Fat pax in KLM will have to buy two seats

[bellsux]

From De Telegraaf (Dutch tabloid).

"Fat People have to book an extra seat"

The main points - KLM is introducing this policy as of April 1st. The passenger gets a 25% discount on a second seat. The KLM spokesperson says this will garantee safety and increase comfort. The criterion is that the armrests have to be able to go down. If the flight isn't full the passenger can get the extra fee back.

A representative of the "Obesity Association" thinks this is ridiculous and would prefer to see airlines developing broader seats. They are considering legal steps. She thinks there will be bureaucratic and practical problems and says "Can you see the fat person walking up and down the aisle to see if there is an empty seat so he can ask for his money back"?

[Febs]

I'm all for this, and think this is also very reasonable of them:

If the flight isn't full the passenger can get the extra fee back.

If you can't get the armrest down, then you should be paying for two seats, or sitting in a seat that can accommodate you (i.e. J/F). Think of the poor person next to you.

Cheers,
- Febs.

[straitman]

This is already being discussed at (Call for airlines to charge passenger 'fat tax')Call for airlines to charge passenger 'fat tax' starting at post #28.

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

I read an article awhile back saying that US airlines were lossing out by about $500 million compared to their European rivals due to the higher weight of US passengers.

I believe they tried to do something similar in the US but is was knocked down on disability grounds. Political corretness gone wild I fear.

It does irk me a bit that someone who is 50% heavier than me pays the same fare, but if I had a few extra kgs of luggage I'd be paying for the excess.

I had a well endowed woman next to me on a AA-X flight to OOL and I have to say I was not happy with her pressing up against me for the flight.

[notzac]

I believe WN have had a v similar policy in place for quite some time:

Southwest Airlines Travel Policies - Guidelines for Customers of Size

Pretty sane policy IMHO. My personal take is that if I've paid for a seat on a plane, I'm entitled to not having a seatmate taking up any of it.

[estate]

I believe WN have had a v similar policy in place for quite some time:

Southwest Airlines Travel Policies - Guidelines for Customers of Size

The best part about that link is in the first sentence:
"Customers who are unable to lower both armrests and/or who compromise any portion of adjacent seating should proactively book the number of seats needed prior to travel."

Not "Customers who are unable to lower both armrests and/or who compromise any portion of adjacent seating should proactively book an extra seat prior to travel."

Says something doesn't it!?

[Natt]

Nah im sorry i just dont get this

If I have a child under 2... then he/she/it flies free right?

but that child will need a bassinet long haul and is likely to get rather vocal and spoil the flight for other passengers

so how is that fair??

and why should children get a discount - they take up a seat, eat just as much in most cases etc

I know my hubbie for example weighs less than a porky child

I think if you are going to be fair - and this policy is to be honest it has to be across the board

why should a sooky infant, who wakes another passenger in the middle of the night get to fly for free?

age discrimination

[JohnK]

This is already being discussed at (Call for airlines to charge passenger 'fat tax')Call for airlines to charge passenger 'fat tax' starting at post #28.

This silly debate keeps coming up at regular intervals.

I read an article awhile back saying that US airlines were lossing out by about $500 million compared to their European rivals due to the higher weight of US passengers.

Unfortunately that is part of life. The average weight of a US male is now closer to 90kgs if not over.

I believe they tried to do something similar in the US but is was knocked down on disability grounds. Political corretness gone wild I fear.

So sanity has prevailed this time around?

It does irk me a bit that someone who is 50% heavier than me pays the same fare, but if I had a few extra kgs of luggage I'd be paying for the excess.

So you want to airfares to be charged by weight? Can we apply the same principle to other aspects of life?

I don't use my car as often as most people yet pay the same registration fee.
I only put my rubbish bin out every fortnight and spend 8 weeks overseas a year yet my council rates are the same as my next door neighbour who's bin is overflowing every week.
I use less water than most people (only 1 shower a day), don't go the toilet as often and spend 8 weeks a year overseas yet pay the same service levy as my next door neighbour who has 5 children.

[MrHyde]

I don't use my car as often as most people yet pay the same registration fee.

Such suggestions have been made in places before. With the growth in GPS systems, it has been suggested that there should be a road usage tax based on how many KMs you drive. Unfortunately, knowing governments, they'll probably add this in addition to the registration fee and not in place of it. Also, GPS is not that reliable and it would be far cheaper to just look at the car odometer.

I only put my rubbish bin out every fortnight and spend 8 weeks overseas a year yet my council rates are the same as my next door neighbour who's bin is overflowing every week.

I would love this. Why not even weigh the rubbish, so if you generate less rubbish, you will pay less... one way to promote recycling and less waste. Just have to provide locks for the bins so that the neighbours don't borrow your bin.

I use less water than most people (only 1 shower a day), don't go the toilet as often and spend 8 weeks a year overseas yet pay the same service levy as my next door neighbour who has 5 children.

Is this already in place. The neighbour with 5 children will have a higher overall water bill than you. I think the service levy is reasonable because the maintenance cost for maintaining the link to your home is the same as the cost for maintaining the link to the neighbour. The variable cost is the amount of water used and that is charged on usage.

A similar scenario is with the electricity network. If you have solar power and sell it into the grid, you get a credit instead of a debit... but who pays for the maintainance of the power lines... IMO, that should be a separate flat rate.

[simongr]

Is this already in place. The neighbour with 5 children will have a higher overall water bill than you. I think the service levy is reasonable because the maintenance cost for maintaining the link to your home is the same as the cost for maintaining the link to the neighbour. The variable cost is the amount of water used and that is charged on usage.

Actually you will find that the usage charge is a very small proportion of the overall bill. It actually annoys me that this is not reversed and the majority should be on usage and not the standing charge.

However all of these usage issues are not really relevant to fat pax as being fat is just one element of the cost of servicing the pax. If you are going to charge for travel by weight then you also need to charge by drinks consumption, food consumption, power used by IFE, number of times the call button is pressed, number of times the loo is used etc....