November 05, 2004

• Higher prices for kerosene and carrier insurance are the main causes. Fatties are not so much to blame as the fact that, all else the same (including US's inefficient energy practices), China keeps using more of the world's oil supply, driving up prices. Anyway, I shed few tears over a subsidized industry. Let them feel the same pains of capitalism that the rest of us working folk have to deal with.
• And is that why they've cut in-flight meals down to anorexic sizes, to make us all trimmer and easier to load back into steerage or steerage-plus (whoops, I meant "first class")?
• Is it very wrong to like in-flight meals?
• I decided to work this out on paper. The only flight manual I have handy is a C-5 cargo jet manual, which is in the same class as a 747. 300 passengers weighing 200 lbs instead of 180 lbs is 6000 extra pounds. Aircraft weight is now 566,000 lbs instead of 560,000 lbs at 29,000 ft / Mach 0.7 specific range is thus 20.71 instead of 20.82 miles per 1Klb of fuel. This is a fuel burn difference of 0.5%. At a max fuel load of 300,000 lbs (45000 gal) at $1.58/gal this is $71,100. So we're talking about a difference on the order of $350 for a widebody at max range. Unless someone knows something more about aviation and can crank out better numbers I have to call BS on the industry for niggling and whining.
• If this were the case, wouldn't market forces dictate trying to create more efficient fuel consumption and/or larger seats?
• or you could just point out that oversized folks are still fair game, right up there with gay marriage, as bogeymen and root of all evil...
• You sick fucks tm
• One other dirty calculation based on this estimate this estimate for a 767. 200 pax contributes about 36,000 lbs, 10% of the aircraft's weight. So really 3.7 gallons of fuel is expended for each 180 lbs. An extra 123 gallons would be consumed to propel 6,000 lbs of additional obesity. This is $227, which would raise the airfare $1.13 per passenger.
• Oops, 200 pax * 20 lbs overweight = 4000 lbs, so I correct my figures to 82 gallons = $151. Sorry, I'm done now!
• rolypolyman wins. I call red herring. I don't see the people who climb onto the Southwest or JetBlue flights looking any more svelte or chiseled than the other carriers. So if people are weighing 10 pounds (on average) more than we did 20 years ago, how is it that JetBlue isn't feeling the drag? Or are they and Southwest finding that $1.13 per passenger somewhere else in their operating budget? Perhaps in realized efficiencies over the big names?
• The only flight manual I have handy is a C-5 cargo jet manual isn't roly just the coolest?
• I got put next to a grossly obese woman on a long flight once. She was embarrased as hell as she struggled to stay within the confines of her seat. I had the aisle seat, so I could kinda drift over there as needed, but it sure got old after a couple hours. Sorry to say, it really would've made more sense to charge her for two seats. She could've relaxed, too.
• Being a relatively large guy (I can fit in an airline seat, but if I get any bigger, I'd feel sorry for anyone sitting next to me), having the two seats doesn't do any good. The seat belt's still the same size, and it's not really possible to sit in both seats.
• That's why I only fly Jumbo Jet.
• Before the rest of the "eww" comments come in, a moment of perspective. I won't take a seat on a bus if it means sitting next to another person, because I know how revolted they are. This usually means standing up for >50% of the commute. For this exact reason, and no others. My point? Not all of us are stupid, rude assholes who are trying to make your life miserable. If it ever comes up, I'll try not to fly. okay? okay. That said, the Jumbo Jet comment was funny in a way that made me want to kill myself. But still funny.
• ...standing up in any part of the bus that isn't in the way of you vaunted and never-rude-ever normal people, that is, thank you very much.
• Thanks, Richer.
• isn't roly just the coolest? Not really... I just like aviation, I'm a little overweight, and I have a calculator. What better thread for me.
• The sad thing is that I was stopped in my last trip out because my backpack weighed 9.5kg instead of the maximum allowed 7kg. It's one of the few times in life when I wished my eyes could shoot laser beams.
• I am not in favor of of the airline bailouts, subsidies etc. and am confident passenger obesity is not what is causing the airlines problems (disclaimer: found in my handle). That said, I would point out that even using rolypolys low estimate of ~$150 extra per segment, with ~4000 domestic flights/day and 365 days a year, this equals $219 million a year in increased fuel costs, which is at least in close agreement with the figure quoted in the article.
• It's one of the few times in life when I wished my eyes could shoot laser beams. Alternatives are being worked on as we speak.
