airlines made me feel like a guest.
Since then the airlines have gradually (and not-so gradually) eroded away any pleasure and comforts from flying out of nothing but greed: seats getting smaller, rows getting packed tighter, airline staff getting increasing surly, baggage weight limits decreasing, security involving undressing and assuming the position so they can take a nude photo. As of the last few years tickets are bait-and-switch priced with luggage as an extra, usually adding a cost of at least €100; a suitcase is now considered a luxury. Now instead of being offered a beverage aboard transoceanic flights, you pay for water. Want to sit next to family members? Cough up some more money. On-board entertainment? Bring your own device. This race-to-the-bottom, low-cost (to the airlines) mentality Air Travel no longer considers me a guest but has reduced me to cattle, to mere cargo, to a type of nuisance. It plays on the necessity of long-distance travel in our "modern world." Does the modern raveller no longer have any rights?
I am not targeting any specific airline. As of the last 20 years I've noticed this erosion of humanity on various different carriers, but I will say I've noticed the American airlines (not specifically American Airlines) are the worst offenders.
There was talk (and probably is still being considered) of having passengers stand during flights like on the city bus. Pure sell-their-own-mother-for-X avarice. Just like the article's premise.
I come to this site quite often. I assume (rightly or wrongly) there is a certain intellectual level of discussion tempered with a certain level of humor (high and low). But when the members and visitors here defend this type of thinking, this sort of psychopathic greed...I just don't know. This is the same unhealthy mentality that wouldn't give a glass of water to somebody crawling out of the desert.
Allow me to close with a response to any future commenters daring to defend this line of thought...
FUCK YOU!
Semi-intelligent rant over.
(Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Thursday April 25 2019, @10:14AM (1 child)
Oh, and just in case you were wondering, I'm about 1,80m and weigh around 80Kg, so this wasn't necessarily sparked by some feeling of being singled out.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @11:04AM
So 5'11" and 176 lbs.
Apologies, but your version of counting height and weight sounds very insultive and disrespectful towards people who had to use pretty advanced mathematics to come up with their system.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @10:33AM (1 child)
Please tell me, how exactly is your comfort hampered if the airline doesn't buy more fuel than it actually needs for the flight?
(Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Saturday April 27 2019, @01:11PM
My comfort is hampered by putting such an idea in practice is yet another step toward desensitizing travellers towards these conditions until we are all literally carried to our destinations anesthetized and packed not unlike slave ships of yore...obviously the anesthetic isn't complimentary. Oh, fuck me...hope nobody in the industry is reading this!
Scaling it WAY down, do you buy gas for your car in millilitres? "Gotta bring my heavier-than-average [relation|friend|pet] to the $PLACE today...better put 150ml more in the tank!" This industry has already figured out all the logistics of commercial air travel decades ago. There is nothing new here except to reduce costs by people who can't even spell "empathy," pure and simple. And as opposed to improving such service, more bang for your buck so to speak, it's just the opposite.
Sidenote: How is it that no one here remembers that fuel prices went DOWN in 2017 yet the airlines' pricing never reflected that. Look it up, pal.
And lastly, I WANT (and I suspect EVERYONE wants) the airline to buy more fuel than it needs because...well, it would suck if somebody miscalculated that, no? And really, that's like saying "I bought more toilet paper than I need." Then again, Anonymous Coward...I don't know you.
"5, Insightful" my ass. Ready for the next moron in 3...2...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @10:55AM (1 child)
you ignorant git ...
of course you cannot just give a glass of water to somebody crawling out of the desert
First, a whole glass of water might hurt them. You have to asses their water retaining capability, and their metabolical absorption rate (and charge it to their health insurance if they somehow forgot to crawl with their wallet)
Then you have to ask is it sustainable to just give "a appropriately sized" amount of water to anybody who crawls out of desert. Maybe it would be more sustainable to teach them to crawl to a river.
Maybe we should open a non-profit charity that invests donor money into the stock market to have the possibility to give water to people crawling out of desert for a long period of time.
What if people crawl out on the other side of the desert? Better make it a international NGO to cover that case too. That way we can also hire local help and encourage the local economy while we help people crawling out of deserts.
I see you still live in a pre-social-media fact-based world, where things are black and white. Maybe you should read some random best-selling economics books instead of that philosophical drivel you seem to like so much
(Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Saturday April 27 2019, @01:17PM
...1!
