Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Obesity

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Freight Dog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,232
Obesity Raising Airline Fuel Costs
By DANIEL YEE, AP



ATLANTA (Nov. 4) - Heavy suitcases aren't the only things weighing down airplanes and requiring them to burn more fuel, pushing up the cost of flights. A new government study reveals that airlines increasingly have to worry more about the weight of their passengers.
America's growing waistlines are hurting the bottom lines of airline companies as the extra pounds on passengers are causing a drag on planes. Heavier fliers have created heftier fuel costs, according to the government study.

Through the 1990s, the average weight of Americans increased by 10 pounds, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The extra weight caused airlines to spend $275 million to burn 350 million more gallons of fuel in 2000 just to carry the additional weight of Americans, the federal agency estimated in a recent issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

"The obesity epidemic has unexpected consequences beyond direct health effects,'' said Dr. Deron Burton of the CDC. "Our goal was to highlight one area that had not been looked at before.''

The extra fuel burned also had an environmental impact, as an estimated 3.8 million extra tons of carbon dioxide were released into the air, according to the study.

The estimates were calculated by determining how much fuel the 10 extra pounds of weight per passenger represented in Department of Transportation airline statistics, Burton said.

Obesity is a life-or-death struggle in the United States, the underlying cause of 400,000 deaths in 2000, a 33 percent jump from 1990. If current trends persist, it will become the nation's No. 1 cause of preventable death, the CDC said earlier this year.

More than half - 56 percent - of U.S. adults were overweight or obese in the early 1990s, according to a CDC survey. That rose to 65 percent in a similar survey done from 1999 to 2002.

Although the Air Transport Association of America has not yet validated the CDC data, spokesman Jack Evans said the health agency's appraisal "does not sound out of the realm of reality.''

With most airlines reporting losses blamed partly on record-high fuel costs, everything on an airplane is now a weighty issue. Airlines are doing everything they can to lighten the load on all aircraft, from wide-body jets to turboprops.

Bulky magazines have gone out the door. Metal forks and spoons have been replaced with plastic. Large carry-ons are being scrutinized and even heavy materials that used to make up airplane seats are being replaced with plastic and other lightweight materials.

"We're dealing in a world of small numbers - even though it has a very incremental impact'' to reduce a 60- to 120-ton aircraft's weight by bumping off a few magazines, Evans said. "When you consider airlines are flying millions of miles, it adds up over time.''
Although passenger bulk has been an issue in the past - Dallas-based Southwest Airlines requires large people to buy a second seat for passenger safety and comfort - Evans says it's not likely airlines will scrutinize how much passengers weigh in the future. Instead, they are trying to do a better job of estimating passenger weight in figuring out how much fuel they need for a flight.

Seattle-based Alaska Airlines now calculates the weight of children on flights, instead of using adult-weight formulas for all passengers, Evans said.

"Just like we don't control the costs of our fuel, we don't control the weights of our passengers,'' he said. "Passengers gain weight, but airlines are the ones that go on a diet. It's part of the conundrum we face right now.''
 
Did the FAA ever change the "average" weight from 170lbs to something higher for weight and balance purposes. I know its a bit off the subject but wasn't that the case of that USairExpress B1900 in Charlotte a few years back. I think thats the airline, Mesa most likely? I know on average, taking into account children and some skinny little 20 year old girl, that it probably all evens out, but I've noticed on alot of my flights that even alot of the women these days weigh a good 160+. And alot of the guys are 200+.
 
Just one more example of how management mismanages their fleet. It is my opinion that an airliner flying within the U.S. cities are not being flown at gross weight. The airlines are complaining that the passengers are getting heavier which increases their fuel cost. Here is a thought, since you are not flying at gross weight, fly more cargo. If I was a manager at an airline here is what I would do.

I would determine which routes are flown at the lightest weights, well under gross, which I bet there are alot. I would than hire a sales force which pays only on commision. These salesman will go to manufacturers and distributors and inform those companies of space available for cargo. As a former tractor trailer driver, I can tell you that companies don't care how merchandise gets there, they do care about how much it will cost and how fast it can get there.

