Airline correct on weight surcharge

Their operational models are primarily driven by weight and the distance flown. This is the reason for the constant search for lighter aeroplane materials, more efficient engines, better fuels and increased payload capacity.

It is also the reason why airlines charge passengers for excess baggage. This is not baggage discrimination. It is merely the recovery of the additional cost incurred from the individual who places that burden on the airline, rather than extracting a subsidy from other passengers by raising overall ticket prices.

The current pricing model used by most airlines forces persons of reasonable size to subsidise overweight passengers because the airline must recover costs and generate a profit for shareholders. To do so under the current flat-rate ticket pricing, the airline must charge the rest of us more for our tickets that would otherwise be the case, forcing us to subsidise their lifestyle choice.

As a frequent flyer, I object to overweight individuals paying the same price as I do. Not, as the author would have us believe, because I wish to discriminate against them, but because I am being forced to subsidise their flying costs. I would object if all baggage weight restrictions were removed for the same reason.

The author goes on to bloviate at some length on the theme of discrimination. The entire argument is based on a false premise – all overweight people are blameless with respect to their condition. However, the American Medical Association and other medical experts are of the opinion that only about 2 per cent of the overweight population has this condition as a result of glandular dysfunction or other causes beyond their control. The rest simply eat too much. This is their decision and I respect their right to make that choice. However, I object strongly to being forced to subsidise that decision.

Airline fares are not the only way I am forced to subsidise that lifestyle choice. As an American taxpayer, I am charged and taxed more than is necessary for healthcare to provide subsidies for overweight people. Overweight people are more susceptible to many diseases as a direct result of their decision to overeat. They are also more susceptible to joint disease because the human body was simply not designed to carry that much weight. Therefore, they are more frequently candidates for hip replacements as well as victims of a plethora of diseases like diabetes that are strongly linked to their lifestyle.

However, in any health-insurance scheme, private or public, where their self-imposed difficulties are factored into the general cost pool, I am forced to subsidise them.

I wish that those people with access to the media to publish their commentaries – Ally Fogg of The Guardian in this case – would do a little bit of research before flooding the public debate on significant policy issues with their mindless blathering.

William Kittredge 

Bangkok