Weight survey for Pago Pago fliers prompts airline action
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Mua Migi, left, watches his son Atimua Migi put tape on a carry-on bag before boarding a Hawaiian Airlines flight to Pago Pago, American Samoa at Honolulu International Airport in Honolulu.
Hawaiian Airlines has changed its seat assignment policy for its route between Honolulu and American Samoa after a survey found passengers with their carry-on luggage were 30 pounds heavier than expected.
Earlier this month, the airline stopped allowing passengers to pre-select seats. Passengers flying between Honolulu and Pago Pago receive seat assignments at the airport so that airline officials can manage weight distribution throughout the cabin.
The new policy prompted discrimination complaints sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which says the policy is not discriminatory.
Hawaiian Airlines say their new policy calls for making sure each row of seats has an empty one or one occupied by a child to protect the planes in the event of crash landing situations.
40 responses to “Weight survey for Pago Pago fliers prompts airline action”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
They should weigh the people flying. Why should someone 150lbs pay the same as someone 350 lbs and they take up half the seat of the other passenger? It’s just practical and fairness.
I agree fat people over 210 lbs should pay double. It takes more fuel to fly them and they do not fit in the seats and bother people in their neighbor seats.
Airlines tried that many years ago and the fat American public fought back.
And that is garbage. On one of our flights my husband sat next to a man that probably weighed 300lbs and my husband weighs 145. The man kept putting his arm of his seat up and took up part of my husbands seat. My husband is not a complained. I think they should have moved us or the man, or charged my husband for 1/2 a seat. lol
Is this luggage shaming?
The rules are the rules. Follow them or don’t fly. It’s simple.
not only rules, weight distribution is also important. Bigger problem is that there will be less cargo on the plane since the tuna factory’s is closing. That HA flight to PPG usually comes back full of cargo.
When I worked in the airline industry many years ago they use to call very large boxes “Samoan Suitcases” as that is what we saw being taken by Samoan passengers. It was not unusual to see large bags or boxes full of coconuts.
“AhiPoke” … we called ’em Samoan Samsonites …
Fat is fat. You fat, deal with it.
Hawaiian Airlines say their new policy calls for making sure each row of seats has an empty one or one occupied by a child to protect the planes in the event of crash landing situations. In the event of crash landing or the plane crashes on land or sea. ????
I read another story about this and it said, Hawaiian is burning too much fuel in this route because the passengers are too big. Hawaiian is loosing money and they want to start charging more for fuel. It has “nothing” to do with safety.
Yeah! And Hawaiian should give a discount to ALL the passengers who weigh less than 240 lbs. Fair is fair! Why should my daughter who weight less than 50 lbs pay full fare then?
because she takes up the same size seat as most everyone else.
Yes, that part of the airline’s cost to transport the passenger’s is the same…however, for every extra pound of load (the sum of their body mass and the mass of their luggage), it adds to the airline’s fuel cost, which is also proportional (roughly) to the distance traveled.
Increased fuel cost spread across all passengers is negligible
waaawaaawaaa.
Laws of physics and aerodynamics are not discriminatory. Airplane is not balanced and crashes because of it, who you gonna sue….God, Earth, Gravity!?!?!?! Get over it!!!!
David Haleck should be careful about sueing Hawaiian Airlines… that flight to PPG is a loose money flight for Hawaiian. That ✈ goes down their with less than 50% in passenger compartment. I think what keeps them flying there are cargo and government contract. I don’t see tourist going there. If I were Hawaiian I would get rid of them 767, put the smaller Airbus on that route. Becomes more feasible now that’s the Tuna factory is closing and HA will be taking delivery of smaller airbus next year.
As the expression goes: “calling the fat lady fat”.
It’s called Weight and Balance..can’t put all the “FAT” ones in the front or in the rear…the plane would crash..
I’ve done W & B on Boeings and yes weight distribution is a vital part of the safe operation of the aircraft
They also need to crack down on what can be brought aboard the aircraft. I see way too many people, far too often with excessive amounts of carry-on luggage. I know you’re trying to save checked baggage money, but it really pisses me off when you see some people dragging half their house down the aisle.
I totally agree. The airlines loses millions of dollars allowing passengers to bring larger carryon bags and boxes. In the past, all luggage went in the belly of the aircraft and there was no (known) bag fee. The overhead bins were smaller and passengers complied with the airline’s requirements. What gets me is when someone brings a “carryon” bag that’s heavy and that individual needs help to place it in the overhead bin. It then becomes a safety issue. Things like this slows the de-planning process.
So you’re saying it’s the fault of the passengers that the airlines are losing money by not collecting fees on carry on luggage? The whole reason why people carry on exceeding large baggage is because of the greed of the airlines. They make billions of dollars in baggage fees. More so than on the price of ticket itself. You pretty much explained that point in your post. Post deregulation in the 80s its been pretty much a profit grab the whole time since with service and comfort declining as airlines search for more ways to squeeze pennies out of customers.
