We're All Mad Here - Come Fly the Portly Skies

November 2009

Username:	Password:
Forgot your password?	Remember Me

Over at CNN, there's an article up discussing whether obese people should have to pay for two plane seats. The breakdown seems to be that the airlines and skinny people are in favor of this plan, while many obese people call it discriminatory. This is unsurprising, really, but there were some interesting numbers brought up.

Apparently a plane crash in 2003 was partly due to a miscalculation of the amount of weight on board:

The accident prompted the FAA to increase the estimated weight per passenger by 10 pounds, including 20 pounds of carry-on luggage. For example, the average weight for a passenger traveling in the summer (including carry-on luggage) went from 180 pounds in 1995 to 190 pounds in 2003.

Now, I've clearly done no research on the subject, but this still seems low to me. I don't think I'm abnormally-sized, but I weigh about 170, and my carry-ons generally exceed 20 pounds by a fair bit. In fairness, this is because I don't bring checked baggage, as I'm tired of the airlines breaking and losing it. However, I can't be the only one doing that, especially with the recent policy of charging for checked bags.

This really seems like the sort of thing where the airlines might want to err on the side of caution. Failing to lift off, running out of fuel -- these are fairly major concerns. Perhaps that's the new airline plan: they figure that you can't worry about someone crowding your armrest when you're wondering whether it's actually going to make it to its destination. Togetherness through fear! I'm not sure what they get out of this business model; maybe terrified passengers buy more alcohol, or something. I'm sure it all made sense in the meetings, anyway. All I know is that I'll be packing light for all upcoming trips.

Mood of the Moment: refreshed
Auditory Hallucination: Ceann -- I Blame the Viking

	From: merle_	Date: June 26th, 2009 05:11 pm (UTC)		(Link)

"including 20 pounds of carry-on luggage"

I've flown far too frequently this year, but can assure you that this is a gross underestimate. I would suggest something more like 80 pounds per passenger. Practically nobody does not carry on two enormous bags (which would never possibly fit in those sizing bins), and from the grunting and wheezing as they lift them up (putting luggage under the seat in front of you is apparently a sin) they must be full of lead bowling balls.

	From: cthulhia	Date: June 27th, 2009 12:17 am (UTC)		(Link)
	space under the seat in front of you?

is for my messenger bag maybe, but only during take off, because I'm not a double amputee who ergo finds airline legroom adequate.

Since they charge for checked baggage now, I'm somewhat obliged to bring a huge carry-on for the overhead as well. If it were a matter of weight and not employing sufficient baggage handlers, I'd suggest they simply charge by overall weight. I'd get on the scale with my luggage just to not have to deal with it during layovers.

Of course, they could save gas by making direct flights to hubs more affordable. (Then again, I'm considering just buying single flights from now on, so that I can lie and say I'm going to vegas and get routed through phoenix, and just miss my connection in skyharbor. or doing the inverse when I'm actually trying to go to vegas.)

And, yeah, they are underestimating the weights. I'm obese by weight, if not by sight. I can fit into a single seat. I'd consider paying more for legroom before paying more for assroom.

	From: merle_	Date: June 27th, 2009 05:52 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: space under the seat in front of you?

Oh, I certainly agree. I travel with a backpack and a carryon that just barely meets the size requirements: the former goes under my seat, the latter overhead.

But I see many people who bring two items, both larger than regulation, and stick both of them above. That seems unfair. Bring two items, one of them goes under your seat. If both are gargantuan, tough luck, you just opted out of having leg room.

	From: incendiary_ave	Date: June 26th, 2009 07:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)

but checking bags or carrying them on is still the same weight. If I have a 70 pound suitcase (checked) and a 20 pound carry on, I still have 90 pounds in addition to myself.

If they can weigh trucks, I'm surprised they can't weigh planes. :-P

	From: blueingenue	Date: June 26th, 2009 11:42 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Checked bags are weighed when you check them in. It's the only part of the gross passenger weight that they don't have to estimate.

	From: incendiary_ave	Date: June 26th, 2009 11:44 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Yes, dear, I've flown before. ;)

	From: classytart	Date: June 26th, 2009 07:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I think people who fill 2 seats should pay for 2 seats.

However, me plus my bag is WAY over those guesses, and would be, even if I stopped eating sweeties. Tall people weigh more. And we're already punished plenty by planes.

Mind, for a second there, I thought those were kilos and was astonished in the other direction.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: June 27th, 2009 02:23 am (UTC)		(Link)
Weight issues

This is a dilemma for both types of passengers. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?p=1961

	From: spazure	Date: June 28th, 2009 11:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

As an overweight person myself, I still agree with airlines charging overweight people for multiple seats.

I mean, you're paying for the seat on the plane, yes? If you take up more than one, you should pay for.. more than one. It should be simple, and I don't see why it would be considered discrimination.

User:

baronmind

Name: Diseasemocker's Crepe