Should fat people pay more to fly?

Home
Membership
Blog
Should fat people pay more to fly?

12 Jan

Should fat people pay more to fly?

12, Jan, 2012 (3:19 PM)
Very overweight and obese passengers should pay a surcharge to fly with Australian airlines, a former Qantas chief economist says.

Tony Webber, who spent seven years with Qantas, maintains that overweight passengers should be covering extra fuel costs incurred by airlines.

Many airline passengers also ask cabin crew to find them another seat if they find themselves sitting next to an obese person who takes up more than their allocated space, particularly in the cramped confines of economy class.

Do you think very overweight people should be charged more or asked to pay for a second seat?

Or is the idea a humiliating insult and the airlines and other passengers should just remain silent on the issue?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in these blogs are not necessarily those of National Seniors Australia. This blog is moderated and any content deemed inappropriate by the administrator will be removed, including comments that are offensive or discriminatory; libellous or defamatory; breach copyright, unless we have the owner’s permission to use it; or contain personal or commercially confidential material. Personal attacks will be deleted by the moderator. The use of this blog to broadcast overtly party-political messages is also prohibited. The moderator’s decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into. Any personal details shared here are public and can be found on internet searches.

This blog is now closed.

Comments (402)

Lorikeet - 21, January, 2012 (7:34)

That's not a bad idea, Dave, but there's no money in it, so airlines probably wouldn't be interested.

The latest "heads up" from USA doctors is that some overweight people have fewer health problems than some skinny people.

They say if the overweight person consumes a lot of healthy foods and gets plenty of exercise, their risk for lots of health problems are reduced.

They also say that being very overweight stresses the neck, lower back, knees and heart.

So I guess the message is that we all try not to blimp out altogether, make sure our diets are low in saturated fats, sugar and salt, and get whatever exercise is possible for our individual level of health.
Dave - 20, January, 2012 (20:56)

Maybe the airlines should waive the excess bagage charge for skinny people.
Colin G - 20, January, 2012 (6:57)

This is a vexed question. We need to get to the real problem of health . There is also the point of people learning to accept responsibliity for their actions. I know that it is VERY difficult for obese people to turn the problem around.
As a society , we need to accept that we may need "outside the square" approaches to solve some problems ; the ultimate cost to society of obesity is huge; A credit system for a subsidised medical treatment based on a weight loss plan could help.
Lorikeet - 19, January, 2012 (17:41)

Many behaviours are learned within a society. A mild sociopathy is definitely apparent in the behaviour of a large percentage of the population.

I have explained some elements of it already.

I am not talking about a person with an Antisocial Personality Disorder, but even elements can be learned from environmental examples, especially those coming from parents.

Today's young people get away with all sorts of antisocial criminal behaviour. Others see it and they copy it because there is no effective line drawn in the sand.
Helen - 19, January, 2012 (17:20)

Sure Robyn, but I don't think those with any kind of problem should be charged more. It should be part of the service.

We are not charged different prices for any other kind of transport, so why should aircraft be different.

Also where would it stop. Too tall, too fat, wheelchairs, medical handicaps & problems. No I can't be convinced that anyone should be charged more simply because they have some kind of problem either "born with" or aquired.

If the airlines want the business, it's up to them to provide the services (for everyone!)

Shut down time & new topic hopefully, nighty night all...
Robyn - 19, January, 2012 (11:55)

Helen,

I agree. It is who people are, not how they look that determines attraction, affection, interest or the opposite.

Ideally, airlines would provide a variety of seats at different cost in economy class to accommodate everyone comfortably.
WEG - 19, January, 2012 (11:52)

Burwood, Adelaide Hills – great place Bob. You may not know the place now. All Wineries. Obviously you went up market moving to Lane Cove.

Kay, Your ref to WEG earlier - I don’t like nastiness and in the majority of cases I will not respond thereby leaving the angst with the writer. I must admit though I don’t appear to be on the receiving end of any ‘poison pen’ pastings.
Robyn - 19, January, 2012 (11:42)

Lorikeet at 19 January (6:34):

"this blog has shown us many examples of.............mild sociopathy......"

I have never heard of "mild" sociopathy. One is either sociopathic/psychopathic or not. Research has shown that the brain of psychopathic individuals is configured differently to the "normal brain". Psychopathy/sociopathy is not learned.
Helen - 19, January, 2012 (10:18)

Yes Bob, but equally there are many obnoxious types of all shapes, sizes & types. This personality is part of who they are sadly...
Bob B - 19, January, 2012 (9:43)

Helen

I agree with you.

One problem some, repeat some, overweight people have is exemplified by one of my wife's bosses. A very overweight woman who virtually demanded each bring in a cake in rotation for morning tea.

She knew people objected to her and assumed it was the weight she carried - she often said well, people must take me as I am. Unfortunately, she had a horrible personality (won't go into details) and that caused people to 'stand off'. I find some people repeat, some people, carry this pushy attitude and its the overweight ones in this category who seem to sway peoples minds. We should look through this but many don't. It's the action of a few that smear the many.
Helen - 19, January, 2012 (9:38)

I noticed a few "blips" & "typos" in my last comment. In a bit of a hurry & didn't check properly.

The part of my brain controlling my typing speed went faster than the "spellcheck" side of my brain. I can claim a Senior moment! I'm off now cheers...
Bob B - 19, January, 2012 (9:33)

Robyn

I remember the Class 38 loco well as when I moved from Adelaide at age 12 we lived for a while with Nanna in Burwood near the railway. It facinated me as the steam engines were much bigger and mightier than the suburban locos in Adelaide at the time. Class 38's were the biggest or the best. And Sydney had the 'red rattlers' as well which I caught to and from school each day for about three months after wwe bought a house in Lane Cove - didn't have to change schools (again). It was inspiring stuff for a young boy.
Helen - 19, January, 2012 (9:32)

(2)The younger ones are busy working & mostly can't afford to travel yet. This will change when they retire.

Lobby groups bringing & more publicity would help focus on those airlines in denial. Afterall they want paying customers. If an airlines offers the comforts travellors are looking for, airlines who don'e will lose business. More focus on the problem in the press re letters etc would have to help.

Descrimination because of a person's looks or shape is not nice under any circumstances & should not be tolerated in my opinion.
Helen - 19, January, 2012 (9:31)

It's not for us to judge how people look or are. As far as travel is concerned if all other providers can offer confortable conditions regardless of size, then airlines should too. If it means allowing more seats for those who are heavier, then so be it in my opinion.

It will be a more noticeable problem in the future as the younger generation are heavier than most of their parents (even the overweight ones) in many cases Contd -
Bob B - 19, January, 2012 (9:27)

Robyn

This Thomas was at the Ipswich Rail Museum. Its very child frendly with some interactive stuff and they are able to 'drive' trains sitting in the seat with a TV screen view.

There are models and exhibits of yester year. I even found a picture of a class 38 loco pulling a the Western Express into Orange (NSW) in 1962. A bit nostalgic as I did that trip in about 1960 and again out in 1961 and back home in 1962 onto Dubbo and then Eumungerie where I worked on a farm as a stationhand for 3 months.

There were lots of kids about some with family and others in groups. Adult $19, concession $16 and kids $11.

Google 'railway museum ipswich'.
Robyn - 19, January, 2012 (9:12)

Bob B,

Was there anything scary in Thomas The Tank Engine? My 5 year old granddaughter can't handle scary stuff. Took her to see The Muppets yesterday which was benign and enjoyable - her first trip to the pictures. Would like to follow up with Thomas. Unfortunately most kid films have "bad" and "scary" characters.
Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (8:47)

Bob

Sounds like Thomas and his friends had some good advice. Clearly a very worthwhile and educational day out for you and the grandchildren.
Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (8:43)

Actually, I do pretty much agree with Lorikeet's summation of the comments on this week's blog topic (6:33 19/1).

Sad but true there is a lot of sentiment out there against fat people.
Bob B - 19, January, 2012 (8:30)

Well neither Thomas nor his many friends in the railway workshops was able to offer any further support or advice and do agree with the ignore her option. That comes from the experience of observation whilst working hard on the tracks in and around town and the bush.

They found that extra smoke or more noise failed to dispell her squarking whilst they worked had at resolving problems. Quick blasts of the whistle caused great spewings of DLP flavoured waffle. The best they found was just to go about their business as though she wasn't there. She remained, squarking loudly and often, but they soon learned that it could be shut out if one really tried and the peace of calm and meaningful work amoungst themselves shon through with all smiling and toiling happily.
Helen - 19, January, 2012 (7:31)

Next blog let's agree to blog with everyone except L. If we ignore her rants for a time she might go elsewhere & give us a chance for some real thought & debate on different topics, otherwise we just lower ourselves to her level. She obviously gets off on it all, so let's not fuel her small delights.

My blog contributions have not been deleted so the moderator must have agreed with my comments.

See you all next time...
Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (7:23)

(cont.)

So once again, next week, I will try to ignore her nasty and utterly stupid comments. But to expect her to change? I doubt a psychiatrist could do that. Certainly we can't.

I agree that these constant arguments between us bloggers is not 'a good look' for a blog that is limited to more senior citizens. But as long as Lorikeet keeps on with her very childish and aberrant behaviour, this problem will persist. As Bob says, ignoring her is the only hope. But it does take a lot of joy out of blogging to have to just cop her abuse without any come-back.
Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (7:17)

(cont.)

However, once Lorikeet starts with her insults and put-downs, it is difficult for those bloggers who have been abused to just sit there and take it. And we don't go running to the Moderator asking her to remove blogs that we don't like.

So what's the answer? Just get sick of taking the abuse and leave the blog, like some other bloggers have - bloggers that contributed very intelligent and worthwhile comments. Those of us regular bloggers that have persisted have tried many times to get some sense out of Lorikeet, but she resists all attempts. She cannot address any topic in detail, cannot defend her views except by escalating her abuse, and never answers questions. Her blogs usually add little to any topic and are merely the same anti-corporate, anti-government diatribes every week. And she just loves all the attention she is now getting.
Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (7:10)

Sue Do-Nim

I support your comments. Unfortunately, I don't believe anyone can "help Lorikeet to help herself". I wish the Moderator could, but I doubt it.

All other bloggers (with the exception perhaps of WEG) see that the only problem with the NSA's blog is Lorikeet's nastiness and her sadly boastful contributions. If she could just learn to quit with the arrogant put-downs of any blogger who doesn't share her very pessimistic, DLP-indoctrinated view of the world, her contributions would be welcomed. She does raise some interesting points from time to time.

It should be noted that whilst we regular bloggers often 'agree to disagree' on a topic, we always treat each other with respect and try to learn from the many well-informed, intelligent and incisive comments by other bloggers. Life is a learning experience.
Lorikeet - 19, January, 2012 (6:34)

Yes, the Me Syndrome indoctrination people have received for the last 30 years is working against their chances of being treated humanely or, for that matter, treating others in a humane fashion.

This blog has shown us many excellent examples of lack of respect, Tall Poppy Syndrome and the mild sociopathy that now permeates our society from cradle to grave.
Lorikeet - 19, January, 2012 (6:33)

What have we learned from this week's blog?

The majority of contributors appear to support all passengers being treated like Parcel Post items and charged accordingly, despite the fact that there are more overweight people in the over-50s age group.

This appears to support a Fat Fare for the older generations. This week I also saw a television item which stated that everyone's weight increases by a few kilos every 10 years.

At the same time, the NSA struggles valiantly on in its mission to find work for the over-50s, while both government and private employers continue to view older Australians as superseded models of machinery in various stages of breakdown.
Sue Do-Nim - 18, January, 2012 (23:31)

I realise that it’s been suggested before but really, it’s about time the N.S.A. Moderator/
Administrator stepped in and instigated a limit to the number of postings allowed on any
given day from the same I.P. Address.

The excessive number of contributions by the compulsive Blogger known as ” Lorikeet” have
been tolerated for much too long.

Regular Bloggers have been very accommodating and accepting of her provocative, offbeat and
repetitious musings, however the continual attention seeking does become very tiresome
for others who wish to reasonably and calmly air their opinions.

“Excessive Blogging Disease”, (E.B.D.) is universally recognised as a dangerous addiction and I feel
the Moderator would be doing “Lorikeet” a great service by limiting her contributions.

I simply have the poor lady’s best interests at heart and my suggestions are in no way
meant cast aspersions on her shining intellect or debunk or malign her wondrous endeavours.

Dear Moderator, please help Lorikeet to help herself.
Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (20:51)

Question: How many times do you want the yolk to be sucked out of your nest egg?

Schoolyard bullies always think their victim is at fault. They can ignore me for the next 20 years. I look forward to it.
Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (19:43)

WEG

I think there are quite a few bloggers who see that invariably Lorikeet 'casts the first stone', or, to put it more precisely, starts the insults. On this blog it was a nasty comment of hers that has since been deleted, plus all references to it.

When we choose to completely ignore her, she keeps on throwing in some nasty comment to try to start a dispute and subsequently whinge about it. It is a never-ending pattern.

Other bloggers have tried all sorts of techniques to cope with her comments, but to no avail. Several have left because of her.

Next blog I will try to go back to completely ignoring her. But sharing a blog with her is not pleasant, to say the least. The rest of us bloggers can agree to disagree at times, but we always treat each other with respect. If only Lorikeet could manage that.
Bob B - 18, January, 2012 (19:30)

WEG

You are right in that a team needs cohesion to be successful. This has been evident in a num,ber of NRL teams in recent times where one does not fit. First of all they try to bring the misfit into line and if that doesn't work then he/she is expunged.

We don't have that luxury on a blog like this where we have to take all comers. I have seen some and that probably includes myself go through the above process quite unsuccessfully because we are denied the final step.

We do get on quite happily even in disagreement without L.
WEG - 18, January, 2012 (19:02)

I never purport to give advice. I just go with the flow. I assess all the blog input from our valued Seniors. Sometimes I’m surprised. I do learn from the experience especially with ‘meatier’ topics.

A team never wins if it continue to attack or demean another player. Having come from a large family, when altercations arose, my mother would say ‘It take two to tango’

So where does the fault lie?
Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (18:34)

Lorikeet

When you abide by these rules, including the one about 'personal attacks', you will have set us such a great example that no doubt we will follow your example - just like we do at present.

BTW, maybe some Labor, Greens and Liberal ideas are discussed. But I have never before seen a political statement quoted in detail as was the segment from the DLP's Senator Madigan (your 8:28 blog). Nor have I previously seen day by day reports on the activities any other politician (your 8:23 blog).
Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (18:18)

Read the complete "NO NO" list and then abide by it yourselves.
Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (18:17)

I haven't contacted the Moderator at all.

A succession of nasty derisive comments do not pass at all for reasoned or reasonable debate.

The ideas of Labor, Liberals and Greens are posted on this blog on a regular basis.

WEG:

The DLP hates Bill Shorten and his communist mates. I've seen him trying to pretend he actually cares about Australian manufacturers and workers. Pull the other one!

Both Labor and Coalition are doing their best to pretend that Katter's and Madigan's ideas are really their own.

Labor is also trying to refute claims that they are running a Slave Labor Trade in Aged Care and on the land, where workers are paid a pittance.

In 2009, the National Farmers' Federation won the right not to pay penalty rates. This is what happens when Woolworths and Coles (who control 80% of supermarket trade) are allowed to dud our farmers.
Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (17:58)

Sue Do-Nim

Yes, 'distributism' seems a hot topic on this blog, though I doubt many people other than DLP members and Catholics have even heard of it.

I think it was started by Catholics back in the early 20th century. And it is clearly being pushed by the DLP which, certainly originally at least, was a Party for Catholics opposed to communism.

But it seems blatant electioneering for the DLP is quite acceptable on this blog. Maybe we should go running to the Moderator like Lorikeet does. After all, overtly party-political messages is supposed to be a 'No no'. But, there it is - see Lorikeet 8:23, 8:28, and 12:19.
Robyn - 18, January, 2012 (17:48)

Sue Do-Nim,

Not sure if there are deletions. Have been too enthralled in "distibutism" and the super powers of John Madigan to notice :-(

Bob B,

My daughter informed me last night that the term for introducing a false persona on a blog in order to make responding arguments is called "having a sock puppet", and that the use of such duplicitous measures is considered amongst the blog community to be the most lame and desperate tactic one could resort to in a blog debate. It is a form of trolling. She said when detected it should be exposed.There are some things which should not be ignored when it comes to the bottom rung feed in keet. In general though I agree that trying to argue reasonably ( as Kay did and many before her, including me) if not in agreement, is pointless.
WEG - 18, January, 2012 (17:06)

Great debating points on Distributism that I can relate too.

Not sure about your assessment of Bill Shorten. He’s of the same ilk as Garry Weaven, and Paul Howes – ACTU affiliations.

Labor / Liberal in the same ‘camp’ as regard to PPPs - I don’t think so. Strategies are different.

I see my descriptive phrase re the watermelon group (The Witches of Eastwick) has caught on. They are an unprincipled lot but inevitable in a democracy.

Coalition pinching the ideas of 1 man (Madigan) may be stretching the rubber band a bit. However, good ideas deserve to be used (whatever they are), but an acknowledgement of source is always warranted.
Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (17:04)

Sue Do-Nim

Yes, it seems that several comments of mine (maybe others as well) that stated the obvious about Lorikeet have been removed - probably at Lorikeet's request. After all, she did say we should all be banned from the blog.

However, Lorikeet's original belittling comment to which I referred (8:13) remains on the blog. So does her blatant electioneering for the DLP! Go figure! I guess we just don't go running to the Moderator like Lorikeet does.

I guess Lorikeet just can't stand to see the truth in print. Very touchy!
Sue Do-Nim - 18, January, 2012 (16:32)

Is it just my imagination or have several comments been deleted?

" Distributism ". What a popular topic.
Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (12:19)

WEG:

Bill Shorten, like many other politicians, is trying to kneecap those who would run a better society, by pretending to support a more diverse economic power base. Both Labor and Liberals support corporatisation of everything using PPPs. They are both enemies of Distributism.

Julia Gillard has fallen foul of the Witches of Eastwick because she is trying to back-pedal now that large numbers of Tasmanians are being left without work.

The Carbon Tax is an instrument of wealth redistribution from the developed nations to the third world. This is why the Greens support ramping it up to the highest level.

Liberals will support a Carbon Trading Scheme if all other nations agree. They will Carbon Tax us as well, to support their corporate mates.

The Coalition is also trying to claim to have the primary interest in Madigan's excellent ideas.

The Nationals need to come on board and help to restore Regional Australia and the national economy.
Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (12:08)

The general explanation here of Distributism is not too bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Distributism would not have an interest in doing away with a social security system as a safety net, but would have an emphasis on full employment rather than a long dole queue of underpaid, depressed people.
WEG - 18, January, 2012 (12:07)

You’ve hit it right on the nose. Superannuation – Industry Funds: Banking – Credit Unions, plus the new bank on the block - M&E: You must now include the ‘new’ Energy sector – Pacific Hydro (for example). They’ll probably get the lion’s share of the Fed Govn $10b renewal energy slush fund no doubt. This fund is managed by Bernie Fraser, who was intricately involved with this sector since 1988. These Union aligned private enterprises manage Hundreds of Billions of our money. They have a history of poor governance as highlighted by the Cooper’s report especially in the Supn sector. They’re reluctant to change, and it will be interesting to see if Bill Shorten forces them to do so.
WEG - 18, January, 2012 (9:14)

I’ve never heard it expressed as a ‘distribution model’ but it does fit. Remove the religious references and include investment & energy sectors as additional focus areas, and it certainly aligns to my thinking.
Bob B - 18, January, 2012 (8:53)

Kay, Robyn

L's 16:29 of yesterday indicates she operates through osmosis if things are done with no correspondence at all. How wonderful and super human and at the age of 20 too!!

I know I've said it before but there is no use tackling her on anything at all. The best approach is not to acknowledge directly or by inference. I've looked at a number of references new and old on humans traits and to ignore her or humour her is how to deal with her. Humour is certainly out of the question so silence it is.

We are off to be entertained by Thjomas the tank engine in Ipswich.
Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (8:27)

Helen (cont.)

As Bob says, to know everything about everything is just not human. We are all happy to admit to our many areas of limited knowledge and experience, whilst commenting in detail where we do have the appropriate background. It is not a competition.

Next blog I will revert to the 'ignore' approach (or at least try very hard!).
Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (8:13)

I have always worked very well as part of a team in the workplace and elsewhere. The only times I ever have problems with other people is when they know they have been outclassed or have been left too far behind to understand.

I don't really think WEG is a dentist. Since he is a clever polite man compared with you schoolyard bullies, he probably knows quite a bit about a wide range of topics.

The NBN is much too expensive, especially when the government intends to let private enterprises cash in on the bounty.

Once multi-national companies wield enormous financial and therefore manipulative power, they disempower governments. This is what has happened in the EEU, to which Russia does not belong. They prefer to run their own punitive control system.
Nottakeet - 18, January, 2012 (8:02)

WEG

At 16:55 on 17th you metioned a third investment power emerging in Australia. At 22:09 Lorikeet asked for more information on this third invstment power base. I must have missed your reply.

Without putting the cat among the pigeons (or the keets) could you please drill down and supply some further information.

Thanks.
Helen - 18, January, 2012 (7:18)

(2)Ignoring ignorance is the only way as no-one will ever change this behaviour. It could be worse - Imagine living in the same house..Perhaps this is why there is an "aloneness" & desire to be accepted detected. Unfortunately for what ever reason, the other personality destroys the chance of achieving any of this. The "working world" would have been the same. I feel sorry for those who were part of the work force with a person like this constantly interferring with this "know all attitude" & forcing their view with know- all ferver.

Let's just ignore the barbs & just continue on...
Helen - 18, January, 2012 (7:17)

Good morning all! I was out all day yesterday. I just read all the comments & there is nothing new. I hope we get a better topic next time.

I would like to see "open topics" where we pick out own & take them for as long as the interest is there & then move along. We tend to do this anyway, but somehow they always end up with the same person "goading" everyone until they fight back Contd-
Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (7:08)

Lorikeet

It is my understanding that the NBN will be a wholly government-owned wholesale supplier of internet services. All retail suppliers, including Telstra, will then be able to buy access to the NBN and supply to the public.

My concerns are about the huge initial cost for the NBN; the fact that it will become a monopoly supplier with the power to constantly ratchet up prices such that all users will pay the same - city and outback. The only competition will be between the retail suppliers. I expect the cost of internet to increase significantly.

I believe the NBN will eventually be privatised.

This is a useful site:
http://www.nbn.gov.au/frequently-asked-questions/
Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (6:33)

WEG

Don't be upset. I always appreciate your contributions. Even if you aren't a dentist!
Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (6:30)

Bob (cont.)

Thanks for the info re QANTAS. I usually only fly QANTAS if it is part of another trip - eg South America. I was very lucky flying back from Chile a couple of years ago (LAN Chile + QANTAS). I was given the 'run around' at check-in in Calama - told to ask at Santiago, then the check-in desk, then the boarding gate etc etc. Because I complained about the different advice I was being given, at the last moment they called me back from boarding and gave me a Business Class seat. Oh, what luxury! A bed for the long flight home! You can't lose them all!
Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (6:29)

Bob

Re the exit seats. I too have often managed to secure exit seats by asking at check-in - sometimes one is lucky, sometimes not. And yes, you have to be strong enough to open the doors in a hurry - and you get a special little talk and instructions before the flight.

I once flew not long after recovering from a broken leg, and was still a bit slow, and hence self-selected out of that role. But I usually ask.

No, what I didn't know was that for Virgin (my preferred carrier) you could now pay for and secure this seat at the time of booking. Given that Brisbane to Sydney is only an hour, I didn't bother. But the International Long Haul flights are still as before - at check-in.
Robyn - 18, January, 2012 (6:25)

Sorry WEG, that was unfair. Everyone has their own interest areas and you don't dominate the blog with your views.
Norman - 18, January, 2012 (6:15)

Fat people do not only spread one side. If you want obese people to be comfortable, three seats are required, with the middle seat for the bulk of the posterior and the window and aisle seats for the spill. Perhaps payment for 1 adult and 2 child seats would be fair.
WEG - 17, January, 2012 (23:21)

Ooops ....I thought I was being constructive in drilling down on an issue raised previously.

Never mind, I’ll try to do better next time.
Robyn - 17, January, 2012 (22:51)

Personally, what I find boring is the never ending effort of some to bring everything, no matter what the topic, back to the operation/perceived machination, of government. Yawn!!! I am talking about Lorikeet and WEG in particular. Give it a break!
Sue Do-Nim - 17, January, 2012 (22:19)

Silly Sue..I thought WEG was a dentist??????
Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (22:14)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra
Bob B - 17, January, 2012 (19:19)

Kay

Qantas international flights also make exit seats available at $40 per sector on selected flights. There are conditions and they cannot be booked on line.

From memory from my business flying when working, Qantas also have exit seats available on domestic flights with conditions. I remember once being asked my age and ability to open the exit window before being seated in one on check-in in the days when that was done on arrival at the airport. As all these exit windows still exist they are obviously available. That does not cover the girth of a passenger which seems to be the main bugbear.
Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (17:13)

I just booked a flight to Sydney next month on Virgin Australia. Surprise, surprise! I just discovered they now offer an Extra Legroom option for economy seats - at a cost, depending upon the original fare paid plus whether it is a Domestic, International Short Haul or International Long Haul. As usual, this is the Emergency Exit seat. It can be booked online for Domestic and Short Haul flights, but still only on check-in for Long Haul. But at least it's an option for us long-legged mob!

I won't bother on this occasion as it is only an hour's flight. But I did find it interesting.
WEG - 17, January, 2012 (16:55)

Can’t wait until the next blog as this one is truly spent. We know it’s time when the insults are ‘airborne’.

Only interest to date is a reference to Public / Private Partnerships (P/PP). This topic interests me, but I’m not as informed as I like to be.
Public enterprises = NBN (although I anticipate some private interest injection down the track): Private enterprises = Toll Ways/Infrastructure development (Both simple examples of P/PP ). Quite healthy economics I would have thought.

There is a 3rd investment power base emerging in Australia though still in it’s infancy. Anyone aware what this is?
Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (16:47)

John O'Grady

You are clearly a kind, compassionate person, able to see issues from different viewpoints. Much appreciated.
John O'Grady - 17, January, 2012 (16:42)

There has been a load of extraneous rubbish in this particular blog, a lot of it repetitively boringly same old, same old...!
The actual subject, however, has been addressed and covered from all angles with fairness and openess. It has certainly made me see the 'other' side of a situation and enabled me to empathise. I really had not thought of the feelings of those who are spilling out of their seats and causing angst in the person closest to them. Naturally, they will feel pretty mortified and utterly unable to do anything about it.A kind word would reduce their tension and enable them to continue the flight in an easier manner. They might even be good conversation!I need to work more on not being so bloody egocentric.
Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (16:30)

Robyn:

When wording is used figuratively, intelligent people do not view it in a sinister fashion. It might even give them a laugh.

Boring letters that are all more or less the same would be quickly filed under "C" for Customer Complaints, while innovative letters would be remembered.

People pay attention to ideas that are different. The rest just make them yawn.

But I'm sure it wouldn't matter what I said, the same bunch would be hostile. I bet no one has even started reading the links on private/public partnerships.
Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (16:29)

Bob B:

Immediate action was taken by the Minister on one matter, with no correspondence. I was only 20 years old at the time.

When I worked in a university dept, one letter to the Head Professor regarding neglect of students brought action overnight, with better workplace practices instituted immediately. That was at age 22.

Where Alan Joyce is concerned, you have forgotten to factor in interest rates. There are many aspects of the man's financial status which are unknown.
Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (13:44)

Bob

Oh, how I recognise those words....! Takes me right back to the 'good old days' when I worked for a living! Clearly your experience has been a bit like mine. No doubt different subject matter, but the approach to Ministerials is the same!
Bob B - 17, January, 2012 (13:37)

Kay

I too have been involved with answering 'Ministerials' etc. The answer to L's would have been something like 'Thank you for your concern and bringing it to the attention of the Minister. The matter is being considered and will be dealt with in due course." Then it would have been filed and the file archived. Unless you've been there, you would think this was good.
Bob B - 17, January, 2012 (13:08)

L

Even your put down about annual or lifetime earnings fails to take account of the costs associated with aircraft and their support. I said 50 times and that is factual, not figurative. And how many aircraft? Your not in the ball park even.
Robyn - 17, January, 2012 (12:04)

Lorikeet:

Of course your language is figurative. It is a bit naive of you to think anyone would think it is not. Nevertheless it is poor language because it portrays a sense of violence which would repel the reader rather than attract them to your message.
Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (11:23)

According to the Channel 9 news at 11.00 a.m., “Anna Bligh won’t call an election until after the kids return to school next week”.

Queenslanders will have to go to the polls 2 months running, with council elections also due to be held at the end of March.

Among other things, I am a trained writer/editor. My references to waist and neck were figurative, as I'm sure most people would understand.

I can assure everyone that a hard hitting message certainly makes people sit up and take notice.

A letter I once wrote to a newspaper had a local councillor, state MP and Queensland Transport Bureaucrat all publicly responding, mostly pointing the finger at one another.
Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (10:17)

Currawong (cont.)

I write many letters to Ministers, Mayors, Opposition leaders (and companies) these days about topics that I am passionate about. I do believe citizens have a responsibility to inform government about their views if they want any change in policy to occur. It is part of the democratic process. It used to be an 'in-joke' that Minister's offices just weighed the letters on a topic to decide if a change in policy was needed. Not exactly true, but there is some merit in the statement.
Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (10:16)

Currawong

You are spot on with your comments at 6:50 17/1 about how businesses/government departments react to letters they receive.

In government departments all letters to the Minister must be answered, regardless. However, those that are well-reasoned and make intelligent suggestions are indeed taken seriously and can feed into subsequent policy development on the topic. I know this because my job as a senior public service manager required me to write probably thousands of responses over the years for the Minister's signature. And as a manager, I took into serious consideration all sensible suggestions contained in those letters.

We did also receive many ill-informed, sometimes abusive, letters. Whilst we did not have the freedom that a business manager might have to just 'bin them', they did nothing to influence subsequent policy development.
Robyn - 17, January, 2012 (9:59)

Lorikeet:

I thought your suggested letter to Qantas was ugly. The language you use - "chop off at the waist", "chop off at the neck" - sounds violent. I don't think you would get anywhere with a letter like that.
Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (9:44)

Sorry, I meant public/private partnerships.
Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (9:44)

This looks like an interesting link to many articles on public/private articles:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=negative+aspects+of+public/private+partnerships&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

It should keep some people out of trouble for an extended period.
Robyn - 17, January, 2012 (9:36)

I am sure that many who travel on planes are overweight and there is no problem. One would have to be MASSIVELY obese to take up room in other people's seats. I have never seen such a massive person travel on a plane or at an airport. People who are too big for the seats probably wouldn't fly economy class. As I said earlier, I have sat next to very large people and have not been discomforted by their close presence.

Why was this topic even put up for discussion? Some guy named Tony Webber makes a nonsensical, prejudicial statement and we are asked to receive it as credible and debate it? This topic has given a green light to those who have issues with other people's weight to express their own prejudice. It has not been fair to any NSA member who is overweight to even put it up for discussion.
Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (9:35)

I once got action on an important matter from a government department in less than 2 weeks.

I think my letter would have far more impact than anything more sublime.

Everyone knows that bankers are here to empower themselves, except those who choose to ignore simple facts.

I have no doubt that Alan Joyce has accumulated a significant sum of money in his lifetime of mega and lesser payouts. No sensible person would consider the $5 million (one bonus) to be the sum total of his lifetime income.

I have never considered that some people choosing to use upper case is "screaming" at someone.

I'm afraid I cannot take responsibility for other people's inability/failure to understand the negative machinations of government, their corporate mates and the financial problems involved with public/private partnerships.

Study up ... this would be better than engaging in idle chitchat, while condemning those to whom you will one day owe a massive apology.
Heather C-D - 17, January, 2012 (8:50)

Part 2

I think to be fair, if airlines do charge extra for people over a certain weight, then they need to weigh everyone with all their hand luggage and gear they currently carry for free (eg strollers etc) and charge everyone equally for the "freight" they carry.

Far too much carry on luggage is taken aboard these days all because people don't want to have to pay to check it in.

Those people have a choice but sadly, as others have said, some obese people are that way due to illness etc.

Many bloggers have been quick to judge. Many overweight people I know do not eat Maccas or fast food.

And BTW, I know skinny people who have been really fit or fitness fanatics but developed chronic and fatal illnesses.

You can't judge a book by its cover!
Heather C-D - 17, January, 2012 (8:43)

Part 1

It is my understanding that Aussie airlines currently the airlines offer seats on planes without any weight restrictions. Until they offer an seats for sale to people up to a certain weight, then neither they nor any blogger here has the right to ask people to buy two seats.

Australia's population of obese people is creeping up to near 50% - so it's not like suddenly we've noticed a whole lot of overweight people !!
Bob B - 17, January, 2012 (8:26)

So banks charge a fee for sending out a reminder notice. For that to happen the customer must be in default of something. A fee seems reasonable to me - maybe the size of the fee is what should be discussed.

A bank is a business not a benevolent society. Would just love to see the business Lorikeet runs and how it would be structured. The mind boggles.
Bob B - 17, January, 2012 (8:21)

So, according to L, Allan Joyce could own the company with a salary of $5m per year. That shows very poor understanding. That's about 50 times too small for one B747 even.
those
Just goes to prove what is said about who shoot off at the mouth.
Sue Do-Nim - 17, January, 2012 (8:10)

I’m sure the squawkings of a particular N.S.A. Blogger are pivotal in providing senior management of Qantas with future business direction..NOT.

One shouldn’t display petty jealousy or envy at others success or their status in life… It will eat you up inside.
Bob B - 17, January, 2012 (7:27)

Disappointment is running rampant. I have gone so soon from the #1 in 2012 on the prior subject. I will make it up later on but that's no challenge really.

Time for the pictures today with all this rain about to keep the grandkids spirits up. Time to relive the muppets. now they might inspire some number one making material?
Currawong - 17, January, 2012 (6:50)

If I was in business and received a letter like L's suggestion, it would have no impact and be filed in the waste (recycle) bin. It would be nusance value only.

If you want to be taken seriously you must present a compelling case even if it politely suggests there is a seating problem out there that needs attention. It could also make some calm suggestions like reintroduce those economy seats that could be quickly modified from a three to a two person arrangement. If they received a thousand of these calm letters they might start thinking in the right direction.
Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (6:40)

The subject heading could be:

"TRIMMING THE FAT"
Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (6:37)

OPEN LETTER TO QANTAS (suggestion)

Instead of sitting in your boardroom thinking of new ways to rip off passengers, e.g. by labelling them with rude obnoxious names:

Blubber Guts
Treble Chins
Titanic T***
Midriff Mamas
Thunder Thighs
Shudder Shanks
Tuckshop Arms
Flubber Butts

(yes, we know you are doing it!)

kindly provide passenger seats that suit the average person in the 21st century.

Instead of underpaying workers and sardine-canning passengers, please trim the financial nails of your upper level management.

Please cut very highly paid executives off at the waist, and CEO Alan Joyce off at the neck. On $5 million a year, he could easily own the company.
Marlene - 16, January, 2012 (21:47)

I believe there should be seating for people over the acceptable weight/size that the usual seating is designed for.This seating would obviously be more expensive but I believe people in the "normal" weight range shouldn't have to be wedged in alongside these folk.As a female and weighing less than most male passengers I am still only allowed the same luggage allowance while my partner weighs at least twenty kilos heavier than me.( and then has the cheek to comment on my "full" case!)
Lorikeet - 16, January, 2012 (21:18)

On the news, they said banks are charging fees for reminder notices. They are out of line on a number of fronts and are in need of correction.

The government has the capacity to manage money hungry bankers. It's such a pity they don't do their jobs.

If Sue-Do-Nim is not happy with her looks or her intellect, she has my sympathy.
Lorikeet - 16, January, 2012 (21:10)

I heard that the banks were in trouble for collecting fees illegally.

Clearly Robyn did the right thing, as it seems this person was trying to cash in on it herself.

The government should lasso the banks and make them do the right thing. Tonight I saw that a legal firm is going in to bat for those who have been ripped off on a no win = no fee basis.

Nine EEU countries had their economies downgraded today. Even France has lost its AAA rating.
Robyn - 16, January, 2012 (20:39)

Speaking of banks..... There is a new scam occurring at the moment.

An Asian woman who spoke poor English phoned the other day. She said she worked for the Australian Government and that money was being refunded to people because the banks have been collecting fees illegally. She said that I would be receiving $5,000 and wanted my details. When I refused to give details she hung up. Has anyone else received a call?
Bob B - 16, January, 2012 (18:54)

Lorikeet

Before you start. Yes, there was a program on tonight that taretted banks about their fees, probably correctly.

However, they applied mainly to defaulters. I pay no fees and have not do so for ages and then it was foreign currency transaction fees. They talked about late payments etc. Pay on time and from funds already held and there is no problem. Choose yopur bank and account and no fees is very possible.

So any of your bleating applies to defaulters, sad as that might be.
Helen - 16, January, 2012 (17:08)

Oh dear I can feel another attack of "Rectovesical Trauma" aka pain in the A syndrome coming on - soooo painful! After reading L's comments re her appearance.

L has no idea what we look like (or our ages). I have a great visual picture of of her though based on what she has told us.

Doing some study at the moment. Google "Ampelistra" & have a good read, really interesting re the food we eat & also Herbert Benson. It may enlighten those with medical problems to retrain the brain into improving health.
Herbert Benson has some wonderful techniques re altering immune system thinking to help inmprove quality of life & wellness. It's really worth a read - Cheers til tomorrow...
Currawong - 16, January, 2012 (16:59)

Margaret

I think you'll find the necessary info is fleshed out quite quickly. Then we move on. Life is not all straight up and down.

Roll with it; its a pleasant experience unless one in particular lets fly and that is quite repetitively boring.
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (16:56)

Lorikeet

Your comment at 9:57 14/1 was completely uncalled-for, insulting and provocative! This you follow up with many more baseless boasts and insults. Your blogs at 16:07 and 16:22 16/1 are typical - no substance, just hypocritical insulting diatribes.

I and other bloggers actually discuss details of matters under discussion. Unfortunately you are incapable of this. Hence your attempts to hide your ignorance with your nasty insults and ridiculous boasts. Sadly, it is all so predictable! We aren't fooled.
Currawong - 16, January, 2012 (16:43)

Tradies are not renowned for their discrimination for a little on the side!!!
Sue Do-Nim - 16, January, 2012 (16:35)

"Beauty Fades,Dumb is Forever"
John O'Grady - 16, January, 2012 (15:31)

Gambling really is a terrible problem and there is so little known about it's causes. It is recognised as an illness, in a very general sense and we deal with it a bit at Lifeline. We can only refer it on the gamblers anonymous and hope that they can help. There are some really, really sad stories.
John O'Grady - 16, January, 2012 (15:26)

The more things change (blog topics, etc.) the more they stay the same. When I was a teenager it was my job to kill a chook, when required by simply lopping off it's head on a chopping block, at the woodheap. Having done that it was great, if childish, fun to let the bird then run out it's nervous energy by tearing all over the place before dropping. Now that doesn't seem to have changed a lot. Our resident old chook has been copying the real thing for many a day and isn't showing sign of giving up on the habit!
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (14:18)

Bob

I think your comment at 14:04 is a pretty good assessment.

Don't tire yourself out too much with those grandchildren!
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (14:14)

Helen (cont.)

I have zero interest in gambling. But I do love my food. So I can empathise.

I guess I never like any solution that makes life more difficult for the majority, just to protect a small minority (a 'Nanny State' solution). I would prefer to see greater emphasis on the establishments that benefit from the poker machines (clubs, pubs etc) being made responsible for monitoring problem gamblers. Family members etc could alert a club to a problem, and then the club would be responsible for monitoring and banning them from gambling beyond a set limit. A bit like sexual harassment - once you have told management that there is a problem, the onus is then on management to resolve the issue.

It also seems that if one has an addiction to gambling, one will seek out other gambling opportunities if poker machines are made more difficult to access.
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (14:11)

Helen

I simply don't know what the solution is to problem gamblers.

Both my father and grandmother were inveterate gamblers, often affecting their capacity to pay their bills. I learnt from observation that gambling is not a profitable undertaking! I can likewise thank my father for the fact that I don't drink or smoke (watching him was enough of a lesson).
Bob B - 16, January, 2012 (14:04)

I guess in reality number 1 is simply the last to have challenged her in a substantial way
Helen - 16, January, 2012 (13:30)

(2)I remember when pubs didn't want pokies installed & now live off them & don't want them gone! I can stop at $5 but understand that for some its impossible. Usually they have other areas like horse racing as well. Should we protect these people from themselves, or protect their families? I believe even drug addiction is related & alcohol addiction as well. It seems to be in the person & we all know someone who has been affected by this/these problems.

Is the government travelling the right road in trying to deal with the addicted personality?...
Helen - 16, January, 2012 (13:28)

Changing tack again. "Poker Machines" & problem gamblers. I do know some families where this has destroyed whole ways of living. One person I know even stole his daughters wages when he was supposed to collect them for her & put them thru a machine.

His daughter went on to have problems of her own. Addictive natures are born into some people in my opinion. I would love to know bloggers views on this. When you think about it the problem has no lines as far as who is affected - contd -
Bob B - 16, January, 2012 (13:12)

No girls, if you look earlier on this blog topic you will see I clearly have number 1 spot. Her degree of angst with me has not been equalled yet but, don't hold your breath.
Robyn - 16, January, 2012 (12:40)

I just had a thought! People probably sweat less on planes because the air is so drying. That's why some people ply on moisturizers.
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (12:22)

Margaret

We don't have each others email addresses.

As has been stated on many, many blogs - one blog topic per week doesn't go very far. Most of us have already given our views on the nominated topic, but sometimes other related or unrelated topics are introduced to the blog and discussed. So be it.

Nothing prevents other bloggers from staying on topic. To each his/her own. I assure you I read all comments - on topic or not. Sometimes they are quite informative.
Arabella - 16, January, 2012 (11:42)

(Re just quickly - 2012 economy blog, yes Robyn if you are reading this you were on topic). Re fat people. I guess if a person is hugely fat and can't fit into one seat, they should pay for two seats. I don't know why people who are hugely fat are that fat - if it is a medical reason I feel sympathetic about that, everything would cost double. If it is just greed and then an addiction to greed, I guess I am not so sympathetic although I understand how that could happen. Either way, I guess if you need two seats you pay for two seats. cheers,
Margaret Clinch - 16, January, 2012 (11:23)

Dear Friends,

It is clear from this sequence that if members wish to be informed by sharing a full range of useful information and opinion on various issues in current newsletters, we need new moderator rules. These would exclude extended person conversations. These would better be carried on personal emails, not a topic blog.

What a Waste of an Important Blog
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (11:16)

No, Lorikeet. I started out 'feeling my way' on this blog. But after a while, I noticed your ridiculous, ill-informed scare-mongering blogs and decided that you needed challenging, especially on those topics where my knowledge and experience was clearly superior to yours! Other bloggers warned me about wasting my time trying to get through to you with any logic, but I have persisted. And I have copped a lot of abuse from you and your alter egos for my efforts. Others have just left the blog entirely after their attempts at trying to talk sense to you.

Your definition of "nice" is 'someone who does not disagree with me'. And you just love antagonising others so they respond and you can play the 'poor little me' game.
Lorikeet - 16, January, 2012 (10:57)

Now I have to get on with knitting some fancy scarves for the Bring and Buy, while also trying to think of a way to stop Heinz from destroying or selling the machinery from their abandoned Tomato Sauce Factory in Victoria.

Local politicians are setting up an Australian co-operative. Heinz is taking its operation to NZ and trying to cut out competition, in order to leave Australian farmers and factory workers without marketable goods or work.
Lorikeet - 16, January, 2012 (10:49)

In Brisbane, it can rain for weeks at a time. Some elderly or disabled people cannot use dryers, nor can they easily go out to work.

Broader thinking and greater consideration is the message, ladies!

We have certainly NOT established that airlines won't charge large people higher fares. An opinion does not suddenly become (or not become) airline policy.

Dianne Porter is right in saying that we should all write to airlines, telling them what we need. (Also email politicians on a regular basis about various issues, after considering the broader ramifications of our suggestions first!) I don't think we should include suggestions which will turn the travelling public into Parcel Post items, surcharge-paying "fatties" or tell them anything which might cause them to take aim at the chubbiest age group (over-50s, pensioners and retirees).
Robyn - 16, January, 2012 (10:35)

Dianne,

I so agree with you about the importance of customer service. Mood is really affected by the degree to which people are willing to be helpful, kind and friendly when offering service. It is such an important thing in every avenue of business. Last year I needed to buy a new fridge. I actually paid more for one than I would have paid in another store because I liked the salesperson so much. It seemed crazy to do this but it made me feel good.

I would probably be willing to pay a little more to fly with an airline that gives great customer service than go cheaper and get poor service.
Helen - 16, January, 2012 (10:19)

1. This C/Try does not owe us a living
2. If we want to work we should be able to (regardless of age or disability)
3. Don't under estimate people's commonsense when faced with adversity
4. Don't force opinions on to others that are strictly personal deeming that it is the only way.
4. Freedom of thought is precious in any C/try
5 Never lose that child like quality & become a closeted grouch.
6. There is no experience like "being there"

7. Holier than thou attitudes are insulting
8. Being dead is forever, nothing else it..
9. Get out & enjoy life

10 We can't be everything to all people ( stole that one) & if we love ourselves, so will the rest of the world.

I dedicate these little gems to a poor sad creature who seems to lack any kind of enthusiasm & zest for life...
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (10:05)

Lorikeet (cont.)

I am intrigued by your reference to hot water temps. There is a mandated maximum for safety reasons, and that temp is very hot but not scalding. Where on earth are you coming from? Most intelligent people would investigate the reason for, and have fixed, any problem with their hot water system which resulted in cold water! We use off-peak hot water - always hot!

I am concerned with any attempt by any government to mandate 'Smart Meters'. As I understand it, the opposition to these comes very much from those who enjoy off-peak savings on their hot water supplies (like us). I gather that these meters do not permit off-peak supplies, hence automatically significantly increasing electricity costs. This is contrary to the concept of encouraging people to use base-load electricity at a time of day when general usage is greatly reduced (in the middle of the night).
Dianne Porter - 16, January, 2012 (10:00)

I have to leave this blog now, go to one of my 3 casual jobs to pay for the cost of living! It's been a pleasure having these little chats, I hope I can sit down again sometime.
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (9:57)

Lorikeet

What I have said is also very logical! (albeit reiterating what "the government and bankers wish us to believe").

I can't see any equally logical points that you have made that I am ignoring.

Once again, what is wrong with using a superannuation structure to try to provide for oneself?

As for all those "control mechanisms and abuses' you have mentioned in your blog at 9:19, many of those are just good economics for the user, and many are complete furphies! And nobody is forcing anyone to do these things. I do however concede that being poor makes life very difficult. Most of us have had experience of that. That is why we have tried so hard to provide for a comfortable (not rich) old age!
Dianne Porter - 16, January, 2012 (9:53)

Robyn & Kay - thanks, I may have misunderstood Willo, easy to misread meanings in the written word isn't it!
Re this whole issue - if we really really felt so strongly about it we should be spending our time writing to the airlines themselves. I think the worse thing they ever did was take away the PLO (Public Liasion Officers) at airports who would meet passengers (oops, sorry, customers) in need! Customer service is what people really really need yet it is the first thing to go and then they wonder what is wrong? They rarely seek front-line employees input in such matters. Same goes for a lot of big businesses. This year I am joing Toastmasters to learn how to speak and be heard on important matters! Wish me luck! It is new territory for an old girl!
Robyn - 16, January, 2012 (9:42)

I won't bother with the rest of it but "lose weight or pay higher fares" is another lie and we have established that this will not eventuate.

Why would anyone want to use a dryer in Brisbane?
Lorikeet - 16, January, 2012 (9:19)

All:

Here is just a short list of control mechanisms and abuses that are being visited on us, likely to be ramped up at a later date.

Turn your air-conditioner up.

Turn your hot water system down to the lowest (too cold).

Generate your own power.

Cook your main meal at lunch time.

Use the washing machine and dishwasher at off peak times.

Hang washing on the line. Don't use clothes dryer.

Lose weight or pay higher fares.

Cut red meats and dairy products out of your diet.

Stay home in the evening. (Aren't you also staying home at lunch time to cook?) At a family restaurant, I was told I could not use my NSA card after 6.00 p.m.

If you have kids at school, get out to work.

If you have a disability, get out to work.

If you can't afford your non-PBS medicine, die!

If you are elderly, be last on the public hospital queue.
Lorikeet - 16, January, 2012 (9:16)

Kay:

You have simply reiterated exactly what the government and bankers wish us to believe without giving any thought to the issues I have mentioned here.

I once worked in the Dept of Social Security, also for a short time in Dept of Veterans' Affairs.

Greedy bankers snapped 35+% of my mother investment (recommended by one of the Big 4 banks). Which bank?
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (8:31)

Diane:

I endorse Robyn's comments. I don't think Willo was referring to you - I read it as sitting next to some obnoxious person on a plane who makes a point of big-noting him/herself.

Your ever sensible and informed comments are extremely welcome. We are learning a lot from you.
Robyn - 16, January, 2012 (8:27)

Lorikeet,

I note that you are still avoiding any mention of the fact that you and "John" had a conversation with yourself on 14 January between (20:25) and (20:31). Would you like to explain why you went through that little exercise?
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (8:26)

Lorikeet:

"..the agendas of the banking industry" - to make profits of course, just like the agenda of any business anywhere! No mystery, no criticism.

"...the pension system" - a taxpayer-funded, means-tested safety net payment to provide some assistance to those who cannot provide for themselves, for reasons deemed acceptable by the government who administer those funds. Again - no mystery. Also no mystery that the capacity for the government to provide these pensions is limited, given other priorities such as health and education. Especially given the rapidly increasing number of retirees. Hence the government's encouragement for everyone to have superannuation. Hence the favourable tax treatment of superannuation. Hence the fact that the more people can provide for themselves, the better it is for the country.
Robyn - 16, January, 2012 (8:07)

Dianne Porter,

I really appreciate your comments and sharing of knowledge on this topic. I immediately felt tension ease when you entered the blog because your knowledge cut through the prejudiced muck and highlighted the lack of credibility of this Tony Webber guy. Made me wonder why we were giving him any credibility at all by debating his comments.

I didn't think Willo was taking a swipe at you. Please keep up your great input.
Lorikeet - 16, January, 2012 (7:59)

Sue...No-Dim, Kay & co-abusers:

I take no responsibility for the fact you cannot understand the ways of the world, the pension system or the agendas of the banking industry.

If you spent less time on small talk and behaving like schoolyard bullies, you could spend more time thinking about other people's input. I guess that would be too much to expect.
Robyn - 16, January, 2012 (7:52)

Helen,

I missed you on the last strand too and wondered why you weren't there. Glad you are back.

Grand kids are so delightful - I adore being with mine but I only have 2. They are both very young so I do get physically tired at times but they always lift my spirits. My favourite memories as a child are of the holidays I had, with my cousins, at my grandparents place. Practically every school hols we were all landed on them by our parents so it was always the highlight of holidays. Those GP's have been dead now for 52 and 40 years and my memories of them are so loving and warm.

"Superhelekeet" suits you. We could all become "keets" - that would upset somebirdies apple cart!
Dianne Porter - 16, January, 2012 (7:31)

Hey JWM: Airlines operate on amazingly tight turnarounds-there is no time to unbolt seats! Are you for real? They have maximum 1 hour turnaround,some a lot less. Crew often are needing to 'bolt' from one aircraft to the next. Who do you think is going to run around with their little tool kit and do the deed? Haven't you read how they are reducing aircraft engineers, they are flat out as it is. Think you will find the seats are not all individual either, most are bolted as a set of 3 or more. Can just see someone carrying an aircraft seat on and off planes all day and night, what next!!
Dianne Porter - 16, January, 2012 (7:24)

Hello Willo: I feel you may be having a swipe at me just because I have shared some factual informationl. I actually resist from a lot of communication on this site because a lot is so inaccurate and some ideas people put fwd are bordering on the ridiculous. Just trying to set a few records straight. Be informed so the grey matter doesn't retire completely! By the way, I am ot an expert and my greatest life achievement has not been a flying career, my greatest life achievement has been my family. I worked to help out. Sorry if I came across as an expert, it was not the intention.
Helen - 16, January, 2012 (7:22)

(3) Making that "bond" when they are babies does have benefits (if we can live thru the tiny yrs). Our youngest is nearly 3. Our children love it that their children eat, behave & sleep while being here. There are also no restrictions either & chastising only happens on rare occasions. We also play a lot which busy parents can't always do.

It puts us way out front (again if we can live thru it)

How does everyone feel about the name "Helekeet"? My family seemed to think I can leap buildings with a single bound. Perhaps "Superhelekeet" hmmm.... Catch everyone later...
Helen - 16, January, 2012 (7:21)

(2)I notice that Bob B is having his turn. The family are already booking ahead for next hols. I guess if it doesn't end our life it keeps us all on our toes (& young). I's also lovely that the children love to be with us.

I asked miss 13 why? She replied I just love it here with you & Opa. Contd -
Helen - 16, January, 2012 (7:19)

Thanks Kay the same to you. I was pretty busy I must admit. I have had grandchildren & family staying with me since November (off & on) all went home last weekend. Xmas was here this year as well. I have sent the word around that Nan needs a rest!

Have you noticed that our children find THEY need a rest so give the children to us, which in turn means that the others GK want to stay as well (so I usually end up with the lot & a full house) Before & after their parents as well.

I love my family to death & really miss them when they go. I also feel guilty that I get so tired as I'm not supposed to. Does anyone else feel this way as well at the moment? contd -
Kay Kelly - 16, January, 2012 (6:51)

Helen

Just a comment re your mention at 13:56 13/1 about missing the first blog of 2012.

There wasn't a 'Connect' issue to alert us to the blog. I have the NSA Blog bookmarked on my computer, and I just checked the blog list every day or so. The new topic came up, and off we went. But you can see by the low number of comments that many would-be bloggers weren't watching the blog list, or else they were just enjoying their holidays too much to bother!

Anyway, Helen, and anyone else who missed the first blog topic of 2012, welcome back and I wish you a very happy and healthy 2012!!
Kay Kelly - 15, January, 2012 (17:59)

I actually prefer to be seated as far towards the back of the plane as I can. I think it is safer there - if you have any chance of surviving a crash, you are more likely to survive if you are at the rear of the plane (or so I believe).
willo - 15, January, 2012 (17:47)

Whether people sitting next to me are fat or not is not my biggest problem whenever I fly. It's the "experts and know alls" who want to bring you up to date with their greatest life achievements that really irk me.
Robyn - 15, January, 2012 (17:09)

Kay,

Yes, a lot of ducking and weaving has been going on. All very amusing! The latest ploy though was pretty off, embuing the moderator with tyrannical policing action that she didn't undertake.
Robyn - 15, January, 2012 (16:42)

Good to know you "keets" are still around to keep the "keet world" grounded. Looks like Lorikeet got carried away with her own little fantasy to rid the blog of fellow keets!
JWM - 15, January, 2012 (16:36)

Airlines must look at the format of their on-line booking/seat allocation. Height (for tall people) and weight (for larger persons) need to be addressed in the on-line format. BUT don't discriminate by seating them at the back (weight & balance calculations for aircraft takeoff and landing are critical). Seats can be unbolted - so flexibility to remove two & replace with one larger one ANYWHERE in the plane is important. Loss of one fare here needs to be compensated by charging more. Airlines are companies-making money is their business. As an aside, no one puts their seat back during meals - A DEFINITE 'NO NO'.
Kay Kelly - 15, January, 2012 (16:12)

To all the other "..keets":

Welcome back!

Like Robyn, I too thought it an outrageous statement that the Moderator had got rid of the other '...keet' bloggers!! This was clearly another of Lorikeet's grandstanding comments - and for what? Just because she doesn't like being caught out with her aliases.
Bob B - 15, January, 2012 (16:07)

My availability on the blog will be constrained for 10 days - I have the grandkids in tow and we are going to have fun. At least when #1 gets over 'mum' not being here - poor pettle. Hugs and kisses will see it through.
JWM - 15, January, 2012 (16:07)

By the way, airlines charge according to the number of seats occupied. So children occupying a seat are charged for A SEAT not according to their age or size. Therefore, it stands to reason that if you occupy more than one seat (as in "spill over onto your neighbour's seat" - and inconvenience him in the bargain)then you should have to pay for more than one seat and be given a wider seat specially designed to fit into the economy section of an aircraft. Babies in arms or children under a certain age not occupying a seat are not charged (or perhaps charged a nominal fare for the use of baby drop down cots or perhaps the food a toddler consumes in flight + the convenience of the carriage of that person from A to B by air).
Kay Kelly - 15, January, 2012 (16:06)

Lorikeet

Again with the usual confused, ill-informed rant! So you obviously believe the government owes you a living?

Well, there are those of us that don't want to be a drain on the country's coffers. We try to provide for our own retirement. And, as Helen says, it has not always been easy. Superannuation is merely a tax-effective way of doing this.

And yes, the world economy is making it more and more difficult to continue to provide for ourselves. But at least we try! No conspiracy - just s**t happens sometimes.

All you offer are your slogan-filled diatribes.
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (15:49)

The weather has turned & become v cool & windy. It's raining as well. Time to shut down & have a lazy evening.

It's good to be back on blog though. I missed everyone.. Where are some of the others? It's only the girls this arvo who have been super active unless some of our "birdie" friends are really fellars. We need balanced debate & banter - Til tomorrow cheers...
Currawong - 15, January, 2012 (15:38)

I'm still here too, just keeping an eye on things. No need to comment as its all been said.

Got rid of the copy-keets!! I read into this that L's alter ego's were so tranparent (not smart at all) that she was told to desist by the NSA moderator. She then believed what she just put to us - that all the other 'keets'ad been got rid of!! That so Lorikeet?
Parakeet - 15, January, 2012 (15:04)

Still here keeping an eye on things. Haven't felt the need to comment. Monitor & me are great friends. Maybe she/he is me just hanging around taking it all in - welcome back Helen too we missed you
Nottakeet - 15, January, 2012 (15:02)

Robyn

As far as I am aware no-one has managed to get rid of me - at least not yet.

Lorikeet

Do I count as a "copy-keet"? If so, who am I supposed to be copying?
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (14:56)

(3)Each time another person arrives, it's another to provide for. Many coming now will never provide for themselves (not all) but many & unless those who can do, it will be a mess that hopefully I won't have to witness...
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (14:55)

(2) Many C/tries determine pensions on what one pays in tax during their working life. There are a few who pick up the tab for so many in this C/try. some people are supported for their whole life from birth until death so don't begrudge those who contributed & provided for themselves during their working lives.

We found it really hard sometimes to provide for retirement but we did & now enjoy the rewards of a good retirement. Not rich but able to enjoy ourself with good management. We will also provide enough for our children, although they are also providing for themselves for the future. as my prediction is that pensions will be somewhat restricted down the track with more & more pouring into our C/try contd -
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (14:53)

Governments only represent the people, they are not a "milking cow". We are looked after very well here compared with many O/S C/Tries. Why should I be responsible for you L or for anyone who has not provided for their retirement in some way.

There are only a few who for some valid reason can't provide for R, but there are many who are a drain on the C/try in this regard Contd -
Robyn - 15, January, 2012 (14:35)

Lorikeet 15 Jan (12:06):

What do you mean by "To my knowledge the blog Administrator/Moderator got rid of all of the copy-keets some time ago."

