Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine The Almighty Buck Transportation

Weight-Loss Drugs Could Save US Airlines $580 Million Per Year 105

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Weight-loss drugs like Ozempic have transformed millions of lives with easily administered treatments and quick results. Now it turns out the dropped pounds may have a surprising perk for airlines, too: lower fuel costs, as slimmer passengers lighten their aircraft's loads.

According to a study published last week by Jefferies, a financial services firm, the four largest U.S. carriers -- American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines -- could together save as much as $580 million per year on fuel thanks to weight-loss drugs, known as GLP-1s. One in eight U.S. adults said they were taking a GLP-1 in a November survey published by KFF, a nonprofit health research group. Fuel is among airlines' largest expenses. The Jefferies study estimates that the four airlines will together consume 16 billion gallons of fuel in 2026 at a total cost of $38.6 billion, nearly 20 percent of their total expenses.

The savings from skinnier passengers would amount to just 1.5 percent of fuel costs. But airlines and pilots must scrutinize even the smallest changes to a plane's weight and balance, and a lighter payload means each jet burns less fuel to generate the thrust necessary to fly. Investors could also stand to benefit: The researchers estimated that a 2 percent reduction in aircraft weight could boost earnings per share by about 4 percent.
"Please note savings are before any lost snack sales," the Jefferies analysts added.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Weight-Loss Drugs Could Save US Airlines $580 Million Per Year

Comments Filter:
  • didn't we just see this a few days ago ?

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Thursday January 22, 2026 @12:11AM (#65941146)

    ryanair may be the 1st to change an overweight fee

    • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Thursday January 22, 2026 @12:24AM (#65941164)

      Nope. [reuters.com]

      • by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Nope. [reuters.com]

        I think he means first mainstream airline... as in ones running jets almost exclusively.

        And I doubt it. For all the faults of Ryanair's boss Michael O'leary, maths is not one of them. In fact he's quite good at running the numbers and making good decisions based on them, that's the basis of the LCC business model. He knows that such a system would cost far more than it would raise in revenue... And I mean cost in operation, not lost business... One of the other things O'leary knows is that his passengers

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They probably wouldn't be allowed to in Europe, the same way they can't charge extra for taking wheelchairs.

  • ... how much extra will these drugs cost your municipal sewer district [slashdot.org]?

    • Well, when they add a dedicated STS (Semaglutide Treatment Stage) to the plant we can add up the operating costs and figure it out. But until then I'd say you can estimate that at approximately zero.

    • Nothing, really. These are peptide hormones, there's a reason they have to be taken intramuscularly, just like insulin, adrenaline, somatotropin, erythropoetin, and most other hormones you've probably never heard of. Typically, only steroid hormones like estrogen can the oral route reasonably intact in the absence of some kind of delivery agent. That's why when vegans start blabbering about bovine growth hormones, remind them that the brain needs creatine to help recycle adenosine diphosphate back into aden

      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        Conservation of mass. When you lose 100 lbs, there's only one way it's leaving your body.

  • Weight brackets, you pay for what you and your bags weigh.
    • Filipinos and Bangladeshis will make out well under this paradigm. Western caucasians not so much.

      • by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Filipinos and Bangladeshis will make out well under this paradigm. Western caucasians not so much.

        Fair is fair. It takes more fuel to move the over fed and over packed.

      • Western caucasians not so much.

        We Western caucasians can't be as svelte as black women and Latinas. And those Pacific Islanders can practically slip through the door gap.

        Fatties are everywhere and in every culture.

  • That’s nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ddtmm ( 549094 ) on Thursday January 22, 2026 @01:02AM (#65941204)
    compared to what the cost savings would be in medical bills. Perhaps 100x that.
    • Of course you don't realize that most airline CEO's would sell their own mother's to get a nearly 2% reduction in fuel costs.
  • by Morromist ( 1207276 ) on Thursday January 22, 2026 @01:06AM (#65941210)

    What would REALLY save a lot of money is genetically modifying people to be 4 ft tall at maximum. We'd consume less food, have smaller houses, cars, roads...

    We could keep a few tall people (maybe 50?) for sports and fetish porn and to act in movies as monsters.

    • I don't think the technology is there yet, but it's not a bad idea. While you're genetically engineering short people, you could also engineer out obesity - not only removing the need for drugs but allowing them to eat six meals a day without gaining weight. If you can beef up the lungs, that should allow risk-free smoking. The real challenge is to strengthen the brain, in case of magic rings containing demons...

      • by Morromist ( 1207276 ) on Thursday January 22, 2026 @05:40AM (#65941426)

        We should make them sturdier, with bigger feet. But they should be a little hairier too, because they'll get cold.

      • The technology is there. Knock out the growth hormone receptor and people end up with Laron syndrome [wikipedia.org], which causes short stature plus resistance to cancer and type II diabetes.