“…a survey found passengers with their carry-on luggage were 30 pounds heavier than expected.” If they are concerned about their carry-on luggage, why don’t they just enforce their policy that passengers are allowed one personal item and one carry-on bag which doesn’t exceed 25 lbs? If it exceeds the weight limit, it gets checked in and they pay for the check-in baggage. In the seating map, they can always X out seats in each row to manage the weight distribution.
If “rules are rules” as many here are saying, then this rule shouldn’t single out Pago Pago flights. It should be applied across the board to ALL HAL flights.
Obviously, the Pago Pago flights have a proportionally larger number of heavier passengers; if not, they would apply the rule across the board.
Any way to make $$$. All though the majority of heavy people are overweight, what happens if I’m an athlete who happens to be 6’4″ 290lbs? I’m penalized?
Gives new meaning to the phrase “throw your weight around”.
It’s not a balance problem, it’s floor loading. If the weight of the passengers exceeds safe floor loading, the floor could fail in a crash.
Airlines should charge based on weight. The FAT ones take up too much space. Yes I said it sick of the PC B$ !
Why is everyone commenting on weight vs the fare paid? In the article nothing was mentioned about the fares, it was about weight distribution in the cabin. I’m sure Hawaiian knows the operating cost to fly this route and the fares are adjusted accordingly.
For years the airlines have squeezed us into smaller and smaller seats, and cabins with less open space. We want cheaper air fares, they want to make a profit. This is a no-win situation for all. Some people are big, some are small, many are not the “average size” (more correctly, the size the airlines have chosen as their magic seat dimensions). Truly, to the airline, one size is supposed to fit all. To all of us, that is a ridiculous approach if we step back and think about it. What would be a better approach? How could air travel seating be designed or arranged to better fit the different size human shapes and weights? What about the trend of bringing the “comfort” animals on board? Should I have to sit next to a tortoise or a chicken, or a dog, or a pig? There is an unreality to this situation. We want the procedures to be fair. But it is also unfair to a large person to be squeezed into a tiny seat which better fits a small person, and it is unfair to a small person to be sandwiched between two large persons. The airlines cannot solve this problem by themselves because customer blowback is so severe. Maybe we need seats which are adjustable in width by sliding armrests sideways, when you check in, you walk through a template which checks your hip and shoulder width and the seat width is automatically adjusted, and you would pay more or less depending on the space you take. Maybe 4 small people fit in a current 3 person space. Maybe 2 large people fit in the current 3 person space. And weight and load balance has to enter into this. Bottom line, I don’t want to have to sit next to your tortoise, your dog, your gerbil, your pig, or your chicken. I give Hawaiian Air credit for trying to do something about this serious problem. And Pohaku96744 has a good point about the profitability issue for some transpacific flights.
For years the airlines have squeezed us into smaller and smaller seats, and cabins with less open space. We want cheaper air fares, they want to make a profit. This is a no-win situation for all. Some people are big, some are small, many are not the “average size” (more correctly, the size the airlines have chosen as their magic seat dimensions). Truly, to the airline, one size is supposed to fit all. To all of us, that is a ridiculous approach if we step back and think about it. What would be a better approach? How could air travel seating be designed or arranged to better fit the different size human shapes and weights? What about the trend of bringing the “comfort” animals on board? Should I have to sit next to a tortoise or a chicken, or a dog, or a pig? There is an unreality to this situation. We want the procedures to be fair. But it is also unfair to a large person to be squeezed into a tiny seat which better fits a small person, and it is unfair to a small person to be sandwiched between two large persons. The airlines cannot solve this problem by themselves because customer blowback is so severe. Maybe we need seats which are adjustable in width by sliding armrests sideways, when you check in, you walk through a template which checks your hip and shoulder width and the seat width is automatically adjusted, and you would pay more or less depending on the space you take. Maybe 4 small people fit in a current 3 person space. Maybe 2 large people fit in the current 3 person space. And weight and load balance has to enter into this. Bottom line, I don’t want to have to sit next to your tortoise, your dog, your gerbil, your pig, or your chicken. I give Hawaiian Air credit for trying to do something about this serious problem. And Pohaku96744 has a good point about the profitability issue for some transpacific flights.
The problem is that if an entire row is occupied by heavier than normal folks, in a crash or sudden deceleration, the whole row of seats could rip out from the floor, leading to a catastrophic failure. When flying Molokai Air many moons ago, we had to declare our weight so they could distribute us safely in the plane. Pilot would say, “Now tell the truth — you don’t want us to crash, right?”
I actually had to stand on a scale in Fiji before they could assign me a seat.
Life is not fair for all. Obese/fat people, tall people, paunchy people all pay the same for clothing size such as pants, shirts, dresses, shoes as does a short, skinny person. An item of clothing marked XXX usually costs the same as one marked S. Tiny folks, revolt!
When being “politically correct” and “socially sensitive” meets physics, don’t put your money on the first two.
Ok, but just to be fair……..lets start by weighing the Flight Attendants….I’m just sayin’…