Well, yeah! Okay, maybe not exactly "pre-social-media" nor "black and white", but I'm not in some world where black IS white, night IS day, etc. Then again, reading your response...I'm not at all sure what world you're living in.
Next sociopath in 3...2...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday April 25 2019, @11:03AM (3 children)
Well...you're right, but not really...
Yes, the airline experience is massively worse than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Massively. However, this is not the airlines' fault.
The security theater? Purely the fault of the US government post 9/11. Never let a crisis go to waste, when you can use it to increase governmental power. Plus the fault of the sheeple who value (perceived) safety above all. The number of lifetimes of time wasted standing in TSA lines exceeds the 9/11 casualties by orders of magnitude. Insane. Eliminate TSA, along with all the regulations that came with it after 9/11: problem solved.
As for the experience on the planes? The airlines are doing what the market asks. Flying today is less expensive than it used to be despite inflation. That's what consumers demanded, and that's what we've got. Which means, of course, that the airlines needed to pack more passengers into the same space, and needed to collect money through extra fees for baggage, drinks, and wherever else they could. If you want a better experience, you have the option of paying for business class. Considering inflation, business class costs about what coach did 30 years ago - that's where you will get free drinks, decent seats, and have an all-around better experience.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:09PM
Eliminate TSA, along with all the regulations that came with it after 9/11: problem solved.
I still think that a change where locking the cockpit door would be useful, even bearing in mind Germanwings Flight 9525
But I agree that the experience on the planes is entirely due to penny pinching by passengers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:43PM
The problem there is that you don't generally have a viable option for more space without spending extravagant amounts of money that most people just don't have.
They're going to penny pinch, but the FAA should be pushing back against it in cases like where the seat pitch and width has become so small that a normal adult is having issues fitting into it. The last time I flew domestically, it was an incredibly unpleasent experience as my shoulders did not fit within the confines of the seat and I'm not a particularly large man. My belly fit with no problems, but the legroom and shoulder space were grossly insufficient.
(Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Saturday April 27 2019, @02:28PM
Dear Mr bradley13,
as far as I can tell from your past postings, you are not a moron nor a sociopath and as such I will reply in a deserving manner.
I believe you have been desensitized to the core problem -- the race to the bottom, of which (let us not forget) the article's premise is essentially another step. You and everyone else are confusing low-cost airline concepts with those of flagship airlines (United, Delta, KLM, Lufthansa, et al). If I was commenting on that EasyJet or RyanAir, for example, was proposing this offensive idea, I probably would have just read the article, read the usually entertaining comments here and moved on with my fascinating life. They are both one of many low-cost airlines and their premise is already clear: they propose a voyage to your destination usually from and to an auxillary airport for a (supposedly) lower cost than a flagship airline but you will pay for any and all amenities (which in the end, as we all well know, add up to basically what a full-price ticket would cost). If that is acceptable to a traveller, that's great. I have no beef with that.
But when such concepts spill over to the flagship airlines is where I have a big problem. As of the past three to four years ALL airlines have been behaving as low-cost carriers. An Anonymous Coward replying to you said...
We're all human beings on that jet. We need a reasonable amount of space, air and water. Depending on the length of the flight we'll probably need food as well. Anecdote time: I remember recently flying when an attendant asked if we'd like a beverage. The husband of a couple next to me said "gosh, isn't that great? Free beverage!", to which I replied, "I don't know about you but I paid €750 for that Coca-Cola!"
And, do you honestly believe that seating placement adds to the airlines' costs so that if travelling with family/friends you have to pay a surcharge to sit together? Did the market ask for that? Would you agree that an airline's main costs are fuel, airport space rental, maintenance and staff? Would you agree that it's basically amount of fuel = total estimated weight x distance (forgive my formulaic abilities but the idea is clear enough)? Everything else is almost incidental...literally peanuts...that now cost $5. Same with a .5L bottle of WATER. $5. Did consumers demand that? I didn't.
