Skip navigation

Cheap Airfare, Vacation Deals, Car Rental, and Discount Travel - SmarterTravel.com
My SmarterTravel

Will airlines charge by weight?

Posted by Carl Unger, SmarterTravel.com Staff
Scale (Photo: iStockPhoto/Nicholas Belton)
Editor's Note: This story was originally published on June 11, 2008. To see the most recent SmarterTravel articles on related topics, please click on any of the following links: airfare, Carl Unger, health and safety, Today in Travel.


It started out as a joke, an idea some frustrated traveler or industry analyst blurted out as yet another airline fee or fare hike was announced: "Next thing you know, the airlines will charge passengers based on their weight!" Preposterous, right?

Right—that is, until Air Transport Association spokesman David Castelveter was quoted in a Bloomberg article, saying "You listen to the airline CEOs, and nothing is beyond their imagination." He was speaking about the possibility of airlines charging passengers by the pound, and by not dismissing the idea, he more or less validated it.

Advertisement

Now fast forward to Friday, June 6, when an ad for Derrie-Air appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News. What is Derrie-Air? A fictional (thank goodness) airline that charges passengers by the pound, created as a marketing gimmick by the papers' parent company. It was a hoax, sure, but it threw consumers into various stages of panic (and laughter), while fanning the flames of an already fiery conversation.

So, should passengers be prepared for airfare pricing by the pound? In that same Bloomberg article, aviation consultant Robert Mann lays out the logic, saying, "If you look at the air-freight business, that's the way they've always done it. We're getting treated like air freight when we travel by airlines, anyway.'' Mann has a point, and maybe a good one. Why shouldn't a person be charged a fare equivalent to the actual cost of transporting his or her weight?

The obvious answer is discrimination, as per-pound pricing essentially penalizes larger passengers for simply being larger, a condition some individuals can't help. Something tells me the airlines will be wary of bad press, lawsuits, and other forms of unwanted attention that could accompany this pricing model. Of course, controversial policies regarding larger passengers are not exactly new. Southwest has had a "Customer of Size" rule for years that requires passengers who cannot fit into a seat with the armrests down to purchase a ticket for the adjacent seat. No other major carrier has a similar policy.

Again, I doubt per-pound pricing will be a reality any time soon, so don't get on the treadmill yet. But if the airline industry has taught us anything lately, it's that nothing is beyond reason.

Meanwhile, the fees ante just got raised by United, which joined American in charging for all checked baggage.

More blog entries

Guidelines: We love hearing from you, especially when your posts are thoughtful, polite, concise and unique. However, we do reserve the right to remove posts that are written in less than a "community spirit". Please see the full list of unacceptable comment types here.
Comments FAQ's

 

Archived Comments:

  • Ilene - June 12, 2008

    If they do, my husband and I will never fly again. This is so insulting to the passengers.

  • Len - June 12, 2008

    Alaska also has such a policy, as shown on their web site.

  • Pug - June 12, 2008

    I must agree with Southwest. A person should have to fit into their own seat. It is not fair to someone in the next seat if a large person is spilling into their space. I do not think a persons weight should make a difference, only their size. No one need know that the large person has paid for 2 seats.

  • SuperSized - June 12, 2008

    I'm a big gal. If the day ever comes when I don't fit into my airline seat with the armrest down I will buy a second seat without being required to. If a person larger than me thinks they are going to spill over into the seat that I paid for, they have another think coming. I will not complain either if the airlines start charging for all of the carry on luggage people have to haul on board.

  • Nancy - June 12, 2008

    I think this is ridiculous!!! I also think that anyone who doesn't think so has obviously never had weight issues and doesn't understand the amount of suffering already involved with having the issue. There is already a social stigma around being overweight. People treat them differently. I've seen it. Making decisions like charging them and penalizing them once again for being overweight will cause an already looked down upon people to be discriminated against for something a lot of them can't help. And who decides what weight is too heavy? Who will they be judged against? A model who weighs 90 pounds? A weight lifter who weighs 225? Someone who is 5'5? Someone who is 5'10? If this happens, it will make an already discriminated against group of people feel like outcasts. Being overweight is completely different than how much you can carry on board or check. You actually pack your bag and make the choice of what you are bringing. People with health problems that cause them to be overweight don't choose to do so. We are not cattle people! Let's not treat people like they are an animal!!

  • Suzann - June 12, 2008

    Very stupid...... I believe that it are very discrimination for everyone. No reason..... They can't visit their relatives or griefs.

  • spinner - June 12, 2008

    SouthWest's policy is why it does not fly out of Newark-Liberty(EWR).It may have passed Federal court tests, but it violates NJ's antidiscriminaton laws.

  • Ellen - June 12, 2008

    honestly? i don't see why someone who needs two seats should NOT be charged for both. that's not discrimination, that's common sense. i can see why the per pound policy will cause some feathers to be ruffled. but the truth is that the more weight on a plane (whether in the form of person or too much baggage), the more fuel (and money) it costs to fly that trip. and it's true, we're already treated like freight (in coach anyway) so i wouldn't be all that surprised to see this implemented.

