Silly season finale, a fat tax on pax
If Plane Talking was into awards, ex Qantas chief economist Tony Webber would be a worthy contender for best silly season story for 2011-2012.
He scored good media coverage for this story arguing that passengers need to pay for their excess weight as well as excess baggage.
Let’s think. You are buying a fare online, as most of us do, but the fine print says that the price, say $200, is subject to an extra $3 per kg over 85 kg for that particular flight stage length, using the national average male adult weight naked as the zero change reference point.
So you go to the bathroom scales, oops, 105 kg, that’s an additional $60, all prices GST inclusive except for international sectors.
Then at check-in, as you stand on the weigh-in pad, contemplating shedding items of clothing and your shoes and placing them outside the area of the scales similar to the ones that used to be in the floor at the check-in counters at Australian airports up until the 60s (or thereabouts), you discover that according to the airline scales you weigh 3.5 kg more which is $10.50 plus the $7.70 credit card fee that certain airlines pull out of thin air to screw you further.
Fantastic. It only takes a few dozen people in a similar situation at any time to destroy the functionality of an airport, and further wreck the efforts airlines make for on time departures and prompt turnarounds.
Of course if you are a family, and the kids, who are normally charged adult fares, are each 20 kgs less than the national average for adults of either sex, and the parents are pretty fit, and are each at or below the national average, the result could be a notional refund of say $130-$150.
At this point the entire terminal will come to a halt to watch the modern day consumer miracle of an airline actually making an immediate refund of anything.
Webber would well know, the concept of airlines giving back money before the longevity tables estimate the customer will have died is not a part of the business plan of any carrier on the planet.
It would be like getting a bank to admit to overcharging, or a power company to truthfully refund self generated solar panel energy to the grid. Not on, ever.
The truth is that airlines know we are bigger and fatter on average, and their operational estimates of fuel burn are based on existing performance data (at least for large aircraft) which means there is no additional adjustment to be done, unless they saw a practicable way of trumping up yet another way of selling a flat rate people-of-size surcharge to the customers, designed of course, to apply to 90% of them by rigging the figures.
Fat taxes are unwieldy, discriminatory, and grossly offensive. And impracticable. If you can’t fit in a seat you may be refused carriage, or required to buy an additional seat, hopefully on the same side of the aisle.
Remember, as Mr Webber may have forgotten, that the way the airlines recover the additional costs of flying a population that is getting heavier over time is through the day-to-day operational data. There is no extra adjustment to be made.
Categories: Uncategorized
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I read the opinion piece yesterday (which actually seems very difficult to find online now). But Tony Webber was theorising, not advocating.
He states in his opinion piece that:
“Of course, while a weight surcharge may be a good idea in theory, it won’t be easy to implement. Quite apart from the public uproar that would accompany its introduction, such a fee would be difficult to implement. Passengers would have to be weighed at check-in, which is not great for the speed of the airport experience”
Ben you’re not the only one to recognise that the theory isn’t particle. So why don’t you mention the full story and note that Webber does talk about the actuality of it, instead of making him to be some big bad crazy airline exec.
by RamaStar on Jan 12, 2012 at 9:31 am
RamaStar,
I linked to the full story. What more to do?
Mr Webber isn’t big bad crazy, you’re words not mine. He’s entertaining. He puts up ideas to stir the pot. He wants to be noticed. He’s been noticed, and discussed. But it’s a silly idea, in my opinion, and worthy of a response.
by Ben Sandilands on Jan 12, 2012 at 10:03 am
I often wonder why people (often politicians) continually offer up such impractical theories which have no chance of being implemented in any practical way. Fifteen minutes of fame? A bit of free publicity for his consultancy? I heard him interviewed on the radio and it was clear that he had not even thought through some of the implications. He was asked about pregnant women or women with big breasts. He admitted that he had not considered such things.
On the other hand, I believe some low cost carriers overseas force ‘wide-bodied’ passengers to buy a second seat at the point of check in. This is understandable given that they may occupy 1.5 seats, thereby making it almost impossible for another passenger to sit next to them safely or comfortably.
by Space Dog on Jan 12, 2012 at 11:25 am
I heard a story one night in the pub of a Perth – Brisbane flight that burnt a ton more fuel than expected. It was attributed to a traveling wrestling show that had added some very large people to the self-loading cargo that night! The company probably makes up for it with the school parties that travel to Canberra all the time
by Geoff on Jan 12, 2012 at 8:07 pm
To avoid the difficulty of issuing a cash refund for under average flyers, I would like to see us under average body mass customers at least get an increased luggage allowance, or at least not be penalised quite so hard if we are a bit over.
by John Stockdale on Jan 13, 2012 at 10:06 am
Being a bit serious if the airlines were concerned about passenger weight then they would do something to cut down the weight, and volume, of carry-on baggage. It is a long time since I have seen a passenger being told at the gate to check baggage even though there are many cases on every flight when the supposed restrictions are clearly exceeded. Some of the worst offenders are the suits flying in the pointy end. On QF Dash 8/Q400 flights it seems you can take almost anything as hand luggage provided you are prepared to give it for collection at the aircraft steps on departure, and collect it back at the same place on arrival.
by ltfisher on Jan 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm
While I do think porkers should pay more, ltfisher has nailed it. The carry on luggage situation has become a farce. If you’re not at the front of the line when boarding, you’ll find yourself searching overhead lockers 10 rows away from your seat as you look for somewhere to put your 5kg backpack. Problem is, everyone boarding before you has waltzed on with cases that are way over the dimensions of the allowed carry on luggage.
Sure you could put it under your seat, but on a long haul flight you’d like to make use of what leg room you have.
I don’t know when it got so bad, but last year I was looking around the departure lounge before a flight from LA back to Oz and was struck by the sheer size and volume of the carry on luggage that was around me. Again I found myself hunting for a nook I could slide an undersized bag into, while oversized hard cases swallowed all available overhead locker space.
Carry on restrictions really need to start being enforced.
by c d on Jan 13, 2012 at 11:18 pm