Airlines to Charge by the Pound?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Typical empty operating weight of a 747-400: 398,780 lb.

Let's say they arbitrarily declare 150lb a standard weight and charge a 250lb man extra. Going on the fuel cost by weight theory, and ignoring weight of all the other passengers, cargo, fuel, etc:

100 / 398,780 = .000251

On a $500 ticket, that's about a 12 cent difference...so if you want to claim it's fair, then that's the limit of the surcharge. On a smaller jet, the price might get up to a whole dollar!

[rah]

But when the practice has been to charge extra for bags over a certain weight, And not at the percentage based on your example, I wholehardedly agree that a weight based surcharge would be fair.

[MikeH]

They've always charged in pounds. I think they should charge in Euros probably though.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by rah
But when the practice has been to charge extra for bags over a certain weight, And not at the percentage based on your example, I wholehardedly agree that a weight based surcharge would be fair.

All that means is that the previous practice wasn't fair either.

[Saras]

Guys, airlines want to make money. Is it that hard to fathom?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Typical empty operating weight of a 747-400: 398,780 lb.

Let's say they arbitrarily declare 150lb a standard weight and charge a 250lb man extra. Going on the fuel cost by weight theory, and ignoring weight of all the other passengers, cargo, fuel, etc:

100 / 398,780 = .000251

On a $500 ticket, that's about a 12 cent difference...so if you want to claim it's fair, then that's the limit of the surcharge. On a smaller jet, the price might get up to a whole dollar!

Originally posted by rah But when the practice has been to charge extra for bags over a certain weight, And not at the percentage based on your example, I wholehardedly agree that a weight based surcharge would be fair.

The issue is the carrying capacity, usually weight but sometimes volume if relevant (such as seating) and not the weight of the plane or, incidentaly, the cost of the fuel which is going to be fairly fixed. So, if the carrying capacity is 50,000lbs an extra 50lb is accounting for an extra 0.1% of the carrying capacity.

And whilst a person who weighs 50lb more than a preset limit is not reducing the ability to fit more people on to the plane they are reducing the luggage limit by 50lb.

[Tiamat]

OOOOOoooo my! If they charge by the pound some of us are going to be in real trouble








Hello Boys

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Good point, demand plays a part in pricing. However, it's no secret at all that rising fuel costs are costing the airline industry billions,both directly (the actual cost to them) and indirectly (less disposable income for people to use for plane tickets). I guess my main point was, does anyone think it is unfair for airlines to charge different prices to different customers, for the same seat, dependent upon certain conditions?

Of course not. Where would you draw the line? Public buses would start to use the same thing, because public transport or private transport companies also have problems due to rising fuel prices. That way fat people will be pushed even more into using their own car which they are doing more than people with normal weight already. That'll make them waste more fuel plus it'll cost them more in total. You could also charge fat people with loads of things like a higher cost of health insurance because fat people are unhealthier. And then you could charge higher prices for people who don't do sports because they too in general are unhealthier etc etc.

I can't even believe you are thinking about this. Must be some strange American logic I suppose.

And on a more serious note: if it is to be fair to the customers, then prices should be the same for everyone. Even a 9-year old can see that. Higher fuel prices are a problem for the arline company. It's not up to them to arbitrarily recuperate their lower profits by charging a certain group of people more money.

If prices of oil go up, then raise the ticket prices for everyone is the only sensible thing to do.

[realpolitic]

Dauphin the 700-400ER can carry 63,000 gallons of fuel.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747.../pf_facts.html 100 lbs would use 15 extra gallons. The extra cost is significant.

[Wezil]

PHILADELPHIA - Derrie-Air has been exposed.

Readers of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News opened their papers Friday to see ads for a new airline called Derrie-Air, which purportedly charges passengers by the pound.

But the new carrier will never get off the ground. It's a one-day advertising campaign about a fake airline by Philadelphia Media Holdings, the papers' owner, and Gyro ad agency.

In light blue banners throughout the papers - as well as on their website - Derrie-Air cheerily trumpets its policy: The more you weigh, the more you pay. The ads direct readers to a website.

Philadelphia Media Holdings spokesman Jay Devine said the goal is to "demonstrate the power of our brands in generating awareness and generating traffic for our advertisers, and put a smile on people's faces."

The company will track traffic to the Derrie-Air site. Devine said there's already buzz about the campaign on online blogs.


Derrie-Air's sample rates range from $1.40 per pound to fly from Philadelphia to Chicago to $2.25 per pound to fly from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.

Those who scroll to the bottom of the home page find out the truth behind Derrie-Air.

A disclaimer labels the ad campaign "fictitious" and says it is designed "to test the results of advertising in our print and online products and to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens."

"In other words," it says, "smile, we're pulling your leg."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2008/06/06/5796521-ap.html

[Zkribbler]

If I were a really thin person, I'd sue them for "bait and switch."

BTW: Do these airlines who propose to charge heavy people more offer a discount to thin people? If not, then these is just a scheme to gouge the public.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by realpolitic
Dauphin the 700-400ER can carry 63,000 gallons of fuel.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747.../pf_facts.html 100 lbs would use 15 extra gallons. The extra cost is significant.

Are you calculating 60,000 gallons / 400,000lb plane x 100 lb = 15 gallons per 100 lb? I could repeat the calculation with a fully laden plane at 900,000lb and say that the extra fuel usage for the final 100 lbs is 60,000 gallons / 900,000 lb x 100 lbs = 6.7 gallons. Of course, in either case, the fuel cost is fixed regardless of how much cargo you have on board or how far you want to be travelling. Alternatively, I could say let's only load the plane up with 10,000 gallons. At 900,000 lb for a laden plane I could get a figure of 1.1 gallons of fuel required for the extra 100lb. Simply, something is slightly amiss with the analysis.

Secondly, the calculation makes little sense in practical terms. If it were true that an extra 100lb in weight on an empty plane would require an extra 15 gallons of fuel then that 15 gallons, which itself weighs 100 lbs (density of jet fuel being about 6-7lb/gallon from memory) would then necessitate another 15 gallons of fuel to carry that extra weight. Continue the logic as required...(and account for fuel burn if you wish, the flaw in logic would not be overcome)

Basically, as far as I can tell the figures that would give you the a better answer aren't in your link. The fuel consumption rate of an empty plane and the fuel consumption rate of a plane filled with passengers and luggage would be a useful start in caclulating the marginal cost- you could later factor in take off and landing, cruising speeds etc etc..

[Wezil]

Is that an african swallow or european?