  • calichick925 - June 12, 2008

    That is awesome...lets not raise the price for everyone, just those who overpack and think how much a family could save travelling with children who only weigh 50lb?

  • come on - June 12, 2008

    It is not disrimination any more than the reality that a larger person needs a larger car. Should we give subsidies to them. Why should a light weight person pay more for a ticket to subsidize the cost of transporting a heavier person.? People should pay whatever is the cost of their transportation.

  • djk - June 12, 2008

    why shouldnt they charge by weight, maybe it will create a positive influence in our over weight society to take charge of our bodies, eat better, and ultimately have over-all better health ... I think its a great idea...

  • widespreadpanic - June 12, 2008

    The reason passengers are not now charged by the lb. is because they are not freight, they occupy one seat per person. Now if they could figure out a way to stack more than one on a seat, they might have something...

  • jtoothman - June 12, 2008

    This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of! As long as a person can fit into one seat, they should not be charged any extra. This is the result of someone just looking for another way to take money out of our pockets.

  • John R - June 12, 2008

    Hooray! That means my granddaughter could fly with me for 1/6 the fare. Yeah, right.

  • Linda Lou - June 12, 2008

    Once again skinny people without medical problems skate through, now is that really friendly? The Friendly skys etc???? What next? Instead of rate wars we will have weight wars?

  • Ken M - June 12, 2008

    This idea makes good business sense, and good economic sense, too. The key for the airlines is to put a good spin on it. Why not couple it with their next fare increase, with a stated policy along the lines of "your fare is based upon our assumption that the combined weight of you and your luggage is 200 pounds (or whatever the airlines' magic number is). If your total weight is less than 200 pounds at time of check-in, we will share our cost savings with you by giving you a cash refund of $X.XX per pound when you check in. There is no additional fee for passengers who exceed the target weight." Nothing like handing passengers cash to make them a little happier, and it provides an incentive for pasengers to reduce the amount of carry-on baggage they bring along, too.

  • Biz traveler - June 12, 2008

    I'm all for "paying by the pound", perhaps a flat fee and then a weight range pound fee to each ticket. At least then when I'm being sqaushed into a half seat I can feel better that I didn't get charged as much as the person next to me.

  • mamadoc - June 12, 2008

    I wish the airlines would have weight guidelines - perhaps a base rate for less than 250 pounds passenger plus luggage? Fuel surcharge should apply to ALL weight a passenger brings to the airplane. Discrimination? What about the passenger with medical supplies or the student with heavy books? Weight is weight!

  • JDL - June 12, 2008

    When they start charging by the pound and with all the other cramp they are pulling that will be the end of my flying and will probably mean the end of my cruising unless i can drive to a port and store my car reasonably.

  • Paul - June 12, 2008

    Can you imagine how much this would slow down the ticketing and boarding process if each passenger has to be weighed? I wouldn't put it past the airlines to do something this stupid.

  • BlueeyedSara - June 12, 2008

    A friend and I just recently discussed this concept because how much a flight costs to an airline is directly related to how much weight is going through the air and I have to say that I don't like the idea of subsidizing someone's ticket cost. Why should I, a 145-pound woman who travels with minimal luggage, be obligated to pay the same air fare as someone who weighs 300 pounds and overpacks? A larger person is already buying bigger clothes and bigger cars, so why should s/he be surprised by having to pay more due to the physics of air travel? Air travel is a convenient privilege, not an absolute right. Having said that and before I am crucified on this webpage, I admit that I don't like the idea of people being discriminated against because of their size.

  • ronnyc - June 12, 2008

    Tickets by the pound acknowledges the reality of what air travel has become - freight. Larger folks may cry discrimination, but why should a small person with only a carry-on bag have to subsidize the ticket of a large person with 3 checked bags?

  • Eric T - June 12, 2008

    One thing I don't think anyone has realized yet ESPECIALLY the airlines is that by charging per piece of checked baggage their liability to service that baggage changes also. Now the disclaimers they have had for years regarding lost / damaged luggage valuation are no longer anywhere as effective as they once were because now not only am I paying you to convey myself with you being so good as to convey my possesions gratis. But I am paying you to convey myself as well as my possesions. Start thinking more along the lines if Fedex loses your package and you have the gist of my point here. so the next time your suitcase comes down the conveyor open with your personal belongings hanging out of it start a stink and make sure you mention litigation immediately. They may claim that thier waivers still apply but think in terms of I did not pay you to lose my bag I paid you to transport my bag. Immediate breach of contract for conveyance.

  • skinnymarie - June 12, 2008

    Why not charge for seat belts, tray tables, and use of the lavoratories???

  • Harry - June 12, 2008

    80% of us Americans are going to oppose this because 80% of us are overweight. Airfare should be logically determined by total weight - ie, body weight plus baggage.

  • Robert R - June 12, 2008

    Does this mean that I can now fly on UPS and only pay freight rates? I doubt it.

