Should Plane Ticket Prices be Based on Total Weight ?
Should Obese People Pay More for a Plane Ticket than Slim People ?
Given that it is illegal to transport animals on a plane with the amount of room allocated to a human being using a standard air ticket then it seems clear that humans are now nothing more than cargo - so they should be charged based on weight - as all cargo is !
I suggest that when checking in instead of putting your bags on the weigh scale you actually stand on it yourself whilst holding all your luggage - the cost of your flight could then be calculated accordingly.
My brother is, unwisely it has to be said, something of a jetsetter. When he flies somewhere on whatever airline, and not travelling on a private jet 
, then he could end up paying extra because his camera gear weighs a pound or two too much - yet some bloater gets on and pays no extra 
It was this picture that got me thinking about this.
He’s an American, 
, and is so fat he is having to sit on the arm rest, half his body fills one seat !
Of course I’m happy to put this idea forward as it won’t affect me,
Once again a case of nobody ever suggesting anything that results in higher prices or taxes that affects them, why you ask ? Because your slim ? No . . .
Because I’ m afraid of flying !
Not afraid in the traditional way of course but rather wary of the big silver bird - they tend to take you out of Lincolnshire which, as any idiot can tell you, is a bad idea !
I did once consider a flight from Humberside airport to RAF Waddington but it was slightly impractical 
It strikes me that this whole flying caper is a rip-off. Kids get a seat and don’t have to pay for it, fat people take up twice as much room and pay the same -
It’s slimism - no wonder I avoid these jet-propelled tin cans !
There is also a very serious ecological theory I have developed not tomention some Green Issues here.
Fact: People are getting much fatter on average in the western world.
Fact: People are flying further and more frequently o average.
Ergo, record levels of obesity and record numbers of flights means a huge increase in the use of aircraft fuel - it’s destroying the planet!
So if you want to save the planet . . . put the fork down and stay in Lincolnshire . . . you know it makes sense !
Am I right or am I insane - to quote Lemmy, I really like this jacket but the sleeves are much too long
Aeronautically Yours
Rod
chris keyworth said,
December 2, 2009 @ 10:49 am
i have nothing against people being on the large side but i am sorry guys that situation as that is axactly what it is in the picture above should never happen and the airline in question should be brought to book for it, it is not only an obtruction of the escape routes but also a danger to the rest of the passengers, the picture above is of an airbus 319 - 100 series, looking at the seating plan, in an emergancy this passenger would be flung all over the cabin and would hurt or kill his fellow passengers, people that are this overweight could not possibly be compfortable on an aircraft another thing is there is no way on this planet a life vest would fit him if they ditched over water, this person for his own safety should be traveling by sea rather than by plane…
Amiguru said,
December 2, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Rod,
I have the perfect answer. Let our engrossing friends fly free!
There are strings attached to this policy though:
1. They have to carry all of their luggage on their backs.
2. They have to travel in the hold until the stratosphere is reached.
3. They have to wear special suits.
4. They have to leave the plane when the crew say “GO! as illustrated at 05:15 in the demo video.
5. They are on their own then to navigate to their chosen holiday destination using the provided folding OS maps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bubJl1h_RYc&feature=related
Naughty Nev, currently on a crash diet
Rod said,
December 2, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Chris,
you make a good point and a serious one about safety - I wonder if anything will come of one budget airlines idea to have travellers travelling short haul standing up !
Cheers
Rod
Rod said,
December 2, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Neville,
an excellent list
And why not a list of conditions, there are plenty of conditions put on passengers in general - there’s a whole load of people if read about complaining about being stuck next to somebody like that on a 24 hour flight - what a nightmare !
No such problems for me travelling today - but then that was along the Barton Street
Best
Rod
the dinosaur said,
December 3, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Rod, you didn’t see the phantom of the Barton Street then?
Rod said,
December 3, 2009 @ 8:55 am
Dino,
sadly I saw no phantoms on the Barton Street - I should very like to have some kind of supernatural experience but as yet nothing - possibly the fact I’ll be in more likely spots with this new section may mean . . .
In hope
Rod
David J. Smith said,
December 4, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Hi Rod,
As I spend most of my time flying around the globe, although usually these days backwards and forwards to the States, It really gets my back up when I am told that my bag is too heavy and am expected to pay excess baggage, or I have to try to juggle items from one bag and squeeze it into my hand baggage, when I have just been standing behind someone with 350lb of excess lard on their hips and nothing is said. Then they just walk off eating a Big Mac. I fully agree with fatties being made to pay extra. As Chris says, they are also a danger to other passengers, as I wouldn’t want to stuck behind one of them in an aircraft evacuation.
The idea of standing on scales and then paying for the total weight is a brilliant idea. Bring it on!
Dave
Rod said,
December 4, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
David,
you can’t argue with that - a report from somebody who is there at the coal face !
This could well gather momentum . . .
Passenger and luggage on the scales = ticket price
Best
Rod
David J. Smith said,
December 4, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
How about an aircraft seat by the check in point? If you can’t get in it, or fasten the seat beat, then you’re not allowed on the aircraft.
Regards
Dave
Rod said,
December 4, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
David,
that’ll be the end of American Airlines then
Best
Rod
History Hunter said,
April 25, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
Maybe the end of American Airlines……………………
………………but maybe the start of Yorkshire Airlines!!! (3 exclamation marks)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4sZSWtTg54
Rod said,
April 26, 2010 @ 8:01 am
HH,
that’s actually quite funny -
History Hunter said,
August 31, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
As the majority of fat people are Americans maybe they should just ban them coming into this country!!! Its an idea. BUT, and its a big BUT (no pun intended) i found a piece of paperwork the other day which is actually from ESTA, the Electronic System for Travel Authorization. Basically its the form you have to fill in before travelling to USA.
Everything is quite simple and basic, again like most Yanks, but there were three questions that had me in hysterics.
They are all YES/NO answers, but i wonder just how many people tick yes to them?
Q1. Do you have a communicable disease, physical or mental disorder, or are you a drug abuser or addict? YES/NO
Q2. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have you been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a substance trafficker, or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities? YES/NO
Q3. Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies? YES/NO
Well theres no chance of me getting into USA. I would fail on Q1 mental disorder, Q2 seeking to do immoral things and Q3 obviously fail on all counts including being a member of the Nazi Party 23 years before i was born!
Guilty as charged m’lud!
It makes you wonder why you would want to go there in the first place!
Rod said,
August 31, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
HH,
that’s superb - I’ve read it three times now it’s both staggering and hysterical simultaneously !
My favourite is Question 3 - I’d love to know how many people give one of these a yes answer
What a great comment HH - love it
Best
Rod
History Hunter said,
August 31, 2010 @ 11:55 pm
It still makes me laugh just reading it back again. I was telling someone at work about it today and i could hardly say question 3 through laughing so much, made even worse by the fact that i knew what was coming.
Ive just been thinking actually. I may add to the answer for Q2….i think ill add moral turpentine or what ever it was to my list of failings. According to Wikipedia its legal definition is “conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.” Thats me in a nutshell!
I wonder if they would let me in Canada instead?
Rod said,
September 1, 2010 @ 8:40 am
HH,
it was so good I was going to delete your comment and make it a thread in its own right but when I checked for duplicate content it’s already extant.
For me the worry would not be wouls I be allowed to enter Canada but would they allow me to leave
Best
Rod
Amiguru said,
September 1, 2010 @ 9:55 am
Rod,
“Would I be allowed to enter Canada but would they allow me to leave?”
I think not. The RCMP is looking for fine upstanding young men and if you could ’straddle the saddle’ they’d have you mounted in no time; don’t forget, ‘the Mountie always gets his man’!
The only problem is you’d have to swap your ushanka for a felt hat 
Regards,
Neville
History Hunter said,
September 1, 2010 @ 10:44 am
What a pity its still ‘out there’ as i bet it would have drawn some fantastic comments on a “Stupid Questions on Forms” thread
Rod said,
September 1, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
Neville,
I’ll be hanging onto my Russian Hat in anticipation of the Revolution !
I was actually offered the chance to go to Canada many years ago - being a qualified engineer means, or at least meant, a guaranteed in - golden hello as well !
Needless to say I scoffed at the idea
Best
Rod
Rod said,
September 1, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
HH,
indeed it is - it would have been a cracker.
Cheers
Rod