Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Cost & Customers & Techniques thread 443,221,567

  1. #1
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default Cost & Customers & Techniques thread 443,221,567

    It's about time! (And this was so cool, just had to have it's own thread).

    Here we go- pay for what you use! Lbs of freight = lbs of fuel burn = $

    ALTHOUGH, along with weighing, let's measure Gabriels legs and the girth of folks so they keep within their little paid-for area.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...t5R&ocid=ientp
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    The airline said it, like other carriers, is using European Aviation Safety Agency data from 2009, which lists the standard weight, including carry-on luggage, for a male passenger at 88 kilograms (194 pounds), 70 kilograms (154 pounds) for a female passenger and 35 kilograms (77 pounds) for a child. "
    The carry-on weight limit on the Delta flight I just booked is 35lbs. Add 5lbs for a computer bag. That means a man would have to weigh 154lbs or less fully clothed for winter weather. Good luck with that in the US of A...

  3. #3
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    The carry-on weight limit on the Delta flight I just booked is 35lbs. Add 5lbs for a computer bag. That means a man would have to weigh 154lbs or less fully clothed for winter weather. Good luck with that in the US of A...
    good luck with that pretty much anywhere outside of asia!

  4. #4
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    The carry-on weight limit on the Delta flight I just booked is 35lbs. Add 5lbs for a computer bag. That means a man would have to weigh 154lbs or less fully clothed for winter weather. Good luck with that in the US of A...
    That the allowance for carry on is 40 lb does not mean that you need to take the 40 lb.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  5. #5
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    That the allowance for carry on is 40 lb does not mean that you need to take the 40 lb.
    Of course it does! Since they started charging for a checked bag, it's just a contest of getting your everything DOWN to the carry-on limit.

    I remember once being held up because my checked bag was 2lbs overweight. They wanted to charge me $80! I had to remove some stuff and place it in my carry-on (they didn't weigh those back then). While doing this, I couldn't help pointing out to the counter agent that the same weight was still going on that plane. To no avail of course: policy is impenetrable to logic. These days, I would just take the stuff out and wear it. Put things in my coat pockets. Hold up security. Whatever. Until they either start going by total pax + luggage weight or stop this fee-mongering nonsense, if they want to play this game, we're going to play it.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Or... perish the thought... pay for the checked bag.

    I find all the new fees as annoying as anyone, but if you can afford a $350 flight with a "free checked bag" you can certainly afford to pay $30 to check a bag on a $300 flight.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  7. #7
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    Or... perish the thought... pay for the checked bag.

    I find all the new fees as annoying as anyone, but if you can afford a $350 flight with a "free checked bag" you can certainly afford to pay $30 to check a bag on a $300 flight.
    You see, this is the mindset of the corporate minions who come up with these schemes. These are the people driving the new hidden-fee-based economy. "Hey, what's another thirty bucks?"

    The fact is, for many people, $30 is significant, especially since a bag that travels outbound usually travels back as well, so, first of all, we're talking about $60 on top of a $300 flight.

    While the intent of the fee scheme is to entice people in with a low fare and then get them for a higher one, it has a backfiring effect from people who really feel that extra $60. Those people will see it as an opportunity to get a lower fare by not checking a bag. Then they can use that $60 for other things, like eating for a week. A LOT of people with low incomes are flying now. And a LOT of people are hurting in this polarized economy.

    So, absolutely, these fees have pushed people to carry on as much weight as possible. It's an idiotic scheme, really.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    You see, this is the mindset of the corporate minions who come up with these schemes. These are the people driving the new hidden-fee-based economy. "Hey, what's another thirty bucks?"

    The fact is, for many people, $30 is significant, especially since a bag that travels outbound usually travels back as well, so, first of all, we're talking about $60 on top of a $300 flight.

    While the intent of the fee scheme is to entice people in with a low fare and then get them for a higher one, it has a backfiring effect from people who really feel that extra $60. Those people will see it as an opportunity to get a lower fare by not checking a bag. Then they can use that $60 for other things, like eating for a week. A LOT of people with low incomes are flying now. And a LOT of people are hurting in this polarized economy.