        The law isn't. Countries send people to prison for 3 years [slashdot.org] for trying this sort of thing on human beings.

        • Not surprising really. Laron Syndrome seems to have a number of other effects which are rather undesirable - "obesity, craniofacial abnormalities, micropenis, low blood sugar".

          My comment was suggesting that we should create hobbits - who don't seem to have any obesity problems despite eating six meals a day, and also seem to have rather robust general health despite the low-tech environment and presumed lack of advanced medical treatment in the Shire. The substantial resistance to demon-possessed magic ring

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      A place I used to work started to hire microbiologists. I was disappointed to find they were the same size as normal biologists.
    • We've written songs about that:
      Genesis - Get em out by friday:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • That film "downsizing" did not explore this matter that much, perhaps the original book was better.
      Having smaller people in general would have those positive effects you pointed out, but I'm not sure if the military would approve.

      • That film "downsizing" did not explore this matter that much, perhaps the original book was better.
        Having smaller people in general would have those positive effects you pointed out, but I'm not sure if the military would approve.

        Depends. It worked quite well in the tunnels in Viet Nam, where Americans had to break their backs to stoop/crawl while the defenders could swiftly run carrying supplies. And anyway, the future of war is armed drones, not gladiator bodies. The bigger the target, the easier to acquire and go boom.

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Shorter people make it possible to reduce seat pitch so you can stuff more of them in an airplane.

      But some airlines are starting to demand passengers use the bathroom before boarding to save money as well.

  • Airlines are very price-competitive. Reductions in fuel costs will be used to lower prices, to attract more customers.. It's not likely that many of the dollars will end up in company annual profits.

    History is littered with airlines that couldn't make a profit. TWA and Pan Am aren't around anymore; more efficient companies took their business.

  • Also consider the impact slimmer people have on climate. Weight-loss drugs like Ozempic can also have a dramatic effect greenhouse gas emissions as more people release lesser and lesser gas.

  • I thought that so-called weight control pills were more of scam by the big pharma.

    Are we sure this is not related?

    • This is the second story about the "benefits" of Ozempic on Slashdot. Are these ads by big pharma, which are being inserted into the /. feed?

      Yes, weight control pills are more of a scam and has side-effects such as thyroid tumors and cancer. But why would big pharma care?

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        They aren't a scam, they are a solution to a scam - modern food is terrible, designed to make you consume, not keep you healthy.

        They are available on the UK's NHS, and they would not be prescribed if they were not reasonably safe and the benefits greatly outweighed the risks. The NHS is state funded, there is no commercial motive to offer those drugs.

        • They aren't a scam, they are a solution to a scam

          They don't solve the scam. The processed food will still be terrible. But the scam is way deeper than that. There's also allowing the owning class to run off with all the money so that both people have to work and then they have less time to cook, therefore are more likely to buy the shit scam food.

          The NHS is state funded, there is no commercial motive to offer those drugs.

          Keeping the drugs around means not having to fix the food problem, so all those processed food corporations can continue to operate. Most people go off the drugs eventually and wind up fatter than they were befor

          • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

            " Most people go off the drugs eventually and wind up fatter than they were before..."

            This is mostly speculation based on other forms of dieting; it is neither known nor is even the same issue.

            My sister lost a lot of weight on Ozempic, then discontinued when she moved to a state that doesn't allow the injectable form. She has not regained the weight in a year. But then, "eventually" is open ended. Funny thing about aging, weight management becomes harder and harder.

            • She will probably gain back at least two thirds of it. If not, congrats to her.

              TBF what the studies actually show is that people who go off GLP-1 typically regain more weight than people who change their lifestyle and then change it back. e.g. to exercising regularly, and then to not. So it's not precisely what I said, consider this my retraction.

              OTOH the drugs have potentially serious consequences and we probably don't even know what all of them are yet. Most people taking it for diabetes never stopped tak

          • 2026 is going to be interesting. I find myself agreeing with Drinkypoo [slashdot.org] both on something he says and the tone of how he says it. There's hope for /. yet!

      • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        There is no "thyroid tumor" "side-effect" of Ozempic, there is a possible genetic sensitivity that must be screened for. And Ozempic isn't a "weight control pill", although there is an undesirable pill form for areas that don't allow injections.

        It's good to see you are so well informed on the subject. Classic /.

        "This is the second story about the "benefits" of Ozempic on Slashdot."

        Why, that's what it is. We all love your salty tears.

    • They kind of are. People stop taking them and they get fat all over again.

      • Next you'll tell me that people with AIDS who stop talking ART suddenly get the symptoms and effects of AIDS again.

        Or that people suffering from schizophrenia who stop taking their anti-schizophrenia medicine suffer the effects of schizophrenia again.

        Or that people taking anti-hypertensives get hypertensive 'all over again.'

        • Fatness can be cured by diet and exercise. AIDS, not so much.

  • That's less than 0.3% of their total expenses.

