http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/travel...rticle_sidebar
This would never be practical for major airlines.





http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/travel...rticle_sidebar
This would never be practical for major airlines.



When I travelled this winter in South East Asia, I was asked to step on a scale in a tiny airport in the PhilippinesThey never said what it was for, simply wrote the number down and thanked me, lol. I do see the point though, bigger passengers take up more space and weight. Plus it's not fun to sit next to a huge person, especially on a long haul flight.
"Unless it's mad, passionate, extraordinary love, it's a waste of your time. There are too many mediocre things in life. Love shouldn't be one of them." - Dream for an Insomniac





Makes perfect sense. I've only been on an airplane twice and no large passengers but take the bus and train often when working downtown and have had to sit by obese passengers often. It is not fun smashed in a seat because a large person (and some of them are huge)is taking most of my seat along with theirs.





I can see the reasoning for Samoa. As a race Samoans are some physically big people. The Men 6 and 7 feet tall with heavy muscles, 300+ and fit isn't uncommon.
When I was an MP at Ft. Lewis I apprehended a Samoan for drunk driving. He had crashed his van into a tree leaving a club on post on a saturday night. Did I mention Samoans are some bad ass mofos? Yeah hits a tree at 35 MPH with no seat belt. He is standing by the van waiting for us. He knocked the windshield out of the frame with his face suffering minor cuts and a broken nose. He had two sore (not sprained) wrists from bracing himself against the steering wheel. The steering wheel was collapsed (supposed to in a crash), the three and nine positions were bent all the way to the column.





Possibly so the pilot could do his weight and balance calculations.





That and fuel is measured in pounds not gallons / liters by pilots. Your cargo 500 lbs over weight? That means you have to remove 500lbs of fuel to take off.
How far can you get per hundredweight of fuel?
Unlike an Air Force cargo plane, which can take off overweight, then top off tanks with an inflight refueling, the civvie air goes with what they got.
Always wondered why inflight refuel wasn't included, except as a weight saving measure.
Last edited by ArmySGT.; 04-04-2013 at 03:05 AM.





Sargey's so smart
MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP
-Eartha Kitt





arguably, this is one more slide down the slippery slope that started with smokers.




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
t666 On a plane of Samoa Airlines size, having 2 or even 1 passenger significantly over standard weight could make a difference in whether the plane is overweight or not. (< 19 passengers). But on Southwest Airlines B737 and larger aircraft, things do average out very closely to standard weights (exceptions being military or sports team charters, but even those non-standard groups have adjusted standard weights).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A few points, sarge: 1) Some aircraft have fuel measured in kilograms
2) Remove 500 lbs fuel??? Not if the pilot thinks that would be inadequate fuel supply
3) Do you have any idea how much additional $$/human resources it costs to put one tanker aircraft airborne, plus the training costs to
qualify crews for air-air refueling ? Not to mention if FAA or public would buy off on airliners routinely refueling with paying passengers
on board ?
Mel Pay your fair share for the weight of your huge moneymaker$$ !!!![]()
Last edited by minnow; 04-04-2013 at 08:19 AM. Reason: addendum
I'm right 96% of the time.I don't sweat
the other 5% .......................





Aside from the fact it would not be possible because airliners are not made to be refueled in flight.









^^^^^^******************************************** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which sarge already mentioned in his post. I just mentioned a FEW of the many reasons besides weight saving measure why civilian airliners aren't built with inflight refueling capability. Clincher being that the folks who control airline purse strings don't want it- end of story.
I'm right 96% of the time.I don't sweat
the other 5% .......................





Southwest Airlines charges very obese people for two seats.










Even when purchasing online, if the flight is being made in a smaller plane, for example the Cessna 402, they will weigh you and your bags for wgt/balance purposes. Passenger/bag allowances are sometimes adjusted based on minimum fuel requirements. When I worked with Gulfstream/Cape Air we would sometimes have to tell a passenger, essentially, sry dude but we have a full flight & you're too big to go, & get them on the nxt available flt w/ their bags. For the larger planes, bags over 50lbs were labelled as such & counted twice.










slippery slope ???
yes indeed ... following in the footsteps of stigmatizing smokers / charging higher prices and fees ...
(snip)"Via WSJ,
Are you a man with a waist measuring 40 inches or more? If you want to work at Michelin North America Inc., that spare tire could cost you.
Employees at the tire maker who have high blood pressure or certain size waistlines may have to pay as much as $1,000 more for health-care coverage starting next year.
As they fight rising health-care costs and poor results from voluntary wellness programs, companies across America are penalizing workers for a range of conditions, including high blood pressure and thick waistlines. They are also demanding that employees share personal-health information, such as body-mass index, weight and blood-sugar level, or face higher premiums or deductibles.
Corporate leaders say they can't lower health-care costs without changing workers' habits, and they cite the findings of behavioral economists showing that people respond more effectively to potential losses, such as penalties, than expected gains, such as rewards. With corporate spending on health care expected to reach an average of $12,136 per employee this year, according to a study by the consulting firm Towers Watson, penalties may soon be the new norm.
Employee-rights advocates say the penalties are akin to "legal discrimination." While companies are calling them wellness incentives, the penalties are essentially salary cuts by a different name, says Lew Maltby, president of Princeton, N.J.-based National Workrights Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group for employee rights in the workplace. "No one ever calls a bad thing what it really is," he says. "It means millions of people are getting their pay cut for no legitimate reason."
Companies may say they have tried softer approaches, but many haven't exhausted their options, ...
Six in 10 employers say they plan to impose penalties in the next few years on employees who don't take action to improve their health, according to a recent study of 800 mid- to large-size firms by human-resources consultancy Aon Hewitt. A separate study by the National Business Group on Health and Towers Watson found that the share of employers who plan to impose penalties is likely to double to 36% in 2014."(snip)
(snip)Typically, 20% of a company's workforce drives 80% of health-care costs, according to Cigna's Mr. Smith, and roughly 70% of health-care costs are related to chronic conditions brought on by lifestyle choices, such as overeating or sedentary behavior. But when employers target those conditions, employees themselves may feel targeted, especially when it comes to their weight. While companies can't say it outright, many of their measures—such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure—are proxies for obesity.
A 2011 Gallup survey estimated obese or overweight full-time U.S. workers miss an additional 450 million days of work each year, compared with healthy workers, resulting in more than $153 billion in lost productivity."(snip)
Bookmarks