PDA

View Full Version : Airliners to charge by the pound?




Kludge
06-11-2008, 11:22 AM
Airlines May Start Treating Passengers `Like Freight' (Update1) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aJmRIapedEs0&refer=home#)


By Michael Janofsky
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=iyFOETDKSTe8
http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/enlarge_details.gif (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=photos&sid=aNsp.l2CJ1jk)

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Imagine two scales at the airline ticket counter, one for your bags and one for you. The price of a ticket depends upon the weight of both.
That may not be so far-fetched.
``You listen to the airline CEOs, and nothing is beyond their imagination,'' said David Castelveter (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=David+Castelveter&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a spokesman for the Air Transport Association (http://www.airlines.org/), a Washington, D.C.-based trade group. ``They have already begun to think exotically. Nothing is not under the microscope.'' He declined to discuss what any individual airline might be contemplating, including charging passengers based on weight.
With fuel (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=JETINYPR%3AIND) costs almost tripling since 2000, now accounting for as much as 40 percent of operating expenses at some carriers, according to the ATA, airlines (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BWAIRL%3AIND) are cutting costs and raising revenue in ways that once were unthinkable. U.S. Airways Group Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=LCC%3AUS) has eliminated snacks. Delta Air Lines Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=DAL%3AUS) is charging $25 for telephone reservations. AMR Corp. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=AMR%3AUS)'s American Airlines last month became the first U.S. company to charge $15 for one checked bag.
Even a cold drink may be harder to come by aloft.
Singapore Airlines Ltd., whose shares (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SIA%3ASP) have fallen 8.9 percent this year, is ``trying to eliminate unnecessary quantities of extra water'' to save weight, Chief Executive Officer Chew Choon Seng (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Chew+Choon+Seng&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said in an interview.
``When you hear some people talking about putting showers on their planes, that strikes me as counterintuitive,'' he said.
Logical Step
After U.S. airlines reported combined first-quarter losses of $1.7 billion and crude oil jumped to a record $133.17 a barrel on May 21, almost double from a year earlier, fares based on a passenger's weight may be a logical step, said Robert Mann (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Robert+Mann&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), head of R.W. Mann & Co., an aviation consultant based in Port Washington, New York.
``If you look at the air-freight business, that's the way they've always done it,'' he said. ``We're getting treated like air freight when we travel by airlines, anyway.''
``Laughter aside, the airlines are just in a desperate situation,'' said David Swierenga (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=David+Swierenga&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), president of consulting firm Aeroecon in Round Rock, Texas, who dismissed weight-based ticket sales and steep price increases as unrealistic.
Since December, eight companies have ceased flying, largely because of fuel costs -- MaxJet Airways Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=MAXJ%3ALN), Big Sky Transportation Co. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BSA%3AUS), Aloha Airlines Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=ALOHA%3AUS), ATA Airlines, Skybus Airlines Inc., Eos Airlines, Silverjet Plc (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SIL%3ALN). and the charter- flight operator Champion Air. Air Midwest, a division of Mesa Air Group Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=MESA%3AUS), is ceasing operations this month.
$6.1 Billion Loss
Airlines may report combined losses of $6.1 billion this year, the worst since 2003, the International Air Transport Association (http://www.iata.org/index.htm) said yesterday in Istanbul. Swierenga said the only meaningful way for them to reach profitability is to idle a portion of their fleets, which would allow them to reduce costs associated with fuel and labor.
``The solution lies in capacity cuts,'' he said.
That's already begun. Ryanair Holdings Plc (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=RYA%3AID), whose shares have dropped 38 percent this year, will ground 20 aircraft this winter, equivalent to about 10 percent of total capacity, Chief Financial Officer Howard Millar (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Howard+Millar&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said today. American said on May 21 up to 45 planes, most of them aging Boeing Co. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BA%3AUS) MD-80s, would be dropped from its 655-jet fleet along with as many as 40 aircraft from its 305-plane Eagle regional unit.
``Most other airlines will have similar cuts as well,'' said Jim Corridore (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jim+Corridore&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), an analyst for Standard & Poor's in New York.
Measures Taken
Airlines have also taken shorter-term steps even if they have stopped short of weighing passengers.
Japan Airlines Corp. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=9205%3AJP) is using crockery in first-class and business-class cabins that is 20 percent lighter than the service items they replaced.
Southwest Airlines Co. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=LUV%3AUS) is flying slower -- by 72 seconds, for example, on Houston-Los Angeles flights, which now take 3 hours 14 minutes. That saves 8.7 gallons of fuel for each of the airline's four daily nonstops on the 1,387-mile route, 34.8 gallons a day overall, said Marilee McInnis (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Marilee+McInnis&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a company spokeswoman.
Southwest comes closest to charging for weight, asking passengers to buy a second seat if their girth prevents the armrest from lowering.
Power Change
American Airlines has switched from using on-board power units that draw down jet fuel while planes are parked at gates to electrical generators on the ground, said Steve Lott (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Steve+Lott&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association.
Deutsche Lufthansa AG (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=LHA%3AGR), Europe's second-largest airline, is one of several that has begun washing planes more frequently, said Lott, pointing out that dirt on a fuselage increases wind resistance.
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=293%3AHK), Hong Kong's largest carrier, is ordering money-saving changes that passengers won't notice, said managing director Tony Tyler (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Tony+Tyler&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), who declined to cite them.
``Customers notice quickly if you start to take away service elements,'' he said. ``We operate in a very competitive market and can't afford to let the competition get a march on us.''
One airline that is unlikely to start weighing its customers is Dubai-based Emirates, the largest carrier in the Gulf region.
``That is something that when I was a check-in agent in the early 70s I used to do and it was the most horrific experience, trying to get people to stand on scales,'' said Tim Clark (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Tim+Clark&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), the airline president. ``It's not something that we would do.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Janofsky (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Michael+Janofsky&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in Los Angeles at mjanofsky@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: June 3, 2008 11:55 EDT

