Samoa Air Rolling Out "Pay As You Weigh" Fares 587
cylonlover writes "Thrifty Samoans looking to take a trip may want to shed a few pounds before booking a flight with Samoan Air after the airline announced the implementation of a 'pay as you weigh' system. Unlike some other airlines that have courted controversy by forcing some obese passengers to purchase two seats, Samoa's national carrier will charge passengers based on their weight."
They have a demo fare calculator for the curious.
Fairplay (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a definite issue with this sort of a system. Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#? Genetics has a huge impact there, this isn't the result of my choosing to be an extra 10" taller than the woman and carrying the requisite weight that entails, it's an issue of the genes that I was born with.
What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.
Nice for child fares (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ADA implications, let the lawsuits, er, "fly" (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, I was going to comment that the ADA does not consider being tall or a big fat-ass to be protected classes...
Then I did some research, and found out that actually yes, "Big Fat-Ass" is an ADA protected class.
Let me say that again, because it bears repeating - If you make yourself morbidly, disgustingly obese, you are protected under the ADA. [benefitnews.com]
What. The. Fuck.
You tall assholes are SOL, though - not considered a protected class (even though, unlike the obese, you actually can't control your own height).
Re:More person, more cost. Fine. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you sit in front of me, you're likely to find my feet right behind yours. This is part of the reason I no longer fly. The rest being accounted for by the TSA nonsense.
Same here, pretty much. The security took way too long at McCarran Int'l last time I was there. Then the plane ride was uncomfortable, even for a little guy like me.
What we need is a new approach to passenger seating that takes into account security, comfort, and economy. How about this: Replace all the airline seats with padded tubes stacked like firewood (think Bruce Willis's trip to Phloston Paradise in The Fifth Element). Mix nitrous oxide in with the passenger tube's air to sedate them (I imagine it would be hard for a terrorist to hijack a plane while sedated). Safety procedure for an emergency landing is: you do nothing, because you're already limp (and therefore less likely to break bones) and you're wrapped in a giant padded burrito. Awesome. Maybe wake people up if you're ditching the plane in water, but otherwise, nah. Just eject their tubes a safe distance away from the aircraft upon landing.
Imagine boarding a plane in Los Angeles, lying down on a comfy pad, and then the next thing you know... you're waking up in New York, or Paris, or Moscow, hearing the local time and weather from the soothing, confident voice of a captain who you just *know* held an eight-hour orgy with the rest of the flight crew while everyone else was sedated.
Some people would throw up from the gas as they disembarked, sure, but that's a small price to pay. Plenty of people get airsick during turbulence and the airlines just give them a sack.
Re:More person, more cost. Fine. (Score:4, Interesting)
WRT the fair calculator showing a direct 1:1 relationship with weight, I noticed that too, and that was the most surprising aspect of it I found.
There is definitely some basic overhead per-person that has nothing to do with weight. On the low end (think 5 year old), that overhead could even be more (attention needed, assistance, etc). Seems silly not to have a base + price per pound (ex. $30 + $1/kg). I do hope the weight includes luggage weight - I can pack light enough to make up for much of my weight
Re:More person, more cost. Fine. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm part owner of a DeHavilland DHC-1 Beaver - just a bit bigger than a 172. It's used in a bush airline in Alaska. They have had weight based pricing for years, albeit in fairly rough steps - above 110 kg passenger plus luggage, you get an extra charge. In small planes like these, one obese person (or someone trying to take everything they own on a trip) makes the difference between one run and two.
On a couple of occasions, I've embarrassed myself by dragging along too much gear and having to switch from the 172 (the airline's other plane) to the Beaver. Those damned telephoto lenses (and the 12 V battery and the dog) add up.
Re:More person, more cost. Fine. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's hard to have long term plans in a direct or indirect democracy. Too many people having too much say in things.
Ignoring the social and economic costs for a moment - prior to the Beijing Olympics, the government built an entire subway line under a crowded world capital city in 7 months. Projects like this require a "benevolent" dictator.
Re:More person, more cost. Fine. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hi, I hail from a country with one of the lowest population densities on the planet: Finland. We have similar experiences with railroads as described by grandparent poster. Please try finding a better excuse.
Re:More person, more cost. Fine. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah yes, just like rural Estonians get better internet service (cheaper, faster) than New Yorkers, all because of this densely populated rural areas.