Airlines should charge idiots more

[RUPERTKBD]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Remember a carpenter expression:  "I can't fix stupid, but I can fix what stupid does."  

Doesn't always work.

 

I remember walking into a situation where a homeowner had decided to save money by grouting his own tiles. He did everything right....except for wiping the excess off, before going away for the weekend....

[Shift-4]

7 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Doesn't always work.

 

I remember walking into a situation where a homeowner had decided to save money by grouting his own tiles. He did everything right....except for wiping the excess off, before going away for the weekend....

[RUPERTKBD]

Just now, Shift-4 said:

Exactly. Along with a hammer. (and a new batch of tiles)

[Gurn]

 

[Gurn]

A minute and 31 seconds in.

 

[peaches5]

3 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

I hate that. We make efforts to ensure our luggage is under 50 lbs., and any carry-on bag is small enough that it could fit under the seat if needed. There's really limited space in those overhead bins, but some people couldn't care less. They should just charge for carry on bags then, by the weight. A dollar per pound up to 10 lbs. Anything over 10 lbs is triple the cost. Got a book bag with a book and some snacks that weighs 5 pounds? That'll be $5 please. Got a small suitcase you're trying to carry-on that weighs 25 lbs? That'll be $75. They might just want to check that bag in.   

There is a weight restriction along with size restriction and if the luggage weighs too much it will actually be couriered to you. You can't charge people if their carry on bags are overweight because the pilot is calculating how much fuel he needs to go from point A to point B and if he gets on a flight where everyone has a 25lb carry on and he uses an average of 5lb the fuel calculations will be way off. The plane might not even be able to take off if it's too heavy. Everything is calculated. A plane full of US soldiers crashed because of the pilot calculating the weight of each passenger incorrectly. It wasn't his fault really. They took a public airliner and usually an entire plane isn't full of adult men and the average passenger weight was something like 175lb, you don't know how much everyone weighs so it's just average, but seeing as how these were all US soldiers the AV weight was closer to 220lb per person.. the plane went to take off and crashed because of a simple miscalculation.

[Nucker 67]

^ ah yes, the weights and balances

 

I've always wondered, they're really nit-picky about a suitcase being over 50 lbs, but then a passenger might weigh 400 lbs. (8 suitcases) How the heck do they calculate that stuff?

[canuckistani]

26 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

There is a weight restriction along with size restriction and if the luggage weighs too much it will actually be couriered to you. You can't charge people if their carry on bags are overweight because the pilot is calculating how much fuel he needs to go from point A to point B and if he gets on a flight where everyone has a 25lb carry on and he uses an average of 5lb the fuel calculations will be way off. The plane might not even be able to take off if it's too heavy. Everything is calculated. A plane full of US soldiers crashed because of the pilot calculating the weight of each passenger incorrectly. It wasn't his fault really. They took a public airliner and usually an entire plane isn't full of adult men and the average passenger weight was something like 175lb, you don't know how much everyone weighs so it's just average, but seeing as how these were all US soldiers the AV weight was closer to 220lb per person.. the plane went to take off and crashed because of a simple miscalculation.

You must be flying RyanAir or something equally cheap and dodgy if you think that planes will run out of fuel because of too much weight. 
First off, planes are the prime eg of the 150% rule. In engineering, the rule of thumb is, if catastrophic failure leads to potential death, you 'red-line' or limit it to 2/3rd the mechanical capacity. 
In reality, elevators that say '18 people max' can actually carry 24 before snapping. Same with bridges and their weight classes. Or planes. 

Planes usually also carry 25-30% more fuel than necessary for the trip, because you never quite know how long or when you are stuck on a holding pattern at an airport before you are given clearance to land. 

For eg, i figured out to my own detriment that the Nanjing airport uses 1950s style radar. Meaning it cannot track in-bound and out-bound at the same time, so it does the 50s style '2 hour outbound window, all you inbounds hold your pattern, all out-bound, get in a giant conga-line and go like you are F-18s going on a bombing mission...2 hours later reverse'. So if you are not carrying 25% extra fuel while inbound to Nanjing, you are &^@#ed. 

