Old 04-03-2013, 05:30 AM   #1
Senior Member
Simpleboy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,060

Default Pay As You Weigh Takes Off

Samoa Air has become the world's first airline to implement "pay as you weigh" flights, meaning overweight passengers pay more for their seats.

"This is the fairest way of travelling," chief executive of Samoa Air, Chris Langton, told ABC Radio. "There are no extra fees in terms of excess baggage or anything – it is just a kilo is a kilo is a kilo."
Sam Rudge
A 5D3, some Canon lenses, the Sigma L and a flash
Simpleboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2013, 08:53 PM   #2
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Manchester (Knutsford)
Posts: 391

Works for the lightweights but I am sure anyone who is lets say a touch on the weighty side will be disgusted with this. I wouldn't be one complaining though
SAMRPICS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2013, 09:50 PM   #3
Senior Member
Gabriel's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,925

I don't deny that weight is a significant factor in the cost of a flight. But I'd want to contract a flight from Buenos Aires to Orlando (Disneyland) on a Samoa Air 747, and I'd fill it with 400 5 y/o children and 40 adults taking care of them, and I'd like to see if Mr Langton still things that paying for the kilo is the fairest fare. With 100% of the seats occupied, the plane will be taking like 1/5 or less of weight (and revenue) in passengers and baggage.

The truth is:
Only half of the drag is related to weight and hence to fuel consumption.
Depending on the type of plane and distance flown, only 25% of that weight is payload. The rest is empty weight and fuel.
So the fuel bill of a zero-payload flight can be say 12% lower than the fuel bill of the full-payload flight.
The other 88% of the fuel bill and 100% of the rest of the costs is weight-independent (crew salary, maintenance, airport fees, leasing costs).

On the other side of the equation we have revenue. If the payload is limited by the max weight that the plane can carry in a particular flight and you had the ability to sell more payload than that, then all the payload taken should pay the full bill, meaning that fewer fat passengers should pay more (each) than many thin passengers to keep the same total. In this case, the wight of the airplane and of the payload is fixed, the cost of the flight is fixed, so it would be fare to charge by the kilo to keep the revenue and hence the operative earning of the flight also fixed. But please note that we are assuming that you had the ability to sell more kilos of payload than what the plane could take. If not, then the revenue is not a function of the weight, and things like my first example could happen.
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 01:41 AM   #4
Senior Member
3WE's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,900

Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
I don't deny that weight is a significant factor in the cost of a flight.... the revenue is not a function of the weight...
I'm thinking that volume might be more valid.

Especially if someone uses volume beyond their seat.
On and off subscriber to Flying Magazine for over 35years.
3WE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 01:48 AM   #5
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 223

Yep, dimensional weight would be a good idea.
Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man. Landing is first.
ACheck is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright JetPhotos.Net 2003-2011