Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LCC Passengers Carrying Extra Weight In Clothing..  
User currently offlineWoof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7393 times:

... when will this become dangerous?

I watched a rather poor TV documentary in the UK last week. I forget the actual title, but it was along the lines of 'How to beat the charges from Low Cost Carriers'. Most of what they covered was just common sense, but one thing they were promoting had me rather concerned.

They showed some lightweight vests that had HUGE amounts of storage in them and were designed specifically to allow you to keep your carryon baggage weight down, but still take a whole load of things into the cabin. Although the chap demonstrating what they could carry was taking things to extremes, he must have easily had an extra 25kg of weight on him, possibly more, and he didn't 'look' to be to overloaded.

Given that fuel loads are calculated on weight and distance, V speeds are calculated on weight and runway length (ok, so I'm simplifying here a bit), and passenger weights are 'averaged' rather than actually weighed, at what point could these things become dangerous?

Before I get blasted for being alarmist, I fully understand that a few 100kgs here and there wont make much difference, but lets say a stag party of 40 people all managed to stuff an extra 25kg of bits on them... thats a full metric tonne of extra weight that wasn't taken into account. What if those people also all managed to sit together at the very rear of the aircraft?

At what point would either take off weight or C of G become distorted to the point of being dangerous?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinestylo777 From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 3009 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7348 times:

dont forget that most LCC pax dont checkin any bags due to the charges so you win again some kilos unless 180 pax have all managed to pack 25kg each in their vest

User currently offlineWoof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7291 times:

Quoting stylo777 (Reply 1):
dont forget that most LCC pax dont checkin any bags due to the charges so you win again some kilos unless 180 pax have all managed to pack 25kg each in their vest

Ahaa but that adds weight (excuse the pun) to my point rather than detracting from it.

Any checked baggage is weighed and added to the total load. No checked baggage, no added weight. In fact the weight of pretty much everything significant on an aircraft is known with some precision. What the passengers weigh is only an estimate, and I am wondering how far out that estimate has to be before bad things can happen.

I'm under the impression that some larger jets can show the load on the wheels to the pilots. If this is significantly different from what they have been told then they can act, but this information might not (always) be available.

[Edited 2010-07-14 06:26:49]

User currently offlinekalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7258 times:

Actually Air Midwest Flight 5481 crash is partially blamed on incorrect assumptions about weight of pax and baggage:

Quote:
airplane's actual weight was about 17,700 pounds and that its actual CG position was about 45.5 percent MAC. As a result, flight 5481 had exceeded the Beech 1900D certified weight limit of 17,120 pounds and the certified aft CG limit of 40 percent MAC.

I wonder how difficult would it be to integrate weight gauges into landing gear - say by measuring compression of shock absorbers, or whatever is being used in gear assemblies


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9674 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7126 times:

When you can integrate scales into forklift trucks or handtrucks, it should not be too difficult to do that.

before that happens however, now that he knows, MOL will start a loaded vest surcharge of at least 100€ per offender.  



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7099 times:

Quoting stylo777 (Reply 1):
dont forget that most LCC pax dont checkin any bags due to the charges so you win again some kilos unless 180 pax have all managed to pack 25kg each in their vest

It isn't that weight as an absolute is a the potential problem, but rather a weight well in excess of what is calculated. If you assume each passenger weighs 180 lbs, but each is really 200 lbs, the difference can get big fast. Big enough to cause a safety issue, probably not on a mainline airliner.

Quoting kalvado (Reply 3):
Actually Air Midwest Flight 5481 crash is partially blamed on incorrect assumptions about weight of pax and baggage:

On smaller turboprop aircraft weight and balance is more important than on say a 737. Quite a few operators of small aircraft weigh pax individually and give out seat assignments based on where they need them for weight and balance.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineLMML 14/32 From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6865 times:

I have seen FR pax at MLA actually emptying checked luggage before checking in and putting on sweaters, polo necks and jacket upon jacket in August when the outside air temp was in excess of 33C to avoid the charges.

LCC's make normally sane people act like so stupidly they should be locked up in rehab. All for the sake of saving a few bucks.