Are you suggesting that the moderator has banned Laurakeet, Parakeet, Nottakeet and Laurie Keats? What on earth for? This has to be an outright lie.

Can any of the "keets" confirm whether they have been "got rid of" or not?

Anyway Lorikeet, what do the "keets" have to do with the fact that you paraded as "John" at 14 Jan(20:25) and then responded to "John" as yourself at (20:26) and (20:31)? Very strange!
Lorikeet - 15, January, 2012 (14:24)

The government used to do a good job of providing for people's retirement. It kept Australian assets in its own Australian Government owned bank.
Lorikeet - 15, January, 2012 (14:20)

Kay:

You are clearly unable to treat other people with any degree of respect.

I suggest you use your lateral thinking skills to contemplate the coming bust up between Centrelink pensioners and superannuants. They are already occurring in For Profit Sector of Aged Care.

Then consider the anger of the younger generations when they are being hit with costs left, right and centre, which are being collected by corporates, while government coffers suffer.

Government coffers (taxpayers' money) are used to set up public/private partnerships, and the proceeds go to the private sector. Surely you can do the maths from there.

I suggest in future you treat the elected politicians who are letting us all down with the contempt they deserve, instead of inflicting it on fellow NSA members. I am not taking the flack for Labor/Liberals.
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (13:56)

I just noticed that I didn't receive the last blog thread - completely "snubbed" I was (& I thought bolgsville was on holidays)!

I'll have some catching up to do...
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (13:49)

(3)The passenger panic must have been dreadful as they had not had any training at all. Humans are as bad as stampeding cattle and as dangerous. Perhaps too the ships are getting too big. We have been on v large ships but this ship carried 2,000 more than some of the ships we have been on.

At least with last years river cruise in Europe, one could swim ashore without any problems if it was necessary. Open sea is a diff kettle of fish...
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (13:48)

Contd (2) Next time the siren goes & it's time for the drill & we are all herded like cattle to all different sections of the ship with our life jackets, we should all think of what has happened.

There were some passengers who just didn't bother to go or who complained very loudly as drill was compulsary. We spent a month on one ship, so had drill a few times during the period (so I'm really good at it now!) contd
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (13:33)

This topic seems to have run its course. Switching a bit. The ship that turned over. There had not been any "abandon ship" training as it had just begun it's voyage. When do the other bloggers think this should be done? Personally like in planes, I think it should be done immediatley (or before) sailing & not left until the next day as it was done in this instance.

We are going on another cruise in March. The Captains theory of "follow on after me" showed true courage I don't think. I hope they throw the book at him. These kind of accidents are rare considering & it doesn't affect how I feel about cruising. It's a great way of travelling & I personally love it. It beats air travel any time & those with weight issues have no problems. Fares might go down for a while now as people get all panicky...
Kay Kelly - 15, January, 2012 (12:36)

Lorikeet

You are clearly unable to rationally discuss my summary of superannuation. I can only assume you have no interest in people providing for their retirement. Your comments to date just repeat your usual dictionary of slogans.
Lorikeet - 15, January, 2012 (12:09)

I agree that the government makes life very hard for small business people, including ordinary farmers. This is how they manage to help corporates push small to medium sized companies and smaller traders out of the financial equation.
Lorikeet - 15, January, 2012 (12:06)

To my knowledge, the Blog Administrator/Moderator got rid of all of the copy-keets some time ago.

Even those who are slow to catch on will eventually feel the disastrous financial effects of greater corporate control within our society. Some are being felt already. The future doesn't look pretty.

I wouldn't be too jealous of government superannuation holders. They are forfeiting money which should have been paid to them in wages, just like everyone else.

Every time a GFC (Great Financial Crime) is perpetrated on the masses, they probably lose more than anyone.

One small correction: If you have an IQ in the top 2% of the population, you are above the 98th percentile. I have only ever mentioned this because other people called me an idiot.

What some people think of as "rot" is, to more intelligent people, a broad examination of the possibilities and likelihoods.
Wayne - 15, January, 2012 (11:25)

Yes people should pay to fly on a weight basis, have a limit of say 90 Kg, above that pay extra. My wife is short and weighs 47Kg. She should be allowed extra baggage limit.
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (10:33)

Contd (2) Kay & Robyn - We are only human. Sometimes gritting our teeth can also bring on an attack of P/A syndrome, so don't fret. The treatment is a burst breaking the silence. It feels sooo good afterwards...
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (10:32)

Sue -Dn

As a small business we had to pay our own super & for those we had employed. Sometimes I felt like we were working to pay wages, Insurance Policies, Tax & super. The hardest was at this time of the year when our suppliers closed down & our tradies went on holidays (we were still paying!) My husband used to keep working on his own & I had another job as well to help pay for the children & their expenses & to cover us when not much was coming in. Personally I'm glad those days are over & we can now enjoy our retirement. As for the Polies. It's the one & only time they agree on anything & who is in at the time doesn't come into it.
Sue Do-Nim - 15, January, 2012 (9:59)

LoriKeet:

Just got back from the supermarket.

It was a quick trip .I used those new fangled Self Serve Checkouts..so fast and easy.

Anyway.

Since Albert Einstein is no longer with us I thought I’d ask you as you’re the only other person I know who lays claim to an I.Q. ranked in the 98th percentile.

If perchance the question is too difficult perhaps John, Claude or Geoff could be of assistance.

My question is why are Government employees superannuation rates set at such a high level?
Their jobs are already very secure and their lurks and benefits and working conditions are great.

Why do taxpayers have to fork out for a 13-15% super rate?
Doesn’t seem right to me. What is the rationale?

All is forgiven if you can give me a straight answer.
Kay Kelly - 15, January, 2012 (9:05)

Helen

I confess!
Robyn - 15, January, 2012 (8:39)

Helen,

I have not "cracked". I am not commenting on anything Lorikeet has said. I am challenging her use of trickery on the blog.
Kay Kelly - 15, January, 2012 (8:36)

Lorikeet: (cont.)

Then, when when you retire, you can take as much of your money out as you like - tax free above the age of 60. And now, thanks to the recent changes, you can work as long as you like and the boss needs to contribute. If you take an allocated pension, there is zero tax on the earnings. And you don't have to rely on the old age pension - which so many older Australians struggle to survive on.

What's the problem?

When I was young, everyone envied public sector workers because they had access to precious superannuation!
Kay Kelly - 15, January, 2012 (8:33)

Lorikeet

I have never understood your absolute opposition to any form of superannuation.

The bosses now have to put money into a superannuation fund for their workers. The workers can top up that fund. The workers can choose which type of asset they want their money invested in - cash, property, bonds, shares (Australian & overseas).

Superannuation is merely a tax structure for your investments - the tax on earnings is generally lower than if you had the investments in the bank or directly in the markets. It is true that many superannuation funds charge unreasonably large fees, but you can leave that fund and move to another fund which has lower fees. Industry and public sector funds have lower fees.
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (8:29)

Here is another word -

"Rectovesicaltrauma" also known as the P/A syndrome. I can feel an attack coming on after I read some of "L's" comments & all they entail. This is my first mention this year too so have broken all the rules of quiet "tolerance" (although I wasn't the first to bend & break was I!). Oh dear, Oh my...... such agony, just dreadful to think that such pain can come from reading such rot...
Lorikeet - 15, January, 2012 (8:06)

More importantly, we could all more easily see a link between one Qantas executive's comments and a possible plan to charge those in the fattest age group (over-50s) an exorbitant fare. As for getting a larger seat, I don't like anyone's chances.

There are already moves afoot to ground the elderly at night.

(Unsuccessful attempts to goad people does not equate to good Blogging Manners.)
Lorikeet - 15, January, 2012 (8:05)

My Canberran son has to make regular trips to the USA in the course of his job. He said the reason that Americans are fat is because of the huge servings of takeaway food, including massive cups of Coke.

Even here in Australia, a Value Meal is not much more expensive than just buying a burger alone. The bigger the meal that is ordered, the lower the cost on a quantity:price basis.

If everyone used their lateral thinking skills a bit more, they would certainly see how Pheromones, Carbon Tax and Take Away Food are linked to a topic about airlines, complaints that some people stink, and fares.
Robyn - 15, January, 2012 (7:59)

Perhaps I should have said Lorikeet aka John?
Lorikeet - 15, January, 2012 (7:54)

I think WEG is right to be concerned about the massive slug a Carbon Tax will put on the travelling public.

By the time the over-50s are landed both a Universal Fat Tax and a Carbon Tax, most older people won't be able to afford to fly anywhere.

Since the government has agreed to an open-ended age for superannuation contributions, soon no one will get to retire anyway.

All of these ideas trade into Greens' agendas, to ground us and take away access to any form of transportation which is not designed to move us en masse to centralised workplaces.

I do not answer people who break blogging rules by perverting my name.
Helen - 15, January, 2012 (7:44)

I just googled the word "Pheromones". It comes from the Greek words "Phoran" - to transfer & "Horman" to excite. It's what makes us all attractive to each other (the way we smell that is!)

How this topic found it's way into this discussion fascinated me so I had to have a look. Also the mention of the Carbon Tax WEG!

We either agree that O/W people pay more (or not). I don't think they should. It is the responsibility of the airline to make customers as comfortable as possible. Next the O/W passengers will be blamed for the ship that just tipped over in Italian waters. We have been on a few ships now & the heaviest passengers were mostly from the US & they were huge! Should they pay more too as they also consumed an astounding amount of food & why? Because they could. Even the largest Aussies were small in comparison...
Robyn - 14, January, 2012 (21:41)

WEG,

I'm not complaining. Airfares have decreased massively. Thirty years ago flying was a luxury beyond reach of myself and many others. Not so long ago, in 1998, a return fare between Brisbane and Darwin cost $1,500. The current cheapest fare is $280 return.
WEG - 14, January, 2012 (21:12)

Will anyone complain about the big fat carbon tax that will occupy all flights from 1/7/2012. This is in addition to the current Govn. charges, departure fees etc, that can be up to approximately 40% of the purchase price of the ticket!
Robyn - 14, January, 2012 (20:55)

Lorijohnikeet,

So interesting watching you have an opposing discussion with yourself!
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (20:31)

John:

That's a Parcel Post mentality, which lowers everyone to the status of an object.

In 1985, I saw this sign on the door of the Personnel Section in the Head Office of the Department of Social Security:

"Human Resource Management".

My first thought was that workers had been reduced to the status of a paper clip or photocopier.

In 2012, prospective employees are often sized up according to their Sick Leave and Compensation Claims Records, which puts the over-50s at a distinct disadvantage in the employment stakes.
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (20:26)

We must be careful not to play straight into the hands of those who wish to charge us more, and show greater respect and tolerance for fellow passengers.
John - 14, January, 2012 (20:25)

Passenger airlne tickets should be sold on a weight basis in the same way as is freight. The airlines have often reminded us that the loaded weight of the plane is important and determines amount of fuel used. This system would be a big incentive for passengers to lose weight before flying.
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (20:22)

rmcn:

It just depends on how much of the peasant diet you get to eat. It is top heavy withded with cheap but fattening carbs.

On the Channel 10 news tonight, they were talking about people over 40 having a slow metabolism and getting fat.

I can just see the headlines now:

"Universal Fat Fares for the Over Fifties".

The term "blubber guts" was the funniest I have heard since someone on the ABC spoke of graziers being charged a Cattle Burping and "Flatulence" Tax.

No doubt some people complaining here haven't thought of the many benefits of a crash landing being cushioned by a larger person.

If the plane landed in the ocean, he/she would also stay afloat better and for longer than most other people.

I once had a chubby cub scout in my pack. Despite his girth, he could outswim all of the other kids.
rmcn - 14, January, 2012 (18:48)

Oh Lorikeet!!! You have given me a good laugh. On my next flight I shall keep an eye open for any smelly men dragging some poor unsuspecting woman down the aisle! But I'm so surprised you have not mentioned that this obesity can all be cured by the simple peasant diet we are being coerced into accepting? But actually I have flown on numerous occasions and I have never encountered a problem with overweight people. But lets face it, the seats are small, when eating you have to keep your elbows in!
Robyn - 14, January, 2012 (17:55)

It is good to have your knowledgable contributions Dianne.
Every journey is its own little adventure and can be enjoyed with an "accepting" mindset. I guess one of the things we learn when travelling is to go with the flow. I am sure I would feel dwarfed sitting next to almost 6 foot Kay, almost 100kg Bob B and 30kg overweight John O'Grady but I would be delighted to sit next to any of you on a plane. The personality and consideration of your immediate travelling companions is what counts most.
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (17:18)

Kay
Yes thanks Kay, I certainly gather that! That is why we can all learn from each other. Sadly, many people's mindset doesn't allow them to ever enjoy their travels......they always find something to whine about! They are the ones you don't want to sit next to.
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (17:17)

I just had a look. The NHMRC sites are down temporarily.
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (17:15)

That's right. Pheromones have nothing to do with size.

I always thought a 3 year old would be classed as a "tiny tot". I am happy to know that little kids get a cheaper airfare than adults. Thanks.

YOUR SAY ON DIETARY GUIDELINES

I found this today:

www.eatforhealth.gov.au

You can make a submission until 29 Feb 2012.
Kay Kelly - 14, January, 2012 (17:04)

Dianne

Thank you for your informed comments. As I fly fairly frequently, I am aware of many of the points you have raised. However, probably not all bloggers are as familiar with the aircraft industry facts that you have provided us. Your experience is clearly very valuable to this blog subject.
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (16:55)

I estimate I have flown over 1,000 flights in my career and the issue of obese passengers was not terribly common, it was certainly manageable, issues of drinking were greater along with plain rude people. So,in the interest of compassion and fairness to your fellow travelling companions, let us have a truce and all agree to try to get along with each other, be more accommodating to help out when unusual incidents may occur while travelling! There is often a resolution available.
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (16:48)

Lorikeet: Tiny tots?? Airlines classify children and babies differently, by age. A certain age is classed as an 'infant' and is nursed for free on an adult lap with a babies sealbelt attached to the adult. Then there is a child category. So 'tots' do not pay full fare to my knowledge but with some airlines perhaps they could be doing the wrong thing.
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (16:42)

This is becoming quite entertaining! I won't go on too much longer. One more thing, no good mentioning anything at check-in as the larger spaced seats might be in the exit rows over the wings and we were not allowed to let you sit there if you were obese, a minor, unaccompanied child or had a disability because we may need to get there very very quickly and have you move out very very quickly, to put it mildly, some would not fit out of an overwing exit. The exit doors on larger aircraft would be the best option. Doors are bigger, wings are small. Wow I am glad I have some spare time today, I have enjoyed the comments.
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (16:38)

By the way, even paying for two seats won't work as not all seats have an armrest in the middle which can be lifted. They were few and far between on jets, generally offered to those who needed to slide across seats eg from a wheelchair, if I recall there may only be two rows on certain aircraft where this can be done. Yes some do lift up but they never go far enough back to not jut into your back, it would be uncomfortable.Don't forget the design of an airline seat is made to hold one person in a particular position in case of any rejected take-off, turbulence or the like, so a larger body hanging over half a second seat is not ideal for safety. As I reinforce, the whole idea is impractical.
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (16:30)

Oh dear, some more enlightening is needed here.
To G. North: There is no guarantee you have paid the same price as the person next to you!! You think you have but chances are you may not have. They may have bought in advance or got a special fare or special deal so sorry that blows that one out of the sky.
John S: For your information Business Class seats are generally larger and that is why some choose to pay extra - simply for the larger seat, yes there are trimmings but they are not substantial unless you are going internationally. It used to be an extra 15% to go business domestically but that may have changed. Of course there are many modes of trandsport as we all know, and it is the luck of the draw who or what type of person you are seated next to.
Helen - 14, January, 2012 (16:28)

(2) We all felt for him & fortunately he did listen. He wasn't a born here Aussie & the diet he ate just seeped through his skin.

Unfortunately this often happens in our Muliticultural society. Not everyone follows our rules & I truly believe diet plays a huge role in the way we all smell. Weight was not the problem here & being in a lift sometimes confirms what I have just said. Not everyone believes in the bath a day policy of most Aussies. It's just bad luck to find ourselves sitting next to someone like this for an extended period (fat or thin). Has anyone else encounted this problem.

Our office friend stayed there for over twenty yrs so wasn't too offended & did listen & learn. We all married & went our own way. He married & stayed on (pong free) - Cheers til tomorrow...
Helen - 14, January, 2012 (16:27)

Smelly people can be thin too. I worked in a large office many years ago and one of the employees really emitted a smell like a skunk. He also ate garlic sandwiches every day & didn't use a deoderant. Perhaps he didn't wash all that often either, although he looked clean enough. His breath was "breathtaking" & of swoon quality & as the place was not air conditioned on warm days it was quite awful. Apart from that he was a lovely fellow & was only in his early twenties & very good looking.

The staff ended up having a meeting & it was decided to have a chat with him as we couldn't stand it anymore Contd -
John S - 14, January, 2012 (16:15)

I have great sympathy for many obese people but not all. Some are wholly to blame for their avoidable condition though others do have a medical condition that is not their fault but their misfortune. But it is not fair to a passenger alongside, especially in economy, if an obese person is seated next to them. The idea of several seats near the rear of the aircraft roomy enough to accommodate obese people sounds a good one. Economy seats are generally too cramped even for "normal" passengers. Maybe there could also be a discounted fare in business class (minus the trimmings) for medically obese people who produce a medical certificate requesting this.
Geoff North - 14, January, 2012 (16:09)

I would defy anyone being able to sit next to an obese person on some airline's economy seats.
Why should normal sized people be penalised and inconvenienced and discomforted especially on a long distance flight, by some overweight person encroaching into their comfort zone for which you have both paid the same price.
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (15:26)

A passenger with special needs might need the aisle seat more than anyone else in some instances.

I don't think airlines will be reducing the number of passengers to suit anyone. With a Carbon Tax in place, they might have to reduce airfares just to attract a full load of paying "guests", regardless of fuel costs.

John O'Grady has made some excellent comments regarding airline running costs, and I'm sure we all appreciate the informative input of Dianne Porter.
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (15:14)

People carrying more weight get hotter and therefore perspire more. They also become exhausted more quickly, which could cause premature sweating. Some people are naturally more smelly than others, regardless of their size.

It's all about pheromones. People who stink generally have a higher level of sexual attraction. In a bygone era, a really smell caveman didn't need to bother clubbing women and dragging them away by the hair. Instead they passed out quickly from the smell, saving him the trouble.

This blog needs a New Year's Resolution:

"Blog like ladies and gentlemen, and don't follow the bad example of others."
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (15:07)

I agree with John O'Grady that putting most of the heavier passengers at the back of a plane would make it harder to take off, not easier. It would make better sense to me to spread them throughout the plane.

It seems that the government's agenda to make us all responsible for our own health is hitting the mark. I'm sure Medibank Private's MiHealth is more about providing less service than having medical staff available day or night via the telephone.

Now the airlines think they can use overweight people as an instrument to pierce all of our wallets and purses, taking a long draught, and leaving them much slimmer.

I feel sorry for parents who have to pay adult fares for tiny tots. It is they who are subsidising everyone else.
Grandma - 14, January, 2012 (15:06)

The best flights I've experienced regarding personal space were with Korean Air. With mostly Asian passengers, I could count the number of obese passengers on one hand. The down side is that all flights go in and out of Korea.
Helen - 14, January, 2012 (14:52)

I agree wih Dianne, although I don't think the seating in buses & trains is quite the same & in most cases not for as long.

