"By your reasoning, then, everything should cost per consumption?"

That depends on how much of the cost is in the materials consumed, vs. things like labor, administration, etc. The cost (not price) of flying an airplane is highly dependent on how much it is carrying, and how much fuel costs.

"Two people of normal weight fly, but the taller has to pay more because he weighs more."

Because it takes more fuel to fly a 200 pound person than a 100 pound person.

"Take a city bus--fuel by weight applies here, too"

But not nearly so much as on an airplane. That's the big difference.

"Go to an outdoor concert and pay more if you're tall because your view is better."

No, because it doesn't cost the concert folks any more money for a tall person than for a short one.

Transportation is different because so much of the cost of transport is fuel.

"My husband and I go to a restaurant and order the same thing at the same price, but he gets a larger portion because he's taller and consumes more calories."

That doesn't make sense at all, because it costs the restaurant more to serve him a larger portion. Yet that's exactly what you are saying should be the case if you say that weight of passenger plus luggage should never be a factor in how much an airline charges a passenger.

"My co-worker with two children makes more money doing the same job I do, because he has to support more people. I think that's called...what's the word?...discrimination."

It used to be common for married men to be paid more than single men because they had wives to support. And even more if they had kids. All that is ancient history - because it's discriminatory. The work doesn't care who does it.

"It's one thing if a person physically takes up more than one seat and needs to pay for two. It's another altogether when a short, thin person gets a discounted airfare simply because s/he's small, while a taller one has to pay more because of genetics or gender."

The key factor you are missing is whether or not it costs the airline more to provide the service. With low fuel prices the difference isn't much, but those days are gone.

Suppose we are neighbots, and your living room is very similar to mine, except mine is twice the size. Suppose we both call the same painter to give us estimates on painting them the same way. Should the price be the same? It's the same job, (painting a living room), so why should you get a lower price?

"The "but fat people choose to be fat" argument is specious at best and vulgarly discriminatory at worst."

At least *some* (NOT ALL!) fat people do choose to be fat. This is proven by the fact that at least some fat people change their choice and lose weight *by choice*.

"What's next, hospitals triaging patients by whether or not their accident could have been prevented?"

Of course not; triage is decided on other factors.

But insurance rates are decided in part by the insured's behavior.

Smokers pay higher health and fire insurance rates than nonsmokers because they are a higher risk. Is that discriminatory?

Drivers with lots of accidents caused by their own carelessness pay higher auto insurance rates than nonsmokers because they are a higher risk. Is that discriminatory?

"A civilized society should not, must not, treat its citizens as if they are objects. Letters and packages are cargo. People are not, nor should they be treated as such."

So the lightweight traveler (both in body and luggage) should subsidize the heavyweight traveler by having everyone pay the same fare, even though the cost to provide the service is very different.

Would you have everyone pay the same insurance premiums regardless of other factors?

---

Actually the whole discussion overlooks a plain and simple fact: Airline ticket prices are almost purely arbitrary.

Two people of the same size/weight/luggage on the same flight often pay grossly different fares, depending entirely on how and when they bought their tickets. Knowing how the ticket game is played, plus a bit of random luck, can make an very big difference in price. That's an enormous subsidy.

But it wasn't always like that. Before airline "deregulation", fares were set by law. All tickets in a given class on a given flight cost the same. Airlines competed on the basis of service (what a concept) not price.

IMHO that was a better system.

What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean people should not bear any responsibility for their actions?

The old Erie RR had a reputation for being late, to the point that some riders considered the schedules to be a form of company-provided humorous literature...

A very-expectant mother-to-be on an Erie train stops the conductor and asks for a doctor. Says she thinks she's going into labor.

Conductor brings a doctor, who determines that there is no immediate danger to mother or baby and says there's a hospital near the next stop.

Conductor asks, "Madam, why did you get on this train in that condition?"

Woman replies "When I got on this train, I wasn't in this condition!"

(yes, it's a very old joke)

"Nobody -- ABSOLUTELY NOBODY -- "chooses" to be fat, anymore than you'd "choose" to be blind or a quadriplegic."

That's simply not true. Some people do choose to be fat. They do so by their behavior.

Here's proof: There are formerly fat people who change their behavior, lose the weight and are no longer fat. They change their choice, and choose to be thin(ner).

That *does not* mean that every fat person chooses to be fat, only that some do. It also *does not* mean fat people should be the victims of abuse, insults, etc., simply because of their BMI or whatever.