Is the economy THAT bad??????


User currently offlinelitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6634 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Jeez ... and from the topic I was thinking ... "how much stuff can you actually put in the pockets of a pair of cargo shorts" ...

(answer - a heckuva lot)

People will do amazing things to save money.

- litz


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6532 times:

Quoting Woof (Thread starter):
They showed some lightweight vests that had HUGE amounts of storage in them and were designed specifically to allow you to keep your carryon baggage weight down, but still take a whole load of things into the cabin. Although the chap demonstrating what they could carry was taking things to extremes, he must have easily had an extra 25kg of weight on him, possibly more, and he didn't 'look' to be to overloaded.

I'm guessing that the products from SCOTTeVEST were featured:

http://www.scottevest.com/v3_store/New_Travel_Vest.shtml

There was an article on Engadget recently about a "carry-on coat" from SCOTTeVEST just for that purpose:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/04/s...es-all-of-your-portable-electroni/

Quoting LMML 14/32 (Reply 6):
LCC's make normally sane people act like so stupidly they should be locked up in rehab. All for the sake of saving a few bucks.

It's not just LCCs. Here in the US, a checked baggage fees is nearly unavoidable if you have to check a bag. The only US airline to not charge a checked baggage fee is Southwest, who is considered to be an LCC.

There's no telling how many folks use their "personal bag" as an extension of their carry-on bag. As long as it fits under the seat in front of you, you can pretty much put anything allowable in it and claim it as your "personal bag".

Even if the airlines weren't charging a checked baggage fee, you would still have folks doing this, as there are those folks who want to hit the ground running as soon as they get to their destination and don't want to wait at the baggage claim.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6383 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 8):
The only US airline to not charge a checked baggage fee is Southwest, who is considered to be an LCC.

On B6, at least your first bag is free: http://www.jetblue.com/deals/first-bag-free/?intcmp=HPFirstBag20101207



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineVasu From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 3966 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6229 times:

Hahaha... in my opinion that's awesome! (Though I really can't say I'd be 'sad' enough to buy one!)

User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 529 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6162 times:

This is the airline's own damn fault for implementing these damn nickel and dime bag fees. They should just charge an honest fare and do away with the petty and annoying fees. Then passengers won't go to extreme measures to get around the fees.

User currently offlineaerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6102 times:

So I booked my SNA-MCO flight for this October on WN not only because it was $50 cheaper than AA but I wasn't going to get Polanski'd $100 for my checked in bag and golfclubs. People will do what is necessary.

Plus I get to see MDW for the first time!   lol



"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6076 times:

Quoting psa188 (Reply 11):
This is the airline's own damn fault for implementing these damn nickel and dime bag fees. They should just charge an honest fare and do away with the petty and annoying fees

But why should a passenger with NO bags pay the same as one WITH bags? His fare includes a bag allowance that he doesn't need. Better to generally bring down fares and then specifically charge those who wish to bring more than just carry-ons. Why should a taxpayer pay for a bridge if he doesn't have a car? Let the car owners pay for the bridge through tolls.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineaerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6044 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 13):
Better to generally bring down fares

Have you seen that happen with the carriers that have baggage fees? Seems like fares are the same or more in cost than a year ago!



"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlinenonrevman From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1302 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5984 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 13):
But why should a passenger with NO bags pay the same as one WITH bags? His fare includes a bag allowance that he doesn't need. Better to generally bring down fares and then specifically charge those who wish to bring more than just carry-ons. Why should a taxpayer pay for a bridge if he doesn't have a car? Let the car owners pay for the bridge through tolls.

If the argument of passengers subsidizing others is going to be brought up, then aren't the first class ticket holders (those who actually paid the fare), last minute flyers, and other high fare paying passengers the ones really getting the short end of the stick? They are essentially subsidizing those who bought the cheap advance purchase fares. There could be hundreds of dollars difference in the fare paid by two people sitting next to each other in the same class of service. If we are going to go after fare injustice issues, we might as well pick the biggest fight we can.

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 14):
Have you seen that happen with the carriers that have baggage fees? Seems like fares are the same or more in cost than a year ago!

