How did this little gem get overlooked?
(35 posts) (13 voices)
You mean they didn't ask your permission to use your photo Squudge?
don't make me come over there...
I'm all for it, but it should be a combined maximum weight: passenger plus luggage.
Everyone should be allocated a combined weight allowance, meaning that everyone pays the same price, but the heavier passengers are allowed less luggage.
And they should be all be seated together, rather than squeezing a skinny person in between two heavier passengers or squishing them against the window.
ill thought-through, Jeni.
If you sat them all together you'd have the air hostesses spending ages rifling through the meals, unwrapping the bread roll packs for the mini pats of butter to grease the fatties up and wedge them in together.
As a minor point,if they were all on one side you might find yourself setting off for Lanzarote and inexplicably side-slipping into a landing in Helsinki.
@Squudge...well, if you're gonna come, better come now...as we've just established, it could cost you a fortune in the future. And according to Jeni, you'll only be able to pack a toothbrush and a bikini, and no-one wants to see that...
True story - Chicago to San Antonio (horrid long flight on a tiddly twin prop - when they still had waffer-thin seats 6 across abot 8 years ago). The pilot came on the intercom and announced that we all had to comply with the stewardess instructions in being re-seated to 'balance the aircraft'. Otherwise he wasn't going to taxi onto the runway.
Actually I am all for Jenni's suggestion, and have been saying so for years. If you did the 'weighbridge' system including luggage, it is fairer, and sort of takes the sting out of saying "You is FAT, fat fatty fatfat".
...and you can claim your bags are full of heavy stuff.
Some of the smaller aircraft used for short hop flights between islands weigh passenger and baggage together.
Weight is an important issue when fuel load is calculated, so they have to get it right.
And Squudge, I used to frequently to LAX to SB in a twin-prop puddle-jumper and it was not uncommon to see enormously fat passengers waddle on with their McDonalds bags in their hands.
And it's not the first time I've seen the Captain have to come into the cabin to tell some big passenger they'd have to either move seats or get off as the weight was incorrectly balanced.
Id, it'd make a change from my luggage ending up elsewhere I suppose.
on luggage, Chicago is actually a verb.
To have one's luggage 'Chicagoed'.
Oddly enough, it once ended up in Houston when it should have been in Chicago, and it traveled twice without us being on the same 'plane, which I believe is in contravention of FAA rules.
How about having an airline seat up a on a pedestal at the Check-in similar to Ryan Air's bag squeezer? If you didn't fit you'd then get charged.
You could then have a camera focused on it for plasma screens across the whole airport to provide some entertainment for bored travellers, as people Cinderellared themselves into it.
I think this would be a real incentive to join your local Military Fitness Class.
I'm an international helium balloon salesman, so it would be great if they did link ticket price to weight of person + luggage, as I often travel with up to 200 helium balloons making my net weight just a few kilos.
It could also boost last-minute sales of bunches of helium balloons at airports as passengers seek to reduce their weight.
My company "The Light Stuff", is also the only firm in the world which manufacturers balsa-wood suitcases, polystyrene clothes, etc.
I'd like 50,000 pounds for 20% of the company.
Interestingly, the airport code for Yosemite International is FAT - must be some lardies who are upset to see that on their tickets and luggage labels.
I flew from Michigan some years back and had a window seat. When the passenger for the seat next to me turned up, he was a seriously obese guy who asked if I wouldn't mind folding my armrest. Knowing that if I agreed I would be spending the next eight hours jammed up against the window struggling for breath and losing circulation to internal (and possibly external) organs I naturally refused. This meant he couldn't fit into his seat and the cabin crew had to find him somewhere else. Phew! Close escape.
Hang on!! So a morbidly obese woman is told by Virgin that she could have two seats for the price of one because she wouldn't fit into on seat?!
Right, I'm buying a fat-suit and getting me more space on flights!
The other weird thing about that story is that her husband was on the same flight but had BOOKED A SEAT IN A DIFFERENT ROW! Obviously he wasn't prepared to be squashed by his Mrs Wife, but was happy for other passengers to be.