    So, absolutely, these fees have pushed people to carry on as much weight as possible. It's an idiotic scheme, really.
    Evan, you forgot perhaps the most important part: Even the rich don't want to spend $60 if they can get away without it. Nobody wants to spend $60 for no value. Plus, not having a checked bag has its own intrinsic pros, like walking directly to the gate without stopping by the check-in counter and no need to wait in the carousel at the destination.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  9. #9
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan, you forgot perhaps the most important part: Even the rich don't want to spend $60 if they can get away without it. Nobody wants to spend $60 for no value. Plus, not having a checked bag has its own intrinsic pros, like walking directly to the gate without stopping by the check-in counter, no need to wait in the carousel at the destination, and hoping the bag even arrives at the destination.
    Fixed.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan, you forgot perhaps the most important part: Even the rich don't want to spend $60 if they can get away without it. Nobody wants to spend $60 for no value. Plus, not having a checked bag has its own intrinsic pros, like walking directly to the gate without stopping by the check-in counter and no need to wait in the carousel at the destination.
    Well, that's the irony: the rich don't get hit with hidden fees. They can check two bags for free and carry on as little as possible (unless they are flying light, avoiding checked baggage, and buying whatever else they need at their destination). But these people are paying $4000 for a ticket. They have no idea what $60 is. It has no value to them. They spent that much on breakfast.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    697

    Default

    The operative word there being "hidden". When you spend $4000 for a ticket on the same flight that most people paid $400 a ticket for, the extras you're getting are by no means free.

    Kind of like when you order a pizza at Domino's with "free delivery" but you get a discount if you pick it up.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  12. #12
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    The operative word there being "hidden".
    Hidden, as in not initially shown. Concealed from the advertised price. Your Domino's analogy is different. If the airline did something along those lines, advertising a price and then offering a discount for not checking a bag, that would not be misleading.

  13. #13
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default News Article: 19.Nov.2017

    https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/m/e6...line-just.html

    "Those who pay least will board last"

    Some questions:

    What's really new here?

    I thought that efficiency mattered and sitting planes and occupied gates cost money...what ever happened to the 'quick-loading' algorithms that worked to get everyone seated more quickly (and which currently does offer a lot of preferred boarding options)?

    ...hell, why not even draw plane seats on the floor and do a sort of Southwest airlines line up (but by seat)
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/m/e6...line-just.html

    "Those who pay least will board last"

    Some questions:

    What's really new here?

    I thought that efficiency mattered and sitting planes and occupied gates cost money...what ever happened to the 'quick-loading' algorithms that worked to get everyone seated more quickly (and which currently does offer a lot of preferred boarding options)?

    ...hell, why not even draw plane seats on the floor and do a sort of Southwest airlines line up (but by seat)

    "It's very Kardashian"


    Indeed, everything is. Even that article, with every sentence its own paragraph and at least one glaring typo, is a testament to the age of thoughtless mediocrity we now live in.

    If we need a new word for a phenomenon is which money shifts from the thoughtful and capable to the thoughtless and inept—and we do, I think that word is 'Kardashian'.

    Truly, the only sane way to board an airplane is by boarding the people seated in the back first and the people seated in the front last. The reason we don't do this is because, in the Kardashian Age, where every opportunity to make a scrap more money must be exploited without consideration, and where those with the most must be pandered to and rewarded regardless of their actual value to society, logic has become the most unaffordable luxury (only to be surpassed by decency).

    So here we are. Work as much as possible, lest you be punished. Focus on wealth, lest you be tormented. Don't expect things to make sense. Move along.

  15. #15
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ...Truly, the only sane way to board an airplane is by boarding the people seated in the back first and the people seated in the front last...
    I thought you loved scientific engineering and felt it should govern "how things work"

    Yeah, there is a back-to-front aspect to it, but there's also a window-aisle LOCATION aspect and some time interactions of shoving crap in the bins and folks backing up in the airplane aisles.

    I'm sure there's some super duper algorithm of letting some middle-tending window folks mix in with back aisle folks calculus differential equation thing of beauty...of course that's not a black and white affair.

    Maybe my voodoo doll was too handy, but still, the mentality is always right there and hard to miss.

    I did enjoy the rant and the new term...some truth to it all.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •