Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samoa Air Rolling Out "Pay As You Weigh" Fares

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the swim-instead dept.

Transportation 587

cylonlover writes "Thrifty Samoans looking to take a trip may want to shed a few pounds before booking a flight with Samoan Air after the airline announced the implementation of a 'pay as you weigh' system. Unlike some other airlines that have courted controversy by forcing some obese passengers to purchase two seats, Samoa's national carrier will charge passengers based on their weight." They have a demo fare calculator for the curious.

cancel ×

587 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pulp Fiction - first thing that comes to mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347411)

Jules:
I wouldn’t go so far as to call the brother fat, I mean he got a weight problem. What’s the nigger gonna do? He’s Samoan.

Re:Pulp Fiction - first thing that comes to mind (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347611)

Go talk to Bob Barker about Samoans...

from Margaret Mead's secret diaries: (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#43347651)

As Raoul Duke's attorney, I would like to enter in to the record:

man those samoans are a surly bunch

Re:Pulp Fiction - first thing that comes to mind (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43347699)

Bad enough a brother gotta be called fat. Now he gotta break out a calculator to figure out what "fat" is in kilograms too.

Not too surprising (4, Informative)

mbone (558574) | about a year ago | (#43347417)

I have been to Samoa, and you see a lot of extremely obese people there, even by American standards, so this does not surprise me.

More person, more cost. Fine. (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year ago | (#43347653)

I'm big, and this seems perfectly reasonable to me. Weight and size affects the cost of transport, and it may affect seating as well.

Though I have to say, if you charge more, but don't arrange for the comfort of both the larger persons and those that might be seated near them, you really aren't addressing the issue all that well. Pretending a seven foot tall guy fits in, or behind, or in front of, a seat designed for a five foot tall person (who apparently only has one arm, judging by the armrest configurations) isn't fooling anyone. Likewise, for widebody people, a seat designed for narrow hips doesn't cut it. If I sit in front of you, my head will be in your dinner plate if I recline at all. Well, ok, your peanut bag, anyway. If you sit in front of me, you're likely to find my feet right behind yours. This is part of the reason I no longer fly. The rest being accounted for by the TSA nonsense.

Frankly, I'm amazed that "regular" size people put up with typical airline seating. Outside of first class. That's something else again.

Re:Not too surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347775)

I have been to Samoa, and you see a lot of extremely obese people there, even by American standards, so this does not surprise me.

Why is that? Is it their diet? Or is being big considered attractive in their culture?

larger sits? (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43347425)

It makes sense to pay per weight, it's a good idea the question is: will you be able to get a larger sit? If they could fold sits somehow to make 2 into 1, I can see people buying those types of sits even if they don't need to. Actually 2 economy sits cost less than 1 business class (and definitely more than 1 first class), but if the picture ITFA is of their plane, then I am probably taking it too far.

Re:larger sits? (-1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43347637)

SEAT the word you wanted was SEAT!

Sit is something you do in a seat. If this is some sort of non-american english, than deal with my correction as slashdot is an American site.

Re:larger sits? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Cod (2647669) | about a year ago | (#43347737)

You sir, are an asshole.

Fairplay (2, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43347439)

I have a definite issue with this sort of a system. Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#? Genetics has a huge impact there, this isn't the result of my choosing to be an extra 10" taller than the woman and carrying the requisite weight that entails, it's an issue of the genes that I was born with.

What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.

Re:Fairplay (3, Informative)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#43347475)

What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.

From the fare calculator:

Step 2. Enter your details, including your estimated weight(s) of passengers and baggage

Re:Fairplay (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347503)

Simple. Because it costs the airline more to move 180lbs than it does 100lbs. Simple way of pricing tickets, you and all your luggage step on a scale and you're charged a per lb rate for your ticket. Very fair.

Re:Fairplay (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year ago | (#43347649)

Simple. Because it costs the airline more to move 180lbs than it does 100lbs. Simple way of pricing tickets, you and all your luggage step on a scale and you're charged a per lb rate for your ticket. Very fair.

Stop discriminating between passengers and luggage.

I for one welcome our luggage losing overlords.

Re:Fairplay (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#43347773)

The chair, and more importantly, your slice of the aircraft, weights far more than your lard.

I'd say it'd be more fair, and far simpler, to simply count seats actually needed to seat you. Ie, without trying to cram your fat ass while letting folds of flesh to spill over half of my seat. Having a few rows seat split into two rather than three seats would let your average American to pay for 1.5 rather than 2 seats, letting them travel more comfortably, and above all, pander to their dignity.

Re:Fairplay (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#43347521)

You are right. That's an extra $100 for extra leg room please sir.

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347671)

You are right. That's an extra $100 for extra leg room please sir.

Hmmm. Now what airline is famous for that sort of thing?

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347529)

Well you probably also eat more, and don't complain that you have to spend more on food.

Re:Fairplay (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#43347563)

Well, who says that life is fair?

Do you get height-related discounts in supermarkets? No? Then why should airlines be any different?

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347565)

I have a definite issue with this sort of a system. Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#? Genetics has a huge impact there, this isn't the result of my choosing to be an extra 10" taller than the woman and carrying the requisite weight that entails, it's an issue of the genes that I was born with.

What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.

Way to not RTFA: According to the airline's website, "your weight plus your baggage items is what you pay for. Simple."

And to reverse the question: Why should a 5 foot nothing, 100lb woman pay to subsidize your cost because of her genetics?

Re:Fairplay (0)

sshirley (518356) | about a year ago | (#43347575)

I agree. It seems that Body Mass Index (BMI) would be a better measure of this if they really want to measure "weight".

Re:Fairplay (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347715)

The airline doesn't care whether you are "overweight", they care about how much fuel they need to get you from A to B. Your weight is relevent, your BMI is not.

Re:Fairplay (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43347801)

Why would the airline care if you are healthy or not?

They don't care about "weight" they care about normal weight.

Re:Fairplay (2)

losfromla (1294594) | about a year ago | (#43347803)

An airplane does not give two shits about BMI, it deals strictly with weight that needs to be lifted and carried.

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347579)

You're using more resources, so you should pay more. End of story.

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347591)

It is okay to discriminate again fat peoples and not tall peoples? Chose has nothing to do with it. if I chose to be black(heavy tan), or white(what ever Michael Jackson was using), can I be discriminated again the colour of my skin? In short, you are an idiot that can't decide between your hatred of fat peoples and your pocket. But i still got faith in humanity because greed always trumped hate.

Re:Fairplay (0)

losfromla (1294594) | about a year ago | (#43347841)

Fat people very distinctly are victims of the "food" provisioning system in the region they live in (as well as to some degree poor nutritional choices). However, this might perhaps help them realize that there are costs (beyond just physical discomfort, heart disease, unattractiveness, and early death) that come with being obese or fat.

Re:Fairplay (1)

losfromla (1294594) | about a year ago | (#43347847)

forgot to say, it is not discrimination, it is just passing on the costs of lugging their lard-asses around

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347599)

You're complaining for nothing. Big deal if some tiny person gets a cheaper seat on some random flight. There are lots of benefits to being tall, but you are concerned with one or two flights that are for a destination you will probably never go to.

Maybe they should just take the highest weight and lowest, divide by number of people that fly and base it off the average. Nobody would complain about that, right? Or would we then be having another conversation about how it seem unfair to the entire dwarf convention that is flying to Samoa to have to subsidize you?

Re:Fairplay (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43347623)

You got to go on carnaval rides a lot younger than the woman; is that fair?

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347641)

To counter, why, as a 6'1" man weighing 160 pounds, should I pay as much as you when you cost more to transport AND I get less leg room than you?

Re:Fairplay (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43347663)

Why is that her fault?

Pants at big and tall stores cost more too. You cost more to move than her, so you pay more.

Re:Fairplay (0)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43347815)

It's not, however there are laws in place so that I pay the same amount for my health insurance as women of my age do, even though they cost a lot more to provide services for. I'm willing to pay more to subsidize them because I didn't choose to be a man.

I fail to see how I should get screwed here when I'm already being screwed in the rest of my life.

Then again, most of the folks responding to me are ignorant jackasses so there you go.

Re:Fairplay (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43347889)

Why is that her fault?

Pants at big and tall stores cost more too. You cost more to move than her, so you pay more.

When you pay more at the big and tall store for pants, you get pants that are portioned for your size. When you pay more for an airline seat, you get seating portioned for a junior high student. That's what is not fare.

genetics card (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347683)

You may play the genetics card, but the airline should be able to play the physics card.
more weight carried = more fuel needed.

Re:Fairplay (2)

Nite_Hawk (1304) | about a year ago | (#43347705)

I have a definite issue with this sort of a system. Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#?