Discression when booking in should be made to make sure that people are allocated the correct seats. Also passengers should speak up to make sure they are given seats to suit...
Tina N - 14, January, 2012 (14:45)

Well it has come to this-lets get the fat person .There are many reasons why some people are fat, not all just eat junk food. I am fat and I exercise 5 days a week, eat healthy food but the medication I need to take causes significant weight gain. I try to keep out of others space on the plane and believe me as a fat person I feel the nasty attitude and grunts coming from all the perfect people. Will we also make parents pay more when they bring their screaming kids on a plane, What has happened to tolerance and acceptance, we are all part of a community and there are good days and not so good days . Get a life and stop complaining, there are so many more important issues to consider in this world.
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (14:22)

Robyn
Thankyou, I felt I could actually say something useful on this subject. If anyone needs any questions answered about anything to do with airlines and flying I am happy to do my best to answer, based on experience. It is always better to have an enquiring mind than to have a closed mind!
Robyn - 14, January, 2012 (14:01)

Dianne Porter,

Thanks for your informative comments. You have provided a great summation which is balanced and humane. You have also destroyed Tony Webber's credence. Strangely, I feel a sense of relief!
John O'Grady - 14, January, 2012 (13:19)

When I spoke of weight distribution I was referring to light aircraft, 4 seaters! As Dianne correctly stated, all passengers are deemed to be the same weight. I was really referring to cargo in light aircraft.
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (13:11)

With the check-in kiosks now at airline terminals it is obvious weight on commercial aircraft is insignificant in placement in the cabin, as average statistics are used per passenger. Like it or not, we are already ALL paying for for the variations in weight of travelling public.
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (13:08)

To further add weight to this discussion, why stop at airlines, what about trains, buses and any other mode of transport. Kind of hilights the ridiculousness of the subject matter doesn't it!
Dianne Porter - 14, January, 2012 (13:05)

I'm a retired Cabin Crew/Purser ex Qantas. All passengers should be welcomed no matter what. In my experience they are often the nicest, most polite people, very aware of the discomfort they may cause others and do all in their power to minimise it. Weight issue affects light aircraft more than commercial jets. Jets work on average weights per passenger. Airlines specify seat pitch when ordering aircraft. Some choose to cram in more rows and seats. To discrimate on grounds of weight is wrong, let alone illegal. It would be highly ridiculous of an airline to contemplate such an option. Onboard crew should do all possible for passenger comfort but they are limited. Allowances are made for wheelchair, blind, babies, and tall passengers so should be addressed on individual basis. Extension seat belts are offered to larger people, alternative seating could be offered polietly and discreetly. One would hope discretion and commonsense would prevail.
John O'Grady - 14, January, 2012 (12:51)

Robyn/Kay
I doubt that profit is the factor motivating the trend toward smaller seats, rather competition. Qantas is competing on international routes with airlines with far smaller cost profiles, lots lower wages for all staff, not just aircrew, maintenance, ground operations - everything. Most of them also haul a lot more smaller people and probably don't suffer so much of the pinched bum whinge factor! Serious bike riders complain of a condition they call 'numb nuts', caused by incorrect seating and somewhat likely to cause a pre testicular cancerous condition. Maybe we have the aerial equivellant??
Helen - 14, January, 2012 (12:51)

(2) Enough of all the insults too. When I was young I copped them because of my "coltish shape". I ate everything in sight & still looked like I needed a good feed. It doesn't happen now as my shape did change when I stopped growing. I sometimes get resentful looks though because I'm NOT fat. It's all in the genetics so I hold my head up high now & feel v good within my own skin (as we all should) regardless.

Still I DO remember & know what it's like to be very self conscious of one's appearance. The question was should O/weight people be charged more. I say NO! More care with seating is the answer & balance throughout the plane for everyone with special needs not just the O/W...
Helen - 14, January, 2012 (12:49)

I would like to ask those who are O/weight what their opinion is. What is it like to fly in cramped seats & not being able to get out easily without upsetting other travellers?

Would it be good to make window seats on each side of the plane at the back & front available for those passenger with special needs. At the moment few get special attention. Considering the cost to fly anywhere, it should be what the passengers expect in my opinion - contd
Robyn - 14, January, 2012 (12:44)

John O'Grady,

Yes we probably all do get a little bit whiffy on long flights all cramped up together. It's not something I've noticed though.

You say: "The important decisions re passenger weight in load planning are where to place it within the aircraft".
How is this organized these days when many choose their seats on line? For a while Jetstar were allowing passengers to choose their own seating once they were on the plane. No-one appears to be organising weight distribution of passengers at all.
Robyn - 14, January, 2012 (12:27)

Kay,

I agree with you that seat size is the issue and profit is the motive. The argument that extra fuel costs are incurred by overweight passengers is a furphy. The extra weight of the obese is compensated by children and they could always lower the baggage weight allowance if really necessary. It is quite generous as it stands.

We are all growing bigger though, in general, so maybe that affects weight/fuel cost ratios. This would make more sense than blaming the obese. I wonder if the day will come when it will be more profitable, because of the cost of fuel, to carry less passengers?
John O'Grady - 14, January, 2012 (11:50)

I have had a pilot's licence for many years and calculated lots of weight and balance performance charts. I have been thinking about the issue of large people and BO. I did state earlier that they 'seem' to stink a bit and I guess I was referring to my experiences of having them droop over the armrest into my very personal space. Maybe it was because they were so close and there was no 'air lock' as such, available? Maybe we all do stink a bit when it gets to being 'up close and personal'?
Oh, by the way, I am one of the fatso's - about 30KG overweight, medically obese and socially bordering upon it. However, I don't spill over armrests - yet!
John O'Grady - 14, January, 2012 (11:40)

This blog really has become a tad testy. Maybe it is a bit too close to the bone? Bob-B's comment re passenger weight calculation is correct, at least in light aircraft - all passengewrs automatically weigh 77 KG, irrespective of size, gender, shape, whatever. It is quite remarkably accurate. The important decisions re passenger weight in load planning are where to place it within the aircraft, roughly as close as possible to the point of balance and that is usually somewhere just aft of the wings. It would not make sense to hide all the fatso's 'down the back' and have the aeroplane drag it's bum along the ground when the pilot attempted to rotate.
Kay Kelly - 14, January, 2012 (11:31)

Yes, Lorikeet, we've heard it all before!! Ad nauseum!

Poor little Lorikeet who never says anything nasty! Big joke! I repeat - it's not always about you! You do get upset when all the attention is not focused on you.
Robyn - 14, January, 2012 (11:26)

Bob B,

I did misunderstand your original statement at 12 Jan ( 15:57) so I am glad you have clarified this today (10:10). Others however have expressed the same thing in an unmistakably prejudiced way.

I hope everyone out there who is overweight does NOT take the nasty stuff on board - especially the suggestion that you smell more than others - YOU DON'T!
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (11:25)

Maybe the CEO of Qantas wanted to hire Asian workers who only earn $400 a month because the shareholders started screaming for their pound of flesh, with threats to take their business (and their investments) elsewhere.
Kay Kelly - 14, January, 2012 (10:27)

Bob

I recall flying in a DC3 in the early 50s - from Port Macquarie to Armidale. Due to some problem?? we appeared we might not clear the mountains (only about 3000 feet!) (according to the stewardess). So some freight was tossed out to lighten the plane (once again, according to the stewardess). We did clear the mountains but they looked fairly close to me! At least they didn't toss me out!
Kay Kelly - 14, January, 2012 (10:21)

Bob

Yes, what you say is absolutely correct. I watch 'Air Crash Investigations' and am aware of at least one crash that occurred entirely because of poor weight distribution, and others that have occurred because of inaccurate weight calculations. Many of these aircraft are on the smaller end of 'commercial' as opposed to the 747s etc.

Yes, perhaps it is time that there was recognition that, in general, people are bigger than they were maybe 50 years ago. No doubt that would lead to fewer passengers and higher prices. But domestic fares are quite low. Perhaps a slight increase would be acceptable if greater comfort was the result. It seems from comments here that even smaller people find some seats 'squeezy'. It also varies between types of aircraft and different airline companies.
Bob b - 14, January, 2012 (10:10)

Robyn

I said initially that the obese person beside me on that particular flight stank. This was not meant to infer all overweight people stink as this is clearly not the case. I stink too after a hard day in the garden etc and I am 6ft 2 and just under 100kg. Slightly overweight but comfortable and I fit into modern aircaft seats. I have experienced people of all sizes and shapes being 'on the nose' and used that fact in my example to highlight the totality of the imposition placed upon me and my paid for space. I know she felt uncomfortable too!!
Bob B - 14, January, 2012 (10:02)

Cont....

In the early days of passenger flying, weight and balance was a crucial component that passengers understood and went along with. They and luggage were weighed and placed in the aircraft to achieve the desired weight and balance. Today an 'average' weight per passenger is used and with the improvements in aicraft design and performance the tolerances are wide enough to accommodate this approach. Otherwise, it would not be done. There have been commercial passenger aircraft in recent times that have crashed because of a glib approach to weight and balance.

With the rapid changes in the human profile we have seen that has outstripped aircraft life (how long they are used) maybe its time for this to be studied again in earnest and then implemented in new designed and/or the way we use aircaraft today.
Bob B - 14, January, 2012 (9:58)

Kay

There has been considerable discussion on the blog concerning weight that naturally reflects fuel usage. The two are inextricably linked and most people realise this.

What has not been touched upon much is weight distribution and that is probably more important than overall weight. Maybe we are in the fortunate position today of being able to treat larger commercial aircraft as buses as it appears to passengers. A lot more goes on behind the scene though.

cont.....
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (9:50)

As most people will be aware, the ANZ bank has decided that in future it will act outside the RBA on interest rate movements.

They are just testing the waters at the moment, so we need to get busy with those angry emails to the PM and Treasurer in order to pull the plug, before they allow all bankers to start swimming off in any direction THEY choose, with OUR funds tightly strapped to their chests.
Sue Do-Nim - 14, January, 2012 (9:46)

This topic has exposed the disgraceful bigotry aimed at larger sized members of our community.
How many of you “Brave Hearts” would actually have enough guts (pun intended) to say something to an obese person that encroached into your seating space..very few I would imagine.
It’s easy being a hater and name caller whilst hiding behind the cloak of anonymity but real life is much different, isn’t it?
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (9:45)

Bamma, to try to answer your questions:

1. This is Corporate Greed in action. The guy was probably paid $5 million last year for succeeding in financially hammering the workers (hence strikes), sardine canning the service recipients masses (paying "guests") and returning as little as possible to shareholders while the corporate empire continued to be built.

People need to become very vocal about issues that are unfair or financially punitive. I'd suggest sending PM Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan (Treasurer) a strong message relating to Corporate Greed. Send a copy to your federal MP as well, for maximum effect.

2. I haven't travelled very much, and have never seen or heard of this. (Maybe some have expensive or delicate equipment on board that needs to be taken off first.)

3. I have never been squashed by anyone on a plane, but the seating is generally fairly tight (just like the access to included foods and drinks).
WEG - 14, January, 2012 (9:45)

I heard on the radio this morning that this same Q? was raised previously on the 1st of April (20XX), and after a litany of senseless debate, only then was it declared as an April fools’ prank.

The old axiom comes to mind; "It’s better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".

PS: This comment is not directed at any individual’s contribution, just a holistic view of this blog's content.
Kay Kelly - 14, January, 2012 (9:36)

Yes, Robyn - speaking as one of the overweight bloggers, I have found many of these comments quite hurtful and very depressing! I was not aware that despite frequent showering and use of deodorants, that I 'stink'!

And for all you judgmental people out there who think it is about time I realised I was overweight and lost some weight - I have lost weight about 10 times since my early 50s (no problem before then) but eventually you get tired of always feeling hungry! For starters - it makes it difficult to sleep. And before you lecture that you don't need to feel hungry - you are simply not aware of the research re appetite control hormones. Fast food is not even on the agenda, either!
Kay Kelly - 14, January, 2012 (9:25)

(cont.)

No, the comment by the thankfully ex QANTAS employee was about weight and extra fuel use. Very few comments have even touched on this original issue!

No, almost all comments against obese people focus on these poor people 'overflowing' onto adjoining seats. And of course, according to many bloggers, obese people 'stink'!

Ignoring the offensive comment about the 'stink' of obese people, surely what we are talking about is seat size? And the size of seats (plus legroom) seems to be decreasing as the size of people overall has increased. Crazy? No, it's actually all about profits.

It is well known that all airlines have different seat specs when they order their new planes. I know at one time (early 90s) I looked into the issue re British Airlines, and yes, their requirements were for smaller spaces per person than most other airlines.
Bamma - 14, January, 2012 (9:14)

Just like to throw a few queries in.
1 If QANTAS share holders haven't received a dividend for the past three or four years why have they tolerated Mr Joyce's performance bonuses over these last few years? No dividend- no bonus.
2. Has anyone experienced, seen or heard of anyone being refused any off their lugguage because they are the laston the plane and 100 others in front of them paid for excess lagguage.
3 Has any one asked that large person sitting next top you if they have already paid extra for sitting and you are actually sitting in their extra seat because the airline double booked their full flight, and they are too embarressed and don't want to draw attention to themselves?
Just wondering!!! Hope everyone has a happy and healthy 2012
Kay Kelly - 14, January, 2012 (9:12)

For all those talking about their experience at being weighed before boarding a plane: no doubt you are talking about smaller aircraft. I too have been on 4-seaters etc and yes, everything is weighed because the total weight is crucial to a successful (aka 'non fatal') take-off. No problem!

But the discussion has really been about large commercial aircraft - and yes, overall weight still matters but with the diversity created by a large number of passengers, luggage and freight, the extra weight of a few obese passengers would be more than off-set by a similar number of children/very small people. We do come in all shapes and sizes.

As for extra weight, many passengers fly without checked luggage, and for those who do have checked luggage, a small surcharge of $10 or so is often charged for the additional 23Kg plus handling.
Kay Kelly - 14, January, 2012 (9:00)

Correction:

I meant "emergency aisle seat" not "emergency isle seat"! I didn't expect an entire island!
Kay Kelly - 14, January, 2012 (8:56)

I completely endorse Robyn's comment at 7:49!!! Robyn is not overweight but at least shows some compassion for others!

The language used here disgusting!! - "load of fat", "large amount of lard", "blubber guts" etc. And all this talk about obese people being 'smelly'!! I can't say I have ever equated obesity with a bad smell!!! I certainly have not noticed it!

Yes, I am overweight, but my real problem on airlines is the leg room - I am nearly 6 feet tall and my eternal search is for an emergency isle seat. Those seats up the front with more leg room are usually allocated to parents with babies/toddlers - and I certainly don't begrudge them this concession.

I just hope next time I board an airline I don't end up sitting near any of those bloggers who show such pent-up hatred for fat people! Not very nice people, to say the least!!
boonsoon - 14, January, 2012 (8:02)

To accommodate those "very overweight and obese people" I believe the airline companies should consider introducing another class of seating at the rear of the planes and named it "Economy X Class". The size of the seat should increase proportionately with its pricing. My reason for selecting the rare of the plane is for easier take-off. This hopefully will resolve the problem of encroaching into other passenger's space.
Helen - 14, January, 2012 (7:53)

I am tall & slim but don't feel airline cos should discriminate between those who are v obese.

The passenger should have to wait to get a place on a plane in an area designated for "larger" people. There is no room made for the very tall either & many are forced to pay more in business class because they simply don't fit!

Airline cos are greedy in my opinion. They would never employ fat stewards (& couldn't).

It's a good idea to get a persons weight when booking the flight and list of problems as well so that they can cater for their needs. Thought should also be given to other travellers as well & to their comfort. It's time airlines got their act together as I have come to hate long flights & the long queues in customs. Too many people on flights makes cruising the success it is today...
Robyn - 14, January, 2012 (7:49)

In an earlier comment I said I felt disappointed about the lack of tolerance being displayed towards those who are overweight. I now change that to UTTER DISGUST !!!!

If I was overweight I would be feeling quite depressed by now reading the nasty attitudes many appear to have towards those who have a weight problem. Labels like "blubber guts"; Statements that they stink/smell; notions that they should not be allowed to leave their seats or should be requested to be removed from the flight.

Don't those who have made these comments realize how hurtful they must be for people who struggle with weight?
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (7:31)

Yes, a "Stupidity Tax" is probably on the drawing board, but those labelled as stupid will not be our elected politicians or skulduggerous business people who continue to rip us off.

The idiots will most certainly be the general populace, for blithely accepting all kinds of new abuses (e.g. toxic levels of taxation) instead of being very vocal in their resistance.
Lorikeet - 14, January, 2012 (7:26)

Adult shoes in a particular range are all the same price, regardless of size or colour.

Martin is right in suggesting that there is now almost a universal "mental illness".

This is a mild form of sociopathy which inspires people to do the wrong things e.g. pick on others, while breaking the rules/laws themselves.

This has been inspired by the government and is part of the "Me Syndrome" that has been taught in our society for 20 to 30 years. This affords the government and private enterprise the opportunity to divide the people in order to conquer them in the workplace, community, and through every avenue of their daily lives.
Deb B - 14, January, 2012 (7:22)

How about "a stupidity tax". Especially for all the skinny and fat people who put excess weight and baggage in the overhead compartment.
Deb B - 14, January, 2012 (7:22)

How about "a stupidity tax". Especially for all the skinny and fat people who put excess weight and baggage in the overhead compartment.
garry brown - 14, January, 2012 (3:54)

Yes I believe that fat people should pay more as it all contributes to the weight ofg the plane. Alternatively if you get a blubber guts next to you they should be forced to have the window seat and not allowed to leave their seats for the entire flight .
I was slightly overweight and have lost the weight by diet and exercise.
So if I can do it then others can too.
Martin MacDonald - 13, January, 2012 (23:44)

What's next, charging larger people to use the buses & trains. What about the restaurants, cinemas, & even the pavement-space! (They could pay more council-tax, eh?!) It seems to me, that it's becoming the fashion to bully, interfere, lecture & discriminate against a new group of people every day! I honestly think that the majority of people are starting to suffer from some sort of mental-illness, & this is WHY they are so busy turning on each-other, rather than minding their own business! I gave up smoking because of all the totally deranged anti-smokers that you get now days! What a totally SICK society we now live in!!!
Trevor Ridgway - 13, January, 2012 (22:52)

Of course obese people should pay more to be hauled to their destination ! It all takes extra fuel. In Norway a flight to Svalbaad was suspended until they could achieve the correct loading weight. This required one person & their luggage to be offloaded. They were recompensed but nevertheless inconvenienced. However, due to fuel requirements , anything else would have jeopardised the rest of the passengers & the 'plane.
Call it discrimination or common-sense , but sometimes the exercise of a bit of sense is necessary.
Trevor Ridgway - 13, January, 2012 (22:44)

I call this "The Shoe That Fits" principle !
No one buys a shoe that is the wrong size , so why buy a 'plane seat that is the wrong size ?
And why should the person ALONGSIDE you suffer for your poor choice of seat size ? They should be given the right to request you to upgrade or even be removed from the flight.
Trevor Ridgway - 13, January, 2012 (22:41)

How about having a situation at the airport terminal where you are able to sit in various sizes of seats and then choose whichever one you felt comfortable sitting in for 3 to 14 hours !
Of course , each size would be a specific price & if you needed a larger size to be comfortable then you would be expected to choose that size even if it cost more !
Elio - 13, January, 2012 (21:53)

I feel airline company perticlula those of past staff should keep their nose out it
as airline are allready making a good proffit with our discrimetion to those unfortunately person
kathy - 13, January, 2012 (21:33)

i have noticed over the years that the seats have become smaler with no leg room i am only a small person and travel often but my better half is much larger than me, the airlines are trying to fit more pasengers on a plane so if larger people are charged more then i should be charged less but i think it all evens out in the end, ok u cant choose who u sit next to but u can choose your friends its only a flight its doesnt last for ever
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (20:44)

One day when I was putting my groceries on the checkout counter at the supermarket, 2 of the fattest people I have ever seen came up behind me with their trolley. They seemed to be an older mother and her middle aged son.

Their trolley was stacked to the rafters with boxes of frozen crumbed fish and bags of frozen french fries. There was nothing else in it!

Everyone will have heard that fat people are jolly. I think it is more the case that good-humoured people burn less nervous energy and are more relaxed. Hence they put on more weight.

A very skinny person is reasonably likely to be a Type A Personality, but there is not much chance of escaping our genetic inheritance, either way.
Julie C - 13, January, 2012 (20:34)

If weight is the issue, passengers should have to comply with a weight limit of personal weight plus luggage. The more you weigh, the lower your luggage limit should be.
Helen Morgan - 13, January, 2012 (20:25)

Of course obese people should pay extra. The fee should be charged by weight of the person just like luggage. However, if this were to eventuate, you could still have the obese person sitting next to you while you suffer from their blubber invading your space and their possible bad body odour invading your nose. Back to the drawing board airlines!!
lexlie - 13, January, 2012 (20:20)

It is one of the most disgusting, discriminating statements I have heard for a long time. Sounds more like a disgruntled ex worker (which he is) to me. To those who agree try a little common compassion and there but for the grace of your metabolism goes you.
Pat - 13, January, 2012 (19:28)

If this rule is to work, then children should pay less. Very unlikely to happen I would think. To those who don't want to sit next to a larger person then I say "dont sweat the small stuff" It may be one of your relatives one day.
Christina - 13, January, 2012 (19:20)

I regularly fly from Australia to Canada, when I first sit in my seat I look very warily at the rest of the passengers getting on. If I see an obese person I pray to God that they are not going to sit next to me. They overhang my seat and they smell....not pleasant when you are in the plane for 13 hours!
Robyn - 13, January, 2012 (19:03)

I don't think a few larger seats at the back of the plane would work. People now book their seats on line. Everyone would be after them unless they cost more. And what's to stop an obese person booking a normal seat because they don't want to pay more? Enter: "The Fat Police"! Who are they? Who is it that will say "You have booked, paid for and chosen your own seat but you are not allowed on the plane because you are too fat and our special, more costly big seats down the back are all full". All seems a bit natzi to me!
John Calleja - 13, January, 2012 (18:12)

NO. The ticket price is set on distance as a large componenent.This is a fair criteria.What has happened to compassion?
Glenys Green - 13, January, 2012 (18:09)

Aircraft need to have larger seats at a higher costs available for not only obese but large people. To determine if this is required, the airline should have questions re weight and size included as most large people, though not fat, weigh more than the average size or smaller person who can easily fit into an economy seat. I spent 11 hours sharing the seat for which I paid full price, with a strange man's obese body touching mine from shoulder to ankle which was unpleasant, uncomfortable and embarrassing. He used 1/3 of my seat unfairly!
CTJ - 13, January, 2012 (17:32)

I don't know any overweight people who are happy to be that way. We have a national problem and like other addictions the wrong choices and consuming too much of the wrong food (medical issues aside)is the issue. At a National level there needs to be resources to help the obese not punish them. They didn't get that way on one take-away with coke and fries. Let's help and support a helpful program.
Alan Cooper - 13, January, 2012 (16:49)

I have been complaining about this for years. If, at 87kgs, I get on a plane and have over the recommended amount of luggage, then I get slugged an excess. But someone of 100kgs plus gets away with it. If the airlines were fair they would just say the maximum luggage and passenger weight is this, exceed it and you will pay more. After all, it's all based on how much fuel to move how much weight.
Murray - 13, January, 2012 (16:44)

Definitely. I've been caught twice now with no spare seats available and been squashed up by the overflowing bulge which caused much discomfort.
dave bright - 13, January, 2012 (16:38)

above average weight should be charged extra the same as excess baggage is
Greg - 13, January, 2012 (16:37)

Ambulances now have larger stretches with assist lift mechanisms to place inside the vehicle. Hospitals have wider and stronger beds to support 'heavier' people. And for this we are ALL paying- now that's discrimination!
Bev F - 13, January, 2012 (16:32)

I would suggest that the airlines make their seats larger. They are very hungry for money and try to cram so many passengers into the aircraft it makes it very uncomfortable for all travellers. Put the passengers needs before their greed. But I guess this is how society is going, greed seems to come first for all concerned. Bring back some consideration as I knew it growing up. Respect one another. Put comfort before profit. I must add I realize all companies must operate at a profit. But any company that can pay their ceo's such large monies can afford to consider the very people that put the money there in the first place.
Sue Do-Nim - 13, January, 2012 (16:09)

Smaller aircraft seats were introduced as a deliberate ploy by operators in the ‘90’s to quell the growing membership of the “Mile High Club”.

In-flight over amorous activities of passengers could no longer be tolerated after one couple successfully sued for undisclosed damages due to nasty turbulence.

However smaller seats was not the only deterrent, some companies actually made their toilet facilities more cramped and openly advertised their flights as not condoning this behaviour…namely “Virgin”.

Night flights to some destinations were also banned.
Phuket being the most notable.
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (16:08)

Here in Brisbane, some peak hour commuters call their daily train ride a trip on the Cattle Train.

Since GoCard fares rose at the beginning of 2012, Brisbanites now have to pay among the highest fares in the world, despite the daily crush and discomfort caused by sardine-canning.
Helen - 13, January, 2012 (16:07)

Great to see the blog back! Happy N/Y everyone - must go...
Bernard F - 13, January, 2012 (15:47)

yes!
I hope no one has to sit next to a large amount of lard from Frankfurt to Sydney.
Even in business class this passenger took over my air space.Too late to request a change in seating as the plane was full.
I still paid the same fare as this person though.
Annie - 13, January, 2012 (15:38)

Obese people should pay more! The best solution is to weigh every passenger WITH their carry-on luggage and have them pay $2 for every kg over the combined limit of say, 120kgs. That's fair! OR, lose weight and fly later - easy!
Jessica - 13, January, 2012 (15:36)

If airlines are going to charge extra for extra weight, then maybe very tall people should also be charged more, and short and/or skinny people should be charged less. It's only fair after all, to address both extremes. It should go both ways.
I think John O'Grady's suggestion is the sanest. Design a few seats for extra large people and leave it at that. But I don't think they should be charged more for these seats, not if skinny people don't get charged less.
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (15:25)

WEG

As ever, a very sensible comment!

I note that in April 2011 the QANTAS fuel surcharge increased to $290 each for the UK/European route and $250 each for the US route. The surcharge rose 5 times, and tripled in price during 2011, despite the high Australian dollar. The price of oil in the same period rose from US$88 to US$136. Domestic routes have lesser amounts added.

So QANTAS doesn't hesitate to raise the fuel surcharge. And I'll bet the amount of freight carried on these flights hasn't decreased.

So yes, it's about retaining small seats and increasing profits. Perhaps rival airlines, which pay lower salaries and wages, are more profitable? I sure as hell know they are more comfy!
Helen - 13, January, 2012 (15:19)

Has anyone noticed that the seats have got smaller over the years. It seems that airlines are cramming as many people on to the planes as they can muster. The isles are smaller & the staff work in difficult cramped conditions.

I think when people book height & weight,mobilisation & health problems should all come into it (without extra charge). I always make sure the seating is OK for my husband when I am booking because of his health issues. If someone is in a wheelchair allowances are made. The planes should be built for comfort especially when one travels for thirty hrs to the other side of the world. Sometimes when the person in front decides to have a sleep & puts their chair back it can be awful. To upgrade can be really expensive & often not possible for many.

Allowances are made for babies & children so why not for everyone else...
Kevin C - 13, January, 2012 (15:13)

“Discrimination” Hummm The concept of one policy for all, be it weight (big or small) height, colour, race or religion is good political speak, but it simply does not work for all situations. I don’t believe there is any discrimination in the aircraft seat issue. I totally sympathise with those people with a medical condition, must be most frustrating and depressing. It is a simple fact the seat is only so big. An obese persons seat down the back is a good idea I feel, try and get the airlines take that one up! How would an obese person feel about being “categorised” as obese on their ticket? Then there might be grounds for discrimination.
Lynne Scott - 13, January, 2012 (14:51)

I would hate to have an obese person sitting next to me on a long haul flight and think the idea of having some larger seats for these people, and charging them more for them, would be an excellent idea. How to manage it would be the problem. I also find it unfair that we have a baggage weight limit yet there is no weight criteria for passengers.
Sheryl - 13, January, 2012 (14:21)

I feel very overweight folk should pay for an extra seat. It is uncomfortable to say the least to be in a seat to sit beside somone who is squashing you. I read of a case where a passenger suffered permanent nerve damage from being squashed in this manner.
WEG - 13, January, 2012 (14:18)

....Yawn. Great subject, I don’t think.
All because of an inane comment by a retired employee.
I suggest the ‘little’ person should take a sleeping pill, and use the larger person as their pillow. You never know, you could form a lasting relationship from the experience.
Lindylu - 13, January, 2012 (14:13)

What a lot of rot,my suggestion is if they want to charge for Over weight people, what about a reduction for small people,you cant argue over that really
JWM - 13, January, 2012 (14:10)

I notice that my last comment has not been published here even though I was under the limit for characters. Could you please publish that as I have valid comments, having worked in an organisation that had 10-seater aircraft, so I am very much aware of the need to weigh body & baggage before fuelling an aircraft, with safety the primary consideration.
JWM - 13, January, 2012 (14:05)

I've been reading these blogs and find that many are misreading/incorrectly interpreting another's comments. The issue of asking obese people to pay extra or for a second seat when morbidly overweight, seems to me, about not being able to enjoy the 'comfort' of their own seat for which they have paid the same amount as the person next to them who is occupying more than one seat by bulging into another's space. No discrimination - just paying for what you use. Businesses are in it to make money but in the case of airlines there the onus should be on them to provide sufficient seating to be comfortable, especially on flights of more than about 3-4 hours.
Ann Tredrea - 13, January, 2012 (13:58)

If they wish to charge fat people more money, then they should provide more space for that person. Many airlines have seating so close that tall people end up with their knees jammed in the back of the seat in front (and that is before they lay their seat back!). Perhaps people wouldn't mind paying more if they get more room, especially on long haul flights.
D Benn - 13, January, 2012 (13:43)

Yes, many obese people have a medical problem.
Providing a couple of larger seats at the rear sounds like one simple solution. If those seats are filled then allocate these people with aisle seats.
I have experienced similar discomfort on trains which is worse because because it is usually for a longer time.
dianne - 13, January, 2012 (13:34)

large or small there is not enough leg room anytime, my husband is a large man and i am tall and when we arrive it takes about ten minutes to get our legs going,it is just the company wonts to get as many people as possiable on each flight
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (13:33)

Can we have a large discount if we sit in someone else's lap?
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (13:31)

Hey, Blind Monkey has already re-classified us according to rules for the parcel post!
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (13:29)

What we are really looking at here are further attempts to reduce human beings to the status of commodities or machines, which commenced in the mid 1980s.

In future, we can expect to be treated by airlines in a similar fashion to a parcel at the post office. With self-service in place, we will have to weigh and measure ourselves for the privilege of being ripped off.

Bob B. makes an excellent point about Qantas not distributing any of the profits to shareholders since 2008/2009.

This would be in keeping with my contention that both Labor and Liberals allow large corporations to rip off shareholders, service recipients and workers in order to feather their own nests.

This fiasco is gradually replacing a Centrelink Pension for all, except for the rich.
Jim - 13, January, 2012 (13:13)

Maybe the profiteers could charge a premium for the large sized passenger.
Can my 18 year old anorexic looking (she says not) grand-daughter get a substantial discount for her lack of bulk?
I bet not, the greedy cows could not give up such an opportunity.
Jim Marshall - 13, January, 2012 (13:12)

Maybe the profiteers could charge a premium for the large sized passenger.
Can my 18 year old anorexic looking (she says not) grand-daughter get a substantial discount for her lack of bulk?
I bet not, the greedy cows could not give up such an opportunity.
Lorraine - 13, January, 2012 (13:10)

I get really annoyed with the huge amount of carry on luggage people try to squeeze into those overhead lockers - please put in the hold. Imagine all that stuff tumbling out of overheads - definetly need more leg room - problem for us who have long legs especially if you have legs that are less than perfect
M Casalaina - 13, January, 2012 (13:08)

I find the comment very offensive. My husband is a big man through no fault of his own. If this policy comes into effect he will not travel by plane this will have terrible results!!
Kate - 13, January, 2012 (12:58)

I am overweight through no fault of my own. A lack of iodine in the water, resulted in a goitre and the removal of my thyroid gland. I also have a problem with my liver, both of which cause such a low metabolism that even on 400 calories a day I cannot lose weight. However, I do not spill over into the next seat and I do not smell. I shower as often as everyone else and use deodorant. I find it insulting that my medical problems should be sugggested as a cause of discrimination against me if I need to travel. My son is an aircraft load balancer, and I am well aware that if the load is properly balanced it is not going to cause any problem for the aircraft if I weigh more than the person next to me. In fact that is more than balanced out by the fact that some people are very thin!!!!
Kevin C - 13, January, 2012 (12:56)

Dear Kay Kelly... I can now see why you are so passionate about this issue.

I don't believe that this is a cash grab by the airlines, it is all about people's entitlements to enjoy what they pay for. No body enjoys another's roles of fat encroaching into their personal space, that is out right rude and an invasion.
The other gentleman’s suggestion that the normal people should go business class is like saying penalise the innocent so the perpetrators get off scot free. Sounds a bit like criminals of today....?
Robyn - 13, January, 2012 (12:51)

continuing on from my last comment...

Height would also have to be stated because someone who is small and large might weigh less than someone who is tall and large but could present a bigger problem with seat spill-over.
Blind Monkey - 13, January, 2012 (12:31)

Speaking as a domestic and international frequent flyer and commerical pilot license holder, I agree that the obese should pay more. Like others above, if you have ever had to share a seat row an over sized person you'd appreciate the problem for the slimmer passenger. Further, if you send goods airfreight you pay by a weight and/or volume formula and this determines the price. Why should passengers be different? It requires additional fuel to move unbudgeted weight. Someone has to pay for it and why should it be the airline's shareholders?
Robyn - 13, January, 2012 (12:27)

I have never flown Premium Economy so I'm not sure how much bigger the seats or spaces are. Would it be a good option for obese people? Perhaps if we all had to state our weight when buying our ticket, those over a certain limit could be required to buy in that class. I imagine one would have to be extremely large though because I have sat next to people who are quite fat and haven't found it a problem at all. Anyone who is morbidly obese might appreciate a larger seat and space anyway. It still strikes me as discriminating though, but it would probably only apply to a small percentage of those who are overweight. Those who turn up at the airport looking like they lied about their weight when they bought their ticket could then be asked to hop on the scales.
Sandra - 13, January, 2012 (12:19)

When a passenger needs to lift the arm rest in order to fit into the seat, they should pay for the extra space needed. I feel very uneasy being forced to sit "hip to hip" with a complete stranger and especially as I am a "little old lady".
Debbie Gore - 13, January, 2012 (12:18)

If the person doesn't fit into the seat without hanging over in to the next passengers space then they need to pay for 2 seats. Why should your trip be spoiled because someone is too large for the seat. My son was charged a surcharge to go skydiving because he was over 95 kgs so other businesses charge for weight limits.
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (12:17)

Bob

Some aircraft taper off at the back and drop from 3-in-a-row to 2-in-a-row, with around 12 inches space between the window seat and the wall. That is an ideal spot to have two slightly larger seats. Extra cost? Minimal.
Mick Knewstub - 13, January, 2012 (12:10)

Airlines are in business meaning they make as much profit as they can whilst providing the minimum of service. My wife and I together weigh 120kg, roughly the same as many larger individuals, it would be ludicrous however to expect them to pay a premium because of their size. Perhaps a better idea would be to cost out tickets on the average of mature adult weight with a number of larger seats installed on each aircraft.
grimbo - 13, January, 2012 (11:59)

Having shared my seat with an obese person on a long flight, & the plane being full I feel this particular person should have been charged for & occupied 2 seats.Particularly as they occupied almost 1 1/2 seats
Sue K - 13, January, 2012 (11:54)

I have a friend who years ago was asked to pay for an extra seat as he is obese. Not only did he pay for the seat BUT the airline also allocated the extra seat to another passenger and when he complained, they told him the person had to use the seat as there was no other available on the flight. Isn't that double dipping? I can see this happening if obese people have to pay for extra seats.
Sue - 13, January, 2012 (11:50)

So who would decide what the weight limit would be? Would that mean everyone would have to be weighed in at check-in to see how much they weighed? I am obese and don't fly very often but I would object to having to be weighed at the airport. The seats are tiny for my average size husband but I still manage to sit in them and only on some planes do I have problems with the seat belt. And how many times do they leave empty seats next to a thin person so they can have room to spread out? I've seen this happen many times.
It is all a revenue making issue and nothing more. It is discriminating against obese people. As someone said previously, who's going to be the "fat police"?
Bob B - 13, January, 2012 (11:46)

Kay

If a person fits wholly within the seat that is fine. I can tolerate that. When they spill over into my space - the space I paid for - that is outside reasonableness. They should have an alternative that is, currently, to go business class. Hopefully, seats built for three that can be adjusted readily for two will come into use as a consequence of the current hype. How this is amanged and funded remains to be resolved.
Bob B - 13, January, 2012 (11:39)

Kay

Yes, obesity is a sensitive matter. But, sometimes a spade needs to be called a spade to get the right answer for the majority.

I recall reading a few years ago that something like only 2 or 3 percent of obese people are that way for medical reasons. We should not discriminate against these people but those who got themselves into that state need to carry the responsibility for that. Our medical system has not done so yet but I opine some changes, small at first, are in the wind.

In this instance ignorance is not bliss and nor should it be.

Personally, at 6ft 2in, I fall into the long legged person category but I suffer that alone without impinging on fellow passengers even though being 'locked in' can lead to craps. My preference is an isle seat so I can stretch out sometimes and stand as is necessary.
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (11:32)

(cont.)

Let us say an obese person is 30-40 kg overweight - big deal!! How many children are on board - many of whom are 30-40 Kgs less than adult weight. Probably balances out! Get real, people!!!

This is a proposed money grab by a (fortunately) ex-QANTAS economist!!! And what are economists interested in? The money!!! Mind you, the fuel surcharge for overseas flights is already several hundred dollars! QANTAS has probably at some stage decided to hook onto the current obsession with 'Obesity' to come up with a new way to slug us for more money at the same time as making the seats yet smaller. And boy oh boy!! obesity is clearly a red-hot topic!
Bob B - 13, January, 2012 (11:29)

Cont....

Its an expensive business to operate - some say shareholders reap the profits but, did you know Qantas has paid no dividends to shareholders since the first payment 2008/9!

Complex issues like this that are wound up in political correctness and statements made from those unaware of the facts, need to be canvassed amoungst the customer base to find an acceptable solution for most customers. I think we are seeing the wide range of opinion on the matter in this blog.

Keep it up put all the cards on the table.
Bob B - 13, January, 2012 (11:29)

Haven't read much about the costs of larger seats and the qualification of them before they can be used in aircraft - very costly. Aircraft and seating have been designed 'together' to maximise the number of pasengers to keep costs for the passengers as cheap as possible. New bigger seats and the fine line of business viability will lead to new more capabale aircraft. But that is the future.

In the meantime, those opposed to charging the obese more must expect to pay more themselves for any interim solution like 2 obese being sat on a seating assembly designed for 3.
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (11:26)

Good lord! What pettiness!!! The 'Fat Police' are truly the nastiest, most judgmental, least empathetic people one is likely to come across!!! There seems to be such a lot of 'Fat hate' out there!!

