Slashdot Mirror


US Airlines Say Smaller Carry-Ons Are Not In the Cards

New submitter callgen writes: Airlines for America, a trade group for U.S. carriers, has rejected proposed international standards for carry-on bags. Last week, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced an initiative to "optimize" airlines' accommodation of carry-on bags by suggesting a new standard luggage size. It suggested a standard of 55cm x 35cm x 19cm, 58% of the size that Southwest allows. Most standard carry-ons are larger than IATA's recommendations, meaning travelers would have to purchase new luggage if the smaller size was adopted.

273 comments

  1. So if the new rule is adopted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...in a weird twist that's like promoting the economy. Cause, ya know, you gotta buy new stuff. And stuff makes the world go 'round. Next to gravity.

    1. Re:So if the new rule is adopted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      naw, you don't understand

      we're all going to start wear standard issue disposable paper clothing, select our toiletries from a standard international
      menu.

      all you'll really need to carry is your phone, everything else will be available to you everywhere

    2. Re:So if the new rule is adopted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see any reason that phones couldn't be adapted to a similar model, just pick up any phone, log in and receive calls on it. That isn't to say that I expect that to happen, just that it seems like it would be possible.

    3. Re:So if the new rule is adopted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just said that about the standard disposable paper clothing the other day. That's seems to be the direction we are going, though this news is good news. I already hate sitting in airplanes. I have no neck support, so when i sleep my head is bouncing around and i get neck pain and wake up all the time to adjust the position of my head. I also do not have any room for my legs, they are always touching the seat in front of me. And i'm not that tall, only 185cm. Also the person sitting next to me is hopefully smaller in size, because i do have pretty broad shoudlers.

  2. Stop charging for checked bag by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If too much carry on luggage is a problem, then stop charging for checking a bag. When everyone got a checked back for free, there was plenty of overhead storage space, not to mention loading and unloading passengers was a lot faster because people weren't blocking the isles dealing with their carry ons. Now everyone tries to carry on as much as they can so they don't have to pay.

    1. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the answer, like it or not, is regulation. Hidden fees are out of control in the airline industry, and it's high time that they were banned. The solution is simple: The advertised ticket price is the *only* thing the airline should be allowed to charge you for your seat, baggage (checked or carry-on up to a regulated size and weight), and any additional services offered to you during booking, in the airport or on the plane.

      It's also high time that overbooking or fuel surcharges were banned, as well. It's not like the airline refunds you a portion of your ticket prices when gas costs less than expected, or refunds you if you decide not to travel on a ticket you paid for, so what possible reason is there for them to be allowed to raise the contractually-agreed price after you've already paid it or to sell your seat to somebody else as well and hope one of you doesn't show up?

      Sadly, there's zero chance any of this will ever happen because our government operates solely in the interests of big business, not what's best for the general public. But I can dream, can't I?

    2. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, the issue came when they actually defined the size of a carry on bag. As soon as they did that, everyone started manufacturing bags that are exactly carry-on sized. Then everyone started buying them. Because the size is a cuboid, the bags too were a cuboid, and typically hard. They were then awkward, so they started adding wheels to the damn things.

      The result, we end up with the absolute least optimal "bag" (case) for an overhead bin being the 99% case.

      Before they defined the size, most people just brought a smallish backpack or a hand bag.

    3. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can they also regulated the size and weight of the passenger for that price?
      The cost of flying a plane increases with weight.

    4. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 0

      I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware that it's relatively straightforward for an airline to determine their average passenger weight quite accurately, and to budget for that in setting their ticket prices. And I'm also aware that it's an idiotic issue to raise in the first place, because airlines have never charged by (or even measured) passenger weight in modern history.

    5. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why should I have to pay more for my ticket to subsidize somebody else's fat ass?

    6. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I couldn't disagree more. There has been a standard carry-on size for as long as I can remember, but it's only since airlines started nickel-and-diming their customers with hidden fees that most people started taking advantage of it.

      And frankly, if you want efficient stowage, having a standard size is a GOOD thing. There's a reason container ships use standard container sizes, and that air freight uses standard unit load devices: It's the most efficient way possible to fit in the maximum quantity of cargo. The same is true of baggage -- if there's a standard carry-on size, overhead compartments get made (on all but the smallest aircraft) to fit that size as efficiently as possible.

      And that's why the whole IATA proposal is bunkum -- if they decrease size just fractionally, all that will do on most aircraft is leave small spaces in each overhead compartment that aren't sufficient to fit another bag. You're not going to get any more people jamming bags in the overheads without a very significant change in bag size, or a redesign of the overheads to match the new, smaller bag sizes optimally.

    7. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      Its that, or wait longer in line as every passenger is weighed in, measured and charged by the pound per inch. Fun to watch the whales get humiliated, but also tedious, annoying, slow, and fuck that.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    8. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by lgw · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, it would totally be worth it. Especially with a large board displaying the weight, and comical cartoon animal animations accompanying the values. But sadly, we no longer have "shame" in America.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Cimexus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. I moved from Australia to the US a couple of years ago. I am a very frequent flier (140+ segments per year).

      In Australia it was never a problem getting overhead space because:

      (a) The carry on bag size limits were enforced

      (b) Most airlines (including the major two - Qantas and Virgin) allow one checked bag as part of the ticket price (I won't say 'free', but it's not charged as an extra fee)

      (c) Less of those godforsaken small regional jets (EMB 120s, 175s and CRJ 200s and 700s in particular) that have tiny overhead bins. The proportion of flights in the US (and Canada) that these aircraft amazes me. You get them even between major (4M+ population) cities. You'd never get anything smaller than a 737 or A320 in Australia between major city pairs.

      Having said that, addressing (a) and/or (b) alone would probably be enough to solve the issue in North America.

    10. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      If you're concerned about delays, then for an annual fee you could sign up to be PreWeighed by the TSA. Then you could breeze right by the passengers waiting in line at the scale.

    11. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already have. The FAA regulates that a ticket-holder must be able to lower their armrests and bucket their seat-belts, otherwise they are required to purchase two tickets.

    12. Re: Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win the thread.
      I agree completely. We should charge for carry ons and make checked bags free.

    13. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      Even with the standard sizes defined in most airports, I routinely see people bringing aboard bags that if they were forced to check against the model next to most gates, they would not remotely pass. (These people usually have significant elite status, and that may be why they're not questioned. Those same people should be able to check the bag for free, or afford the $25 for the extra bag if they're already checking their limit. I say this as someone who travels 10-15 times a year and checks his bag when at all possible.)

      Airliner manufacturers have seen the situation and expanded the size of carry-on bins. This is in part due to the increased volume of carry-on bags, but they're also increasing the height and depth. The 787 and the 737NG both have or will have these larger bins, and I believe the A380 has and the A350 will have larger bins. Concepts trotted out by Boeing and Airbus sometimes show even larger overhead bins. That they're responding to indirect market pressures--passengers go for airlines with more overhead space, so airlines go for aircraft with more overhead space--is a strong indicator of just how fully a standard can be completely ignored when it's inconvenient to a significant fraction of the end-users affected by the standard.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    14. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big part of the problem is that the bag manufacturers make bags that have an internal size equal to the required size, this leads to the actual bag being too big without the consumer realizing it.

