|
The friendly
skies
As I was
surfing the web I noticed an article posted by Beth Pinsker
entitled, Get Ready to Be the ‘Freight’ When You Fly. Ms
Pinsker, quoting the Blooomberg News, explained that the airline
industry, desperate to save money, has suggested the idea of
people paying for their tickets according to their weight. Sort
of like when kids used to hop onto restaurant scales to see how
much their dinners would cost.
Somehow, I
cannot imagine any woman willing to jump on a scale in order to
travel. I, for one, intend to travel by train from now on where
the engineers could care less if I’ve put on a few pounds last
winter.
But the
airlines, in an attempt to prove that they haven’t completely
lost their marbles, say that they are merely following
precedent. It seems that Southwest Airlines already asks “large”
people to purchase two seats. So, ipso facto, it’s a
short leap of logic to where we should all fly according to our
poundage.
How is this
supposed to work? Will it be like a Weight Watchers
weigh-in where people jettison various articles of clothing as
they step on the scale for the moment of truth? If so, then
perhaps in the name of efficiency, airport authorities could
combine the weigh-in with the security check. With people
already stripped before stepping on a scale, they could then be
patted-down for hidden artillery. Afterwards, their tickets —
and perhaps daily horoscope — would emerge from a slot at the
top of the scale.
Perhaps
before subjecting us to sadistic scales, the airlines could
weigh other, more practical items like men’s athletic shoes.
Have you ever noticed how heavy those things are?
I once threw
out my back trying to pick up a pair of sneakers belonging to a
teenager who had come to the house for a tutoring session with
Steve. How do they pick their feet up wearing those cloppers?
Can you see how the total weight of those could drag a plane
into the sea? We women wear mere wisps of shoes, especially in
the summer time.
But then
again our dainty footwear is offset by our handbags, which, so
far, thank God, the airlines are not throwing on the scale. For
years I’ve tried to cut down on the stuff in my purse, but I
still end up with a bag that weighs more than the gross national
product. And I carry a fairly small bag when compared to the
behemoths that other women drag around.
And I know
that when I’m flying, I manage to cram even more essentials into
my handbag than usual. If some snarky woman airline executive
ever thinks of this, we’re all toast.
But let’s
return to the original list of possibilities that Ms. Pinsker
quoted the airlines as considering:
• Using
lighter plates and silverware (Japan Airlines) — For what? The
peanuts that they lob at us? I haven’t seen actual food on an
airplane in years!
• Flying
slower (Southwest Air) — I love it. At some point there will be
absolutely no reason to climb into a plane, since it will be
traveling as slowly as a cab during rush hour.
• Cutting
out water (Singapore Airlines) — Does this mean that there will
be no water allowed at all anywhere on the plane? Not in the
bathroom, not in a glass or a cup or a baby’s bottle? Or that
they will stop giving us water to shower with? Or that they will
just charge for the water?
• Washing
frequently (Deutsche Lufthansa) — I’m puzzled. What exactly will
the Germans be washing frequently? The pilots? The Stewards? The
passengers? Will a cleaner crew improve the fuel capacity? I
hope and pray that they mean the aircraft itself, thereby
reducing wind resistance. Then again, all that money that
Singapore Airlines will save by banishing water will be wasted
by Lufthansa. My head is beginning to hurt.
While I
understand that the airlines are losing money at an alarming
rate (especially those poor executives), and I also understand
that the first thing that comes to mind is to charge for
amenities like food, air and the privilege of using the
bathroom, I believe that the airlines are being short sighted.
True, they
could start charging for evacuation instructions, oxygen masks,
life jackets (you could pay extra for the whistle), and barf
bags, but I think that they should concentrate instead on what
I’m going to call avoidance cost. Let me give you a few
examples:
• The
airlines could find the worst movies ever made, actually home
movies might just do the trick, and air them continuously unless
passengers cough up enough money to stop the projector.
• If you
feel that you’d like to sleep during that 24-hour flight, you
would have to pay the steward not to bump into you continuously
with his duty free cart.
• If you
would rather not sit between a hysterically screaming baby and a
child playing with red paint, you would pay through the nose for
that luxury.
I’m sure if
the airlines just used their imaginations, they could squeeze
big bucks out of their captive sardine audiences.
And if all
else fails, there is one failsafe way that they could raise
plenty of money effortlessly — just charge everyone a surcharge
for getting off the plane at the end of the trip. Problem
solved!
June 12, 2008
Return
to Past Articles Page
|