The mere fact that (as one blogger pointed out) a 3-year-old pays full fare shows that the real issue is not weight! A 3-year-old takes up a seat - hence pays full fare. So does a fat person - hence pays full fare. No doubt the fat person is extremely uncomfortable - but hey, who cares? They are almost inhuman anyway (or so one would think, given many comments)! And ... ever tried sitting straddled across two seats??? Ridiculous!!
Robyn - 13, January, 2012 (11:16)

Hobbit,

Then we would all need to follow up our weigh-in with a whingeing test. What fun! I do agree with you!
Hobbit - 13, January, 2012 (11:10)

If fat people should pay more because they incommodate others, then so should whingers - I'd rather sit narrowly next to a jolly big person than an ever-complaining thin one (especially if it's a long trip!).
Suzanne - 13, January, 2012 (11:07)

Yes - I do agree people who are overweight should pay extra. Perhaps it might be an incentive for people to loose weight? I am 55kgs which I have been for the last 40 years! I am now 60 years of age. I can only take 23kgs on board otherwise I am penalised. Someone weighing 120kgs also takes on 23kgs - look at the total weight difference! Where is the justice in that? I am subsidising fat people's airfares! And also the size of on-board bags should be reduced as well. Reducing the size of airline seats has nothing to do with it. People put too much food into their mouths! Bring in weighing people and their luggage and pay accordingly.
sharyn - 13, January, 2012 (11:07)

In solving the problem of obese people in plane travel, I would suggest the airlines allocate a section of the seating for obese passengers. In a 2 seat configuration, one person pays for 2 seats. In a 3 seat configuration, two people pay for 1 and a half seats. In doing this, they pay for what they use and it gives the average size person the pleasure of having a whole seat to themselves, in the remainder of the plane seating.
Robyn - 13, January, 2012 (11:02)

The small side debate, as to whether the fatties would squash or cushion the skinnies in the event of a crash, is really quite hilarious!

I think if I was on a plane about to crash, the possibility of getting squashed by my neighbour would be the least of my worries!
margaret chaldecott - 13, January, 2012 (10:47)

When I worked in the purchasing office (stationery) for QANTAS earliy fifties there were very large sheets on which details for freight reasons were used. Not sure if they still apply These showed how much weight should be stacked and where.
My very tall sister before flying from London enquired about leg room.
On checking in, the clerk looked at her height (and beauty) and transferred her to business class.
Someone I know complained about the difficulty of getting from the window seat to the aisle to use the toilet. The 'neighbour' apparently took up too much space.
I have seen very heavy 'stuff' placed on the o/head racks. One was a sort of amphora which a Greek person put in the rack. Lot of space used but not sure of the actual weight
Pam - 13, January, 2012 (10:36)

What a lot of nasty spiteful judgemental lot. You are giving the airlines exactly what they want pick on each other when they have made seats smaller and smaller over the years for profit,they have more weight just by doing this and this is another way for profit.They dont care if your fat or thin when they strike. Gives us back at least some of the NORMAL size seats we use to have and then these could be allocated to the people requesting them or having a need for them. No I am not obese,just know that every human is an individual story who are we to judge.
Padraig - 13, January, 2012 (10:35)

As the safety of the flight depends,inter alia, on the total weight of the aircraft,the weighing of passenger and baggage would be a reasonable request.
peter - 13, January, 2012 (10:33)

THERE ARE A LOT OF YOUNG ATHLETES WHO WOULD BE TOO BIG TO FIT INTO AN ECONOMY CLASS SEAT.THEY ARE NOT FAT.WILL THEY CHARGE LESS FOR SMALLER PASSENGERS WHO DO WEIGH AS MUCH AS THE AVERAGE PASSENGER BUT COUNTERACT THE EXTRA WEIGHT OF THE OBESE ONES?
Christine - 13, January, 2012 (10:27)

Before charging for the extra weight of passengers, perhaps if airlines followed their own rules, and weighed the cabin baggage people take onto aircraft, there would not be the need to charge extra for obese people.

Cabin baggage allowance for most is one bag with weight of 7kg, however, there are a large number of people who travel with more than one cabin bag and have difficulty carrying it (because of weight, size & too many bags), let alone the safety aspect of putting that excess amount in the overhead lockers. How many of us often find that they cannot fit their "one" legal sized bag in the locker above their seat.

I work at an airport and see it all of the time and can only think of one international airline who polices cabin baggage. Hats off to them.
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (10:27)

Hell, obesity is such a popular topic!

Imagine what would happen if a large Samoan or Zulu tried to fit into an economy class seat. The first could find himself hoisted bodily into the cargo hold, while the other fractured his skull and both knees.

I think if I was sitting next to an obese person in a plane crash, he/she might actually cushion the blow.

If you are scared of roller coasters and other show rides, sit next to someone of a cuddly size, so you don't end up whacking bone on bone.
Dazee - 13, January, 2012 (10:12)

The solution is for the seating to be reduced from 3 to 2 and everyone pays one and a half the current fare. That's not discriminatory to the oversized nor less profit for a commercial enterprise. This will, of course, reduce the amount of times people travel due to the higher prices and the airlines will be forced to increase them to recoup somehow. Please note that 3 year olds pay full fare - is this not a good example of nondiscrimination?
Robyn - 13, January, 2012 (10:09)

Continued

The middle person did not flow onto my seat but the 3 of us were jammed in like sardines. Row 11 on national flights should be cheaper!

I too feel disappointed about the lack of tolerance being expressed toward people who are overweight.
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (10:06)

Here's a thought! How about an affordable 'comfort surcharge' - a slightly bigger seat with more legroom, like in Business Class or Premium Economy? But without all the extras in Business such as the grog etc! I don't believe I've ever seen a person on a plane who would actually need 2 seats! After all, there's already a surcharge for just about everything else - including FUEL!

Having traveled on many different airlines, I must say that Australian airlines have some of the smallest seats with the least legroom. And, in general, Australians are taller and 'bigger' than many other nationalities - and that's not even getting into the obesity percentages. I gather from this morning's TV, Australia is 4th - after USA, UK, NZ. And they seem to be getting smaller over time as the cost-cutting continues.

But I am still appalled at the lack of tolerance shown by many bloggers.
Robyn - 13, January, 2012 (10:05)

A few years ago I flew from Coolangatta to Adelaide and was allocated an aisle seat in row 11. This row has less room than all of the others because it's directly in front of the emergency exit row. In the middle and window seat next to me was a couple, both very large. I could hardly move, not because of them but because the space between my seat and the one in front was so cramped. When I put my table down it was crammed against me. The poor couple alongside were not able to lower their tables at all. I thought it was a negligent (at best), or spiteful (at worst) act to allocate these 2 very large people the tiniest seats on the plane. I really felt for them and I had no issue at all about being seated with them. To continue...
M. Jamieson - 13, January, 2012 (10:01)

I definitely think obese people should pay more. I always worry that I will find myself seated next to an overweight person. If someone is obese they should pay for 2 seats. Perhaps if there were more restrictions placed on obese people it might encourage them to lose some weight which would help their health.
Glenn - 13, January, 2012 (9:58)

I am obese and my physical health makes it impossible to exercise. I only eat small meals and never eat prepared food or fast food. Pay a little more? Yes, but being penalised by paying for an extra seat, no, I do not mind at all. I am not a regular flyer and I do not mind sitting close to an obese person, after all it is not for long and only once in a blue moon. Tolerance would be nice but where do you find it these days? I see this whole argument as a means for airlines to fatten the pockets of shareholders, We larger persons have been around much longer that this argument.
Laura - 13, January, 2012 (9:56)

Ideally the airlines should have a couple of 'special' seats available for the overweight traveller. Airlines make more than enough profit these days, but can't see them doing this.

Total weight of both traveller and baggage should be taken into account with a maximum load per person, anyone over this weight should pay extra. We all have to pay more for extra baggage, so why not human weight!
Douglas Harber - 13, January, 2012 (9:52)

I believe that the logical weight to be considered by the airline is the Passenger and their Luggage combined. This would be fair to all concerned. Setting the parameters for extra payment is the tricky bit. However, we all know the "user pays" mantra by now. Same applies to aircraft seats and the fuel used to haul passengers to and from their destination.
Pam A - 13, January, 2012 (9:50)

Fuel requirements are based on total weight; logically if baggage is weighed, so should the passenger!! If a plane has more fat people than thin, in spite of additional fuel onboard, there is a higher risk of running out. On a small chopper trip we were asked our weight so pilot could ensure correct amount of fuel. No difference.
John R - 13, January, 2012 (9:46)

If obese people travel, their condition should not be inflicted on others, so either the airlines should accommodate them comdition or should be required to pay for the extra real estate they occupy. People who abuse their bodies with food, cigarettes or alcohol should be required to deal with the cosequences of their decisions, be it in travel or health costs.
Old woman of the north - 13, January, 2012 (9:41)

Obese people do need to pay extra if they take up extra space. Being wedged under a load of fat is horrifying.
It looks as though people will have to put down weight when purchasing a ticket so their requirements can be noted.

Obesity is acquired by mouth and by choice of lifestyle. The fact that it is almost impossible to lose all that weight once well established is no reason not to charge extra for it when travelling. Bus, train and air plane seats are all too small for an obese body.
John A - 13, January, 2012 (9:40)

As a "normal" size person, I agree that obese people should purchase two seats, both for their own comfort and for the unfortunate person next to them.
Also, both the passenger and their baggage should be weighed together, so that above, say 90kg should be charged "excess".
Rosy - 13, January, 2012 (9:32)

My, my what has happened to society? I was appalled to read that some people find discrimination the norm. I have flown on and off for over 20 years and have observed that the seats on planes have been "shrinking" more and more with less space between the seat in front. I believe it is all about profit,profit,profit and it's time that all stopped. Afterall if people stopped flying the airlines would be out of business and why should fat people be penalized? We are all human irrespective of size, gender and race. I would suggest introducing x amount of normal seats and x amount of large ones as well as looking at more leg room. Wouldn't that be more sensible in accommodating everyone?
Andrew Curtis - 13, January, 2012 (9:32)

Hmmm and before they all start about discriminating against the rich and obese - yes I have travelled business class - paid for the ticket to include all sorts of alcoholic rubbish that I do not indulge in. More space sure but save money else where and expand the seats for all..
Alan M Sullivan - 13, January, 2012 (9:29)

Its obvious the comments some have made have never flown"cattle Class" to LHR on a 24 hr flight with an 150 kg battleship sitting next to them overflowing everywhere letalone try to eat the meal with them alongside, I say they should be treated the same as your baggage iff your over the limit pay more per kilo
Andrew Curtis - 13, January, 2012 (9:26)

Make the seats bigger - tall people have huge issues about space as well. I have sat next to someone with incredible broad shoulders - who pushed me into a twisted position to squeeze into my seat - he was not obese.. My muscle spasms nearly ruined my holiday... Charge more give us all more space and cut the rubbish to business and first class that most don't even indulge in...
colin - 13, January, 2012 (9:19)

Here's a thought: why don't the airlines make seats wider? I've flown 'baggage class' to Russia and China. It ain't easy! I'm 5'4" and 75kgs - not terribly big.
If the person has a medical condition and doctor's letter - the 2nd seat should be free. My wife has a physical disability and is also on Thyroxine. So no levy.
However, if you have chosen to eat yourslef to death - I agree with an obese levy.
Mind you, I sat next to a tall gangley man on the trip to China. He should have paid a gangley levy. Where does it stop?
B Roberts - 13, January, 2012 (9:17)

Wow, this has set the cat amongst the pigeons. Sorry guys, face up to it - weigh up and pay up. This is not about discrimination, it is about comfort for all passengers. Call it what it is "Fat and Overweight". I am sick of us skirting around the issue of obesity because of political correctness. We are fast becoming the fatest nation on earth, you only have to watch people in the food halls of shopping malls to realise this. The airline situation aside, the cost to the health system is already blowing out because of medical issues relating to obesity. More people need a full length mirror and to make sure they look at the back view also.
Ann Budden - 13, January, 2012 (9:15)

From the point of view of the comfort of other passengers, perhaps obese passengers should have to buy two seats. (Let's fact it; the seats are already too small!). From the excess weight angle, yes that is a concern. However, a bigger concern for me is the practice of taking suitcases on a hand luggage. This isn't even weighed and the airlines are allowing people to do it.
Annette Tickner - 13, January, 2012 (9:13)

Several times I've had to pay for a few kg excess on my luggage, yet I weigh 60kg and my sister weighs 120kg. Possibly there could be a scales at the airport for passengers and their luggage to be weighed with a printout, rather than a display screen. This would be a fairer system for all.
Sue Do-Nim - 13, January, 2012 (9:06)

Wow..all this pent up angst ,hatred and snideness against someone for just being fat.

I shudder to think what would happen if the next time you flew a fat, black Muslim refugee from Cabramatta wearing a Burka sat down beside you?
As Kay K. said..”Sh*t happens”..move on.
Margaret Williams - 13, January, 2012 (9:05)

I am not in the least concerned about weight. I believe the argument is going off in a wtong direction -- the real issue is the comfort of other passengers. Seats are narrow enough without being denied the full use of your own seat by an obese person in the next seat. Perhaps at check in obese peaople could be assigned to seats in the rear of the plane so that they only interfere with each other?
George P - 13, January, 2012 (8:59)

It is necessary to consider your luggage carefully when loading a plane. Some people weigh much more than their luggage. I believe it is correct to weigh the person and their luggage together. Obesity is a mental condition in most cases - it didn't exist 40 years ago.
Suzanne - 13, January, 2012 (8:54)

Figures from the Australian Health Survey Oct 2010 have 25.6% males and 24% females as obese. It is anticipated these figures will continue to rapidly rise.
Australians are already, and will continue to be paying a high price (financially and socially) for these shocking figures.
For safety reasons (and bottom line - no profit, no airline, no travel)airlines operating within and accessing our airspace will have to take total "cargo" weight into consideration before lift-off.
Airlines operating in most other countries don't have those shocking obesity statistics to factor in - Australia does.
It will be a brave airline that chooses the
total "cargo" weight approach, but for safety reasons I would choose to fly with them.
I am 54 kilos, should there be an inflight accident, I would be crushed by the obese.
Yes, I agree with commencing an obesity surcharge.
Glen - 13, January, 2012 (8:49)

Boy how discriminatory and intolerant can we all be from what I have been reading above. No-one 'chooses' to be obese and it is a very complicated issue as has been mentioned.We just love to judge others don't we order to make ourselves feel better. Sad!
Ron V - 13, January, 2012 (8:36)

I sympathise with fat peolple who are fat due to matters beyond their control. However airlines should take into account the size of the passenger when calculating excess baggage. It's unfair for someone 50kg to pay $10kg excess baggage when the next passenger in the queue is 120kg
Sharon Carter - 13, January, 2012 (8:35)

Stop the whinging why is we must find fault with everything - at least be fair, what about the people who take everything with them on a trip including the kitchen sink doesn' this add to weight concerns. What about the people who have been running all over town and the deodrant just can't keep up, or the people who talk loudly, or the one sitting in the middle sit constantly going to the bathroom - all of these make for an annoying trip - truly where does it stop! Tolerance is what is needed.
Jeff - 13, January, 2012 (8:30)

It's one of those issues where you're dammed if you do and you're dammed if you don't isn't it? But still isn't it great that we live in a country where everyone has a right to offer a view? :-) Cheers
Eliza Ryan-Bowley - 13, January, 2012 (8:28)

When are the airlines going to realise that not everyone fits into a size 4! Australia has the largest population of "extra" sizes in the world but airlines still make seats to fit children and woe betide anyone who doesn't fit into their idea of a "general" sized passenger. The bottom line of course is that airlines must make a profit so squashing as many passengers as possible into coach seats is the way to do it. If a plus-sized passenger happens to come their way they are forced into buying a second seat so they can be accommodated. Not fair at all and can be classed as discrimanatory. I am a size 12/14 and my husband XX to XXX and we often get a sideways glance from the flight attendants when we fly, quite off-putting
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (8:25)

ES

I fully support your comments (7.33 13/1)!

Gosh, people really do hate fat people, don't they? Where has all the tolerance gone??????
Kevin - 13, January, 2012 (8:21)

Grow up all you whingers! My wife (of 40 years) is somewhat larger than average (whatever that may be) and when we sometimes travel on an aircraft together, I am a little squashed but so what! It is a part of life. Next thing is you may well be saying that "skinny" people should pay LESS for their airfare as they weigh less???? Grow up OR take a business class seat.
Carole S - 13, January, 2012 (8:18)

No I dont think big people should pay more for their seats on aircraft. I think the seats are too small especially in econ and its the airlines way of getting more money. I am only 58kg and find the space tight.
peter hall - 13, January, 2012 (8:00)

Yes, overweight people should pay more. Airlines have a standard weight for passenger and baggage calculation and if as passenger exceeds that then they should pay the excess. It is not only less fuel that a plane can carry but it is the discomfort of passengers sitting next to them when they overflow onto the nearby passengers. Years ago commuter airlines used to weigh passenger and basggage and I think that is a good idea.
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (7:52)

Robyn Rawlins may be using capitalisation of her entire comment because she has an eyesight problem, and the bigger typeface is easier for her to see as she types.

I think Woody has made the best point so far, and he has made it brilliantly.

Perhaps we should demand that the government forces airlines to make bigger seats, with rows somewhat further apart. I am only 161 cm tall (about 5 ft 3 in) and there is certainly not a lot of extra space for taller people's legs. I could probably lose a few kilos, but I am certainly not large. I fit in the seats, but there still isn't much room to spare.

I also find the backs of the seats are too upright for comfort on some planes.

Let airlines redesign their planes to suit OUR COMFORT, not THEIR PROFITS.
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (7:48)

(cont.)

I agree that sitting next to an extremely large person on an overseas flight (12 hours or so) would not be fun. Nor is it any fun sitting behind someone who insists on tilting their seats back as far as they can go! Or gets drunk and talks/shouts all night. I tend to just tell myself that 'S**t happens' - it helps.

I am somewhat disappointed at the lack of tolerance displayed by many people here. How 'big' (excuse the pun) a problem is this in the scheme of things? Can you imagine the delays on checking in while everyone, including their luggage, is weighed? Statistically, the increase in overall weight due to a few fatter passengers boarding is unlikely to be great. And rarely are planes completely full, anyway.

A storm in a teacup, as far as I can see!
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (7:38)

I think Glennis is right!!

They want to weigh and measure us all .... body weight, height, girth, luggage, handbag, overcoat .... and then charge us a per kilogram:height fare.

It is bad enough that they have the hide to call us "guests" instead of "paying employers".
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (7:37)

(cont.)

I personally think this is a crass grab for more money by jumping on the 'obesity' bandwagon! Have you seen how much luggage and freight they load onto passenger planes? Not to mention the inordinate amount of 'cabin luggage'? I happily pay the $10 extra for checked luggage (which is usually much lighter than the 23 Kg limit). I happily comply with all the security measures. But humiliating people by weighing them is a step too far!

Towards the back of many planes the number of seats drops from 3-in-a-row to 2 with extra space near the window. Why not fit slightly larger seats there? After all, how many really obese people are there on any one flight? I mean, obese to the extent that they are unable to fit into normal seats.
ES - 13, January, 2012 (7:33)

Oh yes and charge tall people for extra height, blind people for extra help, the disabled for more tolerence, old people for more time, children for noise control. Why not charge everybody for the filtered air in the cabin? Rent out any cutlery needed at meal time? Maybe buses and trains can put on these extra charges too - I am lead to believe fat and obese people use them too! And what about taxis? They could also add these charges when they have fat people on board. Oh and doctors waiting rooms, picture theatres - in fact the longer I think about it the more opportunities I find for charging people more. How disgustingly disgriminatory - thank goodness he is a former executive!
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (7:32)

For those who aren't aware, people do actually abuse the disabled.

A man I know who is semi-quadriplegic has been angrily told to get out to work. Despite his numerous health problems, he counsels a group of women suffering from Cerebral Palsy and sells various items for the Cerebral Palsy League.

Recently I have seen legless young women begging for alms from their wheelchairs in the Brisbane CBD. What is the world coming to!

If you don't work, many people hate you, regardless of your circumstances. This is because of abuses occurring in workplaces. Some come from management and, in some instances, workers are deliberately nasty towards one another, which could also be a flow-on effect of abuses by management/family/friends.

If people tried to be more considerate, the situation might improve across the board.
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (7:27)

(cont.)

I have flown on small planes where everything is weighed - no problem. I have also flown on planes where the seat is either very comfortable or very squeezy (different planes) - all on the same day! I am also very tall (nearly 6 feet) with long legs - my main complaint has always been lack of leg room - for that reason I try to get an emergency row seat - but the staff have to judge you strong enough to open the door.

