Why do we pay for cargo and shipping items by the pound but pay for transporting people by the individual and by age?
That's whack.
Only politics and social baloney effect the difference. Why should the price of a ticket for someone who weighs 95 pounds be the same as for someone who weighs 220 pounds?
Especially with fuel costs rising disproportionately, it's time to even things out a bit and face reality. Larger passengers should pay more, smaller passengers less.
- OO -
The tickets are the same price because regardless of weight the passenger occupies the same amount of space: one seat. Packages are a different matter, since lighter packages generally occupy less space.
The mass of passengers has a smaller impact on air fare than you might think. The weight of the passengers is insignificant in comparison to the weight of the plane, cargo, and fuel. A densely packed 737 might weigh 10 to 20 thousand pounds lighter if every passenger were 100 pounds lighter, but the empty weight of the aircraft is 60 to 100 thousand pounds, and the maximum takeoff weight ranges from 100 to 190 thousand pounds.
Higher mass will increase the amount of thrust required for the aircraft to accelerate and ascend. At cruise speed and altitude, increased mass will only marginally increase drag; fuel consumption in this state will remain about the same regardless of weight.
Thank You Antimatter for using some actual fact in this conversation.
Another point when it comes to airline seats is that people actually do pay for two seats if they need two seats. And if you haven't noticed, seats are getting smaller with each design. Cram in more seats make more money. Who cares if the perfectly healthy large person can't fit in the petite seat... the airline can now sell even more.
If you want to help those who are overweight, start looking at the way food is created and processed in the U.S. not at punishing people. Also how about having our neighborhoods friendly enough to let the kids play outside again and get some exercise??
This is just another case of picking on a less fortunate group because you can.
Dls
So you're suggesting that people are fat to flaunt their prosperity in the face of world hunger??? That they should starve to be thin like the victims of concentration camps.
How ignorant and insulting!!!
Its 10cents for a package of process crap called Top Ramen and $1.59 for a bunch of spinach. There's more obesity among poor people than rich and I'll bet none of them are doing it to flaunt anything to the hungry. Try shopping at Mother's Market compared to shopping at Food King.. see the difference in a families food bill then talk about flaunting prosperity.
Eating healthy food is not cheap. Starving to get thin is not healthy.
Loosing weight is not easy. Doctors compare changing a bodies metabolism to supressing a sneeze: its just not easy.
Yea being fat is more fortunate than starving..for that you want to further punish 40% of the population?
Dls
"Antimatter, are you a plane-crashing terrorist?"
No. Are you?
" 'Cause dude, you forgot about the extra energy required to descend and then land the plane and bring it to a stop."
An airplane does not require fuel to land. The engines on a passenger jet are near idle for much of the descent and landing. It's like driving downhill.
"Also, why so glibbly dismiss marginal increases in drag? That shit mounts up."
Of course it adds up. That's why many airlines are cutting weight where they can. My point was that the costs are not proportional to passenger weight, which is what you suggested in the original post. An airline does not spend twice as much money to transport someone who weighs twice as much. The empty weight of an aircraft is many times the weight of all the passengers.
"Please re-work your equations regarding fuel consumption for an additional 10 to 20 thousand pounds per flight, times thousands of flights per day, times millions of flights per year."
Please take a class on basic physics and arithmetic. You've demonstrated a total lack of comprehension on simple subjects like potential energy and multiplication.
Of course it adds up. That's why many airlines are cutting weight where they can. My point was that the costs are not proportional to passenger weight, which is what you suggested in the original post. An airline does not spend twice as much money to transport someone who weighs twice as much. The empty weight of an aircraft is many times the weight of all the passengers.
Re-read the original post. This charge does not stand. The original post does not contain the suggestions given as an example above.
The original post merely poses a couple of questions and makes one assertion at the end...
...it's time to even things out a bit and face reality. Larger passengers should pay more, smaller passengers less.
