Weighting for the backlash

Yes, hatred of the obese really is the final socially acceptable prejudice, isn’t it? Substitute any protected characteristic for overweight/obese in the last few posts and you would all be blocked and shouted down.

The thinking seems to be that it’s acceptable to be as rude as possible because it’s “self-inflicted”. Is it, though? It’s a complex issue and there are many reasons for obesity but in the end our hormones drive us all to need nutrients and eat and being driven by that in an environment full of unhealthy food choices should not be seen as a reflection on one’s character.

Of course people don’t want to be weighed. You can take a few items out of excess baggage but shedding human flesh takes a lot more effort and can be impossible at a certain stage. It certainly doesn’t happen in an instant!

I wonder if all the haters are even the “correct” weight themselves or just think they are, seeing as half the population is obese these days? Must be wonderful to think yourself such an ubermensch. When are you setting up the concentration camps?

are you one for hyperbole in RL too? 😂

That’s not what the poster said, the poster said CLIMATE.

still, what else could we blame on overweight people while we’re here? Lack of housing? Cost of living? War in the Middle East?

but “poor people” (unless also very overweight) don’t make flights uncomfortable for those seated next to them (presuming not travelling with them!)

just a positive side benefit IMO!

That’s got to be a joke? Stop fat people flying in the name of climate change?

could just put the cost of flying up by adding climate taxes, then you’d lose all the poorer people too. Result!

it would be great for the environment

Loads of people wouldn’t want to be weighed
Loads of people would not want to pay / afford to pay any additional costs as a result of their weight

So they would avoid air travel whether for embarrassment reasons and / or financial!

Hi,

Yes, these days most Long Haul aircraft types have some crew bunk facilities tucked away some where...

It's not just a "nice to have", you actually need the rest facilities to extend the duty day out long enough in order to legally perform some long haul sectors.

@notimagain you seem to know about planes- my aunt who was a stewardess for many many years with BA talked about a bunk room on the the aircraft for the crew on long haul where you could have a scheduled nap - is that still a thing on any aircraft?

‘but this isn’t a post about luggage allowances,’

and yet over and over posters are saying ‘well if luggage has to be weighed then why not…’

despite the fact there’s no way for airlines to routinely do that that would make any sense to them.

and if it’s comfort we’re talking about I’ll choose to sit next to two women all day long over any man.

Well obviously, but this isn’t a post about luggage allowances, and none of my posts have been about lower luggage allowances. My comment was regarding the maximum weight permitted to be lifted by ground staff, which is universal and disregards any airlines individual baggage allowance.
Even when airlines (mainstream charter/scheduled airlines that is, no speaking for the tiny local ones as I never really dealt with them) have lower baggage allowances, you can go over them, it just costs you more.
Star Alliance used to allow 32kg; but you could not exceed that under any circumstance.
Even if a particular airline has an allowance higher than 32kg, you still would have to split this into two cases, or book it as “oversized baggage”
I only once ran into an issue in the 12 years I worked in travel; and this was only because the customer didn’t follow the very clear instructions and tried to pool their whole families allowance into a huge bag, which obviously exceeded 32kg.

Lower limits are relevant to flying in general.

@TorringtonDean

my point about the weight is that if a plane was made to seat, say 300, passengers all of average weight and that was all it could take then to cram in 360 or whatever would obviously be a danger. But they keep cramming in lots of extra passengers compared to decades ago. So, although there is a maximum weight capacity, it is obviously very much higher. There is also the baggage on top of that.

No, airlines are not just cramming in seats regardless of legal weight limits, it doesn’t work like that.

First issue is that if you are trying to compare 70s with now is it’s different aircraft…for example early marque 737s would have had a much lower maximum allowable take-off weight than a newer model 737…

If you’re looking at changes more recently the builders and the airlines can (sadly) find the weight to cram more seats in by reducing aircraft weight in other areas - e.g. make galleys smaller and lighter..it’s pretty obvious that has gone on if you look at some of the new Airbus NEOs where the galley space and toilet space at the back is tiny.

With the bigger stuff (like the big Long Haul types) carrying say 300 plus it’s not uncommon to see perhaps 300 seats one varient verses say 360 in another, 340 in another, but again you stay below maximum weight for the type by changing the cabin configuration, perhaps taking galleys and toilets out and being aware that sometime you might have to reduce the amount of underfloor cargo that can be carried if all the seats are full…it is all carefully monitored and checked for every single flight….

Fundamentally to go back to your original point extra seats are not being shoe horned into aircraft without any regard to the rules covering issues such as maximum allowable weights….

My point is not about individual luggage allowance; it was stating that no airline permits normal luggage exceeding 32kg per item. Some obviously have lower limits but baggage handlers don’t lift over 32. Lower limits were irrelevant to my point.

Another solution would be to stop airlines cramming people on like cattle DH and I are both healthy BMI and neither of us find short haul air travel comfortable. If you look at seat sizes and leg room over the last 30 years it has decreased. It would affect their profits though, selling fewer tickets to give each passenger more space, so I guess we won't be seeing that

@notimagain my point about the weight is that if a plane was made to seat, say 300, passengers all of average weight and that was all it could take then to cram in 360 or whatever would obviously be a danger. But they keep cramming in lots of extra passengers compared to decades ago. So, although there is a maximum weight capacity, it is obviously very much higher. There is also the baggage on top of that.

It’s interesting to see the hatred some people have for their fellow humans. I personally don’t want to sit next to all sorts - druggies, drunks, smokers (remember it used to be allowed on flights), noisy babies (even though I had my own in the past), people with bad breath. I put up with other people in order to get where I am going.

@AgentJohnson

I suspect the airlines already use sophisticated algorithms to ensure that the weight of passengers don’t destabilise their aircraft.

They and the regulators who monitor all this certainly do..it's not just a case of guessing a weight.

For info:

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Weight%20Survey%20R20090095%20Final.pdf

FWIW at my heaviest, I never "spilt over" into anyone elses seat! (My weight loss is now into double figures) I am also 5' 11" and my height didn't mean I spread out my legs and feet into the foot space next to me either!) Nor have I ever done so on a train or bus for that matter!)
I do think whole seating arrangement on planes needs to be given an overhaul, even for people of what would be classed a normal height and weight, I've known issues. They need to take out the reclining seats on short haul flights! That impinges on other passengers comfort for a start!
And the baggage allowance also needs looking at! For a 22kg allowance on Jet2, I only ever used 11kg! What the hell do people take in their suitcases to need that much?! I had more than plenty for 2 weeks away at 11kg! And coming back, I never went over 14 or 15kg! Lower the baggage allowance, the plane weight will be lower, or is that common sense?

If airlines were worried about passenger feelings, they wouldn’t be charging 4 euros for a small packets of peanuts.

'In the early days of air travel, Airlines frequently weighed passengers and even crew to properly balance the smaller, less sophisticated aircraft, according to the Smithsonian.

Which part of smaller and less sophisticated aircraft did you miss from this early practice?

Remember when even turning on your mobile phone during a flight could put it at risk from falling out of the sky and now if you pay xxx amount for crappy on board wifi.

Weighing passengers would be an impractical and costly solution for a problem that the airlines clearly aren’t that concerned about. I suspect the airlines already use sophisticated algorithms to ensure that the weight of passengers don’t destabilise their aircraft.

Do you really think that someone totting up the weight of passengers before they board is really going to help? I’m not sure what you point is but airline safety isn’t it.

That's good, however responses here indicate they're maybe not properly adhered to.

OK, some people might have to lift you.

Right, but Flybe flew to a lot of destinations, including some of the locations our local airline flies to. It does no harm to check ahead.

@TorringtonDean

The fact that there are a lot more passengers crammed in, as you admit, shows that the weight of the passengers is not a genuine issue.

Not sure what your argument is with that TBH...

Weight to some extent sure as heck is a genuine issue (you actually want the aircraft to get airborne and have enough fuel to get from A to B don't you?) but when you buy a ticket you are paying for a lot more than just the fuel used to carry you.

Most of your ticket price goes towards fixed expenses such as aircraft leasing, landing fees, ground handling, navigation charges....the number of passengers is almost irrelevant to those charges.

Fundamentally I can be an old fashioned airline, have massive seat pitch and fly 100 people from A to B at 70's prices.... or I can be a modern LoCo, fly 200 people, use a tiny bit more fuel doing so (weight), but charge people just about half the price of the old style outfit (because I'm splitting the non-fuel costs between 200 passengers instead of 100).

When you look at everything involved it's almost a miracle tickets on modern commercial flights are actually as cheap as they tend to be ATM....

What about manspreading? Plenty of men on public transport throw their legs wide and spread into other people’s space. Should men be banned? Surely the answer is big enough seats for everyone?

It would never be part of any accident response planning for 1 person to have to carry or manoeuvre another person. It would be a multiperson job.
If multiple people are required to lift a piece of luggage, it costs the company money as the processing rate is slower. Most passengers travel with luggage, therefore there will be many bags to move from each flight.
The 2 incidents are not in any way comparable.