Fat tax

"Alfred Molon" kirjoitti
s.com...
Heard today on the radio here in Malaysia some talk of airlines letting
overweight passengers pay more for their tickets (perhaps in
Australia?), a socalled "fat tax". Is there anything true in this?
--
So, it doesn't matter if the waist measurement/length1 unless one is 140
centimeters tall.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:40:01 +0200,
=?Windows-1252?Q?Markku_Gr=F6nroos?= wrote:


"Alfred Molon" kirjoitti
ws.com...
Heard today on the radio here in Malaysia some talk of airlines letting
overweight passengers pay more for their tickets (perhaps in
Australia?), a socalled "fat tax". Is there anything true in this?
--

There is apparently talk about having one though it is only in the
talking stage.

Alfred Molon wrote:
Heard today on the radio here in Malaysia some talk of airlines letting
overweight passengers pay more for their tickets (perhaps in
Australia?), a socalled "fat tax". Is there anything true in this?

When we were leaving the airport at Ayers Rock, they actually weighed
our carry-on luggage. If the rest of Australia is as obsessive with
weight, I wouldn't doubt that they would start weighing people next. :-)
JMTCW

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

"Alfred Molon" wondered...
Heard today on the radio here in Malaysia some talk of airlines letting
overweight passengers pay more for their tickets (perhaps in
Australia?), a socalled "fat tax". Is there anything true in this?
--

There has been discussion of the idea - perhaps partly fuelled by the drive
to tackle obesity.
However, some travellers might feel pleased to see something along these
lines.

I, at 75 kg, have the same baggage allowance as someone who weighs twice
that - the airlines charge for excess weight because it increases the fuel
requirements . . .
I've long held the opinion that it would be fairer to charge on the basis of
total weight (not that I'd want to take an additional 50 or 75 kg of
luggage, but an extra10 would be nice).


A couple of years ago, whilst studying for an MSc in "Aerospace Design,
Manufacture and Management" I had to do an assignment on aircraft
performance, part of which was involved with calculating fuelling
requirements. I had a contact whose father is a pilot for Aeroflot, and he
sent me some actual calculation sheets. It was ineresting to see that when
flying from the US, they allowed an extra 10 kg per passenger for average
body weight over that allowed in Europe . . . . But the baggage allowance
was unchanged. so we skinny folks have been subsidising the fatties for a
long time (plus, we actually fit into our seats, whereas they spill over
into out allocated space).

_______
Geoff B

On Nov 14, 8:54 am, Janet Wilder wrote:
Alfred Molon wrote:
Heard today on the radio here in Malaysia some talk of airlines letting
overweight passengers pay more for their tickets (perhaps in
Australia?), a socalled "fat tax". Is there anything true in this?

When we were leaving the airport at Ayers Rock, they actually weighed
our carry-on luggage. If the rest of Australia is as obsessive with
weight, I wouldn't doubt that they would start weighing people next. :-)
JMTCW

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life


What's the big deal? I flew out of SFO and they weighed my handheld.

Heard today on the radio here in Malaysia some talk of airlines letting
overweight passengers pay more for their tickets (perhaps in
Australia?), a socalled "fat tax". Is there anything true in this?
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:49:34 -0000, "Geoff B"
wrote in
:

"Alfred Molon" wondered...
Heard today on the radio here in Malaysia some talk of airlines letting
overweight passengers pay more for their tickets (perhaps in
Australia?), a socalled "fat tax". Is there anything true in this?
--

There has been discussion of the idea - perhaps partly fuelled by the drive
to tackle obesity.
However, some travellers might feel pleased to see something along these
lines.

I, at 75 kg, have the same baggage allowance as someone who weighs twice
that - the airlines charge for excess weight because it increases the fuel
requirements . . .

True, and according to some recent articles some say that the
world reached peak oil production last year, and is expected to
decline around 7% a year for the next several years. If this
is remotely accurate, it would seem that the price of crude oil
per barrel is likely to rise, thus pushing up fuel costs.

There are other factors, of course. Major oil producing
countries might consider that oil is a non-renewable resource and
decide to charge more for it.

The price rise might encourage more oil exploration, and other
deposits may be found. As the arctic is melting, it is possible
that there are useful reserves in that area of the world.

At present, about 45% of a barrel of crude is used for the
production of petrol [gasoline], around 10% for jet fuel, but
we also depend on it for heating oil, lubricants, plastics,
anti-freeze [a by product of refining], and so on. For
a guide to usage and some products, see:

Refinery Output and Final Products
http://www.lmoga.com/refoutput.htm

So, in one sense we are wasting far too much
of a nonrenewable resource to cater for the overuse
of private cars.

Eventually we may develop practical other power
sources for light vehicles such as cars. However
not for trucks, farm tractors, construction equipment,
railway engines, and jet aircraft.

Without a very dramatic increase in solar cell efficiency,
I don't that we are going to see any of these powered
by solar cells in the near future.

Crude oil isn't simply distilled to get various percentages
of its existing fractions, a catalytic cracking process is used.

Technically, we could take deposits of asphalt and produce
petrol or jet fuel from them.

IMHO, the real problem is that the human race is outbreeding
the ability of the earth to support it. As mentioned recently in
another post on a group, if we graph human population from 1 A.D.
where there was an estimated world population of around
200 million, we took until 1650 A.D. to reach a mere 500 million.
The first billion (1,000,000,000) wasn't reached until 1850.
2 bun in 1930, 4 bun in 1975, 5.8 bun in 1997.

At write these words,
World population around 6,631,162,437
20:27 GMT (EST+5) Nov 14, 2007
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

If the world had reached ZPG at 1,2, or even 4bn
it would be a more pleasant place and we wouldn't
have as large a problem as we do now.


It is hoped, by optimists of course, that this
might stabilize at around 9.5 bun in the next decade or
so, but I wouldn't count on it.

However, to get back to the rising cost of jet fuel:

I've long held the opinion that it would be fairer to charge on the basis of
total weight (not that I'd want to take an additional 50 or 75 kg of
luggage, but an extra10 would be nice).

Well, when I came from the US to Australia, the checkable baggage
weight was 44 pounds (~ 20 Kg). Even if flying economy class,
the charge per pound over this was 1% of the first class fare.

A passenger could carry on a camera bag, briefcase, etc. which
wasn't weighed, nor was a book to read on the flight.

I totally agree with you that it would be much more fair if
the passenger and all luggage [checked and carry-on] was
weighed. In terms of fuel consumption the total weight is what
counts.

This could be done in two ways: There could be a standard
minimum fare for those whose total load was under, say,
100 Kg [224 lbs]. Anything over and they pay a surcharge
for each kilo.

Of course, this could discourage heavier travelers, so to really
be fair the airlines could reduce the fare by giving a discount
to passengers & luggage with a gross weight under this. This
would encourage them to bring their kids.

To really take advantage of this, the airlines should have
adjustable width seats, or various seat bay configurations
available.

I have heard of cases where overweight passengers simply booked
two standard seats and paid double fare. In this case, they
could design the seats for lighter passengers, and the obese
passenger could occupy 2 or 3 of these as they wished.

All sorts of possibilities, I suppose.

Again, a bit off the present subject, but saw an article
on the online Wall St Journal yesterday where some surgeon
is advocating that people who were willing to supply a donor
kidney should be paid for this, to eliminate long waiting
lists of people waiting for kidneys. Apparently this idea
is controversial enough. See:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194...psp_free_today

or
http://tinyurl.com/2mcbvb

The problem is that not many people are willing to donate organs.
At present, this is an "opt in" program here. Some have proposed
an "opt out" listing where everyone is presumed to be willing to
donate organs in case of brain death.

There, of course, is even a more radical solution. Why should
donors provide kidneys or other usable body parts to those who
refuse to act as donors? Simply specify that only potential
donors go to the head of the waiting list for transplants.

This would encourage many others to get on the donor register, or
one would think so anyway. If they refuse, they can pay for
them.


A couple of years ago, whilst studying for an MSc in "Aerospace Design,
Manufacture and Management" I had to do an assignment on aircraft
performance, part of which was involved with calculating fuelling
requirements. I had a contact whose father is a pilot for Aeroflot, and he
sent me some actual calculation sheets. It was ineresting to see that when
flying from the US, they allowed an extra 10 kg per passenger for average
body weight over that allowed in Europe . . . . But the baggage allowance
was unchanged. so we skinny folks have been subsidising the fatties for a
long time (plus, we actually fit into our seats, whereas they spill over
into out allocated space).

Can you use these to easily [roughly] calculate what it would
cost in fuel on a long haul flight, say from USA to Australia for
combined gross weight of passenger and baggage at, say
all up weights of, say 100, 150, 200 Kg?

Just curious as to how much the difference would be in fuel
consumption for each. I note from another recent news item
that some airlines are just quoting basic fares then adding
a fuel surcharge.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

_______
Geoff B



Australia a nation of fatties
November 14, 2007 01:10pm

AUSTRALIA is one of the fattest nations in the world, according
to a new international report which singles out the country's
sky-rocketing obesity rate. . . .

.. . .But it was one of the worst performers on obesity, with new
figures showing almost one in every four Australians now has a
body mass index (BMI) over 30.

Australia had the fifth highest adult obesity rate, 21.7 per
cent, behind the US, 32.2 per cent, Mexico, 30.2 per cent, the
UK, 23 per cent, and Greece, 21.9 per cent."

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-23272,00.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/2dx38v

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:49:34 -0000, the renowned "Geoff B"
wrote:

"Alfred Molon" wondered...
Heard today on the radio here in Malaysia some talk of airlines letting
overweight passengers pay more for their tickets (perhaps in
Australia?), a socalled "fat tax". Is there anything true in this?
--

There has been discussion of the idea - perhaps partly fuelled by the drive
to tackle obesity.
However, some travellers might feel pleased to see something along these
lines.

I, at 75 kg, have the same baggage allowance as someone who weighs twice
that - the airlines charge for excess weight because it increases the fuel
requirements . . .
I've long held the opinion that it would be fairer to charge on the basis of
total weight (not that I'd want to take an additional 50 or 75 kg of
luggage, but an extra10 would be nice).


A couple of years ago, whilst studying for an MSc in "Aerospace Design,
Manufacture and Management" I had to do an assignment on aircraft
performance, part of which was involved with calculating fuelling
requirements. I had a contact whose father is a pilot for Aeroflot, and he
sent me some actual calculation sheets. It was ineresting to see that when
flying from the US, they allowed an extra 10 kg per passenger for average
body weight over that allowed in Europe . . . . But the baggage allowance
was unchanged. so we skinny folks have been subsidising the fatties for a
long time (plus, we actually fit into our seats, whereas they spill over
into out allocated space).

It must particularly gall the lithe Asians to be subsidizing the
Western lard-a**es.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

PeterL wrote:
On Nov 14, 8:54 am, Janet Wilder wrote:
Alfred Molon wrote:
Heard today on the radio here in Malaysia some talk of airlines letting
overweight passengers pay more for their tickets (perhaps in
Australia?), a socalled "fat tax". Is there anything true in this?
When we were leaving the airport at Ayers Rock, they actually weighed
our carry-on luggage. If the rest of Australia is as obsessive with
weight, I wouldn't doubt that they would start weighing people next. :-)
JMTCW

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life


What's the big deal? I flew out of SFO and they weighed my handheld.

I never had my carry-on luggage weighed before. I have had it fitted
into the little size-thing, but never weighed. They let me put a few
things from my carry-on into my purse when they found it a tad heavy.
Seemed rather silly as it was all going under the same seat of the plane
and the total weight was the same.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

.. wrote:


If it was a small aircraft it is done for safety reasons.

It wasn't a small aircraft. I've traveled on small aircraft where the
luggage went into the nose of the plane and the seats were a single row
of lawn chairs strapped to the floor. This was a regular commuter-plane
sized jet holding at least a hundred souls.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life