It's easy: Because it costs more to ship you.

Genetics has a huge impact there, this isn't the result of my choosing to be an extra 10" taller than the woman and carrying the requisite weight that entails, it's an issue of the genes that I was born with.

What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.

None of this is the airline's problem. It's entirely reasonable for the airline to charge people based on how much it costs to fly them somewhere. In a lot of ways it's more honest than the current system where that 100lb woman is helping to subsidize your ticket.

Re:Fairplay (1)

c (8461) | about a year ago | (#43347817)

In a lot of ways it's more honest than the current system where that 100lb woman is helping to subsidize your ticket.

If your typical 100lb woman packs the same way my wife does, I'd say it's more likely that he's subsidizing her ticket.

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347717)

The kerosene doesn't magically become cheaper because being tall is not your fault.

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347771)

Because the weight affects the fuel consumption of the plane.

Ignore baggage?
"Rates starting at $1 Samoan Tala (US$0.44) per kilogram (2.2 lb) including baggage"

That's "including", not "ignoring"

Re:Fairplay (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43347809)

Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#?

Physics, that's why.

Re:Fairplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347851)

5' 10" [...] 180# [sic]

For one thing, you're overweight. Think of it as an incentive to get to a healthier weight and consume less food.

Fuel costs money (2)

eksith (2776419) | about a year ago | (#43347441)

That's really the bottom line here. Despite the negative stigma this may cause to the airline, I'm actually suprised this hasn't come about sooner. As it says, these are not big jets; they're small planes and the population doesn't exactly have a reputation for being skinny (and we can blame industrial "progress" for that).

Re:Fuel costs money (0)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43347491)

The reason why it hasn't caught on earlier is that it's discriminatory. This isn't a measure that just hits the obese, this is a fee that disproportionately hits men with larger fees. A kg is a kg regardless of whether it's fat or muscle and you don't have much control over that. I'm never going to weigh less than 160# without getting really sick and probably would be too sick to travel. But, women regularly weight under 120# and would get to pay far less just by virtue of being smaller people.

In the US, there's no way you could ever get away with something that discriminatory.

Re:Fuel costs money (1)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#43347609)

It's not discriminatory. It's charging people what they cost.

Is it discriminatory that a big person has to pay more than a small person for food, or clothing? Is it discriminatory that it costs more to produce gluten-free bread, so people with celiac disease have to pay more for a sandwich? Is it discriminatory that I, born with eyeballs the wrong shape, have to pay for lenses so I can see? No -- it's only tailors, bakers, and opticians wanting to get paid for their work.

Re:Fuel costs money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347621)

The reason why it hasn't caught on earlier is that it's discriminatory. This isn't a measure that just hits the obese, this is a fee that disproportionately hits men with larger fees. A kg is a kg regardless of whether it's fat or muscle and you don't have much control over that.

Yes, the laws of physics do seem to discriminate against heavier people, don't they? If you're heavy, you have to pay more at the pump to travel the same distance as a lighter person, and yet no one demands that gas stations give "non-discriminatory prices" to heavier people.

In the US, there's no way you could ever get away with something that discriminatory.

You're probably right, but that's one of the reasons why government shouldn't be allowed to over-regulate the market. As it stands, lighter passengers have to subsidize heavier passengers because it flat-out costs more to move heavier people. Period.

This is a good change and something that should be encouraged.

Re:Fuel costs money (2)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about a year ago | (#43347675)

And college basketball teams are discriminatory. If you are less than 4 feet tall, it does not matter that you are a pretty good player for your size, you cannot get on a team. And Mensa is highly discriminatory. If you happen to be born stupid, you cannot join.

That second example is clearly germane to the current line of reasoning.

Re:Fuel costs money (3, Insightful)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | about a year ago | (#43347685)

In the US, there's no way you could ever get away with something that discriminatory.

Not necessarily. The thing about discrimination is that you can get away with it, if you have reasonable cause to do so. For example, fire departments can and routinely discriminate against women. Why? Well, the job has a reasonable expectation that you will be forced to lift a certain amount(I believe it's around 75lbs) of weight up a large amount of stairs. For your averagely fit man, and even some below average, this is not much of a requirement. But the same cannot be said for most women. Women can still be firemen, but it requires more work.

Re:Fuel costs money (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year ago | (#43347731)

The reason why it hasn't caught on earlier is that it's discriminatory.

On the contrary. It's logical and objective. It's not aimed against anyone. It's reasonable.