    15. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by x0ra · · Score: 1

      They were never free, just included in the price. Just the same about free shipping; the shipping charges is averaged over every customer.

    16. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      is there a pre-fondling program we could join? you know, get it all done at once, in one, uhhhh, lump sum ?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    17. Re: Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shift to relying on smaller regional jets has been striking over the past 20 years. Still. I'll take an EMB175 over the fucking microscopic bins of the Fokker 100 any day.

    18. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Even with the standard sizes defined in most airports, I routinely see people bringing aboard bags that if they were forced to check against the model next to most gates, they would not remotely pass.

      The problem is that the sizers are built to the same specs that the airlines ignore, and the airlines ignore the speca for the same reason that the passengers do: they are sized for the smallest Embraer puddle jumper that the airline flies, not for the planes that they fly for 95% of their routes. I routinely travel with a backpack that is at least two or three inches too thick to fit in any of the sizers. However, I've never had trouble sliding it under the seat in front of me in S80s or A3x0s, 7x7s, and even CRJs, IIRC.

      These newly proposed standards are absolutely ridiculous. They're so small that the smallest camera bags on the market are too tall to comply. In fact, the maximum thickness is barely tall enough to hold a Canon 1-series vertically with no padding. It would require almost every lens to be horizontal, which would mean you'd end up having to carry two bags instead of one. So in practice, no pro photographer would be able to carry their gear on board any aircraft that required compliance with the new rules. And the airlines explicitly disclaim all liability for photographic gear in checked luggage. Which basically means that any airline that decides to follow the rules is basically saying, "Pro photographers are not allowed to fly on our airline."

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      "ban this, ban that" - as if you have so much more information than everybody else in the market what will work best. That takes gumption.

      Sadly, there's zero chance any of this will ever happen because our government operates solely in the interests of big business, not what's best for the general public.

      Well, yeah - that's the whole point - to protect them from competition. What do you think campaign donations are for?

      And the answer, like it or not, is regulation.

      Or, you know, let more airlines into the market and have them compete for customers. Oh, hells, no, that could never work. They should start regulating websites too, to improve the crappy CSS of sites like this.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    20. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with almost everything you stated but what you propose would only end up with much higher ticket prices than we have now. The airline industry is usually operating at break even or more often at a loss. More regulation would only bring way more overhead while decreasing the quality of service due to cost cutting measures.

            The real problem with the industry today are the airport fees and taxes. Those fees are usually 60-65 percent of the ticket you paid for. This leaves the airlines with a small portion of your fare to actually, you know, operate the business. There is no other industry in the world that gives up that much of their revenue BEFORE they start to provide the service that you paid for.

          A few decades ago, the seventies into the eighties, airlines provided the best service you can imagine for a fair price. The airlines were profitable and people were happy. Flying back then can be compared to going to a 5 star restaurant today, all for a reasonable price. Unfortunately what happened was, slowly but surely, the municipalities that operated major airports saw the airlines as a cash cow instead of an essential service to the people.

          If fares were subject to the same taxes and fees that other goods and services are, then the size of the carry on, or the quality of the meal, or the quality of service would not be an issue. As soon as you start paying flight attendants 15k a year and pilots 20k a year then you will have service issues. In the 70s and 80s pilots were as respected as a doctor or lawyer. Now they are paid less than the airport janitor.

          So implementing more regulation would make the problem 100x worse for the consumer. BTW I am talking about price regulation and not operating regulation which already exists under the NTSB and the FAA. Ironically enough the agencies that actually make sure the service airlines provide is up to standard and safe get NOTHING from your fare. The TSA gets a fee but it is insignificant compared to what the local government gets.

          So im sorry but your socialist solution of regulation will put a smile on everyones face wont work.

    21. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot to add that government operates solely in the interests of THEMSELVES, not corporations, and least of all people.

    22. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By weight no but by size yes. If you are not able to fit in the seat provided you have to pay for 2 seats. Its been common practice for awhile.

    23. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and any additional services offered to you during booking, in the airport or on the plane.

      So all you can drink cocktails for the price of the seat?

    24. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good questions. Why did you not ask why as a single(unmarried) person without children I have to subsidize married people (gay or not.) And the more kids you have(gay or not) the more I have to subsidize you? Why do I have to pay more for car, health, homeowners insurance if Im not married? Why should parents get maternity leave from work and I don't get equal time off because I don't have children (and have increased workload because they are gone)?

            You shouldn't be discriminated against, but neither should I.

    25. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bigger bins are due to having more passengers per bin than before. The passenger capacity has increased (proportional to plane size) but the bin space is (relatively) the same.

    26. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airlines were much more heavily regulated in the 70s and 80s.

    27. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I know a couple of pro photographers and they pack up their gear in well-padded Pelican cases that get checked as they often travel with more than they could carry onboard anyway. One includes a starter's pistol in the checked luggage because the FAA classifies it as a firearm and the airlines therefore track it much more closely.

      I usually carry my own gear (couple of notebooks, various networking and wireless gear, etc.) in a fairly large backpack, and it usually fits under the seat in front of me. However, as amenities like in-flight power and seat-back entertainment become more common, I'm finding that many of the seats have equipment boxes underneath and getting my backpack to fit is becoming difficult in a few cases.

      I have seen two airlines that do size checks: Frontier and Spirit. However, both of them also make more money from checked bags than carry-ons (Spirit charges for carry-ons, too, IIRC), so that may just be a money thing for them. (I haven't flown Spirit, and only rarely fly Frontier, but I frequently pass gates for both.)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    28. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by jonwil · · Score: 1

      What the government should do is:
      1.Eliminate laws like the Wright Amendment (that restricts what airlines can do when flying out of Dallas Love Field, Fort Worth Meacham and Addison in order to protect Dallas/Fort Worth International) and any other similar restrictions (such as restrictions on the size or gate count of airports and restrictions on which airlines can fly to/from a given airport and where they can fly from/to). Let unrestricted competition rule and let the most efficient airports (and the ones that can offer the lowest cost in airport fees to the airlines) survive
      2.Eliminate the laws that prohibit foreign ownership of domestic airlines and allow any airline to fly on any domestic route as well as the laws limiting which airlines can fly on which international routes. Let unrestricted competition rule and if some carries cant handle the increased competition from new players, they don't deserve to be in business
      3.Reduce red tape and regulations so that US-based carriers aren't disadvantaged by #2 above (i.e. every carrier regardless of where they are based or who owns them would be on a level playing field)
      4.Eliminate all subsidies to the airline industry. If there are specific air routes that aren't viable without subsidies but where there is a genuine need for air service on the route, offer any airline willing to fly that route a subsidy for flying it (so that all the little towns don't loose their air service because its unviable to fly there without a subsidy). Allow a level playing field where all airlines have to compete on their own merits without subsidies (any airline that can't survive without government subsidies doesn't deserve to say in business and if no airline can survive without the subsidies then there is something wrong with the system as a whole that needs to be fixed so the costs for everyone come down and they become viable)

    29. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you also forgot to mention that there is a christ of jesus and that he is very very real and will return one day, and when that happens all socialists and other kinds of pervertion will be instantly killed

    30. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      I agree with the above, but here's some interesting add ons... + One of the reasons carry-ons have increased is due to baggage being lost. It got so bad, and so random, people always feel they need to have an extra set of clothes in their carry-on just in case. + Will we see an increase of people buying those big coats with 20+ pockets in them? You know, the ones which can even hold a whole set of clothes, your iPad, etc.. Many geeks are using those now in order to really have two carry-ons instead of one. Or are we now going to have a coat fee if this idea takes off? + Finally, Jimmy Carter tried pushing for us to change to metric...along with renewable energy...back in the 1970's. Republicans had a field day stating it would collapse American business due to the cost. Just sayin'...

