Oz airlines consider 'fat tax' for larger passengers.

[The OD]

From the BBC:

Here

From the Article:

A leading Australian nutritionist has urged airlines to charge obese passengers more for their seats.

Dr John Tickell believes a "fat tax" would highlight his country's obesity crisis and make commercial sense, as heavier loads increase fuel costs.

But health groups have warned that to single out people with weight problems could cause them emotional stress.

Recent studies estimate that 67% of Australian men and over half of women aged over 25 are overweight or obese.

Experts have warned that by 2030 half of the country's children will be overweight or obese if the problem goes unchecked.

So what do people think? Whilst I have little sympathy for a lot of people who are obese and demand special attention for it , I do have two concerns about this, firstly there are some people who are, for health reasons, obese (but I imagine no where near as many as is claimed ) and secondly, will the Airlines start to charge less for slightly built, smaller people?

EDIT: Sorry Mods, meant to put this in Foreign Affairs, if someone could move it please?

[A_man_about_a_dog]

It makes commercial sense, as was pointed out in the article, heavier load = higher fuel costs. Plus, I'm sure most people know what it is like to be stuck next to a rather rotund passenger who 'hangs' over his seat and arm rest causing you great discomfort and annoyance.

Perhaps the airlines would be better served pursuing an option along the lines of seats which are only for 'larger' passengers and which would come at a higher price than standard seats. I'm sure it would benefit all concerned, because I highly doubt any of the 'larger' passeneger enjoy squeezing into those standard seats, never mind the people who have to sit next to them and the hostesses who must deal with them as quickly as possible in the case of an emergency.

One issue which I could see arising from a system operated on weight basis, is something similar to Ryanair's baggage weighing system. What are the airlines going to do, weigh people at check in to see how much they should pay for 'excess passanger'? It would be a tad humiliating for them, me thinks.

[TheBear]

<Mod>Done!</Mod>

[locke]

It makes commercial sense, as was pointed out in the article, heavier load = higher fuel costs.

Except that it refers to obese people rather than heavy people.

I'm almost 15 stone, but I'm not obese; I'm not even overweight. I just happen to be very tall. Someone else could quite easily be 12 stone and obese if they were a lot shorter.

[david]

I said long, long ago that one day this would come about in some shape or form; I mentioned it on p.ie recently too.

When I suggested to an obese friend they might be using BMI instead of weight, she said she would prefer a simple weight charge because she reckoned BMI was a flawed model.

It's a sensitive issue but one whose time will come. Fuel for aircraft will eventually disappear. I'm only surprised the leery one didn't moot it first.

[A_man_about_a_dog]

It makes commercial sense, as was pointed out in the article, heavier load = higher fuel costs.

Except that it refers to obese people rather than heavy people.

I'm almost 15 stone, but I'm not obese; I'm not even overweight. I just happen to be very tall. Someone else could quite easily be 12 stone and obese if they were a lot shorter.

In that case, they could just get all scientific on our asses and use the old reliable height/weight ratio and chart to show people where they fall on it, and hence, why they must be charged more.

Anyway, I was not talking about a set weight per se or anything along thise mlines. I ws thinking more to do with the fact that there are people who are so overweight (eg: 5'4" and 15 stone), that they are causing discomfort to themsleves and other passengers by being in a standard seat, aswell as the added risk and burden invloved in their movement should there be an emergency. It is more about practicality and comfort than fuel loads IMO.

[The OD]

It makes commercial sense, as was pointed out in the article, heavier load = higher fuel costs.

Except that it refers to obese people rather than heavy people.

I'm almost 15 stone, but I'm not obese; I'm not even overweight. I just happen to be very tall. Someone else could quite easily be 12 stone and obese if they were a lot shorter.

Very good point there Locke. One of my friends is 6' 5'' and is a big guy (plays rugby and does heavy weight training etc) and whilst I dont know his weight, I imagine he is much more than 15 stone. Similarly, I have a cousin who is only about 5' tall and probably weighs next to nothing - should she get a discount do you think?

[NM_123]

It makes commercial sense, as was pointed out in the article, heavier load = higher fuel costs.

Except that it refers to obese people rather than heavy people.

I'm almost 15 stone, but I'm not obese; I'm not even overweight. I just happen to be very tall. Someone else could quite easily be 12 stone and obese if they were a lot shorter.

Your weight is your own business. But it costs more to move you than people who are lighter than you in terms of fuel, and thus should your fuel levy be higher than others? I understand that is the question being proposed.

I think it would be acceptable to weigh people, with their luggage of course and in a private manner, on long haul flights were fuel is an issue. For short flights it would be not worth the hassle.

[Kal-El]

It would be very hard to introduce this as there will always be exceptions. Even BMI isn't reliable...I too am 6'5'', play rugby and have a low body fat percentage but I'm 17 1/2 stone. Most of the Irish rugby team would be classed as obese if BMI is the criteria used.
I simply don't think this would work

[meriwether]

Like a surprising amount of people on this thread, I too am 6'6, 17 stone, but its pure muscle and manlyness.
You could bounce a brick off my abs*.
So Im feeling oppressed by this new possible legislation.


*none of this is remotely true.