acptulsa
06-11-2008, 11:29 AM
Is hauling heavy people more expensive than defending your airline against a slew of discrimination suits?

bg1654
06-11-2008, 11:42 AM
This actually makes the most sense and is the fairest system of all since the fuel used is directly proportional to weight and thus cost. I fail to see how discrimination is an issue here since everyone is literally judged on the same scale. The problem would be getting people to go along with this since 70% of america is overweight. Its kind of funny though because there are so many people who would refuse to get on a scale because they dont want people to see their actual weight. Seriously, we can see that you are a fat ass, putting a number on it isnt going to make it any worse LOL.

amy31416
06-11-2008, 11:46 AM
I kind of like the idea, but it'll never go over. Plus, a 90lb weakling takes up the same seat as a 200lb musclehead.

Perhaps a base charge for the seat, plus lbs x fuel consumption.

acptulsa
06-11-2008, 11:59 AM
Seriously, we can see that you are a fat ass, putting a number on it isnt going to make it any worse LOL.

And yet I suspect that some people would rather be strip searched right in line than to prominently display that number.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 12:02 PM
I like this as a free-market approach to the trans-fat tax. Health insurance companies are starting to do a good job on focusing on preventative care as well.

grizzums
06-11-2008, 02:17 PM
Its about time this is getting talked about more. Ive been an advocate for it for a coupe of years now...I'm sick of subsidising those that can't keep their head out of the KFC bucket. :)

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 02:24 PM
I would boycott airlines if they did this...well I'm already boycotting them.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 02:45 PM
I would boycott airlines if they did this...well I'm already boycotting them.

The airlines would not have a problem with that. They need to cut down on capacity and boycotting only the makes the situation better for them.

Anyway, I like the idea. It might make me go to the gym more often... free market at work! yaaaayyyy

Uriel999
06-11-2008, 03:04 PM
Hell they should do that at buffets! Mam, I see here you weigh 245lbs, if your gonna have your Golden Corral tonight you are gonna have to fork up 24.95 based on your fatassness! Then again, the individual does have the right to be a fatass without discrimination...damn, this is an interesting issue which I could deffinetely probably still be persuaded either way...

Kludge
06-11-2008, 03:06 PM
Hell they should do that at buffets! Mam, I see here you weigh 245lbs, if your gonna have your Golden Corral tonight you are gonna have to fork up 24.95 based on your fatassness! Then again, the individual does have the right to be a fatass without discrimination...damn, this is an interesting issue which I could deffinetely probably still be persuaded either way...