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    31. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in Europe flying with airlines that do offer free check-in baggage, it does not solve the issue - everyone has carry-on bags. And big ones. So big they have to stand in the aisle just to lift it.

    32. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should I have to pay to subsidize your bigoted ass?

      You shouldn't. People shouldn't be forced to subsidize each other at all, whether it's their fat asses, their fat kids, or their fat cars.

      What you get from marriage is preferential tax treatment, health benefits from employers, and more. Why should I subsidize all that?

      You shouldn't. Those should be abolished.

      Well, your bigoted ass refuses to recognize same sex couples as equals disenfranchises us gays.

      As a gay man myself, I think you are a disgrace.

    33. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      no fees for flight related service would be enough.

      --
      bickerdyke
    34. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Yes, and flights were much more expensive too.

    35. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If too much carry on luggage is a problem, then stop charging for checking a bag. When everyone got a checked back for free, there was plenty of overhead storage space, not to mention loading and unloading passengers was a lot faster because people weren't blocking the isles dealing with their carry ons. Now everyone tries to carry on as much as they can so they don't have to pay.

      Pretty much this.

      However this means that they will have to allocate storage for baggage instead of selling that storage for cargo... Erm, which means ticket prices go up.

      You can fly from LA to DC for $170 If you would like to remember how bad prices used to be, feel free to come to Australia where Perth to Sydney (roughly the same amount of air time) is around $400.

      Realistically US airlines are going to need to do something about oversized carry ons but they're probably going to go along the same route as budget airlines in other parts of the world. Weight and size restrictions for carry ons.

      As a side note, this is one of the reasons I prefer to fly Southwest when in the States. Having travelled from Australia I'm going to have a checked bag regardless of if I'm only spending a few days at my destination.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    36. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by mjwx · · Score: 1

      (c) Less of those godforsaken small regional jets (EMB 120s, 175s and CRJ 200s and 700s in particular) that have tiny overhead bins. The proportion of flights in the US (and Canada) that these aircraft amazes me. You get them even between major (4M+ population) cities. You'd never get anything smaller than a 737 or A320 in Australia between major city pairs.

      Virgin still operates the EMB 190's between some cities on low volume flights. They're slowly being replaced by A320's and 737's though. But regional flights are still dominated by small jets, 717's Fokker 70's, Dash 8's and even old BAe146's.

      The Regional jets aren't bad if they're being used correctly. I've flown between Panama and Santiago, DR on a EMB 190 and it was fine but COPA are actually a decent airline (checked baggage, free seat selection, food and drink) but that was only a 3 hour flight (as a fellow Aussie, you'd know that's a trip to the shops where we come from) and wasn't packed in like sardines. They had a 2-2 configuration in the seats so they were the same size as the ones on a 737. Airlines that try to cram a 2-3 or even 3-3 into an EMB E-Jet or 717 are insane.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    37. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      On every flight that I've been on in the last couple of years where the first checked bag was free, there has been ample overhead storage space, sometimes entirely empty bins on planes with filled seats!

      And the reverse has been true. The airlines that charge for the bag (*ahem* American Airlines) have consistently had departure delays as the flight attendants spend everyone's time to convince the last few people to check their bags because the've squeezed every possible bit of room out of the overhead bins already.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    38. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Those are the rules in the EU. They are one of the reasons why the EU is so great for consumers. The price they advertise is the price you pay, baggage included. But the rules go much further than that.

      If your flight is delayed by more than four hours you get serious compensation. The only exception is if the delay is due to extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances. Bird strikes are pretty common, so you get compensation if that happens. Problems fuelling, mechanical issues etc. all yield hundreds of Euros for you.

      These rules don't make tickets particularly expensive either. They are expensive, but that's because of the huge amount of tax we have to pay on the environmental damage caused. Last time I flew long distance about 65% of the cost was tax. I'm in two minds about it, because on the one hand the environmental damage is quite significant, but on the other hand I'm not sure that its the best way to deal with the problem.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's different on US airlines, but whenever I fly UK to Japan the rules are:

      - 1 carry on bag with a size limit
      - 1 hand bag / laptop bag
      - 1 camera with bag
      - 1 umbrella / walking stick
      - extras allowed for passengers with babies

      So a standard size bag might not help that much, because people are going to be shoving their randomly shaped items in there too. Seems like the best option would be to allow more check-in luggage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that may be true in America, it is not universally true. Samoa Air charges people by weight (and has done since 2013).

    41. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      But the Cargo hold is full as well... why? Because your airline is using the storage that USED to be used for Checked baggage to ship packages!

      They started adding fees for these things and now their SOLUTION is to reduce the size of the bag because "surprise! People take stuff when they travel!"

      Next thing you know, there will be an "air fee." "Oh, you wanted to BREATHE on your trip? Well that's going to cost you."

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    42. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by cardpuncher · · Score: 2

      Actually, the IATA proposal was a recommended MINIMUM size for cabin baggage (actually, two sizes, there's a smaller capacity defined for very small aircraft) so that passengers could acquire one bag that they could take everywhere. There may be a common size in North America, but in the rest of the world there isn't and oversize baggage charges are a source of some considerable revenue to budget airlines and annoyance to passengers, particularly when their journey involves more than one budget carrier. There was certainly never any intent to prevent airlines carrying larger bags in the cabin if they wanted to. Indeed aircraft manufacturers are going to be fitting larger overhead bins to planes to deal with the increase in carry-on luggage. However, this has been spun essentially as a "Mars bars are getting smaller" story, so the proposal has, now, AFAIK, been withdrawn in face of intense public opposition to something that was never proposed in the first place...

    43. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.
      But I would also like to see checked-baggage fees vary by size/weight. If I have a carry-on sized bag that I know I will end up being able to check at the gate for free (because no plane has enough space for all this carry-on in the cabin) I feel like a total sucker paying $25 to check it at the counter.

    44. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Shame doesn't work in this instance, and in fact can have devastating consequences if people eat to feel better. Plus larger people wouldn't travel, and then the cost of tickets would increase. Your short-sighted, hateful solution is no solution at all.

    45. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Which may or may not have had much to do with regulation... Correlation != causation etc.

    46. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its that, or wait longer in line as every passenger is weighed in, measured and charged by the pound per inch.