  • no thanks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by diffract ( 7165501 )
    Just searched this Ozempic drug and the first side effect is: Possible thyroid tumors, including cancer.
    • Re:no thanks (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday January 22, 2026 @06:19AM (#65941440)

      Compared to what? There's quite a few side effects of being overweight as well including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, various cancers (like breast, colon, endometrial), osteoarthritis, sleep apnea, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver disease, and mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, negatively affecting nearly every organ system and significantly lowering quality of life.

      Yeah I'd take "possible thyroid tumours" thanks (if I actually were fat).

      • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        And there is no known possibility of "thyroid tumours" for you if you are like the vast majority of the population. It's a genetic issue that is screened for. These are lies made by /. liars.

    • Just searched this Ozempic drug and the first side effect is: Possible thyroid tumors, including cancer.

      Life is all about comparative risk. Obesity has HUGE risks.

      • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        And there is no risk of this unless you are predisposed. If so, a doctor will NOT even prescribe it to you.

        This is what you get when children, and those of similar emotional development, pretend to be experts online.

      • "Medicated" tumor growth is not a unique phenomena. It's kinda like cigarettes. If you have "weak genes" then your cancer-risk  at age-55 from smoking tuple-filtered "lights" is high. If not then  2-PK/day  Camel-Straight smokers die from choking on a pint of Cobbs Creek at 120 YO.
    • Re:no thanks (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 ) on Thursday January 22, 2026 @10:08AM (#65941728)

      You searched just enough to post an inflammatory comment then. Ozempic should not be taken by people with a predisposition for a particular kind of thyroid "tumor", that is well known and tested for. Ozempic is not known to cause "thyroid tumors, including cancer", although it could do so in YOU; that's a YOU problem and that's why doctors are used to regulate its application.

    • Just wait until you find out that every person on the planet who ever had cancer also spent their entire lives being exposed to dihydrogen monoxide.
  • 1. Will they still serve people caloric drinks (and snacks)?
    2. Will they give you free Wegovy in First Class?

  • Be a shame if its price increased in the US for some reason.
    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      No it is not. Ozempic is made by a Danish company, that doesn't mean it is "100%" made in Denmark. Ozempic is produced in the US as well, wonder where US demand is satisfied from?

      But we will know those price increases are coming when the Trump family makes an investment in the competition. That's how we knew about fraudulent COVID treatments, Trump bought into those medications first, then SuperKendal and team stupid started repeating the lies. Haven't seen that here yet.

      Trump and the family are clearly

      • I bet the US-made side of it is 'made of US and foreign components', same as what's left of manufacturing in the US.

    • A significant price increase for semaglutide would drive more doctors to put their patients on Lilly's tirzepatide products: Mounjaro for type II diabetes or Zepbound for obesity. Eli Lilly and Company is an American company headquartered in my home state of Indiana.

  • But this cost Hostess $100 million...
  • For airlines to hand out ozempic for free to everyone

  • Sure, if the people on your plane (and their luggage) weigh less, you might be able to save fuel on your flights...if you ignore the fact that people who are taking weight-loss drugs may not have as much money to spend on vacation because their spending it on medicine instead...and if you ignore the fact that people taking weight loss drugs may not be as interested in traveling...and if you ignore the many other factors associated with fuel use, such as unnecessary taxiing around the airport, extended delay
  • Maybe Airlines should simply charge passengers by the pound.
    I can already see the advertising opportunity: This is your chance to visit Paris this fall, for only $4.99.
    (per passenger pound, terms and conditions may apply, baggage will be priced independently, additional weight budget for seating, life vest and other emergency equipment, allotment for coffee, tea and water, and peanuts and the seatback pocket reading materials will be charged manditorily)
  • Why nobody else thought about this? Paying for Ozempic with the airline miles. Win-Win !!! :)
  • The food industry has been fighting what was revealed by the book "The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet"

    It details how bad science rose and so did obesity.

    Finance is now looking at it... They're trimmed all the other fat.

  • If airlines can eliminate the top 10% of their passengers, they won't see any savings in fuel. That's because they'll just make the seats 10% smaller and then cram in 10% more paying passengers. That may increase their overall profit as those extra paying passengers will more than offset the cost of the extra fuel. Eventually only midgets and children will be able to afford to fly. OK, maybe I'm taking it a bit too far.
  • But what's the savings to the city sewer systems by not having to flush American-sized dumps?

  • Reportedly, an airline having overbooked a flight made the passengers...race around the plane to decide who would fly. Obviously unfair to the overweight...this was a way to discriminate against them! Now ozempic restores fairness.
  • Maybe instead of miles, airilines should give away ozempic shots.

  • Leave it to the New York Times to come up with the worst possible angle for this. We wouldn't need so many domestic flights if our transportation infrastructure wasn't doubling down on the car fad, when they're too slow for long distance travel and too large for cities and suburbs. Nearly all of us aren't farmers living in BFE.

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Working...