283
No they won't. Airlines will reduce seating space so they can cram even more cattle into the tube. That's "business" 101.
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
283 points (98.0% liked)
Not The Onion
19394 readers
1019 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That would save them even more fuel costs.
10 20lb chunks is 200lbs. 20 10lb chunks is 200 lbs. ???
True, fuel cost would be the same per flight, but maybe Corkyskog is getting at the airline still coming out ahead with more seats since they would sell more tickets.
Overall that would mean less flights needed to move the same number of people so it arguably does reduce fuel cost in a sense.
(This assumes that people physically take up less space as they lose weight, which, I guess for dimensions like legroom, maybe isn’t the case)
The devil is always in the details. Good analysis.
- here, take these ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ kg, g, m, cm
- two tickets
Well, that would reduce the emissions emmited per person though!
On one hand, I'm happy these GLP-1s work. On the other, I'd rather the US figure out diet and exercise instead injecting themselves with Gilla Monster venom and rolling the dice on long-term complications.
Pharmaceuticals are life saving for people in various conditions whether thyroid issues, achieving a body that can exercise in the first place, or fast interdiction for diseases associated with excess body fat. But yeah i agree with your point if someone's problem is their own choice in diet and exercise.
When you go off GLP-1s you generally gain all that weight back. So when they're discussed in the context of saving airlines on fuel costs it's not that far a leap from cynicism about pharmaceutical companies being pretty excited about rising popularity in a take-forever-drug.
Capitalism is so gross...
Obesity has long term complications, too. And we know them to be bad.
The thing is just about every single diet drug to date has had much worse complications. Like destroying hearts, blood vessels, anal leakage. Losing weight the old school way is the best way of it's possible.
The side effects they're finding are that it unexpectedly prevents Alzheimer's symptoms and other neurodegenerative issues, influences the brain to want to drink less alcohol and smoke/vape/chew less nicotine, and helps with chronic pain.
The point, though, is that it makes metabolic changes by having people eat less. Pointing out problems with drugs that increase resting metabolic rate (so that they burn more calories without exercising) or decrease absorption of macronutrients in digestion (so that they take in fewer calories from the same food) doesn't really inform how we look at these behavior-altering and desire-altering drugs. They're losing weight by eating less, not by interrupting the relationship between eating and net caloric intake.
No one knows the Long term complications of glp1 inhibitors.
Issue is, gymbros are the worst gatekeepers. They either think they can turn everyone into a top atlete by demanding everyone to act like one, or want to "keep it a niche".
Yes, a lot of counterexamples exist. So are a lot of counterexamples to techbros, toxic gamers, etc., but when people talk about toxicity within these circles, they're not talking about the good ones, and even "gradual toxicity" also do exist sometimes.
You don't need a gym to lose weight. The only thing that works is calorie reduction. You won't find that in a gym.
It's simple math, burn more than you eat. Americans take the elevator to the gym on the second floor.
Eh. Whatever gets people in the door and doing SOMETHING is fine. But you can't gym your way skinny.
Strength is made in the gym.
Abs are made in the kitchen.
By gymbro, I meant the whole fitness culture.
Imagine the fuel cost savings if politicians would arrive in the 21. century and use more video call.
Capitalism cost a lot 🤷♀️
Imagine the airline fuel savings after gangrenous amputations.
For a few months right? I read that ozempic users often go back to their weight since they never changed their habits.
No, the drug changes the habits. It quiets down food noise in the brain (not always thinking about food), and shifts people's tastes/preferences in food. It doesn't change how the body processes food, it changes how the brain wants food. So the habits change pretty quickly.
I know people taking it.
No it doesnt change habits. It makes them eat less which they even can ignore. And off it or on it they eat the same things and complain about the stomach aches.
It makes them eat less which they even can ignore
What are you talking about? If they're eating less, then it's working at changing the behavior. What is there to "ignore" at that point?
That's exactly why so many companies push employee assistance programs for mental health crisis and weight loss. They don't care if you actually get better, so long as it make you more profitable to them.
But it always does.
If we actually cared about profit, we would have 3 day work weeks, plenty of vacation days, free child care, free housing and basic food staples.
And the profits would break the sky.
But it's more about control and making poors miserable than about absolute profits.
Cynicism about the airline industry aside, I'd like to see how much CO2 this could prevent. Probably simple to calculate if you know how much jet fuel costs and how much CO2 it produces.
Not just jet fuel, but also savings in food production, which is a major producer of co2
The US has always had a different fuel calculation for aircraft because of so many body positive passengers. There is even a different calculation flying the same route from the US than to the US.
FAA standard person is 170lbs/77kg. I'm sure the airlines use a better estimate though.
It won't reduce jet fuel. It just means commercial planes can carry more cargo.
Excellent point! But then wouldn't that mean fewer cargo planes? So still less fuel overall even if not on a per-plane basis.
Micro economics: Price will reduce to maximize utilization
The world we know: reduction in cost means increased profits we can funnel directly into fuel for the CEO'S private jet and super yachts.
Carbon isn't considered a cost by the wealthy and powerful.
Maybe the airlines will subsidize weight loss drugs...
This is going to be the weirdest perk for getting gold status on an airline's frequent flyer program.
Airlines
Subsidize
Funny. Airlines are famously known for sucking money out from governments for their own good while hiding profits
EDIT: You know what, I don't even know why I said this, this could be indeed something they subsidize for their own good
If the medications result in a society that is 10% slimmer, total passenger weight across flights would fall by about 2%.
That reduction would translate into roughly 1.5% fuel savings for airlines and a projected 4% increase in earnings per share, according to the analysis.
It's quite sad that the conclusion is more profit for shareholders.
Why do you hate capitalism?!? (/s)
Proportionately lower the bag fees as a thank-you and we’ll talk.
Capitalism is going to help bring down the average American weight? 😭
Shrinkflation or processed junk food who is going to win? 3rd player make an entrance
Why don't airlines charge for the combined weight of the passenger plus their luggage?
Because the overhead of weighing passengers and their luggage for every flight would completely wreck the logistics and make it both unpleasant to fly and unprofitable to operate.
Because that's a terrible idea lmao
load more comments
(7 replies)
view more: next ›