  • pragmatic - June 12, 2008

    airlines should use whichever pricing scheme they wish. the market will sort it out. just look at the restaurant business-- it is possible to dine buffet-style or a la carte. nobody complains about the pricing scheme in either case, because everybody knows how the system works before they choose to walk in the door. accordingly, airlines might someday differentiate themselves according to pricing structure.

  • K - June 12, 2008

    I thought this one over and due to personal experience of being wedged in between two people who could NOT fit into ONE seat, I am beginning to this it might be a good idea. In addition, carry on luggage needs to be weighed. I was also on a flight where, due to turbulence, the overheads came open and some darned heavy stuff flew around.

  • trips - June 12, 2008

    Great idea. We are freight and everything else we ship is weighed, so why not us. We don't expect others to subsidize our parcels, why should others subsidize shipping ourselves. Just returned from a flight and almost had to pay for extra weight in our luggage (2 lb). On the return flight we just stuck a couple of things in our carry-on and all was fine (strange that carry-ons aren't weighed too). We commented at the time (only to each other) that our own weight combined with our luggage was probably no heavier than some of the other people (not counting their luggage) boarding the same flight. Weight is weight, whether it's in your luggage or under your skin. We aren't little people (both 5'10") by the way (who are careful about our health, with a nice side affect of not being overweight).

  • mask - June 12, 2008

    As long as we are weighed with all our luggage, I'm good with it. Helicopters have done it for years.

  • pmcclure - June 12, 2008

    Has anyone ever tried to book two seats for a larger person. I have yet to find a way to do it on line. And them I 'm not so sure I really want the extra seat belt connector sticking me or the curved seat back being that uncomfortable. Maybe the airlines with offers such as Spirit's "Big Front Seat" have figured out that people would be willing to pay more for a larger space. We always fly the "Big Front Seat", not like it is any more comfortable for us to be crammed against the window trying to stay away from you then it is for you to be crammed against us. Perhaps the solution would be to have phone booth style seating with walls between each seat. Not only would you not have to worry about being cramped by another passanger but you wouldn't have to talk to them, see them, hear them...

  • r - June 12, 2008

    Charge me by weight if you must but be fair about it and charge the people who bring oversized carryons and 5-6 carryon bags accordingly. I admit to being overweight but I carry on only my laptop bag and a large soft purse for book etc. So many people think the one + one carry on rule doesn't apply to them. My last flight (2 weeks ago) a girl had computer bag, backpack, pillow, oversized purse, small wheeled bag and 2 BIG stuffed animals. How much overhead space and extra weight did she have........she was also not a small girl.

  • Flight Dispatcher - - June 12, 2008

    RE: K- June 12, 2008. Charging extra large people more money for their tickets does NOT guarantee that you will never be wedged in between them on another flight. Be realistic!

  • clh8712 - June 12, 2008

    The airlines know exactly how much fuel and therefore the fuel cost per LB of weight --- aircraft, baggage, passengers, etc. Ignoring the fuel for a minute, they also know the total non-fuel cost of operating every flight, whether the plane has 300 or zero passengers on it. This is the fixed cost and each aircraft would have a different average fixed cost per available seat. then they could add a premium for business and first classes --- this exists already. Then the weighing begins. Each person with baggage stands on the scale, and the fuel cost per pound of the empty aircraft is applied to each passenger's total weight. The fixed costs are substantial --- aircraft lease, all employees, reservation centers, etc. the fuel surchage then would be only a portion of covering the fixed cost, and then they add whatever profit they're trying to make as % of total air fares collected. I can't see how anyone could complain about this approach.

  • fluffy - June 12, 2008

    I am not obese, but fluffy, and probably over some "allowed" or pre-determined weight allowance. My husband is thin, could our combined weights settle our fare. In any event, could they merge the weight of traveling companions?

  • Diane S - June 12, 2008

    I would not mind having to pay more as a plus sized person but you have to make the seats non-reclinable. I fit into the seat, always sit next to a family member so I can put up the armrest and not take space away from another paying passenger. I can put the tray down until the yahoo in front of me thinks the space in front of him and behind him is his and I get a tray table in the stomach. That won't ever happen and thus I will probably never fly again.

  • Nena - June 12, 2008

    It makes sense to me.. Having all weights passengers bring onboard be taken in consideration: luggages+carry-on+bodyweight. Loads influence pricing of tickets. There could be different fares according to different categories, like in clothing industry: Small, Medium, Large, Xlarge, etc. etc.

  • notsocynical - June 12, 2008

    The carbon footprint savings would not be insignificant; an additional incentive to reduce one's weight is not so terrible.

  • Bear - June 12, 2008

    When in Hawaii a few years ago, we wanted to take a two hour helicoptor flight around the big island. My wife and I are large people, so we had to pay for 3 passengers.

  • bobn17 - June 12, 2008

    At least at the moment, we use up more space on the airplane than an equivalent weight of freight. The cost per passenger of a flight is also related to how many passengers are on the flight. Should we be charging each passenger more because the flight is not as full?

  • Doug - June 12, 2008

    Because I am 6'5" tall, I should pay more than a shorter person? Excuse me but I had no choice in becoming this tall (my mother made me eat all my vegetables) and height equals additional weight. And now they want to charge me more for an exit row seat which has more legroom, and pay more again for an aisle seat which helps with my claustrophobia when my legs are confined to a middle or window seat. BTW, I am not overweight for my height. I weigh exactly 200 lbs. If I pay more for my flight than the obviously overweight 5'5", 190 pound man or woman, then that is discrimination!

  • J - June 12, 2008

    Well, while we are on this topic, maybe we can get a policy going where we get charged for everything by size, such as clothing and shoes. Bigger shoes and clothing require more material after all. We already pay more for King size bedding than Twin don't we? I see this issue as not just discriminatory, but as a slippery slope.

  • tobegold - June 12, 2008

    I recall a photo I saw a few years ago from the 1920's/1930's of passengers being weighed at the airport. With all the charges for checked bags and limits on carry-on people will be stuffing their pockets and wearing extra layers. Why should somebody who weighs 160 lb subsidize somebody who weighs 300 lb. It's time everybody realized that jet fuel consumption is also affected by the payload carried by the airplane. The airlines have been using average weights for passengers in determining payloads (exclusive of luggage) and these figures are out of date as people weigh more today than 20 or 30 years ago thanks to poor diets and fast food. This is not discrimination this is economic reality. Is it discriminatory for life insurance companies to charge higher rates to smokers than non-smokers? Sure, some people are just big, but many people are just overweight.. I am sure the airlines would have a general weight range and charge for those in excess just like overweight baggage. Now is overweight baggage discriminatory? I myself am 6'5" and not lightweight (but not overweight either).

  • Seb-in-Kansas - June 12, 2008

    I think it would be a fare way to charge customers. They already penalize us for the weight we carry by charging for the luggage. How come a 150 pounds man with two 50 pounds luggage should pay more than a 260 pound person with one luggage? This is really unfair.... and I am not taking extreme exemples I know women that are less than 120 pounds and I am myself 210 pounds. The airlines are so ridiculous that I am actually for a system that wouold be fair for everybody. They'll give you a ticket for transporting 250 pounds (people plus luggage) so If you have a luggage a kid and yourself under that you just pay for one ticket but if you are over the weight just by yourself you may pay a $25 per 25 pounds extra for exemple....

  • Nora - June 12, 2008

    Rumor has it the airlines plan to start charging $15 for the first lost bag.

  • Sera - June 12, 2008

    Remember that by advocating for this, you're saying that someone who wears a size 10 & is 5'10" should pay more than someone who is also a size 10 but is 5'2''. Fair?

  • Jman - June 12, 2008

    I think it is a great idea to charge by weight. It isn't discriminatory at all - It takes a lot more fuel to fly a planeload of 300lbs people vs one filled with those weighing 150lbs. There are cases in which some people can't control their weight - some. And well, life just isn't fair to us all.

  • libravore - June 12, 2008

    The problem with this scenario is that it would mean a ticket for a kid travelling alone would cost less than that for a fat adult (like me) even though the kid takes more of the crew's time & attention.

  • SpyderWyb - June 12, 2008

    Are they looking into a more fuel efficient aiplane? What about fuel alternatives? An electrical Airplane? Then no one whould have to be embarrassed or discriminated against. How about McDonalds, soda and refined sugar companies picks up the extra cost the weight causes?

  • lisa9132 - June 12, 2008

    Recently I was on a flight seated next to a man who could not put his armrest down because he was so big. He also could not put the tray table down. He was, literally, half into my seat. All the seats were filled, so I couldn't move. It was very uncomfortable for me and I was furious. If I only am going to receive half a seat, I should only have to pay for half a seat. I applaud Southwest airlines and will make a point to book with them in the future. I don't necessarily agree paying by the pound, but there should be some limits . . .

  • Hicar - June 12, 2008

    When my in-laws started flying many long years ago they payed according to their weight. I am not sure how many years that happened but it was done that way at one time. Not surprised someone is coming up with this idea which is absurd. Airlines are like everyone else, looking for the bucks. They will lose in the long run as folks won't fly.

  • Jennifer - June 12, 2008

    I agree that charging a passenger for their weight is discrimination. If an airline actually does go through with that, I can see major lawsuits happening. Financially, it is not a good idea for airlines to charge by out weight. It does cost more to transport heavier people because they weigh the plane down and burn more gas. I think the only good thing that would come out of charing us by weight is encouraging us to live a healthier life style.

  • LittleMouse - June 12, 2008

    We have already booked two flights on American (1) and (1) on United Airlines and paid for those tickets. If they try to charge us for baggage or for being overweights...If we read they will definately do that ...well then we will cancel our tickets and fly another airline. The Airline co. raised their prices to cover the rise in cost of fuel......they should not be allowed to charge extra for checking baggage. I can see charging for EXCESS baggage (like more than two pieces). So companies --- beware of a loss in your business...because I know that I am not the only person insulted and revolted by this change.