Re:Fuel costs money (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year ago | (#43347751)

Sometimes discrimination should just be called "life" - we are all in fact different, and some of us cost more to move around so why shouldn't those that cost more get charged more? Its this continuous PC bullshit that tries to make us all artificially the same, but only in a way in which other people have to ignore obvious physical and mental traits to reach that artificial conclusion...

Fat people weigh more. Taller people sometimes weight more. More weight costs more to move from point A to point B. Thats the basic reality.

Re:Fuel costs money (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43347767)

It's not discriminatory. You use more resources you pay for them. A kg of fat takes as much fuel to transport as a kg of bone or a kg of cloth.

In the USA you absolutely could. You might have to show your work, but you could easily do a fuel surcharge based on mass of passenger and luggage.

Discrimination - reasonable or not? (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year ago | (#43347843)

You're confusing unreasonable discrimination -- based upon things that actually have no effect such as skin color or sex -- with reasonable discrimination -- based upon things that do have an actual effect such as bringing your pet on board when your pet is a puppy, as opposed to bringing your pet on board when your pet is an elephant. Weight and size actually affect cost of transport. Is it fair to average out the costs, so that people who, as you point out, through no fault of their own, are lighter than you, end up paying a portion of your transport costs? It might be convenient, but is is actually fair? Now consider: most anti-discrimination law is in place to impose fairness where fairness wasn't happening. So do you really think that such law would be properly employed to make that 120 kg woman pay for ~20 kg of your ticket? If so, why? So you can pretend to weigh 140 kg?

sounds good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347447)

especially considering airplane fuel is carefully calculated depending on the payload weight, it makes sense. And even more so if the aircraft is small, such as Samoan Air's.

Re:sounds good (0)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43347501)

Except for the detail that they're not measuring the weight of the baggage when they do the calculation. Baggage can easily turn a light person into a heavy person in terms of fuel consumption.

Re:sounds good (5, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43347561)

Yes they are. "Step 2. Enter your details, including your estimated weight(s) of passengers and baggage"

Re:sounds good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347585)

actually they do measure baggage its your weight+ weight of your baggage that makes ticket price so you can still pay lower price than 50kg woman that has 200kg of shoes as baggage

Re:sounds good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347627)

Recommend you click on and then read the Calculator link....

"Enter your details, including your estimated weight(s) of passengers and baggage"

Feel better now?

Re:sounds good (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year ago | (#43347863)

except they are...

Linear Cost (3)

MarioMax (907837) | about a year ago | (#43347451)

It appears that their cost formula is a strictly linear equation:

Cost (price) = weight (kilograms) x rate (price per kilogram)

Though their cost formula doesn't take into account the amount of airplane that each person also needs to haul around in addition to themselves; the price to fly children is disproportionately cheap, while larger adults are disproportionately expnsive.

I probably would have priced it as such if my goal were to meet expenses

Cost (price) = fixed_cost (price) + weight (kilograms) x rate (price per kilogram)

Re:Linear Cost (5, Funny)

slashkitty (21637) | about a year ago | (#43347525)

They should take into account volume as well. Next time I'm taking a crap load of helium balloons!

Re:Linear Cost (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about a year ago | (#43347679)

They should take into account volume as well. Next time I'm taking a crap load of helium balloons!

How would you personally consuming more volume effect the amount of jet fuel burned, given that the volume of the plane remains the same?

Re:Linear Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347879)

I’ve had it with these motherf$*@ing balloons on this motherf$*@ing plane!

Re:Linear Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347821)

Of course, your cost formula is also a strictly linear equation ;)

Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347457)

The weight of the cargo largely determines actual cost to move the plane from point A to point B. I see nothing wrong with this.

Next Up: (1)

StrangeBrew (769203) | about a year ago | (#43347459)

Clothing Manufacturers will soon price their garments based on the size, arguing that size 48 pants require 42% more fabric and stitching than a size 34 and are also bulkier to ship.

Re:Next Up: (1)

MarioMax (907837) | about a year ago | (#43347481)

You mean they don't already?

Re:Next Up: (1)

Dins (2538550) | about a year ago | (#43347793)

They do.

Re:Next Up: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347669)

not really same pants price does not depend much on amount of materials used, majority of costs is branding, commercials, paying designers, models, handling unsold quantities once session is over ... cost in fabric is less than 10% of retail price (less than 1% if its dior shoes or something else very high end shoes can cost $800+ and materials to make them are less than $8) with ariplanes most of cost is fuel, those planes spend a lot of fuel per person and their fuel is more expensive than stuff you put in car since it has to be more pure and lighter

Re:Next Up: (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#43347723)

not really same pants price does not depend much on amount of materials used

That's only true through the range of "normal" sizes, once you get to "fat boy" clothes, the prices go up.

Re:Next Up: (2)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43347729)

this is done already

Re:Next Up: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347795)

As someone who up until a year or two ago wore clothes bought exclusively at 'big and tall' men's shops (think a 6XL t-shirt), I can tell you that my clothes were always more expensive than they'd have been at a smaller size. I can buy a pack of 3 XL t-shirts now for what a single one used to cost me.

Re:Next Up: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347825)

For your shop that charges the same for each item but changes the sizing of clothes dependant on how much is required to cover the body, so the bigger you are the more cloth you get...

Consider:

A resturant that charge the same for each serving but alter the serving dependant on how much is required to make you full, so the bigger you are the more you get to eat...

Suggested reading: ANYTHING that talks about supply/demand and the effects their relationship have on cost.

April Thirds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347469)

Is this the result of Daylight-Savings-Time, or my misunderstanding of how the International Date Line works?

Hilarious, guys, really.

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347473)

This is awesome.

When I last flew (a year ago), my luggage weighed more than I did, and I had to pay extra to take that much luggage, while people who weighed twice as much as I did paid no extra, and still got to take on the normal luggage allowance.

From the article "rates starting at $1 Samoan Tala (US$0.44) per kilogram (2.2 lb) including baggage," - I approve of this.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347777)

You are paying more for luggage because bags over a certain weight create an increased risk of injury to the baggage handlers or require multiple baggage handlers to lift.

ADA implications, let the lawsuits, er, "fly" (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#43347479)

Does the ADA apply to American Samoa?

If so, taller people, who tend to be heavier than shorter people, will sue for discrimination based on the "handicap" of being tall.

They may not have to sue the airline, they may sue the regulatory agency asking for a court order for the agency to rescind the permission it granted the airline to use this fare structure.

Re:ADA implications, let the lawsuits, er, "fly" (0)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#43347551)

How may more KG does being tall add over being a fucking huge fat fuck? Tall people get loads of advantages over short and earn more. Look here is a link to prove that, so it must be true. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5887567/Tall-men-earn-more-than-shorter-colleagues-research-claims..html [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:ADA implications, let the lawsuits, er, "fly" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347883)

I am tall. Now consider spending your life in kids seats. Every car is a kid seat. Every train seat headrest is annoying. A bench in the park is like sitting on the sidewalk curb. You never get to disappear in the crowd. There is a lot of physical pain annoyances, and a spine malformed beyond repair for any docter, but also consider the mental (downer) handicap that this brings. Being tall doesn't make life more easy. Similar arguments apply to shorter-than-average people.

All in all, i'm glad i'm tall.
The birds-eye-view helps develop an insight into how things work, my view is rarely blocked unless standing/sitting inside some human contraption.

Re:ADA implications, let the lawsuits, er, "fly" (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#43347595)

Paying by weight is not discrimination. And they will most likely exempt medical devices (like wheelchairs) from the weight quota.

Re:ADA implications, let the lawsuits, er, "fly" (1)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#43347655)

Wait, airlines have to get permission to set up a particular fare structure?

Re: ADA implications, let the lawsuits, er, "fly" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347657)

The airline is not in American Samoa. It's in Samoa which is an independent country (two seperate places - geographically close to each other). They may not be able to use the fare for flights to/from American Samoa if the rule applies there, but on their other flights it wouldn't apply.

Re:ADA implications, let the lawsuits, er, "fly" (1)

Barryke (772876) | about a year ago | (#43347779)

I am tall, and i consider this pricing model a plus, IF this allows me to get properly sized seats for normal prices. I dont need business seats, i just want to be able to fold that table mechanism down.

Re:ADA implications, let the lawsuits, er, "fly" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347853)

Then I'm already being discriminated against by all airlines who make me pay extra for baggage when my total weight+baggage is less than the heaviest person on the plane who is not paying for an extra seat.

as a large man it makes sense to me (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | about a year ago | (#43347507)

if you weigh more, it requires more gasoline, and total weight must be calculated on how the plane will preform. Now as a red blooded American, I also agree with this, if you don't like it don't fly it, or loose some weight, and stop being a pussy and saying its discrimination, at this point is about math and the total weight of the plane.

