In an effort to reduce fuel costs, American Airlines was the first US carrier to introduce checked baggage fees, at US$15 in 2008 (it's now $40). Since then, many airlines have followed suit, as well as hitting travelers with hefty excess baggage fees. But what would happen if the extra cost didn't just apply to heavy luggage but to the passengers themselves?
The debate over whether passengers should be weighed, along with their bags, and charged accordingly has heated up again, as airlines look to offset fuel costs. While Samoa Air introduced a 'fat tax' on travelers in 2013, theres's a big difference to how on-board weight affects the performance of a four-seat Cessna 172 prop plane and an Airbus A380. Around the same time, former Qantas chief economist Tony Webber told Australian radio that a 'fat tax' isn't such a bad idea across the industry (an idea that, soon after, competing carriers dismissed).
But earlier this year, Finnish airline Finnair introduced a voluntary weigh-in for passengers, in an effort to gather more accurate data on plane loads and their impact on fuel use. And you can't help but think that the data, to be released in a report in 2030, might open the door to new charges, which could then set a precedent for others to adopt new fee structures based on passenger weight.
In the latest study into public perception of this controversial topic, an international team of researchers surveyed 1,012 US adults who had taken a commercial flight in the previous few years to gauge more widespread community sentiment on pricing and weight. The participants were selected as a representation of wider population dynamics across the US – a nation that disproportionately operates around 25.6% of the global air-transport industry, in terms of revenue passenger kilometers (RPK). Overall, the commercial airline industry is responsible for around 2.5% of global emissions that contribute to the planet's warming.
And it doesn't take a math genius to see how more planes in the air equals more fuel use and more emissions in the atmosphere.
“We wanted to explore how air travel could be made more sustainable, especially considering the weight we carry – both personal weight and baggage that often travels back and forth,” said Markus Schuckert, a professor at the University of New Hampshire. “We wondered if reducing weight overall could contribute to more eco-friendly air travel and began questioning whether passengers might accept pricing that reflects this.”
In the study, the respondents – 60.2% male and over 36 years of age (70.5%) – were asked about what they valued in their flying experience, as well as whether they'd be open to a change in baseline fares to also include a levy for passenger weight. They were also grouped by weight – under and over 160 lb (72.6 kg). The researchers tabled three pricing tiers: a "standard" policy that included 50 lb (23 kg) of checked luggage and a carry on; a “threshold body weight” policy that included 50 lb of checked-in luggage and a carry-on, plus a 'cost per pound' surcharge for passengers exceeding 160 lb; and a “Unit body weight” policy, which included 50 lb of checked luggage and a carry on, calculating individual ticket price based on a passenger's weight. For the unit body weight policy, passengers would be privy to a discount if their checked luggage was less than 50 lb.
Unsurprisingly, nearly half of respondents (42.1%) under 160 lb were in favor of the unit body weight policy, compared to those weighing over 160 lb (26.3%). Just over half of the heavier study participants preferred the standard policy, with 50.2% believing airlines should stick with the model that currently exists.
However, that does mean that 49.8% – nearly half – would be open to some sort of weight-related pricing, with younger respondents disproportionally represented in this category. And, among the heaviest respondents (>220 lb/100 kg), 22.1% still chose threshold pricing, a policy that would negatively impact them most, in terms of costs.
Overall, people under 160 lb were most in favor of factoring body weight into ticket prices, with 71.7% happy to see either excess pounds or total weight policies introduced. Just under half of the heavier respondents were on board with this, with 49.8% choosing weight-based policies. They were slightly in favor of charging by total body weight and not for any pounds over a baseline figure (26.3% and 23.5%, respectively).
"Not surprisingly, the preference for body weight pricing is negatively affected by weight; the heavier participants are, the less they select body weight pricing," the researchers noted.
When the passengers were given the option of a cheaper base fee, but these tickets incorporated one form of body weight assessment, the respondents over 160 lb chose the more expensive, standard policy – even when the overall price made this option the most expensive. This suggests that, in the study's sample at least, people would rather pay more than have their weight come under scrutiny.
Interestingly, younger flyers were more open to saving money by factoring body weight into ticket price. Among those aged 18-35, 20% more were on board with measuring passenger weight, compared to participants aged 66 and above. And 25% of those who had higher incomes or were frequent flyer or loyalty airline customers were in favor of weight-based charges.
Overall, the concerns people had with weighing passengers ranged from ethical to socioeconomic; nearly 60% of respondents said that putting someone's size in the spotlight could create an unfair system and lead to discrimination that ignored broader societal issues such as income and access to healthy food.
While the study's purpose was to gauge people's openness to more nuanced air-travel costs in order to offset environmental damage, it also highlighted how "societal norms" pose a huge challenge to more sustainable practices.
“This topic has been widely discussed for decades, but there’s surprisingly little research on it,” said Schuckert. “Some airlines have tried or considered weight-based policies, but the main roadblock remains ethical concerns, which make it difficult to even discuss. But if we aim to make air travel more sustainable, we should have an open discussion. That’s really the point of research – to put everything on the table for consideration.”
In a 2022 report, researchers found that less than 1% of flyers chose to offset their carbon footprint when purchasing tickets, and that passengers rarely equated their travel with direct environmental impacts. Flyers were more likely to link higher prices and extra fees for luggage (or body weight) with airlines' own economic interests. This is no surprise when some carriers pack hefty fees – such as Malaysia Airlines, which charges $30 for each additional kilogram (2.2 lb) of checked luggage (or $480 for a 33-lb/15-kg bag) on flights from Asia to the US or Europe.
“In many areas, we encourage sustainability with a ‘pay-as-you-consume’ model, like a fee that increases with usage," Schuckert said. "But, when it comes to people, applying this idea is challenging. We hesitate to set prices based on individual characteristics because it feels discriminatory. The real question is how to design pricing that promotes sustainable choices without unfairly targeting certain customer segments.”
The study was published in the journal Transportation Research.
Source: University of New Hampshire
