Overweight? Then airlines should charge you more...

Agree.

I thought they had it...you know "Customers of Size" have to buy an extra seat if they cannot put down the arm thing...I think thats how they tell, if you can't put down your armrest, you need to buy another seat.

While I agree, the actual implementation of such practices would be dicey.

We are too pc to come to the point that we can judge (and charge more for) someone that may be overweight.

How would the actual implementation of such a policy work anyway?

You can't base it off of weight, because a tall, muscular, man may weigh the same as a short overweight man.  If you begin asking about height and weight during the purchase of a ticket, (assuming the ticket purchase is online, or over the phone), you will have to fight the group of people that believe that is none of your business.  That will lead to many American's believing that the government is trying to control weight, or create a bias against those that are overweight, and that will polarize many people, and likely cause the actual implementation to fail.

A couple months ago there was a new story about how some airline (don't remember which, I think is was some South American one, but I'm not sure) actually did this. If I remember correctly, they did where every pound over some weight limit you were, you had to pay $5 extra, or something like that. And, like Silver said, it created a bunch of backlash because people considered it dicrimination. I'll see if I can find that article.

EDIT: I can't seem to find that article (it was a while ago) All I can find is a bunch of sites about people getting pissed off about United deciding to adopt the "pay for two seats" policy (they started that in April, I think)

Here's a thought. How about they put larger seats on planes? Damn things are too narrow and uncomfortable. That's why I prefer to fly first class, the seats are quite a bit larger and more comfortable.

That would mean less seating (less tickets to generate revenue), resulting in the airlines a) adding more fees, or raising the cost per ticket.

They could have a "non-fat" and "fat" section... but that brings us back to: by what do we determine "fat."

Because that would mean fewer total seats in the area available. Fewer seats = fewer paying customers = less money. The only way they could make more space per passenger worth their while is by substantially increasing prices. (ie. that's a big part of what you pay for in first class) 

You could work out something like the bodymass index thing, ie. weight compared to hight in some fashion. After all, it doesn't matter whether people more (horizontal) space due to bags of fat or huge bulging muscles.

Maybe they shouldn't measure weight, but just diameter? (that is the whole point in this situation, right?) 

Which is more logical, but would be viewed as discrimination.  And which part would be measured?  Waist? Hips? Shoulders?  A non-obese person can still have really wide body (shoulders, hips). 

Bodies are different, period.  How will you find a "fits all" solution?

And not so much "huge bulging muscles," (LoL), as just tall and toned muscles. (Muscle weighs more than fat.)

Measure the widest diameter, wherever on the body it may be. It is the widest part that will inconvenience the neighbour, after all. And people might cry discrimination all they like, but the fact is that if you use more of a limited resource (be it food, fuel or airliner space) you pay more, simple as that. I recommend not wearing American Football shoulderpads during air travel.

And the "bulging muscles" thing was mostly a joke. (I just had this image of sitting next to one of those steroid-fuelled extreme bodybuilders.   )

Yes, that is a fact, however it would take a lot of convincing to make people accept that.  As usual, immediate implementation will have everyone in an uproar.

If you can find a way to slowly implement a policy of the overly-large paying extra it will be much more accepted.

*Gasp* You are DISCRIMINATING AGAINST BODY BUILDERS! HOW DARE YOU!

"A departure from principle in one instance becomes precedent for a second, that second for a third-- and so on..."

Dr.Gonzo

The big problem here is that it would be abused by the airlines as an excuse to charge more and add more seats.  The seats are already too small and with far too little leg room.  At least they are from my experience in most European airlines (and not just the budget ones).

I am not over wieght and often struggle to get comfortable.  The funniest thing is the advice they give you for exercising whilst in your seat on longer flights - if you can do those whilst staying in your seat and not pulling a muscle or poking your neighbours in the eye - you are a midget contortionist.

I have also been on flights where there were some seats that it was physically impossible for anyone of a modest height to actually sit in them.  My father in law is only as little taller than me and slim - he simply could not get his legs into the seat even twisted at a painfull angle.  Luckily the flight was not fully booked and he was able to get a seat elsewhere.

Also, how would a "fatty" paying extra actually help you? Do you honestly think that the airline isn't going to fill the seat next to them even if they have paid extra?

The human race is getting larger and the seating on flights needs to reflect this - before we even think about "unnaturally large" people.

I would say that the seats should be roomy enough to accomodate a decent percentile of the human population.  If that means less seats, fewer passengers and higher prices then so be it.  Being able to fly somewhere (cheaply) is not a right.  It is a symptom of the current "must have" society that everything has to be cheap and available to everyone or its considered some sort of infringement of your rights.

When I grew up I was taught that if you can't afford something then you didn't get it.  It didn't mean you were any less of a person, it was just out of your reach.  If you wanted it badly enough you saved up until you could afford it.  I still live by that principle.

There is at least one additional sane person left in the world. My faith in humanity is restored!

...and five seconds later it's gone again, due to the idiots I work with. It was fun while it lasted.

Let's not even get into leg room; I'm short in the legs and even I have a hard time fitting my legs comfortably if anything bigger than a hamster is stored under the seat.

Sadly, I seem to be one of the few in my generation that follows this.  I refuse to buy on credit, and I think it's ridiculous that I need to have at least a small form of credit (line of credit, a card, etc.) in order for people to believe that I will pay them on time when renting or getting a cell phone.

However, going by the idea that if you can't afford it, go without, if the prices went up on airlines, fewer would be able to afford flying, (assuming they waited until the could afford it,) and the airlines would suffer as a result.  Perhaps that would cause them to lower costs again, which would make everything work out in the end, but by what means?  How many airlines would cut out areas, resulting in the loss of jobs?  I am probably thinking on too large a scale here.

While I agree that airline seats should start reflecting our larger status, I do wonder about this: you say that the increase in cost resulting from larger seats wouldn't matter to you.  Does that hold true if someone were to suggest that your family buy first class tickets (increase in cost for larger seats) instead of riding in business/coach/economy?

Good to see there are at least a couple of people still out there living by the "only buy what you can afford now" principle.  I do have criedit cards but only as a matter of convenience and always paid off when the bill comes in.

Again, there is no "one size fits all."  What would that minimum be? And what would the limit on the comfort be?

Incidentally airlines already charge extra (at least in Europe) for additional leg room.  I currently choose not to pay for this on the principle that the default leg room is usually insufficient and I don't see why I should pay more (individually) to get it up to a decent level.  That might be cutting off my nose to spite my face but there you go.

But wouldn't that be what happens?

More leg room, wider seats = more expensive tickets and/or fees.

"Individually"

So as long as it isn't just you paying (for your own comfort), then you are okay with paying more, correct?

I agree whole-heartedly with your premise, just not your argument. 

Why don't they go by Body Mass Index.  Would it not be better.  So say, if a person is over certain BMI, then they get charged more.

No, they need to do the same as they do with carry on luggage - there is a box or test seat and if you don't fit in it entirely you need a second seat/first class seat/etc.

Definately with you on that. Getting a loan for consumer goods is madness to start with, but doing it at the credit card company's (usually) extortionate rates is taking it to a whole new level. Credit cards are best used for online purchases etc. only.