Glad I am not the only one who has noticed this.

Quoting Woof (Thread starter):
At what point would either take off weight or C of G become distorted to the point of being dangerous?

Back to the original topic, I would think that a few of these vests on the aircraft would be negligible. If this idea somehow really caught on, and a lot of people were wearing them, then I would imagine the carriers would notice it and be able to recalculate the loads. Just imagine a flight going to Phoenix in the summer, and the gate area is full of people wearing heavy vests and trenchcoats. If it ever came to this, it would be hard not to notice.


User currently offlineyodobashi From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 239 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5203 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 13):
But why should a passenger with NO bags pay the same as one WITH bags?

Taking it one step further, I weigh in at around 95kg and board a flight with a 10kg carry on bag = total 105kg. The lady sitting next to me weighs 50kg and checks in a 20kg bag = total 70kg. We both booked at the same time but she has to pay £60 more than me for a case .... since when did it cost £60 to load a bag on a plane?

The answer is that FR don't want your baggage (to quote MOL, "we want you to fly with us, we just don't want your bags") because they are a drain on time at ariports and make the scheduled 25 minute turnarounds increasingly difficult the more bag there are. The FR baggage charge is more of a penalty to deter you from checking in a bag than a fee to cover thecost of their loading and carriage.

All this said, unaccounted weight is definitely an issue .... wasn't there a flight that experienced problems because a whole bunch of coin collectors were on board going to some conference and each of them had a whole bunch of coins in their carry ons?



"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page"
User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2397 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4440 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Woof (Thread starter):
They showed some lightweight vests that had HUGE amounts of storage in them and were designed specifically to allow you to keep your carryon baggage weight down, but still take a whole load of things into the cabin. Although the chap demonstrating what they could carry was taking things to extremes, he must have easily had an extra 25kg of weight on him, possibly more, and he didn't 'look' to be to overloaded.

Something I've seen quite often already on African flights where PAX use to travel with lots of baggages. Despite our generous luggages allowances they never have enough...



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
User currently offlinePagophilus From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

I don't see the problem. If the airlines are trying to push us to the limits, why shouldn't we push them to the limits? Why not wear all or most of your clothes in layers. You can always take them off once you are on the plane.

Quite frankly, when you travel, you need to bring stuff. If they force you to pay excessively to take the stuff, you bring it with you another way. I have a jacket with pockets that extend all the way to my shoulders. It's very useful for carrying stuff while travelling. It might come in useful on my next flight on Air Asia.


User currently offlineGT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1800 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

I honestly don't see the big issue. If you want to take a bag, you pay for it. Even with a bag, we are all still paying a lot less for air travel than say 10-15 years ago. Also, credit to some airlines who increased cabin baggage when they introduced a charge for bags placed in the hold. We all know that airlines need to make a profit and there are LCC's out there that, even with bag charges, onboard sales etc, still make barely £4/$6 profit per passenger.

Perhaps a compromise for those who whinge would be to quote a fare with bags included and then allow the customer to deduct what they don't want. But unless other airlines follow suit, the customer will still highly likely go for the lowest quoted fare......and perhaps that is where the problem lies. It's ultimately the increased competition and the price the market is willing to pay that brings about the changes to the industry. For those of us who liked to be "pampered" and feel like we are getting something for free, it's not great news.....but for most of us it's great as we fly more than we ever have done.

I know people slate LCC's but remember that they have also made full service carriers more competitive. Fares have decreased and some archaic rules like saturday night stays have largely disappeared. Combine this all together and IMO i believe we are better off. Up until a decade or two ago, a huge swaith of the adult population in the UK had never taken a scheduled flight.

[Edited 2010-07-15 03:44:18]


Proud to fly from Manchester!
User currently offlinewoof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3468 times:

I didn't really want to focus on the rights and wrongs of the charging (I fully believe that if you don't like the charges, don't fly with the airline...) but on the safety aspect.

On any flight weight is one of the most fundamentally important criteria to know. Without a reasonably accurate figure, take off speeds, balance, correct fuel load etc cannot be calculated properly.