  • lisa9132 - June 12, 2008

    Recently I was on a flight seated next to a man who could not put his armrest down because he was so big. He also could not put the tray table down. He was, literally, half into my seat. All the seats were filled, so I couldn't move. It was very uncomfortable for me and I was furious. If I only am going to receive half a seat, I should only have to pay for half a seat. I applaud Southwest airlines and will make a point to book with them in the future. I don't necessarily agree paying by the pound, but there should be some limits . . .

  • Doug - June 12, 2008

    Hey Folks! Travel is not a right. Why should airlines subsidize our wants. Fuel usage is based on weight. Maybe this is a way to help the US start dealing with POS(peopleof size). If airlines don't make a profit they go out of business. Do you want Congress taking over the airlines? They seem to mess up most everything they touch.

  • zuzka56 - June 12, 2008

    I've traveled by a small 10 passenger plane in Costa Rica and i didn't think twice about them asking all the passengers their weight. It was a part of the procedure to make sure the airplane doesn't get overloaded. It makes no difference if someone weights above average because of their natural height or for being just overweight, the weight is there and it costs money to get transported. Bigger bed costs more, feeding a 6'5 man costs lot more than my 5'3" mother... and in europe some clothes are price different based on the size (see 'Quelle' catalog) I think if this is done discreetly (as someone suggested weighing a person together with their luggage) it would be reasonable to charge people extra if they exceed the limit.

  • BobCharley - June 12, 2008

    The airlines should make the armrests unmovable except by a key in the possession of the flight Attendant, who would free it only with the consent of all adjacent passengers. I don't care how big anyone is, that's their problem, but if I pay for a seat I want the whole seat!

  • marilano - June 12, 2008

    If the airlines are in such bad shape financially (due to the high cost of fuel), rather than charging passengers by weight--or charging to check one bag, as American is starting to do--why not stop paying their executives tens of millions of dollars --EACH--per year??? To discriminate against larger passengers who still fit easily into one seat seems like a stupid idea. This goes along with the stupidity of charging for the first checked bag. Now all flights will be late while they take forever to board as everyone tries to squash the biggest possible carry-ons into the overhead bins. I pride myself on flying without needing to put anything in a carry-on bin, so I usually do check one bag. I board and exit quickly--unlike most passengers. The boarding delays and flight delays will be getting worse with the new fee-per-bag policies, and adding the specter of weighing all customers would make flying a total nightmare.

  • procop - June 12, 2008

    No way this will happen. There would be lawsuits definitely. Southwest policy on the other hand looks reasonable. Shame on United for joining AA in first bag charges! Forget United 's "bonus miles" I'll fly by others...

  • SingleMom - June 12, 2008

    Women and children weight much less on average (women 163lbs, men 190lbs). So right now, women, who earn less than men on average, have to subsidize the airline tickets of men. Does that sound fair to anyone?

  • LilyAnne - June 12, 2008

    I think that the idea of weighing people is absurd. I understand the plight of the person sitting between two overweight people for I have been in that predicament myself. I did not even have half a seat. I don't know the answer to this problem but weighing people is not it. The only thing I can think of is if they place two obese persons with someone between, that the flight attendant not allow anyone between them and have the two share the cost of the extra seat so they can be comfortable. By obese, I mean the over 300 lb. 5'4" person who really cannot fit into a seat comfortably. I do not think a person would object to this if it is handled properly. This would be to require height and wt. when buying a ticket so that the adjustment could be made then. This way, the person would not be singled out at check in. I feel that airlines are pricing themselves out of business anyway and it won't be too long until we do not have to worry about weight, only that we can save enough money in five to ten years to take a vacation. You can bet that my travel, as well as family and friends, have been cut this year. No vacation for us.

  • zvancouver - June 12, 2008

    I agree with this somewhat. Recently I was on a big trip and my luggage upon return (only one bag) was 3 pounds over and so I had to pay the overage fee ($75). I weigh 125 pounds, max. Meanwhile a very large man was next to me checking his bag that was just underweight and so did not have to pay. I suspect the combined weight (person plus luggage) would have been at least 150 pounds less in my case. It just seemed very unfair.

  • Josh - June 12, 2008

    I am over 6 feet and while I am height weight proportional, I do weight more than the average person since I am larger. I would NOT mind paying more for my seat if they also gave me MORE LEG ROOM since I am tall.

  • snoutedpug - June 12, 2008

    In Armidale, NSW in the seventies, I remember getting on the scale with all my luggage and being weighed . There was no price differentiation. It was to determine how much cargo the plane could then carry.

  • Gran Turismo - June 12, 2008

    Don't airlines have freight available to haul to make up the difference between the weight the plane can haul and the weight of passengers and luggage? Not being able to carry more paying freight is the reason to charge more for overweight people and bags. They usually only carry enough fuel to make it to the next destination plus a 45 minute reserve. UPS and FedEx are making money while airlines loose because they are getting more per pound hauling freight.

  • Duff - June 12, 2008

    I don't like the idea of discriminating against larger people, but there must be a nice middle-ground somewhere! I have been in the extremely unpleasant and uncomfortable position of being "squished" because an overly-large person next to me did not buy an extra seat. It is very difficulty when you're smaller to just be expected to give up the space you've paid for to someone else. I've had the armrests down and still had the passenger next to me spilling over and placing their legs into "my" space. It makes for a very uncomfortable ride for both of us.....and who, as a nice person, wants to complain to the flight attendant when the person is sitting right there?! If only people would think of others to start with, and buy an extra seat if you need it!

