Consequence of shifting carry-on luggage to checked luggage for aircraft weight

Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial
flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage?

The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the
hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers
and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in
the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high.

For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this
is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and
he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will
be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of
measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off
weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of
passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds
off.

Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight
characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded
than needed).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial
flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage?

The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the
hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers
and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in
the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high.

For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this
is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and
he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will
be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of
measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off
weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of
passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds
off.

Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight
characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded
than needed).


Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't
take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be
shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a
business trip.

Emily wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial
flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage?

The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the
hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers
and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in
the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high.

For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this
is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and
he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will
be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of
measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off
weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of
passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds
off.

Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight
characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded
than needed).


Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't
take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be
shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a
business trip.

This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a
person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of
the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt.
This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of
what to do, or in fact what the mission is.

Terry wrote:
Emily wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
snip

Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I
can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA
would be shuffling through company secret information if I were to
check it on a business trip.

This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a
person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of
the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt.
This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of
what to do, or in fact what the mission is.

I thought about smuggling contact solution in my bra, but figured if I
were to get caught, they'd nail me under the pilot insecurity act. So I
figured I can either lose my certificates or lose my medical after I get
an eye infection. Not sure which is preferable.

You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a
person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of
the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt.
This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of
what to do, or in fact what the mission is.



You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

That will happen when a plot uses that method. I am not looking
forward to that day.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:


You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

That will happen when a plot uses that method. I am not looking
forward to that day.

Think of the fun one could have with free rectal exams, however. Makes me
appreciate the fact that I never aspired to be a TSA security agent.

--
Peter

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:39:16 -0500, Emily
wrote:
You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

The TSA is already ****ing us... And you call it a "rectal exam"...
You're kinky, Emily...

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:54:38 GMT, Grumman-581 wrote:

You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

The TSA is already ****ing us... And you call it a "rectal exam"...
You're kinky, Emily...

it is good to be kinky :-()

AFAIK you are only reimbursed a certain amount of money per kilo of luggage
when lost. So now you are forced to check in your laptop (be sure to
encrypt your harddrive [1]). You only get this per kilo price when the
laptop got lost.

Other point: there has to be the name on the prescription or on the meds -
matching your name on the ticket. Well, it is uncommon in central Europe
that you keep your prescription (it goes to the insurance for
reimbursment), and nobody writes the name on the medicament (hell,
everybody can write his name on his medicaments).

travel by train might become more interesting here in central Europe.
distances are relative short, total time is similar, train has more
comfort.

#m

[1] if you use public means of communication then all your data is well
known by the US and British intelligence, so there is no real need for
encryption ...
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

Emily wrote:

Terry wrote:
Emily wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
snip

Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I
can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA
would be shuffling through company secret information if I were to
check it on a business trip.

This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a
person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of
the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt.
This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of
what to do, or in fact what the mission is.

I thought about smuggling contact solution in my bra, but figured if I
were to get caught, they'd nail me under the pilot insecurity act. So I
figured I can either lose my certificates or lose my medical after I get
an eye infection. Not sure which is preferable.

You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

So this is what it's come to. In middle school we smuggled our cigarettes
around in our bras to avoid nic fits before class, before exams, etc. Now we
need to smuggle our contact solution in our bra, just to avoid getting our
eyes irritated or infected on an airplane ride. Progress is great.

"Meghan Taylor" wrote in message

.... I care that I
can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight ....

I thought about smuggling contact solution in my bra,...
...I can either lose my certificates or lose my medical .....


So this is what it's come to... Now we
need to smuggle our contact solution in our bra,


Has it occurred to anyone to simply wear glasses on longer flights?