Ex-chief Economist of Qantas calls for "fat tax" on airlines

[Riceball]

https://www.perthnow.com.au/business/media-marketing/airlines-put-the-skids-on-fat-passenger-tax/story-e6frg2rc-1226242838622

Crux of the story is that this economist has suggested airlines begin charging passengers by weight; so if you are above a certain threshold you pay more and under a certain threshold you pay less. Naturally, the media has latched onto the "pay more" side of the equation and dubbed it a fat tax for airlines. Its actually making evening news headlines over here.

My view? Won't happen. Airline companies aren't that stupid. But that's besides the point.

My secondary view? If we are going to start going full neoclassical, why don't we start charging the mentally challenged more for their education? Why don't we charge the elderly greater congestion charges for driving below the speed limit? While you can't argue that, on average, a greater weight on an aircraft leads to greater fuel costs, I think it opens up a rotund can of worms.

Upon second thought (well, third), the examples I have cited are both (arguably) public sector issues, while the airline company is private - damn.

[Rathma]

Lol, imagine how awkward it would be if you had to weigh passengers.

[lordxizor]

I've always thought that it made sense to put you on a scale with all of your luggage and the total weight had to be under a certain point. If it's above you have to pay more. Why shouldn't a 100 pound woman be able to check two bags for a total weight of 180 pounds when I weigh 200 pounds all by myself? Granted there's some work involved with putting the bags on the plane versus me just walking on, but weight has a lot to do with the cost of a flight.

[El Barto]

The problem I see with it is that you're now creating a scenario where women pay about 40% less than men,  and that (I'm very sorry) will never fly.  As it is,  they use a formula to calculate average weight and base their costs on that.  Seems reasonable enough.  The fat fucks are already included in that formula. 

What would make sense is to add a couple of bigger, wider seats in the back for the fat fucks,  and then charge them 50% more for using them.  Not so much for take off weight of the aircraft, but for the amount of cabin space they're taking up.

[Cool Chris]

Barto is right on one point: They use average weight calculations. WA state ferries are changing their capacity figures due to an increase of average passenger weight from 160 to 185 lbs.

https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017066357_ferryweight22.html

Didn't the airlines already complain about overall increased costs due to higher passenger weights? Regardless, no one pays the same price for airline tickets anyway...

Where he is wrong is his assumption women would pay more under such changes. If they included baggage weight, it would all balance out. Have you ever traveled with a woman before? My wife packs like she is touring with Liza Minelli.

[El Barto]

Where he is wrong is his assumption women would pay more under such changes. If they included baggage weight, it would all balance out. Have you ever traveled with a woman before? My wife packs like she is touring with Liza Minelli.

I assume you meant less,  in which case your point is valid.  All that excess baggage that women carry around would smooth things out,  but I doubt the airlines would go for it.  They're already charging everybody per bag, and making out like bandits in the process.  I doubt they'd want to go the per/lb route and lose the flat fee.