      No extra wait required. Today, they weigh your luggage anyway. So they would simply weigh the passenger together with his luggage - also avoiding knowing the person's exact weight. "Please step onto the platform with your luggage beside you . . ."

      The ticket price would simply be "per kg", not caring if you're bringing body fat or heavy suitcases. Families could be weighed as a unit, avoiding the silly re-packing when I have a light bag and the wife has an overweight bag.

    47. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. While I am sure there is some profit taking it was also about providing those that are constantly flying without baggage a means to pay less while still getting the same thing. Many of us fly several times a week just for meetings, remote day work or the occasional overnight, we were basically subsidizing those with luggage and it sucked. Airlines introduced cheaper fares and then let those that wanted luggage to actually pay the difference, they were always paying for this, just now they have the option whereas before you always paid regardless of whether you had luggage. Now all of a sudden it is the airlines screwing these people for more money (don't get me wrong the airlines are utter pricks, but then so are most of self righteous entitled pricks that they carry from city to city).

    48. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      There is an upper limit on the bag mass for handling reasons. So one bag at 35kg and one bag at 5kg is not the same as two bags at 20kg even though the combined mass is the same.

    49. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      I would never ever check in my camera gear. That is simply to much risk and the insurance doesn't cover it - you would need to buy a special insurance for that and that would probably be very expensive since bags are frequently lost or even stolen.

      We are talking about thousands of dollars of gears for any keen photographer so checking it is simply not an option. And it is not only the cost of the gear - you would loose photographic time to. If you travel somewhere with your gear, you are probably going to use it. If your gear is stolen or lost, that possibility is lot. Your planned photographing isn't going to happen - so that is also a lost value. And replacing the gear also takes time, you will in most cases need to order it and that will take weeks. That is also lost value. If you are a professional that could break you economically.

    50. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem paying 50% more if i never again have to sit between two oversized people that just flows over the armrests..

      I would say.. If a person cannot fit in one seat then he should be charged for using two, even if he "only" extends 3cm over the armrest... If this would be the norm then the airplanes would have different sized seats and you would have to book accordingly... If you cannot fit in the, by you, specified seat then you would get thrown off or pay for the upgrade, if a fitting seat is available.

      Main issue i have is not the shoulder-width but the gut-width.. As long as you can lean back with your own arms down your sides it does not matter, at least for me, if i keep my arms on the armrests or in my lap... With the gut-width it just flows in from shoulder down to stomach so your arms cannot rest straight down from your shoulders making it really uncomfortable... But sure, if you have some giant with huge shoulders then that person should have to buy a wider seat too...

      One issue i do have is... What would happen in a crash if i have one or two large slow moving persons between me and the emergency-exit.. That's actually something that threatens my life.. even if being in a serious airplane accident is extremely uncommon..

    51. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, where?!?!... Never noticed that anywhere, except for the really *HUGE* people... not for people that just extend 4-5cm into your seat... and sitting between two of those is not fun..

    52. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly the problem. I live in a place (Canada) where the carriers in the last year have switched from a "first checked bag is free" to a surcharge system for domestic flights. The airlines are raking in the money, but we've instantly gone from the relatively quick and uneventful boarding we had for years to the standard US-carrier-style slow chaos and delays as people cram the overhead bins and inevitably have to check luggage when they are full. As a long-time traveler under both systems, I'd be happy to have the cost of the first bag rolled into the price, because the current system sucks compared to the old one, but obviously the airlines prefer the cash to the chaos.

    53. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Hidden fees are out of control in the airline industry

      I hope they keep getting more and more out of control. No I really do. I have no fond memories at all of the price of an airline ticket in the past. Going to the next capital city used to be a planned holiday, on Tuesday it was a simple and cheap day trip because I had to run an errand.

      I say keep charging. Charge us per the kilo for everything we do. Charge us for all amenities except for water and toilets. Maybe that will stop the idiot next to me from getting wasted on bloody marys because they are free (actually this has been solved by most airlines).

      Airline tickets are finally very affordable. Why should I be forced to pay for services like extra baggage when I don't need it?

    54. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would never ever check in my camera gear. That is simply to much risk and the insurance doesn't cover it - you would need to buy a special insurance for that and that would probably be very expensive since bags are frequently lost or even stolen.

      I worked on the ramp for several years in one of the busiest airports in the US, and if you pack a camera in a good-sized pelican case you won't have any issues. For one thing I have never seen one break or get damaged. But the main reason is this: honestly, pelican cases never get thrown because the person stacking the bin (or the one passing the bags to him if it's a long bin and they have enough gate crew members) usually sits on one. If you want to go cheap and don't really have anything too fragile, one of the guys I worked with said he always used a large rolling cooler for his luggage (strong, watertight, plus then you have a cooler when you get to your destination). When you have to stack 100-150 bags in a 757 in the middle of summer, there's nothing like the simple joy of getting a good pelican case to sit on and a working bin carpet.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    55. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Yup, 'cos Jesus was real big on killing people and not notably hard on rich people or capitalists.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    56. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by supercrisp · · Score: 2

      My wife, a former stewardess for a European carrier, just suggested that this might, in part, be about safety. She thinks that decreasing the thickness of the luggage, but not the other dimensions to any significant degree, suggests that the European carriers may have been pushing toward underseat stowage of the carryons, which is much safer than the overhead bin. Basically the overhead bins are too flimsy to keep luggage from flying around. She also believes that this is a follow-on effect of charging for checked luggage. Anyway, not arguing against anyone's position, but her theory made sense so I was looking for a good place to share it.

    57. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they also regulated the size and weight of the passenger for that price?
      The cost of flying a plane increases with weight.

      In the early days of commercial flight they did weigh all the passengers before the flight.

    58. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Yep. I moved from Australia to the US a couple of years ago. I am a very frequent flier (140+ segments per year).

      In Australia it was never a problem getting overhead space because:

      (a) The carry on bag size limits were enforced

      (b) Most airlines (including the major two - Qantas and Virgin) allow one checked bag as part of the ticket price (I won't say 'free', but it's not charged as an extra fee)

      (c) Less of those godforsaken small regional jets (EMB 120s, 175s and CRJ 200s and 700s in particular) that have tiny overhead bins. The proportion of flights in the US (and Canada) that these aircraft amazes me. You get them even between major (4M+ population) cities. You'd never get anything smaller than a 737 or A320 in Australia between major city pairs.

      Having said that, addressing (a) and/or (b) alone would probably be enough to solve the issue in North America.

      The airline market in the US is much more competitive with many more players. Most don't compete on flying experience, they compete on all the things leading up to a purchase decision. So they compete on price and choice. If an airline offer 6 flights a day from Milwaukee but a competitor offers only 2, the one offering 6 is probably going to do more business. Their flights fit better into people's schedules and it opens up more opportunities for reasonable connections. They would be stupid not to offer as many flights as they can while still being profitable and competitive on each one.

      Maybe in Australia there is less competition, or more airport congestion, or regulations preventing this outcome. But in a highly competitive market I think this is the natural outcome.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    59. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its that, or wait longer in line as every passenger is weighed in, measured and charged by the pound per inch. Fun to watch the whales get humiliated, but also tedious, annoying, slow, and fuck that.