  • yoda - June 12, 2008

    It's been fun reading the comments, but its also amazing how much good sense comes through. I think the airlines should read these comments. Majority opinion seems to favor an equitable distribution of cost as per weight carried - even from the big people who have a sense of fair play. And thanks for letting me know about Southwest and Alaska's policy about ticketting for out-seat sizes. I certainly shall pick them, all other factors being equal. No wonder Southwest is growing while others are diminshing.

  • peaches - June 12, 2008

    i think the airlines should just stick with the practice that southwest did when the "Airlines" show was on TV...they would charge for 2 seats for oversize people...the the person disputed the charge that was actually taken on the plane, seated with the armrest down and the personnel determined if their body overlapped the armest prior to boarding the flight... if it did overlap they had to purchase a second seat if it was available to make the flight... that's fair.... now ...they already charge for luggage over 50lbs (fair) and they have increase the fares to cover the rise in fuel ..(fair) anything more is just grasping for bucks... and i'm sure they'll loose more business than they anticipate if this is implemented method...

  • CaliforniaLu - June 12, 2008

    Oh My God ! By the pound ? what the heck are we ? A sack of Beans ? This is not only silly it is right down,insulting , discriminatory,Predigest to name a few.... Now what next . By the Color ? Hummmmm Wake up People This is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. These CEO's must of been Drunk when they thought up this one. I am not saying this because I am a Thin nor Heavy person I say this for all people. PS. What about those that are handy cap on Wheel Chairs? What are you going to do about that ? Toss them off ther Chair and have it on the Scale ? Or Charge them the pound of the Chair too?

  • Sissy - June 12, 2008

    Why not simply remove the middle seat? Less weight all around, no "overflow" from other person & less fuel consumption due to lighter plane load. I realize that this would mean a person would have to be quick in purchasing a seat because of less available occupancy.

  • largeguy - June 12, 2008

    i once flew coast to coast.. my seat mate was an absolutly delightful woman, who ufortunatly weighed probably 400+ pounds. she used a large percentage of my seat, as well as her own... me? i'm no midget either at 6'4" and 240#!! so you can guess how uncomfortable the flight was... what's correct here?? if she used 25% of MY seat, should't she have paid for it???

  • deb - June 12, 2008

    I'm petite. My husband is 6', 2" tall. I gladly share my extra seat space with my husband. If this weight surcharge really happens how about a package deal - a total weight divided by the number of passengers flying together? Also to be fair - any surcharge should only be assessed on the amount a passenger's weight excedes the standard insurance weight and height chart so that tall people aren't charged unfairly.

  • scapel - June 13, 2008

    Charging per pound seems acceptable. Now how many pounds requires two seats? Of course that depends on height also. The more weight the plane carries, the more fuel is used. Seems logical. The one seat/two seat thing is a separate issue.

  • Aghast - June 13, 2008

    There are laws to prevent discrimination against people of color, people of a certain age, people of a particular gender... why is it that our society still sees larger people as fair game? No laws prevent discrimination against people of larger size, and it seems to be perfectly all right for comedians and the general public to make fun of them. Those of you who do so, and who support this potential policy of discrimination against larger people ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

  • Donna - June 13, 2008

    This is so typical. All of you small people, always judging someone for being different. Why not take a look at this, as if this was your mom or dad and the humiliation and mental anguish that it would your loved one to be subjected to this kind of treatment. I only hope for all of your sakes that it doesn't happen to you someday. Maybe we should just put all of the large people on a deserted island somwhere, so no one has to see them. I fit in a seat no problem and can wear my seat belt and don't infringe on anyone elses space, but I do know oversized people, and it certainly is tough enough for them in everyday life already, but this one would definately put it over the top for them. Maybe people should look at people as people and not what they look like. This truly disgusts me!!! Remember, no one wants to be fat.

  • SWtraveler - June 13, 2008

    It is true that Southwest has an obesity policy that they are open about. What people don't understand is that just about every airline would make me buy two seats. I buy two seats because I must. I do it to save everyone discomfort. I refuse to be a big fat burden to someone else. Southwest is the ONLY airline who returns the entire cost of the second seat if the flight is not completely full. I will always fly southwest as long as they have this policy. Southwest doesn't have assigned seating. So if you don't want to sit next to a fat person, don't.

  • ks - June 13, 2008

    It's not discrimintion - it should be a total package weight. If you want to bring on a load of carryon's, you should be punished for it. Paying per pound could be less than paying for two seats outright. I think its a great idea.

