Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Baggage Fees Take Off

What they said was that while extra weight will obviously influence how much fuel needs to be burned in flight, the effect on cost is negligible. I mean, you're arguing with a pilot and someone in the industry. It doesn't make them right, but there are so many variables that affect costs that asking for an exact value isn't realistic. And when you're dealing with what is potentially a small monetary amount, what do you want them to say --- $10 +/- 10?


You're already getting flights for cheaper than they probably should be, which is probably why the lack of profits to be made by the large majority of airlines in the US). Considering the extremely large decrease in the price of flights over the same time period, don't you think that whining about the extra $10 you may be paying due to the weight to be a bit.....whiny?
 
Abstract said:
What they said was that while extra weight will obviously influence how much fuel needs to be burned in flight, the effect on cost is negligible. I mean, you're arguing with a pilot and someone in the industry. It doesn't make them right, but there are so many variables that affect costs that asking for an exact value isn't realistic. And when you're dealing with what is potentially a small monetary amount, what do you want them to say --- $10 +/- 10?


You're already getting flights for cheaper than they probably should be, which is probably why the lack of profits to be made by the large majority of airlines in the US). Considering the extremely large decrease in the price of flights over the same time period, don't you think that whining about the extra $10 you may be paying due to the weight to be a bit.....whiny?
Click to expand...

IF it is only $10, then yes, whiny. However, this thread started out because people were whining about baggage fees, which aren't much higher than the $20 I was estimating.

Maybe I'm too curious to know if that's a fair estimate. I'm sure the people at Boeing have very sophisticated models and know to a good degree of precision the impact of a marginal pound on fuel expenditure (given whatever flight conditions). And I'm sure some technical people in the airlines have access to this data too. I'm just curious if it really is only ~$10.
 
3D0G said:
I doubt they are more knowledgeable about economics or physics than I.
Click to expand...


Wow, thanks for hanging out with us. No, seriously, how many people can say they know one of the most knowledgable people in the world on physics and economics? :rolleyes:
 
An academic knowledge of economics is admirable, but immaterial. The real world doesn't fit into that particular box neatly. I know, because I've had my share of postsecondary economic education and application, and if one insists on putting theory before reality, they'll be disappointed each and every time (not to mention demonstrate a dismaying degree of "blinderitis"). Additionally, not to doubt your understanding of calculus and physics, but you forgot a primary axiom in the application of either of them: GIGO. You're beginning with an incomplete set of data, stemming from an incomplete understanding of the topic.

Speaking of academics, you began all this by violating a fundamental precept, in that you led with a conclusion and have been working backwards to find proof. Assuming, of course, we're talking about concrete, definable causal relationships and all that, and not an exercise in Philosophy 101. And on the topic of proofs, since the hypothesis is yours, the burden of proof is on you. That's how it works, academically.
 
rdowns said:
Wow, thanks for hanging out with us. No, seriously, how many people can say they know one of the most knowledgable people in the world on physics and economics? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow--I actually never said that, although I admit that what I did say was a poor choice of words.
 
JNB said:
You're beginning with an incomplete set of data, stemming from an incomplete understanding of the topic.
Click to expand...

From the posts, it looks like we all have an incomplete set of data.

JNB said:
Speaking of academics, you began all this by violating a fundamental precept, in that you led with a conclusion and have been working backwards to find proof. Assuming, of course, we're talking about concrete, definable causal relationships and all that, and not an exercise in Philosophy 101. And on the topic of proofs, since the hypothesis is yours, the burden of proof is on you. That's how it works, academically.
Click to expand...

OR rather, I led with (or at least it very shortly became) a hypothesis and am looking for cogent arguments AND data to support OR refute it! As you say, that's how it works, academically. And sure, the burden of proof is on me, but challenging my hypothesis with mere speculation or anecdotal evidence isn't academically sound either.

Part of my point is that the "opposition" is just engaging in the same sort of speculation too! No one has presented any hard proof or data one way or the other (although at least I did point to that "350 million more gallons of fuel in 2000" study in a post on the last page). I've said on numerous occasions that I don't know how significant it is, but I also point out that no one has shown that they know either.
 
Why should any of us waste our time dredging up the data for you (since you seem so convinced of your position already)? Remember, this is your position, based on, I don't know, a feeling, perception, whatever—certainly no specific data you've offered yet—and yet you insist that many of us that either work in or are related to the field prove you wrong before you've offered any supportable evidence of your original hypothesis. You haven't even demonstrated correlation, much less causation.

Personally, I don't care to spend my free time providing a long-term analysis on so fallacious a claim. Believe what you will. :)
 
JNB said:
Why should any of us waste our time dredging up the data for you (since you seem so convinced of your position already)? Remember, this is your position, based on, I don't know, a feeling, perception, whatever—certainly no specific data you've offered yet—and yet you insist that many of us that either work in or are related to the field prove you wrong before you've offered any supportable evidence of your original hypothesis. You haven't even demonstrated correlation, much less causation.
Click to expand...

Not true. I did provide a link to an article referencing a federal study showing that airlines needed 350 million more gallons of fuel in 2000 just to carry the additional weight of Americans. That seems significant enough to open up this question.

JNB said:
Personally, I don't care to spend my free time providing a long-term analysis on so fallacious a claim. Believe what you will. :)
Click to expand...

I'm really not asking anyone to do so, UNLESS they state so emphatically that I'm wrong. Declaring that someone is wrong on an open question requires proof just as much as someone who says he is right. And please note, again (!!), that I'm not insisting that I'm right. This is essentially all I've been saying in most of my posts. Why can't you understand this?
 
3D0G said:
And they haven't proved that there is no impact of obesity on ticket prices, just speculated that it's not very significant.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing that there is *no* impact - of course there has to be an impact. And yes, what we're doing is speculating on the significance. For me personally, I don't know much about airline operations to begin with, so I'm just throwing out some data points from my personal experience in the pointy end of an airplane.

You mentioned a year 2000 figure stating that airlines used 350 million more gallons due to increased passenger weight. Sound like a lot, however that same year the airlines consumed 14.8 billion gallons of jet fuel (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_05.html). Now I'm not sure what portion of an airline's overall costs are from fuel, but it seems to me that this points to a pretty small dollar amount on a per ticket basis.
 
dmr727 said:
Nobody is arguing that there is *no* impact - of course there has to be an impact. And yes, what we're doing is speculating on the significance. For me personally, I don't know much about airline operations to begin with, so I'm just throwing out some data points from my personal experience in the pointy end of an airplane.

You mentioned a year 2000 figure stating that airlines used 350 million more gallons due to increased passenger weight. Sound like a lot, however that same year the airlines consumed 14.8 billion gallons of jet fuel (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_05.html). Now I'm not sure what portion of an airline's overall costs are from fuel, but it seems to me that this points to a pretty small dollar amount on a per ticket basis.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the data and constructive answer. Now, multiply that by 2.5 for the 25 pounds (instead of the 10 pounds during just the 1990s) that Americans have gained over their "normal" weight (and see a previous post for a rationale for assuming that this part of the weight/fuel equation can probably be considered fairly linear) and we're talking 875 million gallons. Divide that by 14.8 billion gallons, and this works out to about 6% more fuel.

http://www.airlines.org/economics/energy/

"Historically, fuel expenses have ranged from 10 percent to 15 percent of U.S. passenger airline operating costs, but averaged more than 35 percent in the third quarter of 2008."

So if fuel costs represent about a third of airline expenses (given the recent sharp rise in energy costs), and a 6% increase in fuel expenditure can be attributed to Americans' increase in weight, this works out to about a 2% increase in overall airline costs, which, for most businesses anyway, must be recouped from the customers, meaning that possibly 2% of the average ticket prices may be attributable to the gain in Americans' weight over their "healthy" weight.

So, at least we have a preliminary answer with some real sources. And IF that's true, then a round trip $1,000 overseas ticket may be only $20 more expensive. I agree that this is insignificant.
 
3D0G said:
Thank you for the data and constructive answer. Now, multiply that by 2.5 for the 25 pounds (instead of the 10 pounds during just the 1990s) that Americans have gained over their "normal" weight (and see a previous post for a rational for assuming that this part of the weight/fuel equation can be considered fairly linear) and we're talking 875 million gallons. Divide that by 14.8 billion gallons, and this works out to about 6% more fuel.
Click to expand...
You're comparing aircraft of the 1990's with weights of the 1950's in the modern day. As already discussed, average weights are considered and updated on a relatively frequent basis and you are charged for it in your airfare. Sometimes a flight has more than the average projected passenger weight, sometimes less. It all cancels out in the end.

"Historically, fuel expenses have ranged from 10 percent to 15 percent of U.S. passenger airline operating costs, but averaged more than 35 percent in the third quarter of 2008."

So if fuel costs represent about a third of airline expenses (given the recent sharp rise in energy costs), and a 6% increase in fuel expenditure can be attributed to Americans' increase in weight, this works out to about a 2% increase in overall airline costs, which, for most businesses anyway, must be recouped from the customers, meaning that possibly 2% of the average ticket prices may be attributable to the gain in Americans' weight over their "healthy" weight.
Click to expand...
Fuel expenses were about 35% in FQ4 2008 due to prices nearing $150/bbl. This doesn't apply right now. Your 25 pound weight gain statistic is over the course of sixty years. The industry has adapted to that. Nobody is arguing that the increased weight over time affects fuel burn. But weight is not the only long-term factor of projecting fuel burn on a route. You're trying to throw irrelevant historical data into an argument that should be based around the statistics of having weights higher than the projected average on a flight. That projected averages used today are not from 1950. Variance levels are pretty low, anyway.

And let's assume that there is a 2% cost increase since 1950 due to your 25 pound weight gain. Here, you're throwing out the possibility of more fuel efficient engines, lighter aircraft, better resource utilization, deregulation, increased cargo capacities, et al. And yet you think that the industry is yet to notice this 2%?
 
akonradi said:
You're comparing aircraft of the 1990's with weights of the 1950's in the modern day. As already discussed, average weights are considered and updated on a relatively frequent basis and you are charged for it in your airfare. Sometimes a flight has more than the average projected passenger weight, sometimes less. It all cancels out in the end.


Fuel expenses were about 35% in FQ4 2008 due to prices nearing $150/bbl. This doesn't apply right now. Your 25 pound weight gain statistic is over the course of sixty years. The industry has adapted to that. Nobody is arguing that the increased weight over time affects fuel burn. But weight is not the only long-term factor of projecting fuel burn on a route. You're trying to throw irrelevant historical data into an argument that should be based around the statistics of having weights higher than the projected average on a flight. That projected averages used today are not from 1950. Variance levels are pretty low, anyway.

And let's assume that there is a 2% cost increase since 1950 due to your 25 pound weight gain. Here, you're throwing out the possibility of more fuel efficient engines, lighter aircraft, better resource utilization, deregulation, increased cargo capacities, et al. And yet you think that the industry is yet to notice this 2%?
Click to expand...

Please understand that my reference to 1950 or 1960 was intended to reflect NOT the airline industry (as I said before) but ONLY to Americans' weight back then, which was much closer to their ideal/healthy weight. Forget that I even mentioned 1950--the difference between Americans' current weight and their normal/healthy weight is still roughly 25 pounds.

All the data I used in my calculation comes from current day sources, and nothing from any comparison to the 1950's, except for the true fact that Americans have became obese in that period. These current sources already reflect the advances in efficiency and other factors which you mention. And yes, I understand and agree with what you said that airlines have adapted to that and included it in the fare structures. That's essentially what I'm saying too all this time by saying that our ticket prices may be 2% higher than they would be if we, on average, were 25 pounds lighter. To answer your question, of course the industry has noticed this--as you say, all costs are continually reevaluated and incorporated into the fare structure.
 
3D0G said:
And yes, I understand and agree with what you said that airlines have adapted to that and included it in the fare structures. That's essentially what I'm saying too all this time by saying that our ticket prices may be 2% higher than they would be if we, on average, were 25 pounds lighter. To answer your question, of course the industry has noticed this--as you say, all costs are continually reevaluated and incorporated into the fare structure.
Click to expand...
Well your original proposal was to charge by weight of person+luggage. Costs could be 2% lower, yes, but whose fault it that really? The matter of charging by weight still has little to do with fuel burn as net revenue would be approximately the same since, as we both agree now, projected costs are frequently recalculated.
 
akonradi said:
Well your original proposal was to charge by weight of person+luggage. Costs could be 2% lower, yes, but whose fault it that really? The matter of charging by weight still has little to do with fuel burn as net revenue would be approximately the same since, as we both agree now, projected costs are frequently recalculated.
Click to expand...

OK, I think we're finally getting somewhere. Yes, my proposal would have been revenue neutral to the airlines, so they wouldn't care much and would have little or no incentive to do this.

I meant only that weight-based pricing would be "fairer" according to the principle of costs accruing to the people who incur/cause them, in the sense that lighter people and/or people with lighter baggage would pay somewhat less than heavier/larger people and/or people with heavier baggage (given the same number of pieces).

That's all I meant, although I definitely realize that this would not be politically acceptable nor probably of much benefit to the airlines themselves.

And, given the estimate that we've worked out here, I can now say that it's certainly not worth the hassle, even if you all knew it all along. Thanks for the discussion.
 
FWIW - I strongly doubt that the fuel itself is the driving force behind charging for checked baggage ( or indeed they WOULD be charging a obesity charge ).

It's the handeling. The tagging the back, checking it in, the back-end staff, the security, the baggage cart, the driver, the loaders, the unloaders, the baggage carossel at the other end.

If you can do online checking and take one carry on piece of luggage, that's one less person they have to check in at the airport. If EVERYONE did it, they would eliminate the requirement for checkin staff altogether. That would save them a fortune. The closer they can get to that, the more they save.
 
Eraserhead said:
The problem with that is that its the budget airlines such as EasyJet and RyanAir that make the large profits.
Click to expand...

Only until it comes time to pay for the jets they've leased and the CEOs bail out in their golden parachutes. No payments on Embrear 190s for 10 years! Buy now!
 
Are you suggesting that Ryanair, Easyjet etc are a ticking time-bomb, financially? If so - why are both purchasing new aircraft right now? Easyjet have 64 on order, Ryanair 112 with a further 84 on option. That both have massive outstanding payments for older aircraft imminently pending would be news to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back