      Whales know their fat. What's really fun are the people who discover they whales after commenting on other people's weight..

    60. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you constantly stalk-harass apk? Your post history's evidence you do. No denying it. You're obsessed with him doing better than you have in computing so you stalk him harassing him constantly like a psycho you're showing us you are by doing it. He's challenged you to do better. You prove you can't. You can't prove his lists of points favoring hosts files wrong. You've been shown agreeing with him that he's correct on them from recent replies of yours in exchanges with apk you've had. Dave420, keep smoking that dope. It's amusing seeing you fall into your dope brain pattern everytime of illogic logic calling others names when you are cornered failing due to your drug addled dim brain shorting out, lol! Got the munchies Dopey Dave? Go eat to feel better. You need it, seeing as you fail constantly here.

    61. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you constantly stalk-harass apk? Your post history's evidence you do. No denying it. You're obsessed with him doing better than you have in computing so you stalk him harassing him constantly like a psycho you're showing us you are by doing it. He's challenged you to do better. You prove you can't. You can't prove his lists of points favoring hosts files wrong. You've been shown agreeing with him that he's correct on them from recent replies of yours in exchanges with apk you've had. Dave420, keep smoking that dope. It's amusing seeing you fall into your dope brain pattern everytime of illogic logic calling others names when you are cornered failing due to your drug addled dim brain shorting out, lol! There is direct causation from smoking too much weed causing stupid minds. You are living proof correlation = causation in fact.

    62. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Airline tickets are finally very affordable. Why should I be forced to pay for services like extra baggage when I don't need it?

      I agree. There seem to be people who like a "prix fixe" version of airline fares, and other people who'd prefer "a la carte." "Prix fixe" made sense in the 1960s when airline travel was a luxury few could afford -- and GP seems to be looking back to that idyllic image with attractive stewardesses bringing you a glass of champagne and offering to light your cigarette for you, before offering you a lovely meal on real china.

      Airline travel isn't like that anymore, and it hasn't been like that for decades. Unless you pay exorbitant prices to fly first class, you're basically strapped into a flying greyhound bus... where everything is made as cheap as possible.

      And if that's the model -- why should I pay for services I don't want? If I want food or drink on a short flight, I can buy it and have more choice (and usually better quality) before I get on the plane. If I absolutely need to bring a huge bag of stuff, I'll pay the cost -- but most times I don't, and I won't. I'd rather save the $50 round trip most of those trips when I don't need the baggage fee.

      Frankly, also -- people bring too much stuff these days. Look at movies or photos or stories of 100 years ago -- people didn't travel with the loads of crap everyone feels they need to bring these days. I started packing "lighter" quite a few years ago after I had an incident of a bag that was lost for a day and I realized I needed to carry at least a change of clothes in my carry-on just in case. Once I started packing that, I realized that actually I could be really efficient and fit most of the stuff I need in a small backpack for most trips of a few days. If the trip is more than a few days, I can either pay the baggage fee for a checked bag (or carry-on fee, if there is one), or I can just plan to spend $5 doing laundry one day at my destination... which is a lot cheaper than any baggage fee.

      With a smaller and lighter bag, it's less to carry, less to worry about, it often can fit under my seat if the overhead bins are stuffed with overpacking idiots who insist on bringing a huge carry-on, and I don't need to worry about a checked bag being lost.

      Actually that latter concern *IS* one area where airlines should have more regulation. If airlines are providing baggage transport free, that's one thing -- but if they are charging you $50+ round trip to check your bag, you should get an absolute guarantee that your bag gets to your destination with you. If it's not in your hand within an hour after your flight lands, you should get reimbursed the fee AND paid extra depending on the time it takes to deliver your bag to you.

      I'm fine with them charging for a service -- but that service then should be of high quality and reasonably guaranteed.

    63. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Which may or may not have had much to do with regulation... Correlation != causation etc.

      I didn't make an argument, I stated a widely held belief backed up by research and data: airline deregulation caused decreases in ticket prices. I invite you to review the economic literature.

      If you come across any peer reviewed articles in a reputable journal making a coherent argument backed by data that the decrease in ticket prices only accidentally coincided with deregulation and had other causes, please by all means share it.

    64. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      our government operates solely in the interests of big business, not what's best for the general public. But I can dream, can't I?

      Big business pays a hell of a lot more in taxes than you do. And employs millions of people who pay taxes as well.

    65. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The biggest clue is that the large European manufacturer of airliners actually calls it an Airbus.

    66. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      is there a pre-fondling program we could join? you know, get it all done at once, in one, uhhhh, lump sum ?

      That might evoke some other "premature" issues for you.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    67. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by jittles · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware that it's relatively straightforward for an airline to determine their average passenger weight quite accurately, and to budget for that in setting their ticket prices. And I'm also aware that it's an idiotic issue to raise in the first place, because airlines have never charged by (or even measured) passenger weight in modern history.

      I do wish that airlines would stick to their guns about passenger size. I'm a big guy, and have a hard time fitting comfortably in a coach seat. My hips go from arm rest to arm rest and I have to tuck my arms against my body to keep from having them stick out into my neighbor's seat. I used to travel all the time for work and have had even bigger guys push me into the window or the aisle because they were about 1.5 times as wide as me./P.

    68. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe direct ticket prices, but not when tacking on all the additional fees we have now. I've been traveling internationally since the 70s, so my experience doesn't match what you describe.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    69. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they also regulated the size and weight of the passenger for that price?
      The cost of flying a plane increases with weight.

      Sure, so long as I get a credit for each of my under-average-weight six kids that I have to pay for a full price ticket for, while you bitch about fatties and children.
      The cost of flying a plane decreases with weight.

      (who rated this asshat interesting?)

    70. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It's not just baggages being lost. It's the airport authorities breaking the locks on your baggage (even when the baggage is unlocked). Or having to carry the baggage around once you get to the destination.

    71. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by lgw · · Score: 2

      Plus larger people wouldn't travel, and then the cost of tickets would increase.

      Wait, what? Lower demand to you means higher prices? Maybe a bit less 420, dave.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    72. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1
    73. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does your concern about access to the exits extend to the aged, and handicapped, shall we charge them more as well? If I am bigger and stronger than you, but not slow, can I toss you aside to get faster access to the exit?

      If all the smaller seats are sold out are you willing to pay more for the larger seat even if you don't need it? If not are, you willing to lose you seat when someone who does require it books after you at the higher rate? If I am 6'8" and need more leg room than the standard seat allows am I still required to pay more than you just because you come from shorter stock?

    74. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about those who will pay for your Social Security check? At least those who have kids will have them and other decendants paying into the system to so grandpa/grandma don't have to work.

    75. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect, the FAA does not require this. Some airlines have this policy, but it is not a requirement. In fact if you look closely on some flights you will find some seats have longer seatbelts than others which would make one of the requirements completely unpredictable.

    76. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that married couples pay for multiple tickets already, and so do families with kids? If anything, those with kids should be paying significantly less, because their weight is far less than that of an adult and they typically have far less baggage too -- yet the discount from a full adult ticket is extremely small indeed.