• I am not in favor of of the airline bailouts, subsidies etc. and am confident passenger obesity is not what is causing the airlines problems (disclaimer: found in my handle). That said, I would point out that even using rolypolys low estimate of ~$150 extra per segment, with ~4000 domestic flights/day and 365 days a year, this equals $219 million a year in increased fuel costs, which is at least in close agreement with the figure quoted in the article.
• Today, baggage sizers. Tomorrow, Air Procrustes.
• Maybe North American carriers are run by poor businessmen. There's a certain national carrier that's been in crisis for several years. In that time I have heard several discussions with airline industry economists on what should be done. Now, I'm definitely one to take what economists say with a grain of salt, but their argument seems well founded in this case. Every time they've said the same thing - look at Europe. Apparently the European airline industry is fairly healthy because it's divide into two logical segments. Low cost, and high service. You can fly Lufthansa, get all the amenities, first class service, but you'll pay the appropriate price with a reasonable profit margin. Or you can fly discount, on innumerable budget airlines, which offer nothing but a seat no different from the rest in the plane, and charges the bare minimum. Neither segment tries to compete with the other. Meanwhile, the national carrier in question here in N.America insists on trying to compete on price with discount startups, and offer the option of first class service at the same time, on unprofitable routes. They actively refuse to evolve to the new market conditions. The discount carrier competitors struggle because they sometimes still attempt to compete on service with the national carrier. The days of limited competition and captive passengers are past. An airline cannot be all things to all flyers. Pick the market segment where you can make money and serve it. Meanwhile, passengers will have to adjust to the fact that they get what they pay for.
• Must go to sleep soon. But, I know a few people in the airline industry, so I have a few things to say about this. First of all, this $219 million a year is pocket change compared to the impact of rising fuel prices and the general poor performance of U.S. airline companies. You will find companies losing double, triple this amount per quarter. If an airline is blaming its losses on fat people that's because it is trying to stave off bankruptcy for another month and a half. Primary causes for airline troubles are, in order, fuel prices, poor organization, and pilots' unions. Of these, the first is going nowhere but up and the third isn't going much of anywhere at all. Number two is why Southwest is outperforming the other airlines. Nal might be being coy about which major national airline he's talking about but I can tell you it's all of them; the reason "the national carrier in question here in N.America insists on trying to compete on price with discount startups" is because the national carriers have competed with each other by price-gouging for... well, at least as long ago as when Braniff went under, I'm sure longer. It's what the big ones do, they're trying to bleed each other, and Nal's right, they refuse to adapt to current market conditions. In any case, yeah, fat passengers = small potatoes.
• I suspect some of this may be a pre-emptive strike against demands that airlines allocate seating per person, since there seem to be ongoing rumblings in the States that it's unfair to expect people who use two seats to pay for two tickets. (And I would expect changes seating density would drive profitability far more than passenger weight; of course, density has mostly gone up, not down, since I started flying, and the US carriers are the most cramped of any airline I've flown).
• El Hombre: I think it makes me powerfully lame to get/laugh at that, but I don't care. Nice work.
• Oh, wurwilf, sweetie! That absolutely sucks. I'm sorry you feel so pressured to stay standing or to avoid mass transit. Email me sometime. jeanettev (at) gmail (dot) com. Us fat girls gotta stick together, or something like that. All that said, if Jumbo Jet ever gets made and they want a cute size 20 20 year old stewardess, I'm SO THERE.
• fuyugare - was that carry on? That's terrible. I've been lucky so far - my carry on has never been weighed. Very lucky - I routinely hide extra weight in my carry-on. My last flight out of London, I don't know how much weight it was, but my entire school sized knapsack was stuffed with paper and books and every heavy thing I had - anywhere from 10 to 20 kg. The trick is to smile despite the pain in my back, and walk with a spring in my step I don't really have. I wonder how much I cost the airlines in fuel?
• Recent government statistics show the average body mass index (BMI), a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity, has crossed into overweight territory. Sort of OT here, but presumably intelligent government officials need to stop abusing BMI this way. Like, say, the price-earning ratio, BMI doesn't mean much by itself.
• Anyone large enough to require two seats and who travels regularly could spend a little extra for a good travel-miles scheme - the one we have gives you a chance, when you book, to get an empty seat beside you so you can spread out. That's if the flight isn't fully booked, obviously, and admittedly they often are these days. We do, however, travel a lot (or did, pre-child) and rack up a buttload of miles on planes.
• I would not put the blame fully on
• I don't understand the airplane industry at all. I mean, if McDonalds is doing poorly, they close stores. Why don't the airlines close airports? As airlines don
• dang it wrong thread
• But still, thom, it's interesting to know. Who does own the airports?