I have also flown on planes with screaming babies/children, annoying parents and obnoxious/noisy passengers. But I have always accepted these little trials in life with good grace and equanimity. That's life in economy class!!! I could fork out the extra cash for Premium Economy or Business Class, but a few hours of discomfort really isn't a huge problem to me!! Certainly, not worth the extra expenditure!
David Vaughan - 13, January, 2012 (7:27)

Everybody should weigh their luggage and themselves and pay excess weight on the total amount the same goes for size you need two seats then pay for two don't expect your fellow passengers to feel cramped up because you are overweight.
Lorikeet - 13, January, 2012 (7:25)

Theresa Gambaro, who holds the federal seat of Brisbane for Liberals, has been in trouble in the media for saying that visa holders from other nations need to wear deodorant so they don't offend other workers.

The One Nation candidate for the Queensland state seat of Ashgrove has been labelled a racist for saying that Indians have taken over 3 x 711 stores in the electorate.

I guess if you say someone stinks, you will be labelled an odourist/smellist type of person.

It seems you can no longer give a view on anything without being abused by others. I'm sure this trend is designed to shut everyone up.
Cheryl Moulton - 13, January, 2012 (7:23)

Sadly I must say yes: if an individual is too overweight to fit into one seat without encroaching on another passenger, then yes they should pay for an extra seat.
This is where each individual case needs to be assessed, because of course not all overweight people will need the extra seat.
Louise A. - 13, January, 2012 (7:21)

It's incredible how discrimitive people can be while everyone is picking on the obese person all the time. You all wouldn't say that about the disabled person maybe it might just happen to be one of you. Some people can't help being overweight and have been ridiculed enough they are human beings with feelings as well, treat them with some respect. They are entitled to fly just like anyone else why should they stay home.
Barbara Coco - 13, January, 2012 (7:20)

I honestly think it is discrimination. If you are going to charge an obese person for an extra seat then charge an extra tall person who needs extra leg room for an extra seat as well.
Glennis - 13, January, 2012 (7:17)

No they should not. Do skinny people pay for half a seat? I am neither overweight or underweight. I can see it now we will all have to step on the scales before we purchase our ticket. What a load of hogwash.
Kay Kelly - 13, January, 2012 (7:13)

First of all, I must declare a conflict of interest here - I am currently very overweight! I say "currently" because like a lot of people, my weight goes up and down depending on whether I am 'on a diet' versus enjoying the pleasures of eating what many other people can eat and 'get away with it'! And - I don't eat junk food!!!!! Obesity is a very complex issue - there are many compounding issues, psychological and physical, that can influence this problem - especially for older, less mobile people - it just seems simple to those who have never had a weight problem.
Ross Thompson - 13, January, 2012 (7:06)

Yes, they should definately pay more. This would be one way to reinforce the health aspects of maintaining a reasonable weight.

However, there are people with medical conditions which affect their ability to maintain a reasonable weight. Such people should not be penalised.
Maureen Lucas - 13, January, 2012 (7:04)

I am disgusted at all of these so called "virtuous" people who pontificate on about how easy it is to lose weight and how everyone should. IT IS NOT EASY TO LOSE WEIGHT. Many people, such as Bi-Polar, and other people with medical conditions find it almost impossible, even under medical supervision. Also many people put the weight on again in a short time even if they do lose weight. If a person is over a certain dimension perhaps premium economy may be required. This is not just for overweight people but also for people with longer than normal legs. I have sat in the aircraft with a skinny woman with long legs and she encroached into my space on a long flight, so not just the "fat" ones are a problem. Have some compassion - you too may one day have a problem.
Trevor B - 13, January, 2012 (7:03)

When I flew I weighed 110 kilos and my height is 6 feet 6 inches.
The seat I sat in pinned me in and my knees where up under my chin because seats were to small and too close. And I flew from Melbourne to Gladstone in Qld which took approx 4 hours.
No over weight people should not pay extra.
All those people saying over weight people should pay extra should have a read of the Anti-discrominating law, for they are discriminating against another people because he/she is different to them.
Jimi Taylor - 13, January, 2012 (6:53)

Absolutely, charge them more! They invade your space on the plane!
Keneth Barridge - 13, January, 2012 (6:51)

Where the passenger is encroaching on the comfort of other passengers yes there should be an extra charge, But ONLY if people below the national average weight get an equal Reduction in their fare.
Ron Buttenshaw - 13, January, 2012 (6:50)

I agree with Dr David completely. Weigh everyone including their luggage. I get upset if the airline wants to charge me extra for luggage but the obese person has nothing to answer to. And I agree that in the majority of cases people choose to be what they are through lifestyle, myself included.
Shirley Wilding - 13, January, 2012 (6:43)

Definitely, this is a health hazard and it could encourage these people to lose a bit of weight. I have been squashed into a seat beside a fat person and was unable to get out for the whole journey. If they weighed a person and their luggage to calculate the fare it would be much fairer.
Howard - 13, January, 2012 (6:35)

I flew off an Island in Hawaii in a small plane once and all passengers were weighed including luggage. I didn't mind, but some fellow passengers were embarassed. The plane obviously had weight limitations. Larger aircraft also have weight limitations, but fuel range is another consideration. I don't think there is an easy answer to this one. I have had the overweight person in the seat next to me many times and I hate it, but then I think they probably hate it as well. We both finish up eating with one hand and reading the same paper!
Chris - 13, January, 2012 (6:29)

Only if lighter people pay less, or every one pays a per kilo flight rate. That way all adolescents and lighter people would weigh in at about half what they pay now. But I doubt if the airlines, while at the same time complaining about heavy people, would buy such a fair and equal system.
John Hunter - 13, January, 2012 (6:26)

Most definitely they pay.
Or Purchase 2 seats.
Also, they should be seated as close to amenities as is able, so as not to block the aisles.
Better yet, travel by train, car or stay at home.
Grandma - 13, January, 2012 (6:18)

We all have our luggage checked for weight and size restrictions and pay more if we exceed the limit. It should be likewise for human cargo!I could only use half of my seat on one occasion for a flight to Europe due to my fellow passenger's "flow over" - not nice!
Di - 13, January, 2012 (6:17)

They should not be charged extra but I do agree that there should be bigger seating for bigger people for their comfort also. It isnt much fun sitting squashed for the giver or receiver.
Dr David squirrell - 13, January, 2012 (6:04)

in case pointed out I noted a typo on my Point one - non-obese Persons not non-persons is what I meant to say.
Dr David Squirrell - 13, January, 2012 (6:00)

there are several considerations
1. airline seat, toilets & corridor design are made for non-persons to occupy & mobilise along.
2. The weight of the aircraft taking off & landing has to consider the total weight of passengers & freight at some stage
3. I believe the person should be weighed with their luggage (using standard weight for height graphs) & any weight in excess be that in the luggage or on the person should be paid for - that way it is not discriminating & expresses the user pays principle.
4. Hand luggage must fit certain dimentions so why not those occupying the seats & if in excess then 2 seats should be purchased.
5. The debate should be OHS based not aesthetic based. Sadly Obesity is increasing & so are the risk considerations.
Mino Deus - 13, January, 2012 (5:55)

Robyn Rawlins:
I hope it’s just naivety or inexperience but when you contribute to a Blog it is considered the height of bad manners to write your comments in higher case (Capitals).
It means that you are trying to get you message across by SHOUTING above others.

No big deal…just a matter of basic etiquette.
Anyway, nice to read your comments.
Woody - 13, January, 2012 (5:41)

I just cannot believe what I am reading here. How dare you people say that fat people should pay extra to fit into seats that unthinking greedy air carriers have squashed into their aircraft to carry as many people as possible to make as much money as they can. They treat us like animals and not people.
Greg - 13, January, 2012 (5:16)

How can anyone say it is discriminatory to ask an obese person to sit in and pay for a larger seat? Do they not pay more for larger sized clothes? Do they buy a bigger canoe, bigger clothes, larger shoes when shopping or fit into the 'standard' or 'average' sizes to avoid the cost of more materials and then claim they are discriminated against because they require larger sizes? If the hat fits, wear it, otherwise buy one that does!
Robyn Rawlins - 13, January, 2012 (4:46)

YES - OBESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ASKED TO UPGRADE TO A PREMIUM ECONOMY. TRY SITTING 12 HOURS ON A PLANE ON HALF A SEAT BECAUSE THE PERSON SITTING NEXT TO YOU IS SPILLING OVER INTO YOUR SEAT. I BELIEVE THAT BUYING 2 SEATS IS NOT AN OPTION - AIRLINE DONT LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS COURT CASE, SO THEY SHOULD UPGRADE.
I FLY OVERSEAS EACH YEAR AND AM QUITE SMALL - SO GUESS WHO THEY SIT THE OBESE PERSON NEXT TO.
THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM FOR AIRLINES - BUT REMEMBER THE NORMAL/SMALL PERSON HAS PAID FOR A SEAT AND SHOULD NOT BE 'DISCRIMATED' AGAINST BECAUSE THEY CANNOT USE ALL OF IT.
Louise A. - 13, January, 2012 (4:12)

Shame on everyone that has said obese people should pay, I myself am overweight not from overeating but have a medical problem. I'm on so many tablets that make it hard to lose weight. Why should I pay more for an extra seat, that is so discrimative. Maybe they should make the seats a bit bigger than trying to cram people so close together. You target obese what next the coloured people or the expectant mothers. And as for them smelling it is not every person, I have sat next to many thin people who smell of bo. It's typical of the airlines cutting costs here and there. You do have a choice to upgrade.
Marianne - 13, January, 2012 (3:42)

Obese people who require a seat larger than the standard economy should either be required to pay for a larger first class seat or 2 economy seats. There is nothing worse than being seated next to an obese person who bodily spills over onto you. All obese people are able to lose weight, it is a matter of medical help and perserverance by the person. Been there done that.
Frank Simcox - 13, January, 2012 (1:38)

The person and their luggage should be weighed and anything over a limit be paid for as excess weight. Couples or families could be totalled to meet an appropriate limit. Physical dimensions should be taken into account also and if necessary 2 seats to be paid for with the appropriate double weight allowance.
viv - 13, January, 2012 (0:07)

Yes they should
Manfred Tettweiler - 12, January, 2012 (23:52)

Definitely YES. One is forced to pay for checked-in luggage, meals, even blanket or water - so it is only fair enough! Yo can't post double weight for single pay only because you are obose! Would be a reason to slim down, cheap airlines are by the way so cheap, these people could easily afford it as they have enough money for junk food....
Sheila - 12, January, 2012 (23:46)

Looking at the big picture - weight costs money.
What is the allowable quantity and weight of cabin bags nowadays?
There seem to be more bags per person, and may include a pull-along suitcase which seem larger than it should be, or include a laptop bag as well!
And pillows....

It ALL adds up, increases the fuel cost.

Airlines in Australia probably have higher running costs than many overseas airlines,so to run the airline as a business, achieving profit,must need some imaginative costings, ie getting maintenance done overseas, much as I hate the idea.
What is Australian, should stay Australian!!!
Kerry Lawson - 12, January, 2012 (23:31)

I have had the experience of sitting next to overweight person on a long flight and it made the flight unpleasant on a long flight it is unfair on the person sitting next to them I paid for my seat not to share it with another person who I did not know I think it is unfair on other passengers to not make provision for overweight people not sure now to impose the fee but I should not have to share my space
Kathy - 12, January, 2012 (23:15)

Evidently this has nothing to do with the comfort of other passengers and the forced purchase of a second seat is not the issue. Quantas is worried about the use of extra fuel and it's own "bottom" line. It simply wants overweight people to pay more. I feel sorry for those really large people who are not overweight but very tall and those who are overweight because of a medical condition not because the simply "choose" to be big.
Jess Ciampa - 12, January, 2012 (23:10)

YES, fat people should pay extra especially when they are taking nearly 2 seats especially if you have a window seat and you cant even use your own arm rest because their fat overhangs the seat they are in and if you had to get out in a hurry to go to the loo, you would be soiled before you get out because of the preasure you have to use to get out.
I say make them pay for the 2 seats and there should be a weight limit and if they go over that, then they pay by the kilo.
To make it fair if the weight limit per seat is 120kg the fat person should be allowed 240 kg and anything over that they pay by the kilo or buy a third seat.
Margaret HODGE - 12, January, 2012 (22:21)

Absolutely. I am a frequent flyer and have experienced being seated next to an obese person. I tend to get claustrophobic and had to request to be moved. Can't imagine what would happen if the plane was fully occupied. People who choose to be obese should have to book two seats or a whole row if their body overlaps into another seat. If you purchase a seat on an airline you should not be expected to share that seat with someone whose body overlaps into your seat. My daughter has had the same experience of being seated next to an obese person and she had an infant to nurse. Everyone has a concience and knows if they should book more than one seat. Maybe this is an opening for a new airline charge - excess seating fee.
Sue Do-Nim - 12, January, 2012 (21:35)

I don’t like this topic very much.

Lori:
How was lunch with Madam Moderator today?
Were the cucumber and watercress sandwiches nice and fresh?
Robyn - 12, January, 2012 (21:16)

I need to add that I am not fat. I am 5 foot 5 and weigh 60 kilos. I think that the inference that fat people smell more than non fat people is discriminatory! !
Robyn - 12, January, 2012 (21:04)

I do find myself reacting to people who say other people stink. I think to myself "well how bloody fragile are you?" Life is full of scent and believe me, you have your own smell, just as everyone does. If you try to hide it with perfumes, to my sense you stink more than anyone who smells of normal bodily sense. I hate artificial smells!
Lorikeet - 12, January, 2012 (21:02)

Some time ago, some elevators (lifts) switched from displaying the number of persons they could hold at the same time to a total weight limit.

When I was on jury duty last year, sometimes the bailiff couldn't get the whole jury of 12 into one lift. It only took 2 or 3 overweight people to exceed the limit, requiring a second trip for the bailiff, during which time he/she couldn't properly supervise all of the people.

They had to be kept away from the defendants' families and the witnesses.

On one jury, there were lots of younger, skinnier people, so the problem didn't arise.
Robyn - 12, January, 2012 (20:12)

How often do we meet a truly obese person who would spill over into your seat? I personally have never experienced this. Then again, I am not a big time flyer. I have sat next to fat people and have felt sorry for them when they bring their tables down and have no space to move at all. However, one would have to be very obese to affect your space. Unless you are deemed uncomfortably affected by your fellow passenger I think you should accept the ride for what it is.
Lorikeet - 12, January, 2012 (18:06)

No doubt some people would support adding the excess weight onto the baggage charge, which would require the use of a chart supplying height:weight:build ratios and a decent set of scales.

If an Obese Person's Conference all caught the same plane, there could be some issues of plane overload.

Bob B's latest comment, which I saw after cutting mine in half to fit, certainly has some merit.
Lorikeet - 12, January, 2012 (18:05)

Should we be surprised that some of the usual bunch of detractors have little compassion for others?

A lot of people are obese due to various types of disability which preclude exercise, and some are on medications which make them obese. Some have to wait years for a public hospital bed.

Some of the above mentioned folk are elderly and/or living on disability pensions and couldn't afford to pay extra for a larger seat.

Some aeroplanes have very small seats. Airlines try to squeeze in as many people as possible to maximise their profits.

What to do about the problem? I will have to leave it in the "too hard" basket for now, or take it back to the cave to think.
Bob B - 12, January, 2012 (17:12)

John

Whilst new designs are coming for aircraft seats, an interim measure could be implemented readily, I feel. Current seats that are designed for three could easily be rejigged to take two with a concommitant 50% in fare.

There is a weight factor involved that is critical to aircraft safety and if we 'shoehorn' three fatties into current seats to much on an aircraft weight and balance could easily go beyond limits. To have some of these 'multipurpose' seats in an aircraft is sensible.
John O'Grady - 12, January, 2012 (16:35)

It appears that the Australian morbidly obese are becoming fatter and more numerous. It would be reasonable to design a few seats, especially in 'cattle class' so that they could be configured as usual size or usual plus 50% and an appropriate surcharge levied for their use. Obviously this would be 50%.Having to sit beside someone who spills into your seat is really crook and for some reason they mostly do seem to stink!
Bob B - 12, January, 2012 (16:05)

'we have what we have until that occurs' is wat should have been said. Where is obvious.
Bob B - 12, January, 2012 (15:57)

Cont.

To be quite harsh, only a few, percentage wise, are obese due to other than their chosen lifestyle. They 'chose' to be what they are today and that brings a price.

I was unfortunate enough to be wedged against the window on a flight from Canberra to Melbourne years ago and had an obese person next to me in the middle seat causing the squeeze. Her 'folds of fat' invaded my space so I was wedged against the window - and she stank. She may have had a 'right' to be on the plane but I had a right to my space also. So, if you don't fit into one seat, buy two.
Bob B - 12, January, 2012 (15:57)

Most definately. Those who do not fit into the seat and need two should pay for two. Airline seats are designed around the human body to accommodate most of the population. To design for all, when you consider the morbidy obese, is not practical or economical.

Its unfortunate that the human size has increased more rapidly in recent times overtaking the current stock of aircraft and associated seating. Better things are being planned but we have we have until that occurs.

cont - more than 160 words.

Member Login Details

Should fat people pay more to fly?

Should fat people pay more to fly?

Comments (402)

Lorikeet - 21, January, 2012 (7:34)

Dave - 20, January, 2012 (20:56)

Colin G - 20, January, 2012 (6:57)

Lorikeet - 19, January, 2012 (17:41)

Helen - 19, January, 2012 (17:20)

Robyn - 19, January, 2012 (11:55)

WEG - 19, January, 2012 (11:52)

Robyn - 19, January, 2012 (11:42)

Helen - 19, January, 2012 (10:18)

Bob B - 19, January, 2012 (9:43)

Helen - 19, January, 2012 (9:38)

Bob B - 19, January, 2012 (9:33)

Helen - 19, January, 2012 (9:32)

Helen - 19, January, 2012 (9:31)

Bob B - 19, January, 2012 (9:27)

Robyn - 19, January, 2012 (9:12)

Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (8:47)

Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (8:43)

Bob B - 19, January, 2012 (8:30)

Helen - 19, January, 2012 (7:31)

Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (7:23)

Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (7:17)

Kay Kelly - 19, January, 2012 (7:10)

Lorikeet - 19, January, 2012 (6:34)

Lorikeet - 19, January, 2012 (6:33)

Sue Do-Nim - 18, January, 2012 (23:31)

Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (20:51)

Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (19:43)

Bob B - 18, January, 2012 (19:30)

WEG - 18, January, 2012 (19:02)

Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (18:34)

Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (18:18)

Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (18:17)

Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (17:58)

Robyn - 18, January, 2012 (17:48)

WEG - 18, January, 2012 (17:06)

Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (17:04)

Sue Do-Nim - 18, January, 2012 (16:32)

Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (12:19)

Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (12:08)

WEG - 18, January, 2012 (12:07)

WEG - 18, January, 2012 (9:14)

Bob B - 18, January, 2012 (8:53)

Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (8:27)

Lorikeet - 18, January, 2012 (8:13)

Nottakeet - 18, January, 2012 (8:02)

Helen - 18, January, 2012 (7:18)

Helen - 18, January, 2012 (7:17)

Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (7:08)

Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (6:33)

Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (6:30)

Kay Kelly - 18, January, 2012 (6:29)

Robyn - 18, January, 2012 (6:25)

Norman - 18, January, 2012 (6:15)

WEG - 17, January, 2012 (23:21)

Robyn - 17, January, 2012 (22:51)

Sue Do-Nim - 17, January, 2012 (22:19)

Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (22:14)

Bob B - 17, January, 2012 (19:19)

Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (17:13)

WEG - 17, January, 2012 (16:55)

Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (16:47)

John O'Grady - 17, January, 2012 (16:42)

Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (16:30)

Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (16:29)

Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (13:44)

Bob B - 17, January, 2012 (13:37)

Bob B - 17, January, 2012 (13:08)

Robyn - 17, January, 2012 (12:04)

Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (11:23)

Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (10:17)

Kay Kelly - 17, January, 2012 (10:16)

Robyn - 17, January, 2012 (9:59)

Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (9:44)

Lorikeet - 17, January, 2012 (9:44)

Robyn - 17, January, 2012 (9:36)