    77. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Which is hardly a valid comparison, given that their entire fleet seats just 21 people. (And to seat all 21, they need three aircraft).

      They've very cleverly used charging by weight to gain publicity on the theory that any publicity is good, but realistically they need to know your approximate weight anyway because their largest aircraft seats just nine passengers, and their smallest just three. Your weight is a significant issue in the weight and balance of the aircraft when it's that small.

    78. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      You do realize there's a limit on the number of operations any given airport can handle, right? Unless you're going to force people to travel at unpopular times or spend a fortune upgrading airports and dealing with all the NIMBYs who whine whenever that happens, a lot of our large hub airports are already operating at, near or even well beyond their design capacity. "Down with the regulation" only works when deregulating can provide a noticeable advantage, but it can't when there's no room to expand.

    79. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading after the first paragraph, where you are clearly and unmistakably wrong. Airlines in the US market are nowadays setting record profits, whether they're perpetually whining about costs or not.

    80. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      [citationneededbecauseyou'rewrong.jpg]

    81. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      If the airline chooses to offer them to you, yes.

    82. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no, they're not. For routes I personally pay attention to, the base ticket cost has increased by a factor of two to three times in the space of the last 15 years, and that's *before* I even add on all the ancillary, hidden costs. The actual travel cost for my routes is now about five times what it was a couple of decades ago, and even after accounting for inflation (about 60% in the last two decades), that means the real-world cost has more than tripled.

    83. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no it doesn't. Compare the overall tax rate paid by those individuals with that paid by big business some time -- it's enlightening. Hell, it's not uncommon to hear of major, profitable US companies paying little to no corporate taxes at all.

    84. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      From http://time.com/money/3082797/...

      According to a new Associated Press analysis, the average price of a round-trip flight within the U.S. for the first half of 2014 was $509.15. That’s around $14 higher than the same period a year ago. What’s more, soaring flight prices have outpaced inflation: Average domestic airfare has risen 10.7% over the past five years, after adjusting for inflation.

      Clearly there's a disconnect between the two articles.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    85. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tbh there's less than a dozen 'major city pairs' to fly between in australia, and hundreds in the u.s... not hard to build-out a fleet of only larger, more flexible aircraft suitable for both short hauls and cross-country flights when you have so few routes to cover in the first place.

    86. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I still have to pay for the education of their spawn.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    87. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Airplane seating isn't like Greyhound bus seating. The bus seats are comfortable.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    88. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Fuel costs have more than doubled in the last 20 years.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    89. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I absolutely need to bring a huge bag of stuff, I'll pay the cost -- but most times I don't, and I won't. I'd rather save the $50 round trip most of those trips when I don't need the baggage fee.

      With a smaller and lighter bag, it's less to carry, less to worry about, it often can fit under my seat if the overhead bins are stuffed with overpacking idiots who insist on bringing a huge carry-on, and I don't need to worry about a checked bag being lost.

      Meanwhile:
      * Not as much pressure on airports to stop losing bags.
      * Everyone gets annoyed by carry-on bags stuffed into overhead bins.
      * No pressure on bag handling efficiency at Airports.

      Brilliant: Just like
      * American Style Tipping (Decide to invoke the waiters wrath, instead of paying them indirectly via food pricing) [No pressure on the Restaurant to pay a living wage.]
      * Store Taxation (Oh you thought the Price at the shelf included Tax.) [No pressure to get one or two specific uniform state taxes on Products.]
      * ... (I bet there are other idiosyncrasies.)
      * Imperial System Usage (Unit Conversions are fun!) [No pressure to fix broken units; dry gallon, liquid gallon, inches (Wood), inches (Regular), ...]

      I can't shake the feeling that a lot of these are based on screwing someone over.

    90. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've given a citation. You could also have Googled it for yourself.

      It's you who is wrong, and apparently you're a complete idiot too.

    91. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Clearly there's a disconnect between the two articles.

      I don't see a disconnect:

      (1) Airfares down 50 percent from 30 years ago

      (2) Average domestic airfare has risen 10.7% over the past five years, after adjusting for inflation.

      Note that "from 30 years ago" is relevant to deregulation; the accompanying graph shows a steady decrease in ticket prices over most of that time.

      Ticket prices and fees have risen strongly again only under Obama (see the graph in (1)), for whatever reason (but clearly not deregulation).

    92. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American here. Haven't flown since 1999 when I was a teen. Maybe my opinion doesn't matter as much, but here it is anyway.

      I'd like to see...
      1. A seat pitch of 36" or more.
      2. I want to say a seat width of 18", but requiring them to offer large enough seats for "larger" passengers would be appropriate. No extra charge.
      3. Never to charge by weight or height of the passenger as that seems dehumanizing.
      4. Factored into the ticket price, one "free" checked baggage. Or maybe the first piece of checked baggage at $10.

    93. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Airlines want the cargo room to be free because then they can load much more air freight on passenger planes and make even more money. Charging 20$ or more per piece of checked baggage isn't because fuel cost is so high which it was when they introduced these charges, but by now jet fuel costs half as much as it did back then. But they kept the insane charge and now take on air freight instead. Waiting for checked baggage would be OK if domestic flights would not be so notoriously delayed everywhere and airlines are too lazy to check baggage through to the destination in some cases. So forget that for any connecting flights that are not at least two hours apart...and even that might not be enough when you need to change flights in nightmarisch hell holes like O'Hare. Flying used to be fun. You go to the airport, walk up to one of the many check-in counters, give them your ticket, throw all your stuff on the belt, and eventually go to the gate and enjoy the flight. Now you need to discuss your boarding pass with a stupid machine, carry all your luggage, get scanned three times at the TSA checkpoint (which we now know if utterly useless), take off your shoes (WHY???) and belt, listen to the gate staff that they sold 300 tickets for a 230 seat air plane, hope that they do not object to the IATA/TSA approved carry-on, and then endure their 'you are so friggin cheap' stare when you do not want to pay 5$ for a 20 cent snack and a soda. All that while airlines rake in the dough like never before.

    94. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      This is mostly an America-centric problem, unless you're flying a budget airline, in which case you're probably paying 1/4 to 1/10 the price of the ticket on a normal airline, so extra baggage fees are (in some way) justified.

      If I fly Jetstar (a budget airline) Auckland to Singapore for $99 I expect to pay extra for baggage. If I fly Air New Zealand or Singapore (full service airlines) from Auckland to Singapore, I don't expect to pay extra for baggage.

      But in the US, it doesn't matter who I fly with, I'm going to be charged for baggage, and that is annoying.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    95. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Congratulations. For the routes I typically fly frequently they have quartered in price. For routes I typically fly infrequently they have halved in price but given how they were more expensive to begin with this too is a massive win for me.

      In fact the only time I have seen an increase was when the fuel cost sky-rocketed. They added that increase as a fuel surcharge on the ticket. When the price dropped the government forced them to adjust the surcharge accordingly.

    96. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Well, the EMB-190s aren't too bad. It's the 120s and 175s I can't stand :) On paper they don't look too bad since they have 1-2 or 2-2 configs but the fuselage curves inwards at at low height so much that you end up having to hold your head at a weird angle if you have a window seat...