At the end of the day, someone will be paying for the extra weight. In the short term it will be the airlines, in the longer term probably the passengers. I just wanted to make sure that the price to pay could be counted in £££s or $$$s rather than in lives.


User currently offlineMAN2SIN2BKK From Germany, joined Feb 2009, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

Its nothing new, back in the 80s when I used to book a ski package with Thomson etc I would travel fly wearing my ski suit and additional sweaters etc so there was enough weight allowance for my skiboots in the checked in baggage!

User currently offlineLtbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3336 times:

As many more people literally carry on their person more stuff they would have put into checked or carry-on bangs to avoid fees, they are going to run into another problem: they won't be able to take off the clothing as there won't be any room in the overhead bins or too much for the underseat in front of them.

User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

that's the argument used by airlines to justify the fee

but in reality, they just pocket the different as profit instead of lowering fares

and it's not exactly "no bags" per se.... a lot of times it's merely deciding between throwing the same bag overhead or the cargo area. and these checked bag fees only cause overcrowded overhead bins (and might pose a weight danger, since most of the time carry-on bags are not weighed, so a lot of the bags might be heavier than regulation allowance), much longer boarding times, and wasted cargo space (since domestic flights don't really have that much revenue cargo in them anyway)

i agree with baggage fees when it's more than 1 bag (heck, i shouldn't pay the same as someone moving their entire life across the country), but 1 bag free is more than reasonable. unless u're a day-trip businessman with nothing but a brief case, i can't imagine people bringing nothing onto a flight.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 13):
But why should a passenger with NO bags pay the same as one WITH bags? His fare includes a bag allowance that he doesn't need. Better to generally bring down fares and then specifically charge those who wish to bring more than just carry-ons. Why should a taxpayer pay for a bridge if he doesn't have a car? Let the car owners pay for the bridge through tolls.


User currently offlinesignol From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 3018 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2458 times:

Maybe airlines should lower the fee to the point at which people won't go to such great lengths to avoid it. Eg. £2 or £3 per bag ($3 - $5), it's not worth the hassle. £20 per bag and you'll try to do what you cvan to avoid - larger carryon, these vest things, etc. That way, they are still making money they wouln't have made, perhaps even more as more people would actually pay it.

signol



Flights booked: none :(
25 SSTsomeday : Well, when baggage charges become an appreciable amount of the cost of the flight, people become creative. Especially people who booked the flight pr
26 litz : So ... to swing this back a bit towards the original intended question ... Could enough passengers using these vests, pockets, or other means of exces
27 rwy04lga : Historically, they're very low. And even if they weren't, why can't they increase their fares if you can get a raise? Do you really believe that thos
28 BlueJuice : As many have said, the additional weight per pax shouldn't matter that much. When the right formulas are used, average passenger weight plus an allowa
29 kalvado : That's a really scary approach.. If a typical "3-sigma" approach is used, meaning 99.7% certainty that value would fall within predicted range, and o
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Carrying Dead Bodies In A/c posted Sat Aug 16 2008 02:52:36 by RootsAir
Plane Carrying 3 Americans Missing In Panama posted Mon Dec 24 2007 15:29:36 by PHLJJS
Extra Flights In FSD Today? posted Thu May 24 2007 00:01:24 by Dw9115
PIA Economy Passengers Storm First Class In Mutiny posted Sat May 6 2006 15:42:54 by Singapore_Air
Plane Carrying Viruses Crashes In Canada posted Fri Oct 7 2005 03:01:07 by Sleekjet
KU : 141 Extra Flights In The Summer posted Sat Apr 30 2005 11:42:15 by Captain777
7E7 : A Little Extra Weight & .. A Little Late! posted Mon Jul 26 2004 12:07:46 by KEESJE
RDU's Extra Gates In Terminal C? posted Mon May 19 2003 23:33:49 by SWALUVFA
What's The Extra Wheel In The Pic? posted Mon May 27 2002 14:02:50 by FlyHigh@tom
Extra 737's In NZ? posted Sat Oct 13 2001 10:09:06 by Rmm