Re:as a large man it makes sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347635)

It costs the operator a lot more if the seat is empty

ahhh, the last acceptable form of discrimination (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#43347695)

They could just as well budget 500 lbs or so per passenger for passenger and luggage and set their prices accordingly.
Skinny people and light packers would be extra profit.

No need to be an ass about things.

Cargo class (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#43347519)

I am used to flying steerage / cargo class on airlines, getting service that is generally no better than that given to packages that I ship. I generally pay UPS by the pound, why shouldn't I pay airlines the same way?

I've had it with these mutherfucking midgets (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347523)

on this mutherfucking plane!

Say (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43347535)

> They have a demo fare calculator for the curious.

"Sir, there's been an incident. Samoan Air Demo Calculator is down."

$0.44 per kilogram incl. baggage on short flight (1)

doug141 (863552) | about a year ago | (#43347549)

More for longer flights. You estimate your weight when you book, then weigh in before the flight.

Already Slashdotted (1)

waspleg (316038) | about a year ago | (#43347553)

Lol.

Re:Already Slashdotted (1)

Prokur (2445102) | about a year ago | (#43347839)

people always want to know how much worth are they

Reminds me of Pulp Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347713)

"I wouldn't go so far as to call the brother fat. He's got a weight problem. What's the brother gonna do, he's Samoan."

Give tiny people less legroom, make it fair. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347741)

Seeing that fuel costs are mainly due to airplane weight, its logical to bill by Kg of luggage.
In extension its logical to do the same for people.

But. If paying more, i expect to have more room on that plane.
For me, being 2 meters tall, this would be a welcome change. I simply need more legroom than that 140cm girl that for her standards gets a business seat. (my table won't even come down on flights within europe, my knees occupy that fold mechanism's space)

Space? (2)

souporman (817882) | about a year ago | (#43347743)

Being a rather skinny guy at 65kg, I'd obviously be OK with this. What I do wonder about is seat sizes/leg room. Does the cost of my ticket entitle me to as much space as someone who weighs 130kg (either by virtue of being tall or wide) who paid double what I did? That's the only thing I can immediately see as being unfair...

While they're at it... (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43347761)

Maybe they should also increase the fee for health insurance more significantly if you're enormous. That would have to be more of a BMI thing but seriously, I should not be paying this much for insurance. I think the average increase for tobacco users is like 40% and it's even less for fat people. Well guess what! It should be 10x for tobacco users and 10x for fat people and then they can easily drop mine 4x. Talk about a motivator to lose weight and stop smoking! Flood insurance is calculated precisely by risk of actually flooding. Why not health insurance? In fact one trampoline or pool alone can double your homeowner's insurance because that's the mathematical increase in probability of having a claim. If you're 400 pounds or smoke a pack a day, I'd say your odds of needing healthcare actually exceed my own by 1000x.

So yeah, plane tickets, health insurance, buffets, hit them everywhere that it's realistic so they can get an idea of the actual impact on society and business costs because they're so damn fat.

Someone has to be ridiculed (0)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about a year ago | (#43347791)

What I find interesting (and quite frankly, hypocritical) is that the current socially acceptable behavior is that we MUST be tolerant of pretty much everything from fibromyalgia to bipolar disorder (formerly known as manic depression), from ADHD to an ever broadening definition of autism. Furthermore, it's socially acceptable to DEMAND that taxpayers throw gobs of money at treating these things as disabilities. Yet when it comes to obesity, it's considered deviant behavior and is to be ridiculed and punished.

Nice for child fares (5, Interesting)

wile_e8 (958263) | about a year ago | (#43347807)

As someone with daughter that just turned two years old, meaning we now have to pay for a ticket for her to fly, this sounds like a great deal to me.

Will one get food as I weight as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347823)

Will one get food as I weight as well? And bigger seat or even two seats?

I personally don't weight much above the average, but have very long legs and they weight too so part of the fee is just for them! Will they remove the seat before me so I can sit in the same way people with normal legs' length do?

racial discrimination? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43347859)

Asians fly for less than europeans?
women fly for less than men?
amputees fly for less then their whole counterparts?
younger people fly for less than older people?

I'm obese (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about a year ago | (#43347861)

And on a weight loss program. It does seem reasonable that heavy people should pay more for an airline ticket. It promotes health.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>