    97. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I'm not sure about that. There are quite a few players in Australia as well - 2 majors (Qantas, Virgin) and a bunch of minors and LCCs (Jetstar, Tiger, etc.). Not all that different from the US with the three majors (post-merger), considering the US population is 15x greater.

      And Sydney-Melbourne is the world's 3rd busiest route in terms of aircraft movements, and 5th busiest route in terms of number of passengers.* On both metrics it surpasses ~any~ single route in the US. So Aussies do know the value of frequency. And airport congestion in Australia is surely less than in the US (IAD, ORD, SFO etc are clusterf***s as soon as there's any kind of weather or other disruption).

      I just think that the flying public in Australia simply wouldn't stand for some of the penny pinching moves that carriers do in the US - there'd be a revolt. The majors all run similar routes at similar frequencies and so they really do compete more on the passenger experience than the do in the US.

      Don't get me wrong, I get the need for the RJs between mid-sized cities, of which the US has many and Australia not so much (Australian cities are oddly distributed in terms of size - they're either massive metros or tiny towns, not much in the 100k-500k range other than Canberra and a couple of others). It just seems weird to me that 70% of flights between say, Chicago and Toronto (two of the very biggest cities in North America) are on RJs.

      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    98. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by euanc · · Score: 1
    99. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people do not know you can book a cabin on a freighter. Did you ever connect the meaning of steamer and trunk?. Not cheaper, not faster, the food is better and you can leave the cabin. Same goes for taking the train. When my cousin retired he and his wife did a lap around the US on Amtrak. Think about how many bags you need for a typical woman for 30 days.

    100. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's tripled to quadrupled, but fuel still represents only a relatively small fraction of the total cost. (Somewhere on the order of 20-30% of the ticket price you're actually paying these days goes towards gas, or significantly lower if you bought a full-price ticket.) That doesn't remotely explain the fact that ticket prices have vastly increased.

  3. I would have expected US carriers to back this by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Smaller carry-ons would reduce their utility for many people, resulting in more mandatory checked back and more mandatory checked bag fees. The flight attendants would like it because there would be less boarding chaos with morons who fuck up the overhead bins. And the luggage industry would have a field day.

    Really, if you stop and think about this it's a miracle they're not backing it, because if they did everybody but the consumer makes money off the deal.

    1. Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this by afidel · · Score: 2

      Smart carriers don't want you to check bags, the hold is much more valuable carrying freight and freight doesn't require the army of workers that checked bags do.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      They will start doing it, just not right away.

    3. Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      They won't back it because it will irritate the frequent fliers that make up the core of every airline's business. I don't think it will ultimately get much international traction, either, as airlines that cater to the upper class continue to do their own thing, putting pressure on any airline that does implement the proposed standard.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re: I would have expected US carriers to back this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With careful folding I put 15 days worth of clothes in my carry on, a pair of running shoes and workout clothes and space is left. It gets 14kg though and the official limit is 8. This is a small bag, 1/2" shorter than the allowed longest dimension, and my clothes are not small since I'm 250+lb. I also Cary the smallest vertical messenger bag for my 11.5" laptop. People should learn how to pack and will be able live with 20% smaller carryons. It took my just 20-25 flights to learn how to fold and pack

    5. Re: I would have expected US carriers to back this by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just pack everything once, instead of having to do it again after running through security? Optimal packing for me generally means that the things the TSA wants out for their useless conveyor belt scans are tucked deep inside my carry-on.

    6. Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's supposed to be a passenger flight, not a cargo flight. Might as well kick off the people and fill the entire plane with cargo then.

    7. Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      more mandatory checked bag fees.

      LOL Did someone pass the idea that the airlines are FORCED to charge you for checking baggages?

      "Forced! Forced I say! Why, I don't know what we'll do if the Big Government makes us take more money in fees from our passengers!"

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    8. Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this by houghi · · Score: 1

      Prices are crazy in the US. When I look what I pay in Europe for the sae distance in flight, Europe is much cheaper.

      And now check prices from e.g. Brussels to NYC to Brussels.
      Now do the same for NYC to Brussels to NYC.

      These are basically the same flights. Flying from Europe to the US and back is cheaper than US to Europe and back. Check them out on https://www.google.com/flights...

      I think there is more going on than them being nice to customers.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Smart carriers don't want you to check bags, the hold is much more valuable carrying freight and freight doesn't require the army of workers that checked bags do.

      As someone who has worked for an airline in both a ramp and air cargo capacity yes, they do. A checked bag might pass through the hands of 7 people, from acceptance to loading to unloading to delivery to baggage claim. Cargo goes through an acceptance agent, then another person takes it to a staging area, where at least 1 person then builds it into a container or cart. Then another person drives the container to another staging area, where another person takes from the cargo facility staging area to the gate for the flight. Then the gate crew takes it, moves it alongside the plane, then someone else puts it on the belt and the person in the bin stacks it. When the plane arrives at it's destination is it loaded into another cart/container, taken to the local freight facility, where it it is broken down, staged for pick-up, then finally delivered to the driver picking it up. That is at least 13 people handling 1 piece of frieght. And that assumes it is a small piece of freight going on a narrow body. Frieght going on a wide-body aircraft take even more people: we would routinely have 3-4+ people breaking down a single PMC. It is not unreasonable to have 20 people in some way handling 1 piece of freight. And that does not include the truck drivers or originating/destination shipper/freight forwarder facilities, or if it has to be inspected by customs for international shipments.

      But yes, by wieght cargo is more profitable because airlines can charge a premium for it, especially with things that have to be sent by air cargo such as perishable products (foodstuff, medicine, flowers-you have no idea how many hundreds of boxed of hydrangreas are shipped are freight to Dubai every week), time sensitive items, live animals, human remains, and valuable items such as gold or other precious metals or exotic/expensive cars.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Smart carriers don't want you to check bags, the hold is much more valuable carrying freight and freight doesn't require the army of workers that checked bags do.

      Greedy carriers don't want you to check bags, don't want you to bring carry-on, would rather you slim down and weigh less than 135 lb and have a 28 inch waist, that way they could cram one more seat per aisle, would like to do away with rest rooms, want you to line up nicely and fill the plane as if they are pouring water..

      Actually they would rather you don't fly at all, just give them the money they feel they are entitled to and stay home.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    11. Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      There isn't any point in reducing carry on size. The allowed size is already very small and it isn't currently enforced because at least 10% of passengers are commonly carrying over-sized carry-on. Never make a new stricter rule, if you aren't enforcing the current one.

  4. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Centimetres, a metric measure. The entire world (not just Europe) with the exception of Liberia, Myanmar and USA use it. I'm sure you must be proud to be part of the only 1st world nation still using the deprecated imperial measurements.

  5. Why bother with new rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just enforce the fucking current rules.

    I've yet to see anyone - except on tiny turboprops - forced to tag and check their godforsaken, obviously bigger than the fucking demonstrative cubic area display, entire motherfucking overhead compartment consuming suitcase.

    Tell these fuckers, "Yeah, no." And suddenly, there won't be a problem.