That is brilliant. She clearly milked it for all she was worth- insisted on being taken to hospital and was given a couple of aspirin- but a '£15basket of tinned goods' offerred as recompense is superb.
Perhaps Madam would accept this lavish basket comprising a 6 pack of Heinz beans, a large tin of Del Monte sliced pineapple, four tins of Naplolina chopped tomatoes, a couple of own-brand tinned peaches and a large Glenryk pilchards as ample recompense for your travails?
I thoroughly admire her sharpness of mind.
Wish I'd thought to sue Emirates after being kicked in the head by someone else's brat leaning on seat backs and swinging his legs.
The cabin crew wouldn't even ask the little shit to sit down after he kicked me and two other passengers.
*Dashes off to check books on period of limitation on personal injury claims*
Been thinking about this, and eventually realised the thing to do is to put all the lardies towards the rear of the aircraft. There are several advantages to this (apart from the obvious one of not spilling over into the seat of someone of a more normal size) :-
Shorter take-offs - Yes really, the counterweight effect of the fatties at the back must mean it's easier to get the nose up in the air. Once the nose is up the plane will begin to climb. Win!
Easier landings - Two things here. First, the extra weight at the back helps the flight crew get the aircraft into a 'nose-up' attitude for landing. Secondly, when the plane begins its descent it needs to come down - surely extra weight can only help. Win!
Of course an unintended side effect of this is that the aircraft will tend to fly in a 'nose-up' attitude all the time meaning that the hostess trolleys will tend to roll to the rear of the cabin which is, of course, where they're most needed - er I mean wanted. Again a win!
So instead of charging morbidly obese passengers more, just put anyone who can't squeeze through the metal-detector arch without turning sideways as far from the pointy end as possible.
I thank you.
Technical correction: with aeroplanes the pointy end is at the back.
For reasons only undestood by experts in fluid mechanics, boats are sharp at the front and blunt at the back wheras aeroplanes are built the other way round. I think it must be something to do with elfinsafety as they push them through the factory.
Half of Britons back the fat-tax on flights?
Half of me does too. It's the second half that objects.
Also, fatties need to be distributed evenly around the plane for good balance. Would be no good sticking them all at the back, the tail would sag during flight, and pilots don't like that, it looks ugly.
Since stopping smoking 12 months ago (See archive) I've been going to the gym. I have got quite a lot bigger though - combination of fat (drinking too much) and muscle (working out too much). I had to buy an XXL top as the XL was tight accross the shoulders. So do I pay fatty tax or do I point out that I did 240 press-ups last night and stare at them menacingly?
I think that if you have more rolls of fat than a suet factory you should be charged on the basis of how much over the 'healthy' weight for your height and build you are.
People who are technically under-weight for height/build should get a discount.
We can just ban the morbidly obese from traveling, because frankly, who wants to look at a bloater in swimwear?
And what about us "big bones" chaps?
I wouldn't call the front row of the Welsh Rugby team unhealthy but I bet they are all a good few stone over the normal "healthy" weight for their height. Mind you I wouldn't want to sit next to them either. <just noted you said height AND build so scratch that>
If you charged on BMI or liver abnormality you could health screen everyone as they travelled. Win win. Security body-searches could include a prostate examination.
Xray machines could do a scan. Fly BMI Baby.
It doesn't matter if you have a genuine reason to be heavy or not, the point is that people who are heavy add more to the weight of a plane than those of a lighter persuasion.
So weight is the right way to charge. And if you don't like it, amputate a lesser-used limb, take a HUGE dump at the airport just before boarding, or possibly just inhale a large amount of helium before they weigh you.
I inhaled helium at checkout, and the airline paid me...
The younger master 4fun arrived at Heathrow after several months in Zimbabwe, wearing three coats and with all the family Christmas presents stuffed in the pockets. Looked like the Michelin man but saved excess baggage fees.
I reckon total weight fairest. Starting in 3 months. After the diet has kicked in.
Damn the lead pins I had put in my knee.
I have a flight tomorrow, and won't do what I did last year at Dallas airport - that bloody 'Bond' themed Virgin ad was all the rage so I did a sashay in the body scanner. The TSA men with guns were really grumpy about it.
You must log in to post.