You also say "flying is less expensive today than it used to be despite inflation." I say, where is the bang for my buck? You say "canned tomatoes are less expensive today than they used to be despite inflation." I say, they've also got 30% more fruit flies in every can. Plus I have to finish every drop! (Now some idiot is going to tell me how eating fruit flies is good for me)
IN CLOSING (FINALLY!) let me say that weighing passengers covertly (OMG I didn't even touch on that despicable aspect!) is only greed greed greed. I will leave it at this, if you are a human being of a size/weight that fits the designed specifications of wearing a safety belt, you should not be further humilated by a weigh-in factor on your airline ticket price. If you are of "My 600-lb Life"-size, you can't possibly fit in an airline seat, therefore the subject may be up for discussion. I'm done!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Unixnut on Thursday April 25 2019, @11:48AM (2 children)
I have never flown on US airlines, but I can tell you the airlines in Europe are the same. My experience of flying has been as bad as yours, to the point where I have taken to driving across Europe rather than setting foot in an airport again.
However, one time when I had no choice but to fly, I got a free upgrade to first class with a stopover in Frankfurt. That was an experience in itself, you have concierge, who will carry your luggage for you, your own high speed check in, staff always polite and smartly dressed, and very accommodating. Then you retire to the private lounge, where you get free drinks, including a bar with a wide selection of cocktails, free wifi, the major world daily newspapers, computers with internet and a printer if you need it, as well as some lovely sofas and armchairs. You also had shower cubicles, changing rooms and cloakrooms, as well as the ability to order anything from restaurants / duty free and have it delivered by the concierge.
Then, when your flight is ready for your boarding, they actually come up to you, address you by name, and escort you to your plane (and if the gate is not near the lounge, they will ferry you in an electric cart if you wish). When you get to security you go through a different area where the checks are a lot more respectful, and nowhere near as onerous as the normal (I just had to walk through a metal detector, and get the hand luggage through the x-ray).
The boarding itself is different. They first load everyone else in, then when they are all packed and settled, then they board the first class passengers, so you don't have any queues at the gate, and they already closed the first class partition by the time you get on board (so privacy, feels a bit like you are boarding a small private jet), and when seated you don't have masses of people barging through with their carry on luggage. Likewise if you are running late they will hold the plane for you until you arrive (up to a point, don't know where the point is). The seats were more like armchairs as well, soft and supple, with ample legroom/elbowroom and space to recline.
Then the meals, you get a really good restaurant type set-menus, including steaks (which is what I went for). Apparently the food is prepared by chefs 30min before flight, loaded up and kept warm for first class. It isn't the same as being in a restaurant, but it is best food I had up in the air in my life.
All the drinks are free as well, plus a decent selection of spirits, wines and champagne. And they give you proper metal cutlery, including (in my case) a proper steak knife. Likewise all the staff will address you personally by name, and are courteous and polite and all times. I also got free inflight wifi. which I never got before.
It was the most surreal experience in my life, and the first time in my life I went through a day of air travel not feeling like a violated, exhausted, irritated zombie. It felt like a high end hotel check-in with some flying mid-way. I actually felt like I was treated like a human being, rather than a piece of really inconvenient cargo. If flying was like this I would look forward to it, rather then dread it as I normally do.
I imagine that is very similar to the experience of the original air travel during the "jet set" era. Thing is, back then only the wealthy could travel by airplane, so by default all plane passengers were treated like first class is treated today. Now with "low-cost" fares, the masses can fly, and at the price point they want to pay, you can't provide the above quality of service.
The price we pay for being treated like cattle is the ability to travel at high speed and cover great distances quickly. The market has spoken, the majority of people are willing to be treated like crap in return for a lower ticket price. If people had higher standards, then airlines would not be able to treat them like they do.
As for me, when I saw the price of the ticket (it was multiples more than economy), I realised I won't be flying first class by choice for a long while. It is in fact cheaper for me to drive to my destination that go first class. And as driving is infinitely nicer and more comfortable than flying economy, flying for me now is only when I absolutely must be somewhere quickly. What an experience though
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:10PM (1 child)
That's exactly the same procedure that I'm used to from economy class in Germany. So your security experience probably wasn't affected much by your first class upgrade.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:32PM
> That's exactly the same procedure that I'm used to from economy class in Germany. So your security experience probably wasn't affected much by your first class upgrade.
Interesting, I usually fly from the UK, where the normal procedure is far more involved, indeed as I happen to have a somewhat darker skin tone and foreign sounding name, I often get the "special security treatment". Once they kept me and my family for "security checks" more than 40 mins, making sure we missed our flight and ruined our holiday. I generally dread the security check part of the process the most.
My security experience in first class was a description of the London security checks, once in Frankfurt I don't remember if I got scanned at all, being that I never left the airport. Just left a gate, went to lounge, then entered the other gate.