[peaches5]

18 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

You must be flying RyanAir or something equally cheap and dodgy if you think that planes will run out of fuel because of too much weight. 
First off, planes are the prime eg of the 150% rule. In engineering, the rule of thumb is, if catastrophic failure leads to potential death, you 'red-line' or limit it to 2/3rd the mechanical capacity. 
In reality, elevators that say '18 people max' can actually carry 24 before snapping. Same with bridges and their weight classes. Or planes. 

Planes usually also carry 25-30% more fuel than necessary for the trip, because you never quite know how long or when you are stuck on a holding pattern at an airport before you are given clearance to land. 

For eg, i figured out to my own detriment that the Nanjing airport uses 1950s style radar. Meaning it cannot track in-bound and out-bound at the same time, so it does the 50s style '2 hour outbound window, all you inbounds hold your pattern, all out-bound, get in a giant conga-line and go like you are F-18s going on a bombing mission...2 hours later reverse'. So if you are not carrying 25% extra fuel while inbound to Nanjing, you are &^@#ed. 

 I didn't say anything about running out of fuel. I said the plane might not take off. The pilots make a calculation in their cockpits how much fuel they need. A plane full of fuel weighs more than one with half a tank of fuel. If they have half a tank of fuel they could take more luggage. There is a reason why there are luggage weight restrictions. If there weren't and everyone crammed rocks into their luggage the plane would most definitely not take off and everyone would likely die. 

 

also in reality bridges collapse and elevator cables fail and planes crash. 

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

 I didn't say anything about running out of fuel. I said the plane might not take off. The pilots make a calculation in their cockpits how much fuel they need. A plane full of fuel weighs more than one with half a tank of fuel. If they have half a tank of fuel they could take more luggage. There is a reason why there are luggage weight restrictions. If there weren't and everyone crammed rocks into their luggage the plane would most definitely not take off and everyone would likely die. 

 

also in reality bridges collapse and elevator cables fail and planes crash. 

the luggage weight restrictions are there to make sure that the airline does not spend so much money on fuel that its not profitable to fly you. I can assure you, you can pack an entire plane with 300 Byfugliens and it will still take off, no problems. 

 

Most of those failures are caused by maintanance issues, not overloading issues. And the few that are caused by overloading issues, is when you cram in 30 people in an elevator that says 15 people max. 

[Nucksfollower1983]

4 hours ago, HI5 said:

It's not my fault i'm fat; god made me this way. 

no, I'm pretty sure it's your fault

[Ray_Cathode]

7 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sit in a chair pushed up against a wall so you have about 1 inch of space and wait until you're dehydrated, that'll approximate it. You haven't missed much. 

And if you are flying on the new Boeing 737, you will experience a toilet so small they a guy can’t have both his tackle and his sphincter within the hole in the toilet seat at the same time.  If you are a person over 200 pounds, if you can get oriented in that space in such a way as to get your nether pointed in a toiletward direction, you will find there is no room for both you and your excretions in that tiny space at the same time.  If you manage to flush, it will expel all of the air in that microscopic space, so you can be comforted that it is odor free.  But the real struggle comes when you try to insert toilet paper to the place where you have something to wipe... an adventure I am too traumatized to even talk about.

 

 

 

[peaches5]

2 hours ago, canuckistani said:

the luggage weight restrictions are there to make sure that the airline does not spend so much money on fuel that its not profitable to fly you. I can assure you, you can pack an entire plane with 300 Byfugliens and it will still take off, no problems. 

 

Most of those failures are caused by maintanance issues, not overloading issues. And the few that are caused by overloading issues, is when you cram in 30 people in an elevator that says 15 people max. 

Arrow Air Flight 1285

 

was a McDonnell Douglas DC-8 jetliner that operated as an international charter flight carrying U.S. troops from Cairo, Egypt, to their home base in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, via Cologne, West Germany, and Gander, Canada.^[1]

On the morning of Thursday, 12 December 1985, shortly after takeoff from Gander en route to Fort Campbell, the aircraft stalled, crashed, and burned about half a mile from the runway, killing all 248 passengers and 8 crew members on board.^[2] As of 2018, it is the deadliest aviation accident to occur on Canadian soil and the second-deadliest of any accident involving a DC-8,^[3] behind the crash of Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 six years later.