I'am sure there are alot of manufactures and distributors who are looking for a faster way of getting the merchandise to the final destination. I can't think of a faster way than airplane. There is plenty of weight space available for freight. Use the space to your advantage. Cargo pays more than passengers, and this will help off-set fuel costs.

I know that flying cargo in an airliner is not a new concept, but hiring salesman to concentrate on manufacturers and distributors is. The airlines should stop complaining and do something to be profitable. They could just sit by and get ate up by fuel cost. Instead, they cut jobs and ask the very same people who keep them in business to take pay cuts. We don't see doctors taking pay cuts because of malpractice insurence increases. They raise the rates of medicine. Airlines can't raise the rates, but they can use the space and weight available to be more profitable.

Just a thought, which makes too much sense. It will never work.
 
flyifrvfr said: "It is my opinion that an airliner flying within the U.S. cities are not being flown at gross weight."

Max gross weight has nothing to do with it. The 737-800 has a max structural takeoff weight of 174,200 but we could never take that much w\eight out of MDW, as we are runway limited. The other night going MDW-PHX our max runway limit was 164,400. So even though we had an "extra" 10,000 pounds until we hit max gross weight, we could not put anything else on due to runway limits.

Now of course if you are operating at airports where runway and climb limits are not a factor, you can fill it up. But not alloperations will alow that.

You also run into the "bulk" problem. Some planes cargo bins bulk out before they weight out.
 
The problem with the increased weights is we are leaving behind passengers and cargo due to aircraft weight limitations. It's not that we are mismanaging the use of the planes, we are doing everything possible to take as many passengers and cargo as possible.

We even encourage passengers not to valet check their carry-ons so we can save 30 lbs for use elsewhere.
 
Hugh Jorgan said:
Yeah, you'll get a lot of cargo in an RJ.
I'am not saying this should apply to the RJ's. God knows they usually are maxed out anyway.
 
Pickle said:
flyifrvfr said: "It is my opinion that an airliner flying within the U.S. cities are not being flown at gross weight."

Max gross weight has nothing to do with it. The 737-800 has a max structural takeoff weight of 174,200 but we could never take that much w\eight out of MDW, as we are runway limited. The other night going MDW-PHX our max runway limit was 164,400. So even though we had an "extra" 10,000 pounds until we hit max gross weight, we could not put anything else on due to runway limits.

Now of course if you are operating at airports where runway and climb limits are not a factor, you can fill it up. But not alloperations will alow that.

You also run into the "bulk" problem. Some planes cargo bins bulk out before they weight out.
The reasons you give above a very valid reasons to be weight limited. I do agree totally. But in the areas where you can max out would be the target areas. I wish my post was as easy to impliment as it was to post. I certainly don't like seeing pilot's and crew taking pay cuts, so the management can continue to run the airline into the ground. I wish all pilot's and crew of the airlines well, I'am sure it wasn't easy to take the pay cuts. I know the conciquence of not taking the pay cut was even worse.
 
Yes .... a result of this accident was a increase in 10 pounds (now 180) for the the 'average' passenger. It got published in a AC, if i remember correctly.


Lrjtcaptain said:
Did the FAA ever change the "average" weight from 170lbs to something higher for weight and balance purposes. I know its a bit off the subject but wasn't that the case of that USairExpress B1900 in Charlotte a few years back. I think thats the airline, Mesa most likely? I know on average, taking into account children and some skinny little 20 year old girl, that it probably all evens out, but I've noticed on alot of my flights that even alot of the women these days weigh a good 160+. And alot of the guys are 200+.
 
it increased from 175 lbs to 200 lbs per passenger. bags are now 30 also.



mattpilot said:
Yes .... a result of this accident was a increase in 10 pounds (now 180) for the the 'average' passenger. It got published in a AC, if i remember correctly.
 
I still wonder how they do the numbers for Molokai shuttle. There are always tons of bags and the residents appear to visit the bakery there. But I guess at sea level in an Aztec or 402, 100 feet off the sea, anything will fly a little over gross.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom