To think travellers should be weighed WITH their luggage when travelling.

[Bakergram]

I'm prepared for backlash.

I was charged excess for my hand luggage as it was over a certain weight- that's absolutely fine. The combined total weight for myself and my cabin baggage was approx 69 kg. My friend wasn't charged because their luggage wasn't overweight yet the combined total for them and their luggage was over 90kg. My friend joked about how unfair it was.

Surely it would be fairer to use the combined weigh of traveller and cabin luggage to determine and excess fees due?

@Bakergram a others have said, this is an incredibly goody post. I'm actually thinking it might be your own warped opinion dressed up as your friend's so you can be a covert troll. ^^

Of course you are not being unreasonable. It is either more expensive to fly the heavier something is or it isn't. I weigh 52 kg and have to pay for excess luggage and somebody weighing 3 times as much with a bag nearly as big doesn't have to pay an excess. Joke!

@Naunet
well that makes you as daft as her!!

Think if ALL the work that goes into manufacturing a garment, transporting it, display & selling, admin general over heads, the amount of cloth used is a tiny part of the cost.

Stealth bragging about how little you weigh.

But don't tall people often have to pay more in practice in order to get a seat with enough leg room that they can sit comfortably?

Technically of course you're right. But in reality how is it fair that someone who happens to be 6'2" gets a much smaller allowance than someone who is 5'2 (especially when their clothes are proportionately bigger - you could argue that they deserve more hand luggage not less). And it would be fat-shaming in the extreme for anyone who was significantly overweight.

Since you posted this the OP has now revealed that her travelling companion is a man. For whom toiletries may be no more than a toothbrush, toothpaste and soap (if indeed he's not planning on just using the toiletries provided by the hotel). Clothes-wise, he might have a change of underwear/socks/t-shirts for each day and otherwise rely on the trousers/shorts/trainers he's already wearing to last the trip.

If they want to. They aren't required to.

And if you want to charge overweight people, then there should be the option of larger seats to purchase, instead of saying "you don't fit comfortably in the seats we provide, but you should pay extra anyway."

Well some tall people will have little choice but to pay extra for the leg room in order to physically get in.

If you're spilling over into another person's seat then I certainly think that you should be made to pay for an upgrade into a larger one or pay for an adjacent second seat.

@DdraigGoch I've travelled with lots of tall people. My brother is 6'4 and built like a Rugby player. He sits in a 'normal' seat.

Im shirt, but since getting I'll, I'm fat, yes 'obese' I used to be 47kg before that. I'm not 'spilling' over into anyone else's seat. But they may feel too close to me as there not so much space between our bodies as with a slim person.

Not my fault, I didn't ask for this health situation! However I would happily pay 'Fat Tax' IF they would provide a wider seat with longer seat belts!!

i suppose they could put one on the end of each aisle, so people travelling with their partner and kids could sit together.

@Bakergram we have ALL paid for one seat. We have ALL paid for a set amount of hand luggage. Some of us have paid for check in luggage. You skimping on booking check in luggage and paying the extra for excess hand luggage is unrelated to the seat we both booked.

Goady fucking shite people post. Honestly.

Well I'd quite like those who are too big to fit in a single seat to pay for an extra one so that they don't spill into mine such that I end up huddled into half of my seat to avoid touching a complete stranger. That applies to trains too.

Not sure what a goody post is.

I didn’t dress it up- he raised it and I agreed. Obviously not what I consider to be a practical solution but I do think there’s a point for discussion.

What? Weight is not a “bragging” issue.

^this - smaller seats reserved for shortarses.

How exactly would you apply these charges?
A £ per LB of weight? A £ per inch of height?
What if you're a dwarf? Would you get a discount?
Will you have to stand on scales at the check in while someone measures your height?
So many questions.

Good idea because check in doesn't take long enough already does it?

OP I think YANBU here. It makes logical sense. And it’s a good disincentive to maintaining an unhealthy lifestyle. There should be other things like this. It could help save the NHS billions

At the point where your luggage is weighed you step on the scales.

under X weight- on you go.
over X weight- £20 excess

Job done.

😁

And you should be made to put your overweight cabin luggage into the hold and charged accordingly so there is room for other people's luggage in the overhead lockers.

I've travelled with lots of tall people. My brother is 6'4 and built like a Rugby player. He sits in a 'normal' seat.

So is my husband. He doesn’t. You need to factor in body proportions. Relative torso to leg lengths etc.

So a woman should pay more if she is pregnant?

Having been pregnant it wouldn’t have bothered me. quite a good introduction to the fact you are soon going to be paying for an extra seat for your new human anyway. Or they could be exempt. As some people have pointed out, there are some airlines who already do this so there would be examples to pick and choose from.

So you are ok with pregnancy discrimination, fortunately s17(2) of the Equality Act 2010 is not
"A person (A) discriminates against a woman if A treats her unfavourably because of a pregnancy of hers."

It's not discriminatory, it's the laws of physics. More weight equals greater cost to hoist aloft.

Doesn't matter whether the extra weight is due to height, pregnancy, gluttony, luggage, etc. Doesn't matter whether the passenger is a saint or a sinner. The aircraft and the laws of nature don't care.

Why is everyone making a matter of science into a contest of who "deserves" to pay more? Weight is weight, whatever the source.

Fares should be on a per kilo basis. It's an objective, equal and fair measure that is relevant to the cost the passenger incurs to the flight.