Our trip was three weeks in length, and included both cool and warm climates, casual and dress clothes requirements, so the 20 kilo (44 pound) limit was a problem. We struggled with our packing for days before the trip, and after many trials on the bathroom scale, finally got close to the limit. We hoped they would be lenient, or that the overweight charges would not be excessive. It turned out to be no problem. New Zealand Air let us squeak by with a few raised eyebrows.
I have read recently that our domestic airlines are also starting to tighten their weight restrictions. Both Delta and American have announced new limits, with hefty fees for overweight bags, and the others are sure to follow. What is going on here? Most airlines have already tacked on a "fuel surcharge" to cover higher fuel costs. Is this just another way of trying to increase profits (or cut losses) via fees that aren't advertised with their low fares? Is this another example of what the cruise lines tried to pull a few years ago when they tacked extra "port charges" onto cruisers bills, claiming that they were charged those fees by the ports they visited? They were eventually forced to refund those charges when lawsuits proved that they were essentially a "bait and switch" tactic to raise fares.
A recent article in a local newspaper noted that air freight is more profitable than passengers, and the reason for the new rules was to make it possible for passenger aircraft to carry more freight. If air freight is so profitable, why not buy more planes and devote them to freight?
But I have another more fundamental problem with these new weight rules, and large, overweight people are not going to like what I have to say. I saw a guy on a flight a year or two ago who must have weighed 350 pounds at least. He could barely fit in the seat, and crowded the person next to him, a slim, dark-haired lady who could not have weighed more than 125 pounds. With the new rules, both of them would have the same baggage weight limitations. And yet the total weight that they are putting on the aircraft is nowhere near the same.
I can hear the screams: Discrimination against fat people! Treat people equally!
Wouldn't it make sense for an airline to charge passengers the way it charges for freight? By the pound? I envision a revised check-in procedure where you stand on a scale with your luggage, and your fare is based on the TOTAL weight that you are putting on the aircraft. Airlines would compete for business by advertising their fare "per pound."
United Airlines special today: "Fly from LAX to JFK…only $1 per pound!"
By the way, my wife and I are not small people, I am well over 200 pounds and she is…
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 34
The sad truth of the matter is this. After you've fired everyone essential to running your business, and revenue from operations (i.e., tickets) is flat, the only way to make Wall Street happy with your growth is to come up with new and unique fees to create revenue.
As for discrimination against fat people, well, there is a direct link between the weight of the plane, passengers and freight and the fuel used. Charging based upon weight makes sense. Right now, people think in terms of the space they use rather than the cost of operating the jet. Weight makes sense.
Now, if they could only provide a way for tall people to get more damn leg
room on the plane...
considering a 1/3 of the passengers only have carryon luggage, it seemed rather excessive.
they also tried to say my carryon was too big. i said i carried it on out here, and i will carry it on on the way back.
NorthWestern tried to tell us on one flight that we weren't allowed to even have one bag carried on, not even a purse. the ensuing near riot from the women passengers made them quickly change that.
Heck, when I was new to the military "back in the day" I was allowed only 400 pounds to move my family from one base to another. Try doing that, ha ha. The rest came out of my pocket...!
Take care.
So, neener, neener, you skinny folks.
I envy you your trip to Australia and New Zealand though.
Good ideas. I like to be in other countries, other places, and learn about them and experience them, but getting there has become a nightmare.
Neener, neener broke me up, Stephanie.
(If you try to argue that the Airlines are making a killing (in terms of profits!) I will ROTFLAPMP!)
Ive seen people try to bring 100lb suitcases on flights!!! It costs the Airline money, and not just because they cant carry extra freight. Handling, fuel, etc... it adds up!!!
I feel penalized if I don't check any bags. On a short overnight trip, I can carry every thing in a carry on. Who's gettin' to use my two bags or 100 lbs. space?
My wife and I will sometimes ship our suitcases ahead to our destination....just to have an easier time of it at the airport and to make sure we don't have to go to the "lost baggage zone". Hey....we're gettin' screwed here.
I should be getting a rebate or some credit towards extra weight in the future.
Now I'm grumpy...
But if you don't take any luggage, it doesn't seem fair to charge you the same as somebody who weighs 300 pounds and takes two 50 pound bags and a 30 pound carryon.
The very best move is to eliminate (b) so you won't have to check any luggage. This feels soooo good.
I hate...HATE hauling and lugging big ass suit cases around airports.
We also have been known to ship gifts and breakables home via Fedex or UPS. No need to haul around that stuff.
What kills me is coming back from anywhere - all that stuff I bought... and books -
Soon, my knuckles will be dragging the ground.
I expect to see pictures and travelogue.
I find I want to burn my socks after going through airline checkpoints.
I already published an article on the Australia/New Zealand trip.
Here is the link.
I share your dislike for the "getting there" part of the trip. It has become more and more of an ordeal, and it seems that almost every trip of any duration has at least one crisis...delayed or canceled flight, missed connection, lost luggage, etc. We are still traveling a lot, but I am losing my enthusiasm for it.
Sounds like you had a good time.
Yes, it does make sense really to charge people by weight...if weight is an issue with cost control re: fuel costs, then heavier people actually should pay more than slimmer people. I have often thought of this in relation to clothes, too. Why should I pay the same amount for an item of clothing (say, a sweatshirt) in a Small size that uses much less fabric than an XL? If I was to sew my own clothes, I would pay for the fabric by yardage.
I was going to post the first comment for this article...an apology for failing to complete it, explaining that my wife came up behind me and was reading it as I was typing the last sentence. The comment would be typed with many misspellings and typos, as I further explained that with my broken hands and severe head wounds, I was having a great deal of trouble typing.
I must say I am extremely jealous of your trip to New Zealand, packing issues or not. My husband and I went to Australia a number of years ago - we had a magical time and met many Europeans who were going on from Australia to New Zealand to complete their vacation. They all thought we were crazy for only spending 2-1/2 weeks on vacation - they were all off for more than a month of travels. We thought 2-1/2 weeks was absolutely extravagant! Ah, the American mindset. Hope you had a wonderful time!
I don't know if you noticed the link I posted in an earlier comment...to another article that I wrote about the trip. It includes lots of pictures. The ones that I took on the South Island of New Zealand are really spectacular. I'll post the link again here.
LINK
We saw Gounod's "Faust" at the Sydney Opera House when we were there. Are you an opera fan?
Yes when you read the text, you will find out that we saw Puccini's La Bohème and had a wonderful time..
What a fabulous place...the Sydney Opera House.