  • spete - June 13, 2008

    Charging by total weight is simple economics and would not be a discriminatory policy. I am a 6'4" male and only weigh 170 lbs and I often have to pay more to sit in economy plus because I can't fit comfortably in the normal economy seat yet I don't feel I am being discriminated against. The airlines have to take out a few rows of seats (reducing income) to allow for more legroom so I understand why I should pay more. Similarly, heavier passengers increase the airlines cost I agree that the best policy would be to charge based on total weight of the passenger and the luggage. This could be done discreetly to avoid any possible embarrassment. For those travelling with children, family luggage could be separated so the adult could be weighed with a smaller bag and the child with a larger piece to avoid any surcharges.

  • Sam - June 13, 2008

    I agree with the philosophy of paying your fair share - If your bag contains excessive weight you already pay more based upon that. Why should a 175 pound individual subsidize the cost of fuel to lift a 300 pound person off the ground. BTW, with the recent changes by some airlines requiring an additional charge to be imposed for all checked baggage, the airline industry is promoting the annoying practice already employed by some inconsiderate passengers who carry on oversized bags which do not fit down the aisles or overhead bins. Once they bang their bag into everyone sitting in an aisle seat that they walk past and stuff it into the overhead bin, they then get prepared to drop it on someone's head as they attempt to extract it from stowage upon arrival at their destination. If the airline companys are going to charge for checked bags they should also enforce the size limitations for carry ons to avoid this practice.

  • april45 - June 13, 2008

    My husband, (now deceased for 2 years) I know is looking down on this and applauding loudly! He spent many years traveling on business, usually from one coast to the other. I often accompanied him, however, when I didn't, he returned many times, saying "it was high time the airlines started charging people by the pound for their tickets." I would find that he had spent the entire trip across the country standing at the back of the plane. As soon as the seatbelt sign went off, he would leave because he was seated between two very obese people who were shoulder to shoulder once he left his seat. He returned only when the seatbelt sign came back on for landing to pry his way back into his seat. OR if he had an isle seat, and was seated next to such a person, he came home with a bruised shoulder from the beverage cart, since it would be necessary to lean into the isle. And God help him if he were in a window seat. Granted this did not happen every trip, but for those of you who have spent hours in this same scenario, you know this is not an exaggeration. Though he was not a light weight himself (5' 10" - 190#) he did fit comfortably in his seat and would have been delighted to pay by the pound. So, I join the applause by the # and will gladly pay for every ounce I wish to take!

  • richard - June 14, 2008

    Airlines should charge by weight of luggage, not passengers at this time.

  • taz - June 14 ,2008

    If you can't fit in one seat, buy two, that should be a very simple. I want the seat I paid for and do not intend to share it.

  • caw - June 16, 2008

    I think this policy would make very good sense - particularly the "combined weight" idea of body weight + baggage weight. In my case, while I'm 6'2", I'm thin and pack as lightly as possible, but still feel that it would be fair to be expected to pay more than someone who is 5'2" and does the same, but by virtue of their taking up less space, is still costing the airline less to transport them. By the same token, those individuals who take more room/space/weight - by choice in how much they pack, and also in body weight (afterall, we all decide *what* to put in our bodies, and *how often* - not everyone in our increasingly obese society has a medical condition!) - I agree that they should be willing to pay their fare share of the total cost of transporting their size/weight and their belongings. It's a pretty simple and objective equation, and a reality for the airlines' cost of doing business. I agree with an earlier poster - flying is not a "right", it is instead a choice and a privilege for which we should be expected to pay.

  • Valerie - June 16, 2008

    I am 6'2" tall, and weigh just under 200 pounds. I fit just fine in my seat horizontally. I'm pretty height-weight proportional, but according to this policy, I would also have to pay more simply for being tall. I have curled up into a ball for lack of legroom and dealt with larger passengers seated next to me before. I don't really think it's a huge deal, but I also happen to be laid-back and gregarious, and I understand going into the plane that I may be relaxing the bounds of my personal space for the duration of the flight. I don't mind ticket costs being per person rather than per pound, even though I may be in the lower half of the total weight spectrum. I do think this is just another way to treat people as cattle, and even though I'm not overweight, I agree with the big folks on this one. It is insulting to be treated as freight. Airlines shouldn't pack their flights so tightly that they have to worry about butting up against maximum loads (both for comfort and safety), so there's no reason to weigh individuals rather than multiply by averages. They already weigh luggage, so fine. The cost of your larger luggage is usually offset anyway by the fact that a longer stay requiring such packing is lower priced compared to a weekend round trip, so the bag charge isn't a killer. I think the point everyone misses is that we (people) absorb all the cost of rising fuel costs because they refuse to cut into their profit margin at all. I'm sorry, but if my commute to work and school eats four times as much of my income as it used to in the pre-Bush days, an expenditure not compensated for by my employer, then maybe *their* fuel costs should come out of *them*, not us. I'm sick of every politician telling us that "we" need to tighten our belts in a recession, like our current one; "we" apparently meaning the dwindling middle class citizen, not the giant corporation or the wealthy people who run it. Why is their profit margin exempt from the economic squeeze the rest of America feels? Stop letting them pass the buck. Don't support this kind of nonsense.

  • DISGUSTED - June 17, 2008

    Airline seats were too small when I was young and thin. Now I am older and heavier they are disgustingly small. perhaps new floor planning is the answer not greed. Quit traveling and see how fast the oil industry and the airlines catch the drift.

