Samoa Air introduces ‘pay-as-you-weigh’ fare policy

[Expat]

This is something radical!

http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/04 ... olicy.html

It makes sense however for families...

[PilotDAR]

This idea is simple and reasonable. I can see arguments about its "fairness", but is it fair for a slim passenger to have to surrender the width they have paid for because a not so slim passenger occupies the seat on either side of them? Can the slim passenger not expect to fully use the seat space, and more importantly security, they paid for?

Where the problem will come will be the airline accepting payment for overweight passengers, and thereby acknowledging carrying people who exceed 170 pounds? Yes, the pilot can now do an accurate weight and balance knowing the weight of each occupied seat - BUT is that seat approved to carry more than 170 pounds? That number is the design requirement for many seats in commercially operated aircraft.

If I approve a baggage area or net for such an area, the maximum demonstrated capacity becomes a "limitation" for the aircraft. Look carefully, that "....40 pounds" placard in the back of the C150, it IS a limitation.

But, if I go to approve a seat, I must demonstrate 170 pounds capacity, but that does not become a limitation - civil rights. I can't even get a prohibition on the use of seat belt extensions in exit rows - I tried! I have been asked to approve occupant restraints with higher stated capacities. The capacity was demonstrated, so it was approved - with a limitation to the demonstrated value.

So once the airline takes the extra money for the larger passenger, they are in some way acknowledging and "accepting" that operation of their aircraft. Plane goes bump, seat breaks off, someone is hurt, and the legal problems are just starting. it HAS happened! The occupants of the Turkish Airlines 737 which crashed short of Amsterdam airport a few years back perhaps sustained as much as a 20G deceleration for a brief period. ALL that load to restrain the passenger had to be carried by the seats. Three really heavy people in that seat bank, and there comes a point.....

A while back there was an interesting thread on the PPRuNe Rotorheads section regarding a lawsuit in the US, relating of the refusal to carry a heavy car accident patient in an air ambulance helicopter, as the crew [correctly] assessed her as weighing too much.

If the market is there for aircraft capable of carrying passengers of more heavy weights, those aircraft will be so approved, built and configured (mods are approved and done for this from time to time). In the mean time, many aircraft in the world's fleets were designed to operate a defined role, with specific capacities. The fact that that design criteria cannot accommodate all people is not the fault of the aircraft, its operator, or society. Has anyone ever noticed that most cars specify a total maximum occupant weight?

I hope that Air Samoa, for those passengers for whom they would charge for more than 170 pounds also include a waiver for the passenger to sign, acknowledging that they are aware that their weight might exceed the design requirement capacity of the seat and seatbelt, and thus their personal security, and that of those around them might be compromised.

[Expat]

Aside from the legal issues you mentioned, which I think are quite irrelevant in Samoa, this is the next step in treating passengers like cargo. FedEx charges by the kilo, so why not the airlines? Actually, in a Boeing 767, the fatter passenger is contributing to a loss of revenue to the airline, which can carry less Iphones in the cargo bay...

[Shiny Side Up]

I think Heinlein forcast this eventuality in Space Jockey. Though it refers to orbital travel, its suprising it hasn't come up sooner since each pound to heft it airborne essentially consumes a certain ammount of resourses. Hopefully we won't get to where the story has the pilots weigh in per flight and rewards them for being under weight.

[Jack In The Box]

Well, I think this is fair if that's their policy (I mean, the passenger has the choice of whether to accept the terms and conditions presented or not right?). But you KNOW that wouldn't fly in North America because there would be lawsuits calling it discriminatory.

[Changes in Latitudes]

Samoans are notoriously tiny people too, so they won't mind a bit.

[Genetk44]

Samoans are notoriously tiny people too, so they won't mind a bit.

Bwhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[Beefitarian]

BUT is that seat approved to carry more than 170 pounds? That number is the design requirement for many seats in commercially operated aircraft.

Wait, what? I have proven some to be good to go for a little more.

[Rowdy]

I think everyone should pay on a per pound basis.. that would be best to avoid any litigation or civil rights activists fighting it. Everyone pays X per pound all the way to infinity and beyond. With weigh scales at each check in counter. Be sure to wear as little as possible and have a big dump before you check in folks

[Beefitarian]

Are hydrogen filled vests allowed on airplanes?

[bmc]

So if heavier passengers pay more, they become higher yielding passengers. Should higher paying passengers be entitled to more services?

[TheCheez]

Gotta say I'm a little surprised to see you guys so in favour of this policy. I think it makes sense when Air Samoa is driving 172s and Islanders, which are probably flying around at max weight all the time. In this case, they likely have to turn pax away from the 4th and 8th seats once in awhile when the luggage is too much, or a few heavy pax turn up, so they're directly losing significant revenue due to heavy loads when charging by the seat.

Can the same really be said for a 737? Sure the fuel burn is a bit more, but seriously what's the extra cost per seat mile of a pax that weighs in 50lbs heavier than another on a plane that size? When we think about the portion of the ticket that pays for fuel, which is cited as 18%(linked below), the amount extra that a heavy pax should pay, or a child save, is very limited.

On the C130, an extra 10k lbs changes the fuel burn by ~200lbs per hour, and we are a fuel sucking 4 engine tactical airlifter that lives in the mid alt range. The biggest effect would be if people are fat enough to drive a plane into lower cruise altitudes.

Does everyone love this because of haha fat people, or am I missing something here? The opportunity to save money is piss all compared to how marked up the fees will be for being heavy, or having heavier bags that day.

Edit: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/rpm/jo ... 1247a.html forgot a link.

Oh I forgot one point as well, does this means airlines can pay you as a pilot based on weight? On a small scale like Samoa, this would make sense right? Fat pilot, less revenue in the back? How about hauling your ass around for 1000hrs a year, how much extra fuel burn are you costing them compared to the 110lb woman or tiny man they're thinking about hiring? Shouldn't your salary reflect that, if that's how pax are being billed?

[Jack In The Box]

So if heavier passengers pay more, they become higher yielding passengers. Should higher paying passengers be entitled to more services?

No, because higher weighing passengers cost more to fly then lighter weighing passengers.

[Jack In The Box]

Sure the fuel burn is a bit more, but seriously what's the extra cost per seat mile of a pax that weighs in 50lbs heavier than another on a plane that size?

When you add 50 pounds per person for half the passengers (probably about accurate) for every flight done every day for 365 days. The amount of $$ extra spent on higher fuel burns (with fuel price these days...) is NO insignificant amount.

Wasn't there an airline asking passengers to pee before the flight? As each passenger losing 1 pound of liquid meant 200 pounds less on each flight? They were talking over thousands of dollars in savings if I remember correctly.

[Changes in Latitudes]

Somehow I have to think that the first swig from the bottle must have tasted so much sweeter than the last few drops we're currently trying to lick out this empty industry.

[TheCheez]

Sure the fuel burn is a bit more, but seriously what's the extra cost per seat mile of a pax that weighs in 50lbs heavier than another on a plane that size?

When you add 50 pounds per person for half the passengers (probably about accurate) for every flight done every day for 365 days. The amount of $$ extra spent on higher fuel burns (with fuel price these days...) is NO insignificant amount.

Wasn't there an airline asking passengers to pee before the flight? As each passenger losing 1 pound of liquid meant 200 pounds less on each flight? They were talking over thousands of dollars in savings if I remember correctly.

Hey I agree that over all the hours on that plane over a full year, a 50lb heavier passenger probably costs thousands. But what about on a 1 hour leg, one ticket, one flight. How much extra do you charge the fat guy, and how much does a child save?

Back in '06 Air Canada claimed that each kilo on a long haul(to Paris) amounted to $150 per year of extra cost when they switched from glass to tetra pack wine. Is this really what the fuss is about? Jet fuel was around $2/gal in 06 and showing $3.22 now so it would be closer to $250 per kilo per year in today's dollars.

At the end of the day, we are talking about small numbers per lb per flight hour.

[kevenv]

I recently flew from YQM to PUJ. A 5 hour ish flight. I am tall and weigh 200 lbs. I fit completely within the width of the window seat which I paid for. Imagine my dismay when I saw that the person seated in the middle seat weighed at least 400 lbs. Seriously! He spilled over into my seat space and the seat on the other side. (The woman on the other side was about 150 lbs. That's 750lbs in one row!!!) He managed to squeeze into the seat forcing the arm rests out but the spill over was incredible. He required a seat belt extender that almost wasn't long enough (he really had to squeeze to make it). His gut was pressed against the seat in front so that person was forced to stay upright for the entire flight (The same fate I suffered on the return flight). His tray table could not be lowered. He paid the same as me for the seat yet used almost the equivalent of 2 seats. I was forced over to the wall. All I could think about was in the event of an evacuation, I was screwed. There was no way in hell I was getting out.

I don't care how big you are or why you are that large. I bought the use of one seat on the plane. I should be entitled to use the entire space that I paid for. You are not entitled to borrow some of my space.

[esp803]

Ethics aside,

After doing absolutely no research, I feel as though I can give an expert opinion. If $250 per KG is accurate, and pretending 200 pax average per, assuming half are 50lbs over as an average, there are currently 26 long haul flights ( some error due to flights like Toronto-Santiago-Buenos Aires), then the math would work out to:

(50/2.2)*50*(200/2)*26= $130,000

The carrier also noted it had turned in a profit for 2012 as a whole, reporting an adjusted net income of $53-million, or 19¢ a share for the year, up from a loss of $122-million last year – its first yearly profit since 2007.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/ ... n-5-years/

If you owned a business, would you rather make 53,000,000 or 53,130,000? I for one would welcome the gain of .2%.

How about if all 458 seats on the 777-300ER were full of the same overweight pax:

(50*2.2)*50*458*26= $595,400, or over a 1% increase in profit.

So there you have it, with no research, wrong numbers and good math, it makes financial sense to charge by the pound.

E

[Meatservo]

Somehow I have to think that the first swig from the bottle must have tasted so much sweeter than the last few drops we're currently trying to lick out this empty industry.

Every now and then someone says something that describes the way I feel so succinctly that it bears repeating.

What I would really like is if we could fast-forward to the inevitable time where we will be anesthetizing passengers and stacking them in racks for long journeys. I think at least for me, air travel would be much more pleasant this way. I mean as a passenger. I hate flying as a passenger. I was under a general anaesthetic once, and it was lovely. I just had a dry throat and was very thirsty when I woke up, which is just the same as an aeroplane ride, come to think of it, without the hours and hours of discomfort and pissed-offedness preceding it.

[MacStork]

If ..... the base average pax weight is determined (for the sake of argument) to be 170 pounds, and they want to charge more for being overweight ...... does that mean that some one who weighs less than 170 pounds gets a similar reduction for being under weight?

Where do they find these people? Do they have to prove their stupidity to some one to get hired or do they just naturally morf into this state?

AHHHHGGGG ..... only in aviation.