If I owned an all-you-can-eat buffet, I'd have a scale that declares by voice and display "You are too fat to eat here!" if over xxx lbs just for the laughs.

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 03:27 PM
The airlines would not have a problem with that. They need to cut down on capacity and boycotting only the makes the situation better for them.

Anyway, I like the idea. It might make me go to the gym more often... free market at work! yaaaayyyy

You're joking right?

dsentell
06-11-2008, 03:37 PM
Ok, first they are going to scan us and see through our clothes,

Then we have to weigh in . . . . . . .

Hmmmmm -- I see a decline in female passengers . . . . .

WRellim
06-11-2008, 03:38 PM
This actually makes the most sense and is the fairest system of all since the fuel used is directly proportional to weight and thus cost. I fail to see how discrimination is an issue here since everyone is literally judged on the same scale. The problem would be getting people to go along with this since 70% of america is overweight. Its kind of funny though because there are so many people who would refuse to get on a scale because they dont want people to see their actual weight. Seriously, we can see that you are a fat ass, putting a number on it isnt going to make it any worse LOL.

It is only *partially* proportional to weight of passengers and baggage. The volume (and weight) of the plane itself (plus fuel & etc) still require fuel; an empty plane cannot fly on zero fuel.

I can see putting some type of minor "surcharge" on people over an average weight... but charging (directly and only) on a per-pound basis would be absurd.

And the flight planning and capacity of flights is still far too inefficient.

Of course it's not really a problem for me, since I don't fly commercial anymore (not since the idiocy of TSA was implemented -- it is truly amazing what you all can via internet these days if you simply draw that line in the sand). :D

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 03:57 PM
You're joking right?

Of course not. The airlines are losing money and need to raise fares and cut capacity. Next time, learn some economics before you ask me if i am joking (while you are at it, learn some history).

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 04:13 PM
Of course not. The airlines are losing money and need to raise fares and cut capacity. Next time, learn some economics before you ask me if i am jocking (while you are at it, learn some history).

No they need to increase the number people of flying. Not decrease them. They will start losing all their business if they keep this up; there are alternate forms of travel.

Danke
06-11-2008, 04:17 PM
No they need to increase the number people of flying. Not decrease them. They will start losing all their business if they keep this up; there are alternate forms of travel.

The planes are full.

What they need to do is either what Dan said, or fly larger gauge aircraft less often to cut down expenses and increase yield.

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 04:27 PM
The planes are not full....if they were full they wouldn't be having to increase rates at this rate.


Well I take that back, they are full, because they delay every plane until its completely full. They won't even take off with 75% of the passengers anymore.....crazy.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 04:28 PM
The planes are not full....if they were full they wouldn't be having to increase rates at this rate.


Well I take that back, they are full, because they delay every plane until its completely full. They won't even take off with 75% of the passengers anymore.....crazy.

High school economics. Corporations act on incentive. As demand increases, price increases.

Danke
06-11-2008, 04:41 PM
The planes are not full....if they were full they wouldn't be having to increase rates at this rate.


Well I take that back, they are full, because they delay every plane until its completely full. They won't even take off with 75% of the passengers anymore.....crazy.

So are you saying if the are not 75% full, they don't take off?

OptionsTrader
06-11-2008, 04:45 PM
Charging obese people more to fly is 100% within the airline's rights. I tihnk they should also offer free alcohol on flights if you weight less than 150 lbs.

grizzums
06-11-2008, 04:47 PM
No they need to increase the number people of flying. Not decrease them. They will start losing all their business if they keep this up; there are alternate forms of travel.

Because the fares (outputs) for passengers on airlines are in part determined by production/service costs (inputs), including the cost of fuel, then to charge a one size fits all fare for all passengers is a blatant form of price discrimination because the weight of a passenger in part determines the overall costs (inputs). You apparently support price discrimination....why am I not surprised.

