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

"Emily" wrote in message
...
Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:39:21 +0000, Crash Lander wrote:

Business class ticket sales will drop!

Hopefully, all ticket sales will drop.

I hope not. As an employee of a MAJOR company that supports the airlines,
I kind of need my job.

That's the downside. The company puts off huge amounts of loyal workers to
maintain profit levels. The companies don't lose out, only the staff do.
Crash Lander

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:22:57 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
I think you'd be safe if you used the same definition as the federal
government which would be the part that has the serial number on it. As an
example a 1911 pistol the frame is the gun and is what is regulated. In the
case of an AR-15 it would be the lower receiver.

I've proposed that, but they won't commit to it... They recognize that
the intent of the ruling is to not let someone be able to gain access
to an unlocked bag with a fully operational weapon in it, but that's
about it... No one is willing to put their name on the line and say
that a firearm consists of a particular set of parts... Since no one
will commit, I can thus lock my bags by putting a single grip screw
into each bag and declare that it contains a 'firearm'...

Since no one
will commit, I can thus lock my bags by putting a single grip screw
into each bag and declare that it contains a 'firearm'...

I suppose you could use the idea of critical parts. Although any part
is "critical" if it is missing, there are some parts, the =kind= of
which, if missing, would preclude an operational weapon.

Those would be "critical parts"

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:41:49 GMT, Jose
wrote:
I suppose you could use the idea of critical parts. Although any part
is "critical" if it is missing, there are some parts, the =kind= of
which, if missing, would preclude an operational weapon.

Those would be "critical parts"

My original intent was to be able to separate a firearm into multiple
parts and to split the parts among multiple pieces of luggage so that
I would not need to declare the weapon... The unintended side effect
of my quest has been the ability to lock all my luggage by putting a
single screw in each piece of luggage and declaring it a firearm...

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:41:49 GMT, Jose
wrote:
I suppose you could use the idea of critical parts. Although any part
is "critical" if it is missing, there are some parts, the =kind= of
which, if missing, would preclude an operational weapon.

Those would be "critical parts"

My original intent was to be able to separate a firearm into multiple
parts and to split the parts among multiple pieces of luggage so that
I would not need to declare the weapon... The unintended side effect
of my quest has been the ability to lock all my luggage by putting a
single screw in each piece of luggage and declaring it a firearm...

When you say "locked", do you mean locked so that the TSA can't get in?
Or do you still have to use the universal lock?

The unintended side effect
of my quest has been the ability to lock all my luggage by putting a
single screw in each piece of luggage and declaring it a firearm.

Does this prevent the TSA from opening it?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Yes, you are required to be the only person with a key. You
must declare the firearm at check-in, state that it is
unloaded and you have the only key for the bag or case.
They give you a ticket to put inside the bag as proof you
did declared the firearm.

You can carry a small quantity of ammunition, 10 pounds in
most cases, packed in secure manner, that includes factory
boxes. Each airline has "company rules" but the FAA allows
the carriage of legal firearms and the BATF rules allow
transport as long as your destination is a place where the
firearm is legal for you to possess. If your flight goes
through NYC or Boston, your destination had better be New
Hampshire or Vermont.


"Jose" wrote in message
m...
| The unintended side effect
| of my quest has been the ability to lock all my luggage
by putting a
| single screw in each piece of luggage and declaring it a
firearm.
|
| Does this prevent the TSA from opening it?
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim Macklin wrote:
Yes, you are required to be the only person with a key. You
must declare the firearm at check-in, state that it is
unloaded and you have the only key for the bag or case.
They give you a ticket to put inside the bag as proof you
did declared the firearm.

You can carry a small quantity of ammunition, 10 pounds in
most cases, packed in secure manner, that includes factory
boxes. Each airline has "company rules" but the FAA allows
the carriage of legal firearms and the BATF rules allow
transport as long as your destination is a place where the
firearm is legal for you to possess. If your flight goes
through NYC or Boston, your destination had better be New
Hampshire or Vermont.

Too bad a lot of my commercial flights are into ORD. I thought you'd
found a way for the TSA to stop stealing my suff.

Emily writes:

I just spit coffee all over my screen. Now, in addition to replacing
the medicine the TSA stole from me last week, I might need a new laptop.

Make sure it's not blue.

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

John Gaquin writes:

I think you may be overthinking this. I would think the general presumption
to be that the bulk of former carry-on luggage is now being checked, so the
total weight remains about the same, just shifted to a cargo hold.

The total weight _does_ remain the same, but the estimated weight goes
up, because the estimate for passengers includes carry-on items that
they are no longer carrying. Assuming that the checked luggage is
actually weighed, whereas the weight of passengers and carry-ons is
only estimated, the result is an aircraft that is considerably lighter
than the weight estimate implies.

I presume that a slightly light plane is less of a hazard than an
unexpectedly overweight plane, so maybe it doesn't matter that much.
And if checked luggage weight is estimated, too, it may be a wash.
But it's an example of the kinds of things that change when you
suddenly declare new "security" rules without thinking things through.

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