Skip to main content

Charging the Fat more for Flights?

Samoa Air Boss defends charging passengers by weight

The head of Samoa Air has defended the airline's decision to start charging passengers according to their weight.
Chris Langton told Australia's ABC Radio that it was "the fairest way of travelling".
Rather than pay for a seat, passengers pay a fixed price per kilogram, which varies depending on the route length.
- bbc

(following comments from BBC Facebook)

ed: Logical yes. But does that translate to lesser-than-usual cost for the leaner ones. If not, this move just serves to divide the proles and profit from those whom are more 'endowed' amongst them.

Ron Moger: Excellent news! Why should I have the same luggage allowance as someone 25kg more than me?

Barry Williams: Why is charging people who are overweight on something where space and weight are at a premium discrimination? Stop all this PC nonsense, if you are fat you take up more room and add more weight to the aircraft. The weight of passengers is calculated using average weights. It doesn't take too many obese passengers to "tip the scales". Weight = fuel used.

Ed: Why are we arguing on the weight=fuel point? It's not like the airlines aren't making tons of money by cramming people in small spaces like cattle on a train. They just want to increase their profits in this case, that's all.

Jane Masterman: when did society get so cruel?

Ed: Logical 'progress' of capitalism. Mutual alienation, that's all. People are so used to it that many are quite beyond conceptualising an alternative self.

I think the possibility that many Samoans are overweight might have something to do with charging passengers according to their weight.  A profit-making strategy that relies on in-fighting between the lean and large for it's successful implementation.



  1. If this does not translate to lesser-than-usual cost for the leaner ones, then it's just a scheme to get people to pay more...


Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…