If airlines really want to cut costs and be fair, they should start charging people based on body weight -- not just on how much luggage they’re toting. - Inspired by Dana Kozlov, cbs2chicago.com

With United, US Air, and American charging $15 for the first bag. Two bags round trip now cost $80. Jet Blue charges for headphone usage, or you have to bring your own. On most flights, you already have to pay for food and US Air will charge for soft drinks. What's next? One critic suggests it will be water. (http://tlv2jfk.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/luggage-charge-on-american-unite...) Have we come to expect too much from our airlines? Some critics suggest we have, and varying suggestions are being debated, such as having passengers get on the scale before getting on a flight. (http://newsblaze.com/story/20080608180301reye.nb/topstory.html) Dana Kozlov's original reporting on the weight tax over at cbs2chicago.com (http://cbs2chicago.com/consumer/airline.weight.fee.2.741830.html) Isn't the amount of fuel used relative to the weight on board? Sounds like a novel idea then.

There are so many other factors other than body weight involved, though. A 200 lb. man on a 747 all by himself is going to have a much different effect on fuel consumption than 200 200 lb. men on a 747 with a ton of luggage would. It's not directly proportional. For an airline to determine an individual's effect on a plane's fuel consumption, they would need to have access to a ton of information that wouldn't be available until the flight is ready for takeoff, and that information would be susceptible to a variety of factors while in flight. Amount of fuel used is relative to weight - but we're talking total passenger weight, total crew weight, total luggage weight, fuel weight, refreshment cart weight, refreshment weight, any additional weight collected due to lavatory usage. And keep in mind that several of the weight factors on a plane are going to change while in flight (like fuel.) Then there are weather/environmental factors like head winds and tail winds and turbulence that will effect a plane's fuel consumption. Fuel consumption will differ if the plane deviates from its optimal flight path - and are passengers responsible for their increased effect on fuel consumption if the flight takes longer than expected due to weather conditions or a pilot who can't keep an optimal course? The amount of on-board electronics like lights and airvents and tv's that passengers use throughout the flight will probably effect fuel consumption, too, given that they need energy to operate. There's no way an airline would be able to calculate the true cost of an individual flying until AFTER the flight is finished. I think that an airline would need technology that would be able to assess ALL of these, and whatever other factors in order to fairly charge passengers based on weight. If it could really be broken down, then it sounds fair. But something like - hey we're gonna charge $1 per pound - doesn't. What would make some sense is to be charged a flat flight rate and then be served with a broken-down bill at the end of the flight, showing a calculation of those figures that would explain what resources you were responsible for using and thus why you were being charged X amount.

It doesn't seem fair that someone who weighs 100 lbs with luggage being over by a mere 10 lbs must pay the penalty while another person who weighs 300 lbs does not when his/her weight has a greater affect on the fuel. If the amount of fuel is in fact relative to weight on board, it seems perfectly logical. Unfortunately, our pc society would most likely deem this discrimination and/or it may become a battle of the overweight vs. the non-overweight. Additionally, have you ever been on a four-hour flight with a large person bulging over into your seat? That's another story.

That would never happen, but it's not a bad idea.

This one falls into the category, 'just because you can or could do something, does not mean that you should.' I agree with Mike that until the plan is filled and has arrived, you cannot know with any accuracy the 'weight surcharge' amount for a passenger. And yes Lynn, we have some to expect too much from airlines. Being in the airline business have never been a cakewalk despite all of our romantic notions about it over the years. And the price of petroleum products (not just jet fuel, but lubricants and ingredients for plastics and fabrics used to construct and aircraft) has made importance of everything associated with the business more accute in terms of how airlines go to market, operate, and treat the flying public.

I hear ideas like this and I can't help but wonder what ever happened to the notion of customer service. Hell, why stop at weight, why not charge them based on attractiveness and intelligence as well. Who wants to sit next to an unattractive stranger who has nothing to offer in the way of airline chatter regardless of whether they are "bulging" into your seat...Seriously though, this is a good idea but "charging" your customers based on a factor such as weight would just be another of the many ways in which our society stigmatizes body image. Instead, why not offer incentives for living a healthy lifestyle similar to the way some health insurance companies will offer discounts for customers who can prove they go to the gym. We have to keep in mind that some people simply just weigh more for various reasons (height, health issues, etc.) People should not be penalized for their weight, however; it wouldn't hurt for them to be rewarded for their effort. Customer service, folks. Airlines can use all the help they can get in that department.

The Philadelphia Inquirer actually created a fake website/promotion around this idea. http://flyderrie-air.com/. The promotion was based around pay what you weigh. In the end, the promotion was used to show the branding effect of their paper and website. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20080607_Spoof_ads_run_in_Philly...

All of the attempts to tie baggage charges and the big idea of weight charges directly to fuel consumption are a bit off the mark. They are simply additional profit centers. Considering that a 747 weighs close to 400,000 lbs empty and has a maximum take-off weight of over 850,000 lbs, how much would it cost to fly the plane with no passengers and how much effect does that checked bag or a few pounds of body weight effect fuel economy. Being fair, as this big idea suggests, I imagine the cost differential between two people - one weighing 100lbs and another 300, would be close to nothing, and certainly not work the time, energy, aggravation and loss of customers that would result from making passengers step up on the scales at check-in. Considering that the airlines are selling space on a flight(and some have reduced leg room to fit more seats), maybe it would be fair to charge based on passenger height.

Okay guys, you're a bit behind...I blogged about this on June 6th. Catch-up! I thought this mag/site was called FastCompany ;-) While I think that everyone should be held responsible for their own carbon footprint I can envision the uproar on attempting to charge people based upon weight.

That is an interesting idea in terms of science / engineering. Weight is directly related to fuel usage. Weight is a key constraint in designing each and every part of an aircraft. There is another side to this seating and weight issue. Have you been to a furniture store lately? All chairs are bigger, stronger and look like built by Vikings. I bought some new chairs for my old dining table. They don't fit ! This means dining tables have to be very large also. My suggestion is to design / install aircraft seats based on general percentile body shape variations. That is, small people get smaller seats with less clerance compared to heavier or taller people. I have a feeling that we can accomodate more people this way.

Hold on a second, who ever said that the original theory behind charging for luggage weight had anything to do with fuel? Airlines charge fees for extra and overweight luggage because they need to pay people to load and unload your crap on and off the damn plane! Weighty luggage increases the risk of work related injuries the airline would be liable for. Just because the airlines have decided to offset fuel costs NOW by raising luggage fees does not mean that being a pound over the limit means the plane needs to use more fuel to get off the ground. It was just the most convenient solution: if they raise ticket prices people will stop flying altogether.

OMG! I cannot believe we are discussing this idea here. It seems that airlines are making us a favor in providing air transportation services. Thank you USAir, thanks Jet Blue. C'mon. The assumption that we are just "courier packages" and customer service is left behind really scares me. Instead of investing resources and time in how to "take benefits out" in order to reduce costs by affecting end-users but benefiting airlines, they should be working in ways to optimize and update their processes with ideas like: online-only booking and reservation systems, etc. What's next? "If you are smelly, you will need to pay a surcharge of $$$" Nice, exactly what we need now, more discrimination and segregation.

Airline companies are in a bad place along with everyone else with the cost of fuel. Many companies will have higher costs associated with doing business. We have become comfortable with the many choices we have had with the number of available flights. While airlines must make a profit like any other business the actions taken to charge new fees to their customers will cause customer satisfaction to take a nosedive. Changes can always be made to reduce cost without impacting customer satisfaction.

It would have so many legality problems, specifically with morbidly obese / disabled persons. I agree with the poster that the amount of fuel could actually be negligible, but its a great lightening rod for them to raise more prices. I'd like to see our passenger train systems come back online, as well as be expanded. Our country is so spread out of course, we cannot compare the systems to Europe, but if you could take a train to CA from NV saving $200 bucks, while losing four or so hours of time...it would be a nice option.

Pretty dumb idea. Overwieght may be one thing, but nobody chooses how tall they are going to be. If you are a healthy human, and hieght weight proportionate you should not be penalized by the airline. Trying to sit in a standard airline seat when you're taller than 6 ft is punishment enough.