The accident was investigated by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board (CASB), which determined the probable cause of the crash was the aircraft's unexpectedly high drag and reduced lift condition, most likely due to ice contamination on the wings' leading edges and upper surfaces, as well as underestimated onboard weight.^[4] A minority report stated that the accident could have been caused by an onboard explosion of unknown origin prior to impact.^[5]

 

You are 100% wrong.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Ray_Cathode said:

And if you are flying on the new Boeing 737, you will experience a toilet so small they a guy can’t have both his tackle and his sphincter within the hole in the toilet seat at the same time.  If you are a person over 200 pounds, if you can get oriented in that space in such a way as to get your nether pointed in a toiletward direction, you will find there is no room for both you and your excretions in that tiny space at the same time.  If you manage to flush, it will expel all of the air in that microscopic space, so you can be comforted that it is odor free.  But the real struggle comes when you try to insert toilet paper to the place where you have something to wipe... an adventure I am too traumatized to even talk about.

 

 

 

yeah best to do your "business" before if you can. 

 

I had to spend a couple of months on a job once flying around Ontario (35 flights in 60 days) mostly in one of those tiny Air Canada jets that at 2 seats - aisle - 1 seat variety. I considered a career as a  contortionist after that. 

[Ray_Cathode]

I feel like starting a business at the airport with a vending machine for Depends.

[Monty]

I’m flying to Toronto on Sunday, and then a 16 hour flight to India in February.

 

So for flying, I’ve got bigger problems than people taking one extra minute with their carry on luggage. Like going to Toronto.

[RUPERTKBD]

9 hours ago, Monty said:

I’m flying to Toronto on Sunday, and then a 16 hour flight to India in February.

 

So for flying, I’ve got bigger problems than people taking one extra minute with their carry on luggage. Like going to Toronto.

Hopefully you won't catch anything.....(in Toronto, that is )

[Sweathog]

I remember the biggest idiot I've ever seen on a plane.....

 

It was January in 1989, me and my brother were flying to Yellowknife to visit our Father, and we had a connecting flight in Edmonton. 

 

As we boarded the connecting flight, this one guy saunters onto the plane wearing a Hawaiian shirt and shorts. He didn't have a carry-on, and wasn't carrying any other articles of clothing.

 

As we neared Yellowknife, the pilot made his announcement, including the temperature. When the pilot said that the temp was -30°C everyone nearby looked at him and his jaw dropped.

 

What made matters worse was when we landed and left the plane, you had to walk for about a minute outside to get to the terminal. 

[canuckistani]

16 hours ago, peaches5 said:

Arrow Air Flight 1285

 

was a McDonnell Douglas DC-8 jetliner that operated as an international charter flight carrying U.S. troops from Cairo, Egypt, to their home base in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, via Cologne, West Germany, and Gander, Canada.^[1]

On the morning of Thursday, 12 December 1985, shortly after takeoff from Gander en route to Fort Campbell, the aircraft stalled, crashed, and burned about half a mile from the runway, killing all 248 passengers and 8 crew members on board.^[2] As of 2018, it is the deadliest aviation accident to occur on Canadian soil and the second-deadliest of any accident involving a DC-8,^[3] behind the crash of Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 six years later.

The accident was investigated by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board (CASB), which determined the probable cause of the crash was the aircraft's unexpectedly high drag and reduced lift condition, most likely due to ice contamination on the wings' leading edges and upper surfaces, as well as underestimated onboard weight.^[4] A minority report stated that the accident could have been caused by an onboard explosion of unknown origin prior to impact.^[5]

 

You are 100% wrong.

1. Multiple causes.

2. DC-8. Ie, turbojets, not turbofans. 

I maintain that underestimated weight is rarely a factor in modern aircrafts. 

[peaches5]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

1. Multiple causes.

2. DC-8. Ie, turbojets, not turbofans. 

I maintain that underestimated weight is rarely a factor in modern aircrafts. 

Every plane crash is multiple problems. You didn't maintain underestimated weight is rarely a problem you flat out said underestimated weight is not going to be a problem. That is 100% false. You are wrong. Then what you're saying about elevators is just as ignorant. You assume that every elevator is in pristine condition. It very expensive to replace an elevator if something goes with it so they are almost always repaired on site. Years of maintenance maybe shoddy maintenance on elevators... If you see a jammed back full elevator and just go oh well don't worry it can hold twice this weight...That is such ignorance. Go find someone who works on elevators and ask them what they think. I can guarantee you they will not recommend getting into a full elevator