site banner
PaperclipPerfector  30d ago (text post)   2290 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 22, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When I am flying, if I check in the bag, they weigh it and if it's over some specific number (50lbs? Don't remember, but it doesn't matter) they demand I pay ridiculous money for it being overly massive. Unless I, right in front on them, take some stuff out of the checked bag and put it into my carry-on bag, which they know I will be taking with me onboard. Last time we did this dance over 2 pounds. How does it make any sense? I understand carrying more mass takes more fuel, but putting it into my carry-on does not change the mass, and I could be traveling with a box full of lead bricks and nobody would tell me a word if it fits the carry-on size. One could suppose maybe the handlers are not allowed to lift over 50lbs - but if I pay the ridiculous payment, they suddenly become allowed?

I'm not even saying they charge the same for 2 yo kid and for 400lbs landwhale, so clearly the mass is not that important here. Why are they doing it? Just to piss me off because airlines secretly agreed their goal must be to maximize the amount of frustration in the Universe? Or there's some logical reason for it?

Probably something boring like workplace safety (mentioned blow), but I want to believe it's for boarding efficiency. Other travelers fussing with their ridiculous oversized carry-on is one of the most infuriating parts of air travel.

You line up nice and orderly, pass the ticket check, walk down the corridor, greet the flight staff, awkwardly try not to make eye contact with every row of passengers on the way back to your seat and then - hold up. What's this? Traffic is stopped ahead? A middle-aged fellow with t-rex arms is trying to clean and jerk 120 pounds of laptop charger and winter clothing in a wheeled suitcase that he 100% won't use at all on this 5-hour flight. That takes a full minute because he's short and the person in front of him put in their giant wheeled suitcase first, and his won't fit. Finally he manages to turn it on its side (and you can tell the compartment bin isn't going to close now and the flight attendant will have to fix it anyway..). Then he turns around and does it again for his wife.

Then the scene plays out again in reverse because you're stuck behind them deplaning too.

The whole concept of carry-on should be abolished. And don't even get me started on baggage carousels..

Edit: (oh, I misread. you're having the opposite problem, which makes the carry-on weight even worse)

The whole concept of carry-on should be abolished. And don't even get me started on baggage carousels..

Carry-on is fine, you just shouldn't be allowed to bring your wheeled luggage and hard-sided baggage. If you can't actually carry it, well, it's not a carry-on. I use a Cotopaxi Allpa 35L and it's just absolutely trivial to shrug it off my shoulders and toss it in the overhead. Even on smaller regional jets (e.g. CRJ900), it squishes into the overhead with no trouble. I also don't know what the hell people are doing with their gigantic bags in the first place - that backpack suffices for week-plus international trips that include casual clothes, dressier attire, and running gear.

Other travelers fussing with their ridiculous oversized carry-on is one of the most infuriating parts of air travel.

While the size of the allowed carry-on is officially limited (and, to be fun, different for different airlines, in theory), in all my years of travel I have never seen anybody actually check that. If it fits the compartment (however much force and effort and time it'd require to make it), it's ok. Yes, delaying boarding to stuff your oversized luggage into the undersized storage compartment is an asshole move, but I have never seen anybody deboarded or even forced to check in the bag (unless it completely failed to fit) for that.

The whole concept of carry-on should be abolished.

With properly run airports, I'd go for it. In some airports, my bag got to the baggage claim the same minute I got there, so why would I object to that? My only reservations are: some airports are shit at this (among other things) and you have to wait for like 20 minutes for your bag, and b) United breaks guitars. And suitcases - it broke one of mine, and managed to put a huge dent of the size of my fist in the corner of the other (which is supposed to be the most resilient place of the whole structure, so maybe they were just flexing). But my local airport is small, so I can check in the bag literally in minutes. In some mega-airport it can turn into a hour-long adventure, so I can get why people don't want to deal with it.

Also, you are not allowed to put laptops there, but that's no big deal since I have a separate under-the-seat backpack for that.

European airlines absolutely check the size (but not weight) of carry-on bags. Full-service airlines will gate check the bag for free if it is a close call, low-cost airlines will charge you double the usual checked bag fee because you didn't pre-order.

Low-cost airlines now also charge for overhead bin space (or bundle it with speedy boarding) - if you don't pay for bin space, your carry-on has to fit under the seat in front of you.

Yeah, I don't think US has a lot of those nickel-and-dime airlines - United has some attempt at it with "Basic" but that has many exceptions.

My understanding was that Spirit was the US equivalent of Ryanair (the scuzziest and most successful of the EU low-cost airlines). Southwest were low-cost once, but last time I was in the US they generally cost more than basic economy on the crappified full-service airlines.

But the thing that makes Ryanair so successful is that the underlying hard product just works. The planes get you from A to B, on time, and cheaply if you follow the easy-to-understand rules about things like bag sizes. I prefer Easyjet, but probably only because there is something about the aesthetics of stepping onto a Ryanair plane which somehow rubs in the fact that you must be falling out of the upper-middle class.

Interestingly, Southwest has the best default service package now - free checked bags, no change fees, etc.

Spirit is definitely seen as lower class.

I could be traveling with a box full of lead bricks and nobody would tell me a word if it fits the carry-on size

Which, honestly, is kind of ridiculous because it seems much likelier someone gets injuried by a heavy pack falling on them opening the overhead bins than by checked luggage.

Customer tolerance of established customs and traditions. Everyone has more or less agreed that is what you are charged for and that's fine. Customers would perceive any other system as more unfair and ridiculous than this system.

In the same way that off the rack clothing items are priced at a single price point for all sizes, rather than increasing the cost with each increase in size for the larger quantity of material, or charging more for odd sizes that are more expensive on the margin for the store to produce and stock. People would be upset if fatsos or tall guys had to pay more for a shirt to pay for the material, or if skinny women paid more for a dress because it's not as profitable to stock that size. The perception of unfairness would harm the company. This holds even where crossing size categories produces weird arbitrage: my wife buys boys extra large LL Bean flannels rather than women's S, because the boys price is cheaper. People would find it inequitable to charge parents of fat boys more money, so the price is set at the median cost the same as for a smaller kid. Meanwhile, while I would happily pay more to be able to buy 11ee sneakers, stores can't really charge extra for the "same" product so I have to buy from specific stores and brands, with worse prices and/or results than if I was just charged extra.

Although, for your carry on lead bricks example, I think the airline would say fine pussy do it. Most people won't choose to carry more than perhaps 30lbs around the airport. Let alone do it twice. As for moving the items between bags, imagine how many pissed off customers they'd have to deal with if they didn't allow people to remove items? And if they don't let you move them right there, you'd just go around the corner and do it and pretend you threw things away.

In the same way that off the rack clothing items are priced at a single price point for all sizes, rather than increasing the cost with each increase in size for the larger quantity of material...

Actually, larger sizes do always cost more in my experience. Once you get above like an XL, maybe 2XL it will cost you more.

https://www.schottnyc.com/products/steerhide-perfecto.htm

So this is what I was thinking of. 945 between sizes 32 and 46. That's a pretty damn wide material spread! A 46 (xl or XXL?) is probably close to twice as much leather as a 32 (xs). That's a remarkable uniformity in pricing!

I rarely even see sizes above xl stocked at most stores I frequent so you're probably correct. But my point stands: we don't start charging more until you're in truly circus freak size categories and will accept it. For folks in the normal-ish range we just accept that some are paying extra for material and some are getting a bargain on material.

But my point stands: we don't start charging more until you're in truly circus freak size categories and will accept it.

I'm not so sure that is true, in the US at least. A fairly hefty chunk of the population (perhaps most, IDK the statistics) is in the "you pay more" zone. I suspect that it's not about how many people have to pay the increased cost, but how much the increase is. Even if you pay 20% more for a shirt, on a $10 shirt that's only $2 and that's small enough that most people won't notice it.

Many companies discriminate by having separate lines for standard and plus size. The brands I shop from regularly stop at XL or XXL, and people larger than that have to buy from a different brand altogether. When I looked into it, that seems to have as much to do with certain styles not even working as intended on larger figures, as much as amount of fabric used. That makes it hard to compare costs, since many items are simply unavailable in larger sizes, but brands that cater to explicitly carrying all sizes at the same price point, such as Universal Standard, are pretty expensive for what you get.

All of this(the entire comment chain) is pointing to 'a fairly small part of the price of clothes is materials', which I think is actually the correct answer to the original question.

The people who write the rules aren't the same people who enforce them. The individual airline workers don't care if you move things between your bags because it doesn't affect them. As for reasons why the airline might insist on the rules:

  1. As mentioned below, workplace safety rules
  2. The assumption that some passengers will pay the fine rather than bother with the hassle
  3. A means to incentivise passengers to purchase more bags

I know that at least Samoa Air did what you want and what sounds logical: charged people by the total flying mass. It went bankrupt, though.

So a passenger flying from Apia to Asau weighing 80 kg (180 lb) and carrying 20 kg (44 lb) of luggage would pay US$132 for the flight (100 kg x US$1.32 base fare), while another passenger weighing 60 kg (130 lb) and traveling without luggage would pay US$79.20 (60 kg x US$1.32 base fare) for the same flight.

Regarding the limit on the checked luggage, @rverghes probably has the right idea.

Sadly, the airline business is very volatile, so it's hard to know if the policy worked or not. Though it's funny that it was implemented by Samoa Air, given the mass propensities of Samoans.

Given the mass propensities of Samoans surely the best place to try out a policy like this is in Samoa where there's large variance in weights. There's no point in all the overhead for a policy like this if the standard deviation in how much people pay is going to be like $10 or so.

My guess would be it's related to machine tolerances, workplace safety laws, or negotiated union limits. For example, workers transferring luggage might have a limit (legal or contractual) where single worker only lifts 50 lbs. Oversize bags probably get tagged and go through a different process. For example, maybe 2 workers lift the oversize bags.

For example, maybe 2 workers lift the oversize bags.

I think this is probably it. In the US the standard is set by the NIOSH Lifting Equation which sets the starting threshold for required two person lift at 51 lbs. The airline probably faces liability if they do not mark bags over 50 lbs as oversized.

From the marginal fuel consumption point of view, most xUS airlines do set a limit on carry-on baggage weight too. Lufthansa for examples sets it at (iirc) 9 kg. They don't normally enforce it, but I have seen people being asked to weight their carry-on baggage after moving items from overweight checked bags on Lufthansa in particular.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats