Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: airlines fees

Scale for weight..2.16.12_000016156464XSmall

On Samoa Airlines, weight makes a big difference. With small planes and passengers that tend to be large, Samoa Air has begun to charge passengers by the kilogram (42 cents a pound). They say that knowing weight beforehand lets them appropriately configure seating and calculate capacity. It facilitates land, labor and capital efficiency.

One British journalist disagrees. Saying, “The policy is a dehumanising, degrading and mechanistic approach to customer service,” he believes the decision is discriminatory. Its source, he claims is the unhappy fliers who sit next to very large people.

The Samoa Air pricing policy reflects the spread of obesity in the Pacific Islands. Among the world’s most overweight nations, Samoa has close to a 50% obesity rate (note that the data appears to date back to 1995). Wondering why, I discovered a Foreign Policy article that suggests the main reason is globalization. When the world arrived during WW II, it brought industrialization, processed food and a sedentary life style that transformed a traditional subsistance fishing economy.

Looking at the following map, you can see which nations have the most overweight populations.

From the International Association For Studying Obesity (IASO)

From the International Association For the Study of  Obesity (IASO)

In a recent econlife post, we looked at airlines’ pricing policies. Food, baggage, reservation switches, aisle seats and now weight are all examples of the extras for which we can pay if we decide their marginal utility is worth it.

This youtube news report is a good firsthand look at Samoa Air and Samoans’ reaction to the weight policy.

Sources and Resources: For more about Samoa Airlines’ new fare policy, this Washington Post article provided the detail while this Guardian column presented the opposing view. Perhaps, though, the real issue is obesity which you can read more about here in Foreign Policy and here at the IASO website.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

airlines industry...airplanes.16825_3.15a_000002547262XSmall

Spirit Airlines is doing everything it can to charge us less for a seat on one of its planes. One gentleman paid $77 for a round trip seat between Chicago and Fort Lauderdale.

Just the seat.

How much more could he have paid? You might want to try matching each of the following Spirit Airlines fees to one of the items listed below.

The fees:

  • 1. $100
  • 2. $4
  • 3. $28-$38
  • 4. $3
  • 5. $30-$45
  • 6. $5
  • 7. $75
  • 8. $6
  • 9. Free

 

The items:

  • a. check bicycle
  • b. buy water
  • c. first checked bag
  • d. get boarding pass a airport
  • e. transport dog
  • f. carry-on bag for overhead bin
  • g. buy bag of nuts
  • h. tuck items under the seat
  • i. buy a beer

(Answers at the bottom)

On the surface, it just looks like passengers pay a fee and the airline generates more revenue. But there is more. Because of the carry-on and checked luggage charges, passengers pack less. Less luggage means lighter planes. Lighter planes need less fuel–a huge cost saving for airlines.

Spirit also eliminated reclining seats on their Airbus 320s so that they could fit approximately 40 more fliers onto the plane. Think about it. Whether flights are full or empty, they still need the plane, the fuel, the pilot. And they charge for almost everything else.  An extra passenger costs them very little.

An economist would say that Spirit was really good at thinking at the margin. Defined as the “extras,” the margin is where Spirit adds to revenue and saves on costs.

Thinking at the margin, Spirit probably even made money on the gentleman who paid $77 for his Chicago/Ft. Lauderdale round trip.

While my Spirit facts and the matching idea came from a WSJ.com article, I especially recommend this very clever interactive graphic that displays the shifting position of the major airlines since deregulation in 1978.

1e; 2g; 3c; 4b; 5f; 6d; 7a; 8i; 9h

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment