Advertiser & Editorial Disclosure: The Bulkhead Seat earns an affiliate commission for anyone approved through the links below. This compensation may impact how and where links appear on this site. We work to provide the best publicly available offers to our readers. We frequently update them, but this site does not include all available offers. Opinions, reviews, analyses & recommendations are the author’s alone, and have not been reviewed, endorsed, or approved by any of these entities.
We’ll file this one under things I don’t see happening. There is some discussion around whether airlines should adopt weight-based pricing where plane tickets are based on the weight of the passenger to account for fuel consumption and emissions.
This idea has been floated around for some time. Finnair recently collected its own data by gathering passengers’ weight along with their carry-on bags. This study was conducted over a three-month period and on a voluntary basis. The results will be used to refine aircraft weight and balance refine aircraft balance calculations through 2030.
Air New Zealand weighed over 10,000 passengers as part of its international weight survey in 2023. Like Finnair this data was needed to calculate an average weight per passenger in order to estimate maximum takeoff weight, fuel needs, and more. New Zealand’s Civil Aviation Authority requires weight surveys to be conducted once every five years to measure changes in the population. The last time Air New Zealand did a survey was 2021 for domestic flights. This international survey will provide additional needed data.
A study published in Science Direct in December surveyed over 1,000 passengers in the United States. It asked them to evaluate three pricing models: the current model with a ticket regardless of weight, a weight threshold model with extra charges for passengers over 160 pounds, and a body weight model with pricing based on individual weight.
It’s no surprise that lighter passengers favored weight-based fees and heavier ones preferred the current system. Weight-based pricing was also seen as more favorable among younger travelers, frequent flyers, and wealthier passengers.
This is completely counter to what body positivity advocate Jaelynn Chaney has been pushing for the past few years. The plus-size woman from Vancouver started a petition demanding that the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “protect plus-sized customers” by having taxpayers foot the bill for her extra space. The petition has more than 39,000 signatures and she’s continuing to champion her cause. She claims that aircraft seating is too small for her and it causes her “pain and vulnerability, poor treatment from fellow passengers, including hateful comments, disapproving looks, and even refusal to sit next to [her and other larger passengers].” I can’t say that I have too much sympathy and if you cannot fit in one seat, you should buy First Class, two seats, or not fly.
Anthony’s Take: The current system works fine. If people were made to pay by weight (the way that they do currently with checked bags), many would balk and threaten to boycott the airline that imposed this pricing scheme. I don’t see it happening with obesity rates continuing to climb. This seems more theoretical than anything we’ll ever see implemented.
(Image Credits: Jaelynn Chaney.)
User Generated Content Disclosure: The Bulkhead Seat encourages constructive discussions, comments, and questions. Responses are not provided by or commissioned by any bank advertisers. These responses have not been reviewed, approved, or endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the responsibility of the bank advertiser to respond to comments.
Advertiser & Editorial Disclosure: The Bulkhead Seat earns an affiliate commission for anyone approved through the links above This compensation may impact how and where links appear on this site. We work to provide the best publicly available offers to our readers. We frequently update them, but this site does not include all available offers. Opinions, reviews, analyses & recommendations are the author’s alone, and have not been reviewed, endorsed, or approved by any of these entities.