I do not see this idea flying (pardon the pun), especially here in the states because of the number of Americans that are overweight, obese, or extremely obese and the backlash that a policy like this would stir up, regardless of the fairness of it. Perhaps Fed Ex should charge a one size fits all fee for any all packages they ship via airfreight. A person mailing a cerified letter could pay the same as a person mailing a new crated up tractor trailer....seems fair... :rolleyes:

America's illegitimate victim mentality will never allow this to become policy, so, no worries for you. Legitimate victims to this price discrimination will just continue to subsidise the rest of the population. By the way, I'd gladly pick up the cost of your lost fare for the airlines if this policy was implemeted....and fortunately, I can afford it.

Good day.

Danke
06-11-2008, 04:48 PM
High school economics. Corporations act on incentive. As demand increases, price increases.

True. But their highest cost is fuel and that has gone through the roof in a short period of time. Ticket fares increase, less fly, decrease capacity. But decreasing capacity is a slow process, and one they are generally cautious to do as they lose slots, gates, markets, feed, etc. Capital intensive and hard to adjust quickly.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 04:49 PM
No they need to increase the number people of flying. Not decrease them. They will start losing all their business if they keep this up; there are alternate forms of travel.

Why do they have to increase the number of people flying? Why increase the production of something that you are producing at a loss? They won't lose their business, but they will many costumner. However, the alternative is that they go bankrupt. Soon enough, flying will be only for who are rich.


The planes are not full....if they were full they wouldn't be having to increase rates at this rate.

Well I take that back, they are full, because they delay every plane until its completely full. They won't even take off with 75% of the passengers anymore.....crazy.

I think your missing the point. They not goiong to swtich to flying half-empty planes. They are going to reuce the number planes they operate but will continue to fly with a full load. Quick! Somebody draw this person a graph!

AutoDas
06-11-2008, 04:50 PM
They may lose some customers but they will make more money from charging their usual customers. I'm not upset not having to worry about sitting next to a human figure of fat. This will make the flights more enjoyable and worth discriminating.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 04:51 PM
True. But their highest cost is fuel and that has gone through the roof in a short period of time. Ticket fares increase, less fly, decrease capacity. But decreasing capacity is a slow process, and one they are generally cautious to do as they lose slots, gates, markets, feed, etc. Capital intensive and hard to adjust quickly.

True. It does take time to decrease capacity. I think that is why many airlines when bankrupt so quickly.

pinkmandy
06-11-2008, 04:56 PM
I'm all for it, great idea! If people refuse to fly then that's the market at work. The airlines will then decide if they want to keep that policy. Maybe at 115 I'll get a discount? :)

grizzums
06-11-2008, 04:58 PM
I'm all for it, great idea! If people refuse to fly then that's the market at work. The airlines will then decide if they want to keep that policy. Maybe at 115 I'll get a discount? :)

As long as you're over 5'2".... :) totally j/k

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:00 PM
Because the fares (outputs) for passengers on airlines are in part determined by production/service costs (inputs), including the cost of fuel, then to charge a one size fits all fare for all passengers is a blatant form of price discrimination because the weight of a passenger in part determines the overall costs (inputs). You apparently support price discrimination....why am I not surprised.

I just re-read the chapter on price discrimination. How is the example you gave an example of price descrimination? It would be price discrimination if the costs the were same but they charge based on weight when weight did not determine cost.



I do not see this idea flying (pardon the pun), especially here in the states because of the number of Americans that are overweight, obese, or extremely obese and the backlash that a policy like this would stir up, regardless of the fairness of it. Perhaps Fed Ex should charge a one size fits all fee for any all packages they ship via airfreight. A person mailing a cerified letter could pay the same as a person mailing a new crated up tractor trailer....seems fair... :rolleyes:

So your being sarcastic? Ok, cool.


America's illegitimate victim mentality will never allow this to become policy, so, no worries for you. Legitimate victims to this price discrimination will just continue to subsidise the rest of the population. By the way, I'd gladly pick up the cost of your lost fare for the airlines if this policy was implemeted....and fortunately, I can afford it.

Dont worry about it, the feds will subsidize fares for over-sized passangers.

RideTheDirt
06-11-2008, 05:04 PM
The planes are not full....if they were full they wouldn't be having to increase rates at this rate.


Well I take that back, they are full, because they delay every plane until its completely full. They won't even take off with 75% of the passengers anymore.....crazy.
Why don't you figure out your argument before you type it?
You sound like Obama and Mclame, pandering to what people want to hear, not the truth.

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 05:08 PM
Anyways airlines are not suffering losses. This policy will last 5 minutes before they get sued. Hell I'd sue them, cause I refuse to pay more just because im fat.

AutoDas
06-11-2008, 05:10 PM
^Age of Entitlement

Kludge
06-11-2008, 05:10 PM
I refuse to pay more just because im fat.

Produce enough to construct an airport and make the rules if you want to. You do not have the rights to tell others what they can/can't do with their property.

MRoCkEd
06-11-2008, 05:11 PM
The idea of a really fat person going on a scale with their weight coming up on a digital screen for everyone to see is pretty funny.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 05:13 PM
The idea of a really fat person going on a scale with their weight coming up on a digital screen for everyone to see is pretty funny.

Maybe the airline could turn it into a type of carnival game and offer reduced airfare if someone guesses it correctly.

angelatc
06-11-2008, 05:14 PM
Ok, first they are going to scan us and see through our clothes,

Then we have to weigh in . . . . . . .

Hmmmmm -- I see a decline in female passengers . . . . .

...but a record number of TSA scan applicants. :)

grizzums
06-11-2008, 05:15 PM
I just re-read the chapter on price discrimination. How is the example you gave an example of price descrimination? It would be price discrimination if the costs the were same but they charge based on weight when weight did not determine cost.

Think about it differently and throw out the textbook. Because fares are in part determined by the input costs that airlines incur in the production process. Hence my fare for flying is payment for my share of the service the airline is providing. If the airline does not use fuel costs as one ioda of a factor in determining their fares, then fine, I will defer....but that is not the case. If a plane was flying at full capacity with everyone on board weighing 100 lbs side by side a plane flying full capacity with everyone on board weighing 300 lbs would the costs of the flights be the same, all else being equal? No. Therefore, if an airline uses fuel costs as a variable in their price determinate, then it can be said that my fare is payment for (in part) the share of the fuel costs that my weight incurs. In this sense, I, at say 100 lbs, am paying a higher pewrcentage of the fuel costs then someone weighing 300lbs. Is that not price discrimination?

I understand the textbook definition of price discriminations in varying degrees.

angelatc
06-11-2008, 05:17 PM
Anyways airlines are not suffering losses. This policy will last 5 minutes before they get sued. Hell I'd sue them, cause I refuse to pay more just because im fat.

It's just another vice tax. We sat by and let them have the drinkers, then the smokers....now they're coming after the eaters.

MRoCkEd
06-11-2008, 05:23 PM
if the airline itself chooses to do this - not if the government mandates it


Maybe the airline could turn it into a type of carnival game and offer reduced airfare if someone guesses it correctly.
:o

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:34 PM
Anyways airlines are not suffering losses. This policy will last 5 minutes before they get sued. Hell I'd sue them, cause I refuse to pay more just because im fat.

Airlines arent suffering losses? Sounds like a buying opportunity... :rolleyes:

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:44 PM
Think about it differently and throw out the textbook. Because fares are in part determined by the input costs that airlines incur in the production process. Hence my fare for flying is payment for my share of the service the airline is providing. If the airline does not use fuel costs as one ioda of a factor in determining their fares, then fine, I will defer....but that is not the case. If a plane was flying at full capacity with everyone on board weighing 100 lbs side by side a plane flying full capacity with everyone on board weighing 300 lbs would the costs of the flights be the same, all else being equal? No. Therefore, if an airline uses fuel costs as a variable in their price determinate, then it can be said that my fare is payment for (in part) the share of the fuel costs that my weight incurs. In this sense, I, at say 100 lbs, am paying a higher pewrcentage of the fuel costs then someone weighing 300lbs. Is that not price discrimination?

I understand the textbook definition of price discriminations in varying degrees.

No. That is NOT price descrimination. It would be price descrimination if weight was NOT a factor in costs. But in your exmaple, weight IS a factor in costs which is why you being charged differenly based on your weight is NOT price descrimination.

Btw, there are many defitions for "price descrimination", but only is correct (depending on the context, of course). Just like are many definitons for "inflation" but only definiton is correct.

grizzums
06-11-2008, 06:13 PM
No. That is NOT price descrimination. It would be price descrimination if weight was NOT a factor in costs. But in your exmaple, weight IS a factor in costs which is why you being charged differenly based on your weight is NOT price descrimination.

Btw, there are many defitions for "price descrimination", but only is correct (depending on the context, of course). Just like are many definitons for "inflation" but only definiton is correct.

Okay, so even though a customer's weight is a factor of airline fares insofar that more weight = more fuel = higher airline servicing (production) costs = (passed through to customer's) higher fares...

...then the fact that a customer paying the same fare even though they weigh less, hence consume less fuel and in turn cost less for the airline, is not a form of discrimination in price per customer?

Yes, there are several definitions of price discrimination and different degrees. I am not using textbook definitions of price discrimination, I am using economic logic and reason instead.

By definition we are not in a recession either, but factor in the loss of value in the currency (vs a basket of major) currencies over a given period of time (beg of 07)and re-calculate the real rate of GDP and let me know what you come up with.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 06:15 PM
People have no right to prevent discrimination by other private citizens anyways...

If I saw a man with tatoos walk in my shop, I ought to be able to charge him 500% if I damn well please. Probably a stupid business and ethical decision, but as the owner of the shop, it is mine to make.

grizzums
06-11-2008, 06:18 PM
People have no right to prevent discrimination by other private citizens anyways...

If I saw a man with tatoos walk in my shop, I ought to be able to charge him 500% if I damn well please. Probably a stupid business and ethical decision, but as the owner of the shop, it is mine to make.

I completely agree, that is not what I am arguing. Their pricing is model dicriminatory, but so be it.

Danke
06-11-2008, 06:34 PM
Anyways airlines are not suffering losses. This policy will last 5 minutes before they get sued. Hell I'd sue them, cause I refuse to pay more just because im fat.


Airlines arent suffering losses? Sounds like a buying opportunity... :rolleyes:

No shit! With airline stocks currently extremely low, should I just buy all of them, or do you maji have any particular hot ones I should jump on?

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 06:36 PM
Theyre not doing well because the economy is doing well...but they're not suffering losses..in 2003 they were suffering losses. Not now

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 07:02 PM
Theyre not doing well because the economy is doing well...but they're not suffering losses..in 2003 they were suffering losses. Not now

So.... what about the ones that filed for bankruptcy?

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 07:11 PM
Okay, so even though a customer's weight is a factor of airline fares insofar that more weight = more fuel = higher airline servicing (production) costs = (passed through to customer's) higher fares...

...then the fact that a customer paying the same fare even though they weigh less, hence consume less fuel and in turn cost less for the airline, is not a form of discrimination in price per customer?

Well, in you NEW example, no. One becuase element for price discrimination is that costs are the same (in your example they are not the same).


Yes, there are several definitions of price discrimination and different degrees. I am not using textbook definitions of price discrimination, I am using economic logic and reason instead.

sure. but your economic logic is bound by pre-determined definitions or certain terms and concepts. i use economic logic and reason to determine that your example is not an example of price discrimination.




By definition we are not in a recession either, but factor in the loss of value in the currency (vs a basket of major) currencies over a given period of time (beg of 07)and re-calculate the real rate of GDP and let me know what you come up with.

this is a great example. according to the government we are not in recession, but then again, they have their definition of "recession" to underestimate the CPI and GDP. i dont accept the governments definition of recession because their definition is flawed.

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 09:40 PM
Actually I think I'm gonna preemptively start a lawsuit. Ain't this free market great? A bunch of consumers like me can sue them, keep them tied up with lawyers fees, until they give in...even though we might not win in court. But it doesn't matter, It will never get there.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 09:56 PM
Actually I think I'm gonna preemptively start a lawsuit. Ain't this free market great? A bunch of consumers like me can sue them, keep them tied up with lawyers fees, until they give in...even though we might not win in court. But it doesn't matter, It will never get there.

Hopefully they will sue you for wasted their time.

Danke
06-11-2008, 10:01 PM
Actually I think I'm gonna preemptively start a lawsuit.

Preemptive lawsuit? Isn't it past your bedtime?

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 10:05 PM
Hopefully they will sue you for wasted their time.

Naw I'll just countersue them.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 10:15 PM
Naw I'll just countersue them.

Whatever. I see you arn't going to contend my other (and serious) points. lol