284
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
284 points (98.0% liked)
Not The Onion
19472 readers
760 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
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...
No one knows the Long term complications of glp1 inhibitors.
Obesity has long term complications, too. And we know them to be bad.
Agreed, but as someone whose weight has fluctuated a lot in life, I know exactly what is causing it when I've gotten overweight. Typically, I'm not moving my body enough, and probably eating too much / not eating well. If I address it, the problem gets solved. It's really that simple. I get that not everyone is in my situation where they can do that, but it's the solution for probably 90% of obesity cases. Really all you have to do is eat less carbs/ fried food and eat more fiber and protein. Exercise in any way you can. Start slow with walking and light cardio and work your way into resistance training and more intense cardio. The issue with that solution is it's hard, and a lot of people just aren't motivated enough to put in the work to achieve that goal. I'm happy that these drugs exist, but I just wish that nutrition was something we focused more on in school, and people were more knowledgeable about their bodies.
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
Maybe the airlines will subsidize weight loss drugs...
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
This is going to be the weirdest perk for getting gold status on an airline's frequent flyer program.
Imagine the fuel cost savings if politicians would arrive in the 21. century and use more video call.
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)
Imagine the airline fuel savings after gangrenous amputations.
Proportionately lower the bag fees as a thank-you and we’ll talk.
Capitalism cost a lot 🤷♀️
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.
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
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Why don't airlines charge for the combined weight of the passenger plus their luggage?
Because that's a terrible idea lmao
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.
load more comments
(8 replies)
I saw this in the Dutch news two days ago and almost started looking for an English-language article to post here - but i figured someone else will do it sooner than later lol. But great news though, also for the climate ;).
load more comments
(3 replies)
I am so all for affordable safe weight-loss drugs though.
view more: next ›