Should Airlines Weigh Passengers To Help Cut Carbon Emissions? (cnn.com) 343
"The equation is simple: The heavier the plane, the more environmentally unfriendly the trip is," notes one report -- yet airplanes are still relying on estimates for their total weight.
"A British tech start-up thinks it has a solution: weighing customers to more accurately calculate fuel costs..." "The capture of passenger weights is not complicated," says Roy Fuscone, Chairman & CEO of Fuel Matrix Limited. "A simple weighing device added to the current equipment will capture the weight and the software will register and transmit it in relation to a flight but not necessarily identified to a particular passenger...." The company's website states that benefits from this system include statistically robust information feedback based on airlines' data, significant reduction of CO2 emissions, significant fuel savings, and reduced mechanical stress on aircraft. If you're worried about this data being made public, Fuscone says that the company plans to enable the passenger to retain direct control of their own data so that they can delete it once it has been "employed in the interests of fuel efficiency."
It seems like it'd be easier to just weigh the plane after everyone's onboard -- or find some way to calculate weights using the boarding ramp. But the current plans aren't that simple, CNN reports: One proposal is for passengers to supply the information ahead of arriving at the airport, in the same way that they supply passport details. Otherwise, it could be made part of the security process before boarding. "You stand in a scanner that goes round you -- now, clearly while you're standing there being scanned, you could also be being weighed -- very discreetly -- if you haven't wanted to supply your information ahead of time," says Fuel Matrix CEO Roy Fuscone. "It would be very discreet, very private and very confidential."
Fuscone stresses that Fuel Matrix has been working with GDPR consultants to ensure the data would remain classified. He points out that airports already collect a lot of information on passengers. This would be just one more element to the equation. "Airports already use biometric data on passengers because they associate an image of your face with your boarding card, so that means that when you buy a ticket it's already in the contract that they can do that," says Fuscone. "So there's no problem with us introducing this, it can be done at various places during the journey through the airport and so we're starting to discuss with people involved in those various phases of the airport. If this is all done properly [...] it will alleviate carbon in the atmosphere and climate change and air pollution."
"A British tech start-up thinks it has a solution: weighing customers to more accurately calculate fuel costs..." "The capture of passenger weights is not complicated," says Roy Fuscone, Chairman & CEO of Fuel Matrix Limited. "A simple weighing device added to the current equipment will capture the weight and the software will register and transmit it in relation to a flight but not necessarily identified to a particular passenger...." The company's website states that benefits from this system include statistically robust information feedback based on airlines' data, significant reduction of CO2 emissions, significant fuel savings, and reduced mechanical stress on aircraft. If you're worried about this data being made public, Fuscone says that the company plans to enable the passenger to retain direct control of their own data so that they can delete it once it has been "employed in the interests of fuel efficiency."
It seems like it'd be easier to just weigh the plane after everyone's onboard -- or find some way to calculate weights using the boarding ramp. But the current plans aren't that simple, CNN reports: One proposal is for passengers to supply the information ahead of arriving at the airport, in the same way that they supply passport details. Otherwise, it could be made part of the security process before boarding. "You stand in a scanner that goes round you -- now, clearly while you're standing there being scanned, you could also be being weighed -- very discreetly -- if you haven't wanted to supply your information ahead of time," says Fuel Matrix CEO Roy Fuscone. "It would be very discreet, very private and very confidential."
Fuscone stresses that Fuel Matrix has been working with GDPR consultants to ensure the data would remain classified. He points out that airports already collect a lot of information on passengers. This would be just one more element to the equation. "Airports already use biometric data on passengers because they associate an image of your face with your boarding card, so that means that when you buy a ticket it's already in the contract that they can do that," says Fuscone. "So there's no problem with us introducing this, it can be done at various places during the journey through the airport and so we're starting to discuss with people involved in those various phases of the airport. If this is all done properly [...] it will alleviate carbon in the atmosphere and climate change and air pollution."
No (Score:4, Funny)
You should measure them so their fat arms dont melt over the armrests into my personal space.
Should... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll find your customer base gets even more pissed off than it already is.
And how does this reduce carbon emissions? The person is on the aircraft anyway, fat or not. You're planning on changing the fuel load based on aggregate passenger weight?
So then if you have a flight of skinnies, you'll take extra time and defuel some gas? Thereby the aircraft is on the ground longer, messing with schedules.
The 'average weight' works. They even have differing 'averages' for winter vs summer.
Lastly, if the weight data is captured, it will be tied to a person. And that data will leak out sooner or later.
Go on....bring on the 'fat american' jokes. You know you want to.
Re: Should... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most Americans are quite thin, it is only the US citizens that are fat.
Re: (Score:2)
It reuses the amount of "extra fuel" a plane has to carry because "we only guestimated the weight" ... a no brainer.
Re:Should... (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously, no.
How will people know they're guilty of sinning against the planet without that sort of ritual public shaming?
Re: (Score:3)
I donâ(TM)t remember when exactly they started, but every airline Iâ(TM)ve flown on in the last several years weighs checked baggage so they can charge extra if itâ(TM)s over their policy maximum. Some even weigh your carryon too. So passenger weigh-ins and surcharges would be the next logical step.
And if the airline industry gave a rip about not making passengers miserable and pissed off, thereâ(TM)s a VERY long list of things they wouldnâ(TM)t have already done.
Re:Should... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, I don't get this.
They still have to carry loads of extra fuel, in case of:
- inclement weather, we don't have climate control satellites yet, and we can't perfectly predict weather yet
- delays in landing, such as problems at landing airport (plane crash, iced up runways, technical issues, other generic reasons)
Imagine something happens to traffic control, and the plane has to circle for an hour or two anyhow?
They'll never be precise on this, and if they have a heavier load it's what? 5% less fuel or something?
Pointless and silly, with all the above (and more) to take into account.
Re:Should... (Score:4, Insightful)
It means that actually the airline is green and environment friendly, it is you the passengers who are too fat!
Re: (Score:3)
You know you want to.
It's actually kind of embarrassing that half of my countrymen look like the cast from WALL-E...
Re: (Score:3)
American? Don't worry. Europe is catching up!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It would be illegal in the UK and many other places anyway.
Women are on average smaller and lighter than men. Some ethnic groups are on average smaller and lighter than others. Some people have medical conditions that result in weight gain, not to mention people who need equipment like wheelchairs or prosthetic limbs that have a different weight to biological ones.
Practically it would also create a rush for the bathroom right before weighing, as people try to drop a few kilos. And unless they are going to w
Re: Should... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
GDPR requires opt-in consent for every different use of your data that is not vital for providing the service. I find it extremely unlikely that any court would think weighing you was vital, considering that it hasn't been for the better part of a century of air travel.
The airline can only handle things like biometric data if it is needed for immigration purposes, otherwise they have to get your permission. Flight history can only be kept as long as needed for immigration, taxation and other legally require
Re: (Score:2)
You'll find your customer base gets even more pissed off than it already is.
Huh? Who is pissed off? I mean people will shout from the roof how pissed off customers are, and yet airline passenger numbers just don't seem to stop growing. In the past 10 years alone we've gone from 2.5bn people to 4.5bn people flying annually.
And how does this reduce carbon emissions? The person is on the aircraft anyway, fat or not. You're planning on changing the fuel load based on aggregate passenger weight? You're planning on changing the fuel load based on aggregate passenger weight?
So then if you have a flight of skinnies, you'll take extra time and defuel some gas?
They are proposing to weight passengers to allow them to more accurately calculate the fuel load to ensure that energy isn't spent carrying *extra* fuel around that you wouldn't need.
To be clear this is stupid but not for the reason you posted. This is stupid beca
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, no. The 'average weight' works. They even have differing 'averages' for winter vs summer.
Lastly, if the weight data is captured, it will be tied to a person. And that data will leak out sooner or later.
The only time there is a problem is on the short flights. I always travelled "heavy" I had several trunks packed with equipment. On one flight there was a really heavy person who they moved to keep the commuter balanced.
Unlike the assholes in here, I was mortified because it was because of me and my equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, you wish to keep the fatties off the aircraft completely.
Why weigh? (Score:2)
Can't they just check the weight on the drivers licenses as an estimate?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't they just check the weight on the drivers licenses as an estimate?
I'm not in favor of the weighing, but I'm 39 and I don't remember having been asked weight information when renewing my driver's licence so I checked...yep, it has the weight I was at when I was 15 years old.
So, no.
no, it's nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
The operating empty weight of 787-8 (shortest lightest one) plane is 264,500 lbs. Then 227120 lbs. of fuel get added. Loaded with what FAA assumes are males (184 lbs) that's going to be 44,500 pounds of swinging dick owners.
The weight of some fatso human's doesn't matter. It's a joke
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Statistically, the more times you roll the dice, the tighter the distribution gets [wikipedia.org] and the the more likely your actual result is to be closer to the mean. So the bigger planes with hundreds of passengers statistically have a high probability of their actual weight being close to the FAA estimated
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about rolling the dice, what could possibly go wrong with a jet plane full of passenger with an absolute minimum fuel load, I'll bet the passengers weigh a whole lot less when the plane runs out of fuel and crashes into the ground. Better they guess high and have spare, the measure low and run out.
The answer is yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Flight costs are simple.... how much fuel it costs to move N pounds of cargo from point A to point B. Airlines are already charging you for extra bags. It isn't because of a lack of space in the belly of the airplane it is because they are "cargo" and add weight to the plane. Yes everybody thinks its a scam and maybe it is but I have been in the ticket line behind a couple that had 8 huge bags to check in. That's cargo.
As to the other comments.... Airlines already "measure" your carry-on luggage so they
Not a chance (Score:5, Interesting)
Simply put it costs the airline a *lot* less to fly a...
Negative.
First of all, the median weight of all the passengers on a 787 will almost never vary by more than one or (at the most) two thousand pounds. A few thousand pounds of human on half a million pounds of aircraft and fuel (not counting cargo, which is on every passenger flight too, and luggage) has less effect on the overall fuel consumption than the butterfly that just flapped its wings on the other side of the world. It's statistical noise.
Re:The answer is yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the problem: It would be simpler to, at most, weigh the person and their luggage together. No muss, no fuss, NO PRIVATE DATA FOR SOME MORON AT THE AIRLINE TO LEAK , and you get the aggregate cost of the person flying.
Which, as has been pointed out, isn't likely to vary by much.
If the important part to you is passenger comfort, it'd be more efficient go with volume. 250 pounds of muscle takes up vastly less space than 250 pounds of fat, after all. You can even make it quick and easy to check: You step into a booth at check-in, if the door can be closed without packing you in you're good. (A potential bonus is that it might also get regulatory minimum space allotments for passengers, while currently the airlines seem to be working on finding out just how tiny they can make that tiny box of personal space before there's rioting and lawsuits.)
This used to happen to us (Score:2)
False Premise (Score:3)
"You stand in a scanner that goes round you..."
Not if you "opt out" from the shortwave scanner. Which, e.g., I do all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Their claims are full of contradictions. Data won't be associated with passengers, but passengers will be able to control and delete it.
No, you will get my express permission to collect it, which cannot be required for me to fly. If I give you permission (I won't) you will delete it automatically as soon as it has been used for the purpose I gave permission for. GDPR is clear on this.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, you'll simply stand on scales while your get personally probed. Just remember to not moan the wrong TSA agent's name. You'll end up with a very pissed agent saying "Who's Carl. I thought I was the one!"
hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And I drive to work every day to design a carbon reduction system for our upcoming H2 plant. The effect of me getting to the destination to do my work has a far larger effect on the climate than my exhaust emissions.
What is the weight of an unladen swallow? (Score:2)
Weigh the laden aircraft, sure.
The aggregate weight of the laden air craft IS what is needed for the flight cost estimates.
Weight the individual people? Fuck off!
The weight of the individuals is only desirable as a salable datum. So no.
It's just that simple.
..and much HILARITY ensued (Score:2)
Your Honor, they discriminated against me because I have a genetic condition/medical conditionm it's not my fault I'm heavy!
Re: (Score:3)
Part of me would love weight-based airline ticket pricing to become a thing in the US just to witness the beautiful irony of staunchly pro-capitalistic family members complaining about it.
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
And how does this reduce carbon emissions? The person is on the aircraft anyway, fat or not. You're planning on changing the fuel load based on aggregate passenger weight?
I believe the gist of it, which is poorly described, is that you need to fill the plane with enough fuel to carry the load from the departure to the destination. You could potentially carry just barely enough fuel to make it to the destination, thereby reducing the cost compared to completely topping off the plane, because carrying that extra fuel requires energy as well.
It may also be difficult to weigh the plane once everyone is onboard, because you need to fuel up the plane well in advance of getting to the runway.
From reading the article, I don't think that the company in question intends to use the information for any sort of nefarious means. But once that data is collected, we all know how that story ends.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the gist of it, which is poorly described, is that you need to fill the plane with enough fuel to carry the load from the departure to the destination. You could potentially carry just barely enough fuel to make it to the destination
If true, that is one of the more idiotic ideas I’ve heard in a long time. If it actually made it to implementation, it would only be policy until the first plane went down while in a holding pattern.
On the plus side, the crash victims’ families would become rather wealthy.
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
This. You have to carry some extra fuel to handle unexpected delays and diversions. Only about 26% of a full aircraft (using a 737-800 as an example) is passenger weight plus baggage weight combined. So when full, most of the fuel is spent moving around the aircraft and its fuel, not passengers.
So even if passengers weighed a third less than the expected weight, and even if that made up two-third of the total pax + luggage weight, that means you'd only reduce the fuel requirements by maybe six percent.
Here's where it gets fun. Only only 23% of the weight comes from fuel. And because the tank is empty by the end of the flight, averaged over the duration of the flight, the fuel tank is half full. So if the passengers weighed a third less than the expected amount, the fuel used to move the extra fuel would be half of 23% of 6%, or only a paltry 0.69% reduction in total fuel use over the duration of the flight.
To put that in perspective, the longest 737-800 flight is only 7 hours, 25 minutes, which means that even in the best-case scenario, the fuel reduction would only extend the maximum flight time by about three minutes and 4 seconds.
And, of course, this assumes that the aircraft starts out full of fuel so that it can fly for so many hours. For a three-hour tour, the weight of the aircraft becomes an even bigger percentage of the total, and the savings are even smaller.
So much for your big savings. Yes, in aggregate, I'm sure there are pencil-pushers at the airlines who think, "We could do this and save a hundred bucks per average-length flight." Remember that these are the same people who are considering charging to use the toilet, and keep that in mind when you choose which airline to fly in the future.
There is absolutely no plausible scientific basis for measuring passenger weight in an effort to save fuel. The savings are complete and utter noise. Therefore, either the people proposing this haven't thought about it seriously or this is really just an excuse for fat shaming or charging heavier passengers more money. Either way, this makes no sense whatsoever. Stuffing one passenger per flight into the baggage hold on a discounted fare would make a far bigger difference in revenue, and would probably result in happier passengers, too.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think 0.69% is paltry, then you obviously haven't worked in mass production. A small percentage of a very large number is sometimes a very large number, and they do move a billion passengers per year.
Re: (Score:3)
Mass production is a different world, because customers are not immediately and obviously affected by small changes in cost. Yes, if a product fails after three years instead of five, they're affected, but by then, it is too late for the negative reviews to have any affect on your profits, so companies often don't care. By contrast, forcing your customers to stand on a scale affects customer happiness immediately. You can'
weather prediction specifically wind (Score:2)
spend some money on some better models and more sensors for wind prediction...
that might make a real difference... but that would be hard and not very sexy
John
Re: (Score:2)
I posted actual numbers. Show us yours.
Re: (Score:2)
None of my numbers were made up except two: the premise amount (the "even if the pax weight were high by 1/3" part) and the relative proportion between pax weight and cargo weight. All the other numbers I gave were based on actual numbers for a fully fueled 737-800, and I can provide sources for every single one of them.
Moreover, the pax to cargo weight being a guess is largely moot; even if there were no mail and no luggage, that would still be only about one percent savings, and that's only if the pax we
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the gist of it, which is poorly described, is that you need to fill the plane with enough fuel to carry the load from the departure to the destination. You could potentially carry just barely enough fuel to make it to the destination
If true, that is one of the more idiotic ideas I’ve heard in a long time. If it actually made it to implementation, it would only be policy until the first plane went down while in a holding pattern.
On the plus side, the crash victims’ families would become rather wealthy.
It sounds like the kind of idea come up by people who never have had to seriously think about how far they can get on a tank of gas, too. Environmental conditions influence fuel consumption; it's going to be the first plane that is flying in worse conditions than the math assumes, particularly since holding patterns are supposed to prioritize planes low on fuel. What's going to be the disaster is the plane that crashes because runs out before it even gets to its destination.
Though the fact that holding pa
Utter Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Passenger health is now a commodity. The FAA is useless and there is no way to change that. We are all farm animals to corporate America.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the fun if the FAA mandated that the airlines re-calculate the size of the seats due to the current size average of the people who sit within them.
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like some grave injustice has been committed against you. If the extra legroom is worth that much to you, don't fly the budget carriers, and shell out a few extra bucks to get an exit row or bulkhead seat. No one is forcing you to fly on the cheapest available ticket, or to fly at all.
Or you could lighten up (Score:2)
If you're not a religious environmentalist, your plane ride is not a sin no matter how much you weigh.
Don't you all love being scolded by self righteous moralists every day about everything?
Stupid Idea (Score:2)
First of all, you don't need the weight of the person. You need the weight of the person, their clothes, their shoes, their accessories, what they are carrying on them, and their carry on luggage.
If the company is so worried about getting the accurate figure then they would want to weigh each passenger with all of their possessions that they will be carrying on board the plane. There's no need to know the weight of the passengers themselves.
I found an interesting article about how airlines estimate the weig [stackexchange.com]
Here's a thought (Score:3)
Don't pack so many F*****G people on the plane.
Their quest to cram as many seats into a limited space is now up against the average size of a human being.
Remove fifty GD seats from the plane and you'll achieve the same weight / efficiency savings you're trying to push off on your passengers.
I mean, if you're TRULY serious about reducing your carbon footprint and not finding yet another reason to soak more money out of folks.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the fault of customer who tend to buy the cheapest tickets, no matter what the conditions. A few airlines have tried offering wider seat spacing at higher prices, but customers didn't go for it. The information is on seatguru and other places, but it doesn't seem to affect purchase decisions ./
Re: (Score:3)
Remove fifty GD seats from the plane and you'll achieve the same weight / efficiency savings you're trying to push off on your passengers.
I mean, if you're TRULY serious about reducing your carbon footprint and not finding yet another reason to soak more money out of folks.
Brilliant, except for the part where you'll end up with 15-25% more planes in the air since most flights run nearly full these days and the people who needed to fly from point A to point B still need to do so.
Which will make the per flyer carbon load go up since it takes a big bunch of energy to move the plane itself, and you just put a lot more of them in the air to move the same number of people. (And by the same token, everyone's tickets will now cost more because the fixed costs of operating the flig
Re: (Score:2)
Remove fifty GD seats from the plane and you'll achieve the same... efficiency savings
Far be it for me to come to the defence of the beancounters but they might have cause to take issue with the above statement...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't pack so many F*****G people on the plane.
This is the dumbest comment I've read. Unless your goal is actually more expensive tickets so less people can afford to fly in which case carry on.
and not finding yet another reason to soak more money out of folks.
Oh no, you were actually serious. You think airlines are "soaking money" out of folks rather than the reality of tough competition driving the cost of flying down to the lowest point it has ever been.
Wow. Here's a thought: Engage the brain before attempting to have thoughts in the future.
In an ideal world... (Score:4, Insightful)
...you would weigh, measure, penalise for noise, smelliness, infection. We don't live in an ideal world...
Technology shoudl be simple (Score:2)
I'd think strain gauges or similar could weigh the plane when its loaded with passengers and cargo to help optimize flight operations if it makes a significant difference.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think so. You'd think that a modern commuter plane would be full of strain gauges to measure wing flex and landing gear stress and so on. But for aerospace applications, modern strain gauge technology is a lot worse than most people think.
Aren't people supposed to pay for externalities? (Score:2)
Or is this one of the hallowed exceptions?
Sure... (Score:2)
Sure. "Carbon Emissions". I bet that's what this is really about. Uh huh.
landing gear strain gauges? (Score:2)
Another disaster for airlines (Score:2)
If this business strategy worked, buffets would already be charging people based on their weight. The real question is, are airlines stupid enough to try it when other businesses know better?
Obviously. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes.
You get other things in adult/child sizes at different costs. If one weighs heavier then they should pay the surplus. Sometimes in life the smaller of the human (as in nature) does not thrive so well, due to being pushed to the back. So in theory, why should they pay as much?
imbeciles (Score:2)
People who demand fro airline industry and passengers to reduce their carbon footprint are brainless imbecile eco fanatic bullies
let's do the math (Score:2)
Typical low end adult weight is 50kg, typical high end adult weight is 200kg
Average weight in North America is 80.7 kg .
We are talking about maximum 120kg additional weight which is 0.03% of the total weight of plane.
Another way: 325 passengers by 80.7 = 26 tonnes. We are talking about variation of 0.5% of all load weight of the plane.
This is nothing but media perpetuated hatred of a group
Idiotic idea ungrounded in science (Score:2)
As anyone with common sense knows, a passenger plane weighs a lot, especially when full of fuel. The weight difference between even the skinniest and the largest passenger does not amount to even a rounding error when looking at their fraction of the overall weight of the plane itself, let alone the fuel.
What counts much more than your weight is the proportion of the plane you inhabit. Take a business class flight and approximately triple your share of the overall CO2 emissions in a fully laden flight. F
Why not just weigh the plane before takeoff? (Score:2)
Not a significant technical challenge (build sensors in to the landing gear or sensors on the taxi ways), not intrusive or discriminatory on passengers, and a more accurate reflection of the aircraft's weight and hence carbon footprint.
Just another way to siphon your private data (Score:3)
If you're worried about this data being made public, Fuscone says that the company plans to enable the passenger to retain direct control of their own data so that they can delete it once it has been "employed in the interests of fuel efficiency."
Just forget about this statement. We can't trust the airlines or airports to keep the data of our weights secure and private in the age when even financial institutions, social networks, and governments are reporting on a regular basis millions of logins and passwords stolen. Surely, the airlines have security standards that are above those institutions? On yeah, they say you will be "in charge" of your private data, just like every OTHER BUSINESS you have dealt with LAST 25 YEARS said. But who has the time to spend one hour every day dialing numbers, clicking, or writing letters to those companies asking please don't share my data?
Re: (Score:3)
Giving people grief
This isn't about giving people grief. This is about getting more accurate data to use for calculating aircraft performance parameters.
Re: (Score:2)
Or to put it another way, it's about outsourcing their own inconvenience to their paying customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about trying to shave a few bucks off the price of a budget airline ticket on a small, short haul flight.
It's not worth it, balanced against the hassle and discrimination that would result. It's already happened with the nude scanners at airports.
Re:The last form of discrimination (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what, we discriminate legitimately all the time with good reason. You need to be a certain height to get on a ride. You need to have functioning eyesight to drive a car, and yes once you're fat enough you will need to buy 2 airline seat because you physically don't fit anymore.
This isn't an argument. It's a fact of life.
What is an argument is your sheer stupidity in that you didn't read the article, don't understand what is being done, but for some reason decided not only to jump in with the SJW bullshit but also actively said you have just switched off your brain and won't consider any other view point.
The only truly sad thing here is that someone modded you up.
Re: (Score:2)
Discrimination is that an average-weight person (82kg) with his luggage (25kg) weighs less than a heavily overweight/obese passenger (120kg) sitting next to him (excluding luggage), yet would be the one forced to pay extra for luggage over 20kg limit.
Passenger is just a self-loading luggage for the airlines, weight concept is, sadly, technically correct.
Still a person is a person - one vote, one ticket, one seat - and introducing person weight concept for the ticket breaks this assumption.
Re: (Score:3)
Giving people grief because they don't fall into some fool's idea of what a normal weight should be is the last socially acceptable form of discrimination
No, it isn't, not by far.
Discriminating against someone for things he has no control over, such as skin colour or gender, that is socially not acceptable.
Weight doesn't fall into that category. Nobody is born 200% overweight. Your life choices made you fat. You may have excuses for those choices, circumstances, bla bla - but it is not in the same category as skin colour, gender or a dozen other things.
Being fat is a choice, just like smoking or being an asshole. It might be hard to quit once you've started,
Re: (Score:2)
Because any difference in passengers weight is minor compared to the overall plane+fuel. All they need top do to balance it for cruise is burn a bit more fuel from the "heavy" side of the plane.
A 737 MAX 8 weighs about 100,000 lbs and can carry about 45,000 lbs of fuel. That leaves about 35,000 lbs for crew, comestibles, passengers and luggage. If all of the passengers of a 200-seat configuration are packed light, they can weight about 160 lbs each. If there were all of the 180s were on one side and all
Re: in all serious (Score:3)
It's actually zero trim adjustment.
When fueling aircraft, there are balance limits for wing tanks ... whereas any tanks located near the fuselage are considered irrelevant. Lateral weight difference within the fuselage are unnoticeable.
Longitudinal balance within the fuselage is a much bigger deal. If you put all of your fatasses at the front and all of the skinny fucks at the back, that definitely will require some trimming. But thanks to the way modern aircraft are partitioned, your longitudinal balanc
Re: (Score:3)
so much for fat and jolly
Re: (Score:2)
Just go, fuck yourself.
I suggest the moderators get this to +5 informative. Says it all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Aircraft seats have been getting steadily smaller over time. The airline wants you to think that the guy next to you is the reason you don't have enough room, and not the fact that they are cheapskates.
Re: (Score:3)
Does the cab, bus, rental car or boat charge you extra for dragging all of your diving gear with you ? I doubt you walk from the airport to your dive spot.
The concept is the same, only the mode of transportation is different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They weigh baggage (Score:5, Interesting)
None of those weigh my luggage though. If my luggage weight matters, then surely my personal weight matters.
No. Your luggage weight matter for two reasons:
1. Standardised weights make estimates easier for calculating weight and balance.
2. Your bags have to be handled by humans, and heavier bags increase the chance of injury for baggage handlers.
Standardising at roughly 50 lbs per bag helps in both situations. The second reason is similar to why most manual-labour jobs specify "must be able to life up to 50 lbs".
The actual weight difference isn't all that significant for fuel consumption. It's going to be more expensive to fly an aircraft full of sumo wrestlers than a plane full of bikini models, but the difference in fuel cost between flying you and flying someone twice your weight is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5% or less of your ticket price.
I'm sure that airlines would love to charge fatasses more, but the extra complexity just isn't worth it. Passanger weights tend to balance out; it's much easier to estimate an average weight. You're not going to get a discount for being a skinny fucker any more than you're going to get a discount for carrying zero bags.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that airlines would love to charge fatasses more, but the extra complexity just isn't worth it. Passanger weights tend to balance out; it's much easier to estimate an average weight. You're not going to get a discount for being a skinny fucker any more than you're going to get a discount for carrying zero bags.
If you are really large, you'll have to buy a first class ticket so you can fit in the larger seats.
But we live in a world where some of the loudest crybullys will go nuts about "yet another case of fatshaming"
More importantly, if you live in a world where you consider weighing individuals on a plane as a way to cut carbon emissions, you've already lost the battle. Might as well just start culling people.
Re: They weigh baggage (Score:2)
Discount airlines are a whole different animal. They start with zero luggage as the default, but assume every passenger will have one. I don't think you really want to drive us to the point where every airline is a discount airline.
Re: (Score:2)
And ugly people should have to pay 2x because we're forced to look at them the whole time, and their extra on their ticket price should be deducted from us non ugly's price for being forced to be stuck in the plane the whole flight with them!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Loading plane?
Creating the load distribution paperwork?
If so, then you realize that your comment (and assumption) is full of BullShit!
Re: (Score:2)
You get a comfortable seat you can fit in with legroom for the price he's paying for a cramped seat that crushes him.
You also enjoy a lower cost of food, cheaper clothes and can pay less to fit out your house because you'll be fine with smaller furniture.
Maybe you should stop discriminating against people that aren't fortunate enough to share the physical advantages you enjoy, you arrogant selfish cunt.
Re: (Score:3)
Overweight bags has nothing to do with the plane or flight at all. It has to deal with the fact that bag handlers have a contractual weight limit they can lift. Any bag over this stated limit requires special accommodations, and THIS is what you're paying for.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems perfectly fair to me, if it costs them more to move me, I should have to pay more, rather than making other passengers help pay for me. Same goes for baggage, if I want to haul two big bags of rocks then it ought to cost me more than someone with one small suitcase of clothes.
It would seem that the only ones complaining about this are the fatties and the heavy packers.
(I'd also like to see more airlines forbid obese travelers from booking in cattle class where the seats are smaller, spilling over
Re: (Score:2)
It seems perfectly fair to me, if it costs them more to move me, I should have to pay more, rather than making other passengers help pay for me. Same goes for baggage, if I want to haul two big bags of rocks then it ought to cost me more than someone with one small suitcase of clothes.
It would seem that the only ones complaining about this are the fatties and the heavy packers.
Fat people can lose weight. You v1, will always be an asshole. You should have to fly in the toilet in the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Fat people can lose weight. You v1, will always be an asshole.
Nah, I've seen far more assholes mellow with age, than lard-asses lose substantial weight and keep it off.
Re: (Score:2)
The two most eloquently put comments on Slashdot.org all day.
I am well and truly glad we can still have this time with each other.
Also, do either of you have newsletters?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize it's an English word, right? Try learning some of the language.
Okay, I'm done poking the trolls for tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
The technology exists to do that in a passive way: you just put strain gauges on the landing gear structure. It's the most accurate way to get a weight & balance for the airplane, but it won't help if you want to charge passengers by the pound.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, you're aware a strain gauge weighs less than a gram, right? With the wiring required to connect it to the airplane's computer, it's still no more than a rounding error.
Matters on a 4-seater (only). Million pound 747 (Score:2)
On a plane with four seats, it matters whether you put the big guy in the back or the front. Left or right not as much, but front to back matters.
On a plane with 400 passengers, you're going to have some lighter people on the right and some heavier on the right. Some lighter on the left and some heavier on the left. Just because you have 200 people on each side, you're going to have a mix on each side.
You're also talking about a 280,000 lb plane. A couple hundred pounds won't matter. If the plane is only
Re: (Score:2)
Samoa Air [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And that is what this is really about.
How do you calculate fuel usage? Gee, by measuring fuel used. You don't bother to try to predict fuel use before the tripe because...
0. Most flights are full. The variance is most likely not significant. Winds have more impact than anomalous passenger weight variances. Well, I'd bet a small cup of coffee on it.
1. You put enough fuel on for the flight(s) AND contingencies. It's not so much about how much fuel to load. That difference is minimal, and while dragging excess
Re: (Score:2)
As far as total takeoff weight, I would be surprised if planes dont already have weight sensors at the landing gear to detect when/if a plane is too overweight for flight. and to help with calculating the amount of fuel that needs to be loaded in the plane.
Then prepared to be surprised. To this day, they don't even measure the strength of the thump when the nose wheel hits the ground on landing. It's still up to the pilot to report it. (Which means more paperwork so they often don't.)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you'll pay the same rate and other people will pay more. You are literally asking for giant companies to screw other people because you think it's "fairer", but they're laughing to the bank.