Saying that, flying out of small regional European airports is generally much nicer. Frankfurt was my first (and only) visit to a large European airport, so I had no idea what it is like to go there via economy. Good to know the Germans have remained sensible,
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday April 25 2019, @03:01PM
Very true. But perhaps the airlines aren't quite as greedy as you think [chicagotribune.com]. They don't get much profit out of all those extreme measures. I'd correct the article in just one thing, though. You want to really know who to blame? Blame Nixon, Ford, Ted Kennedy, and Jimmy Carter [wikipedia.org]. Short term price drops to gain long term misery and suffering. Thanks, free market! [wikipedia.org]
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @12:56PM (1 child)
Can we just charge people for being overweight?
They don't have to fly.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Thursday April 25 2019, @07:03PM
In the UK there is talk of limiting access to certain medical treatments if you are obese.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/ [telegraph.co.uk]
I know people on psychiatric medicines that have obesity as a known side-effect. It certainly would not make life any easier for them to have the worry of having treatment refused as a result of the side-effects of treatment they were already having.
Obesity is a public-health issue and current approaches have not found a good way to deal with. Self-evidently, some people eat too much, but why they do so, and why it appears difficult for them to gain control over how many calories they ingest is unknown*. Recent research showing a correlation between types of gut-flora and obesity might be part of the story. In the past, some people would deliberately infect themselves with tapeworms to lose weight, which is not a course of action many would recommend today. Long term studies of diet in the UK show that, on average, people eat fewer calories now than in the past, but sedentary lifestyles and central heating negate the expected effects of lower calorie intake.
*It is known that willpower doesn't work for most people. Similarly, 'weight-loss diets' are known for most participants to result in only temporary weight loss - long-term studies showing that people usually put the weight back on, and more, afterwards. Obviously, forcibly restricting calorie intake works: there are few obese people found in famine-struck regions of the world; and gastric surgery to reduce the ability of the stomach to hold food also has demonstrable effects - but even after surgery some people just get used to eating more smaller meals or train their stomach over time to hold more and more food.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @03:16PM
They become bigger and bigger cheaters. Changing agreements the way that customer has no method to change provider (literally hours before check-in, if not boarding). Faking luggage check-in malfunction to cover overbooking not to refund for longer staying in the area. Trying to postpone boarding as much as possible. The extreme I got was in Berlin, where a accumulation of all of the above kicked in: Faked check-in malfunction, sending people with ordinary luggage to large size check-in counter, a security check on the terminal inaccessible from the takeoff terminal (except a narrow, officially closed corridor which was used to transport mail in Honecker's era), "boarding" without boarding and, when we finally left the terminal, I saw these 10-20 people ran towards boarding window during closing, with luggage not checked in as they hoped that the "malfunction" will be fixed. There should definitely be some kind of standardization.
And for babbling about overweight being ethical or not: Notice that similarly "unethical" is everyday life for just ugly people. Maybe some refund for them? And really, our genetics engineering is far from a full development to fix this. However, as ugly people will buy more, discrimination against them suddenly becomes fully "ethical". So please, don't dig these "ethics", it's only a profit now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @04:10PM (1 child)
...is never kept confidential. No way in the 9 hells. There's too much $$$ to be made.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @08:00PM
Bubububut the guy gave his word! He pinky swore!
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Thursday April 25 2019, @05:02PM
The political blowback is going to kill it; there are too many people who are obese. What is happening (and has happened) is that airlines simply alter their average weight assumptions upward.
The passenger issue is that US domestic economy seating has shrunken to the point where the average man cannot fit comfortably in the seat. I fly semi-frequently and usually basic economy; I am not a large person by any means but my shoulders are always wider than the width of the seat. My anecdotal observations is that this is true for almost all men in basic economy. Usually, in a seat row, my seat mates and I come to a natural equilibrium where everyone tilts their seats back at slightly different angles so the offset adds enough shoulder space for everyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @05:21PM
The point of this is to make already MARGINAL fuel reserves on a flight EVEN SMALLER.
Let's hope you don't have to reroute in flight to a different airport...
Do you routinely put only just enough gas in your car so you arrive at your destination with the gas gauge at "Empty?"
You do if you are an airline.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26 2019, @12:38PM
Yo mama is so fat her flight has to replenish fuel in air from a fuel talnker plane.