Weighing the Passengers

[Gambitt]

It came up in another discussion, so I thought it might be interesting to ask:

There has been talk in Australia, of instead of chargeing overweight fees for luggage, you would be given a "total weight limit" which would include weighing the passengers, as well as thier luggage & carryon.

You would not be charged extra for any baggage, as long as you don't exceed this total weight.

What do you think?

[flopnfly]

They would need to increase the weight allowance.

Considering that most airlines only allow 44 - 50 lbs, I would be overweight as soon as I stood on the scales.   

[Gambitt]

 

I'd be all for it.  Since the current Transport Canada calculation is 200-206 lbs, for men and 165-171 for ladies, it would give me an extra 20-26 lbs. for luggage.

[flopnfly]

It would force people to pack lightly.

The average woman weighs anywhere from 120 - 150 so that doesn't leave much room for shoes and other heavier stuff in your bags.

[Bulldog]

After OTTAWA ruling just a few weeks ago I would "Fat Chance" pun intended 

OTTAWA - Canada-based airlines have been ordered to offer disabled or clinically obese travelers accompanied by an attendant the ability to fly using one ticket, even if they take up two or more seats.

The Canadian Transportation Agency ruling Thursday gives Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet one year to bring in a "one-person, one-fare" policy.

The ruling applies to disabled people, including the severely obese, who require two seats to accommodate them. It also applies to disabled persons who need an attendant seated with them on flights.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities and two individuals lodged a formal complaint in 2002, arguing it is discriminatory for airlines to charge double fares.

The agency estimates the new policy will cost Air Canada about $6.93 million a year, and WestJet about $1.48 million a year. That amounts to about 77 Canadian cents a ticket for Air Canada and 44 Canadian cents for WestJet.

That is a fraction of the cost estimated by the airlines in their submissions to the agency.

The panel said the extra cost and operational constraints to the airlines would not constitute undue hardship. It said the current practice effectively limits travel opportunities for the disabled.

"It's not a personal preference (of the traveler)," said Jadrino Huot, a spokesman for the agency. "It's not a matter of discomfort. It's a matter of need."

More:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22599803/



So So this will NEVER happen sorry to say for you "regular" people 

[Milli]

  Wow!  This is a tough one and I had to vote Other.  I can understand the airlines rationale for making us pay for what we contribute to the weight (and thus fuel comsumption) of the plane but weighing passengers is just plain demeaning IMO. I don't see this ever getting the green light and Bulldog's above post  just confirms that for me.