  • Meggindy - June 17, 2008

    So does my 115lb wife, 50 lb child, get a reduced fare, and my 225lb self pay a premium??? Or is it farer for the entire family group to be given a total of 200lb per seat for passengers and luggage??? If we are being treated as freight than the scale/charge should go both ways!

  • dsheinman - June 17, 2008

    1)Since I weigh only 100 pounds, does that mean that I can bring 2 carry ons to equal one big man? 2)I flew Jet Blue for the first time and was very impressed by the personnel-helpful and no attitude!

  • Don - June 17, 2008

    Some airlines do weigh passengers. 12 years when I went to the Galapagos Islands we were weighed in Quito before we could board the plane.

  • straw hat - June 17, 2008

    Charging by weight makes sense. I have been in several predicaments when the passenger next to me took up half of my seat (and showed NO consideration for me). They should be required to buy two seats. The rest of us have our RIGHTS not to be crunched because the other person is too fat. Period--no ACLU, no discussion--EVERYONE has rights, not only the handicapped, overweight, etc. It is time the rest of America voiced their opinion and excercised THEIR rights---enough is enough!!!!!.

  • djh866 - June 18, 2008

    My biggest problem with the comments and the "extra" charge idea is this: I married a 6'9" man whose entire family, including mom, are TALL! Mom is almost 6 ft, 8 boys are between 6'2" and 6'9", and the two girls are 5'11". The airline travel is very difficult for my husband as the current seats hit his hip bones when he travels. and he actually gets bruised on his hips. He is a former college football player, and also is wide through the shoulders. The last flight we took, we were split up seat assignment wise. Wouldn't you know he was next to another very tall & wide man, and his short ,wide hipped, wife. Long ride home. One also needs to understand some people have health problems which makes special accomadations necessary. Pray you don't ever run into needing a cane, walker or wheelchair when you fly! Yes medical equipment isn't held against you, but the need for said equipment means travel isn't the easiest thing on your body, yet sometimes you NEED to travel.

  • tngal - June 19, 2008

    well...well...well...if they start charging by weight...i think they should charge extra for ugly people to fly...lets not discriminate

  • blissing - June 20, 2008

    I'm fat, but even if I was smaller, I'd still want more room! My thinner friends think flying is uncomfortable, too. I wouldn't mind paying for half a seat extra for myself, but why should I have to pay for 2 seats if I don't take up all the space? Why don't they just have seats of various widths and then charge proportionally for all of them? Kids could have even smaller seats.

  • JMoose - June 22, 2008

    Glad they do not weigh you, I have medical problems that make it hard for me to lose weight. Thanks to Southwest I can check one bag and carry on another with my medical needs and still find the seats big enough to sit in and there is room for 6ft 3in son to sit comfortibly. I also like they still serve free snacks and pop.

  • PHYL IN SANTA FE, N.M. - June 25, 2008

    IF THE AIRLINES ARE CHARGING BY THE WEIGHT THAT IS GOING ONTO THEIR AIRLINE THEN SO BE IT......BAGS, BODIES, ETC.!!!!!!!

  • Bren in TX - June 25, 2008

    I am a big person and my sister, a travel agent, told me that the seats on MD80's flown by Delta were sometimes even smaller than those on other types of planes. Therefore, I purchased two seats in order to raise the arm and not crunch anyone else. Then, on our connecting flight, Delta put those two seats in DIFFERENT ROWS. They actually thought that was okay. Fortunately, a flight attendant took pity on me and changed the assignments. If one pays for two seats, then they should be adjacent to one another.

  • Jo - June 30, 2008

    I'm 6 foot tall and weigh about 190 pounds, meaning, I'm overweight. However, I think there might be some merit to this idea. Call it discrimination if you will, but I'm tired of overweight and/or obese people thinking they can be the exception to rules and constantly have a "poor poor me" attitude. If you have a health problem, that's one thing. But when you're fat because you eat poorly and disregard physical activity, that's your fault. With increased gas prices, airlines will have to draw the line somewhere.

  • Nancy - July 24, 2008

    Heavens, no, there are already enough screaming kids on planes. This would encourage more.

  • me - May 4, 2009

    this is no different than shipping a package via airplane. you are charged by how much the item weighs. just because you can fit into the seat does not mean you should be charged the same. that plane still uses extra fuel carring more weight. this makes purfect sense.

ALERT!
Your pop-up blocker security
setting is too high.



To view this page and still use your pop-up blocker, please make the following adjustment to Internet Explorer.

- Click on "Tools"
- Click on "Pop-up Blocker"
- Click on "Always Allow Pop-ups from This Site..."
- Try the link again

If you are not using Internet Explorer or are still having issues, please email feedback@smartertravel.com with details

Hotels

COMPARE PRICES
Air Departure Date Calendar
Air Return Date Calendar
NEWSLETTER SIGN UP
Get the early word on the latest travel deals of the day picked by our editors. Sign up for our free Deal Alert newsletter.

email address:

DESTINATIONS