    Profanity because fuck you, I'm not moving my backpack under my seat and having three inches of leg room for six hours.

    1. Re:Why bother with new rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ^ Found the guy delaying boarding by virtue of his roller bag that can't even fit down the center aisle.

    2. Re:Why bother with new rules? by jwdb · · Score: 1

      I've yet to see anyone - except on tiny turboprops - forced to tag and check their godforsaken, obviously bigger than the fucking demonstrative cubic area display, entire motherfucking overhead compartment consuming suitcase.

      Funny, I see it happen all the time with regional jets. By the time they hit the last boarding group it's assumed the overheads are full, and they'll often start tagging every single roll-on for gate check-in. Maybe you're just not flying enough?

      As for intercontinental jumbos, no surprise they don't do it there because there's usually plenty of space on those.

    3. Re:Why bother with new rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just enforce the fucking current rules.

      I've yet to see anyone - except on tiny turboprops - forced to tag and check their godforsaken, obviously bigger than the fucking demonstrative cubic area display, entire motherfucking overhead compartment consuming suitcase.

      Tell these fuckers, "Yeah, no." And suddenly, there won't be a problem.

      Profanity because fuck you, I'm not moving my backpack under my seat and having three inches of leg room for six hours.

      I have the same problem. I solved it by moving some stuff from my checked bag to create a small "personal item" that goes under my seat. My backpack goes up top and things work. Other frequent travelers do the same.

      I still wonder why airlines want me to bring more cabin baggage...

  6. Re:What are... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Zero first-world nations still use imperial measurements.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  7. First they made food portions smaller by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    now they're shrinking carry-on luggage?

    Fuck, there's only so much air you can pump out of a vacu-seal. I can only get two suits, four sets of undercrackers, a pair of sneakers and my laptop into carry-on as it is. BTW, here a carry-on follows Ryanair's example: 55x40x20cm, to fit in the overhead. Ryanair also allows a smaller piece of hand luggage as a second (since May last year as their passenger cabins only have rack space for 90 carry-ons, excess baggage goes into the hold), which in practical terms means you can carry three full changes of clothes in the cabin bag and a netbook in a neoprene sleeve.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:First they made food portions smaller by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      BTW, here a carry-on follows Ryanair's example: 55x40x20cm, to fit in the overhead.

      You've just identified your own problem: Ryanair. Stop trying to save yourself a few pennies and just buy a seat on a decent airline. Just as a random example, British Airways allows carry-on of 56x45x25cm. That might not sound a lot, but crunch the numbers and BA is giving you 43% greater carry-on allowance per passenger.

      So-called "budget" airlines almost always work out to be significantly more-expensive than their traditional cousins when you actually sit down and do the maths. They're a false economy, but sadly morons who don't take the time to figure this out mean that they're taking over and will soon be the only way to travel.

    2. Re:First they made food portions smaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      morons

      This. Idiots that sort everything by lowest price and pick the top one with an empty head, and then bitch when things fall apart and their miserable.

      I'm opting out. I'm off to work from a home office in a distant place. No more commute. If my employer needs me on a plane I'll find a new employer.

      I'm done with this silly shit. It's bad for you and makes you an angry, sad person.

    3. Re:First they made food portions smaller by mrbester · · Score: 1

      It's more than that. BA allows *two* bags. So you can have your larger-than-Ryanair-allows bag *and* a laptop. Or handbag (yes, that's right ladies, to have to put your handbag *inside* your carry-on if you fly with Ryanair or EasyJet). Or camera bag.

      However, Ryanair allows you to have loads of bags filled with clanking duty free. But then so does everybody else.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    4. Re:First they made food portions smaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "budget" airlines almost always work out to be significantly more-expensive than their traditional cousins when you actually sit down and do the maths.

      Regrettably that is not true in Europe. For example, I live in Hungary and love North Italy. With WizzAir I can fly from Budapest to Milan's main airport (Malpensa) or Bologna for 10 euros one-way (incl. small carry on bag and online check-in) buying the ticket just 3-4 weeks in advance. For 10 euros extra one-way, they provide the option to modify ticket date / route without penalty.

      With RyanAir I can fly from Budapest to Milan's more convenient rural airport (Bergamo) or Venezia for 20-25 euros one-way (incl. decent sized carry on bag and online check-in) buying the ticket 5-6 weeks in advance.

      I often combine the two for inbound-outbound leg and have been able to visit events affordably, despite the outrageous accommodation prices in Italy. I don't need cargo hold sized baggage for 4 nights stay.

      Considering that direct train from Budapest to Venezia no longer exists, the (more costly) alternative is to sit 10-12 hours in a ~Greyhoundish bus overnight and risk losing legs.

    5. Re:First they made food portions smaller by Alioth · · Score: 1

      But if you don't need the allowance, Ryanair is still the best price by a country mile.

      I keep thinking of converting a ski jacket so I can pack 2 weeks clothing in the lining (they never check the size of coats!) and go on a fortnight's vacation hand luggage only...

    6. Re:First they made food portions smaller by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      This. I'd go in what I'm wearing and carry my entire life in a small leather billfold. Buy clothes at the other end and what? Give them away before I come back. It's only things.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re:First they made food portions smaller by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I thought Venice-Budapest was part of the Orient Express route? OK it has to go through Vienna as well, but if it's split, wouldn't that be a logical place to do it and maintain a single-ticket route?

      Source: have made precisely one itinerary for London-Istanbul, the entire journey taking the Orient Express over three days. There *might* have been a service change at Vienna and Venice (there was definitely one at Paris and one at Geneva - weird dogleg but it saved half a day over going the Strasbourg-Munich route), it was about four years ago.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  8. Re:What are... by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is that metric or imperial zero?

  9. 50-30-10 To Be The Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airline love to terrorize and torture their "beloved" customers.

    Look for more Terrorism and Torture from the Majors.

    Gate Clerk: Show me your penis.

    Traveler: What The Fuck!

    Gate Clerk: By International Law you must present your penis to verify that you are NOT Muslim.

    Traveler: Are you a fuck'n Nazi!

    Well that is our world after all today.

    1. Re:50-30-10 To Be The Rule by thunderclap · · Score: 0
      Editing for accuracy

      Airline love to terrorize and torture their "beloved" customers.

      Look for more Terrorism and Torture from the Majors.

      Gate Clerk: Eat this BBQ pork sandwhich.

      Traveler: Why The Fuck should I!

      Gate Clerk: By International Law you must eat pork to verify that you are NOT Muslim.

      Traveler: So you are profiling?

      Well that is our world after all today.

    2. Re:50-30-10 To Be The Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gate Clerk: Eat this BBQ pork sandwhich.

      And there will be a sandwhich fee, for there is no free lunch . . .

    3. Re:50-30-10 To Be The Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Gate Clerk: By International Law you must present your penis to verify that you are NOT Muslim.

      Good luck trying to tell apart muslims and jews by their pricks or more precisely what is missing from their pricks...

      (Well, you could, in most cases. That's because ~75% of jews are genetically non-semitic: the ashkenazi jews are descendants of caucasian khazars, who converted circa 600 AD. Only about 25% of them, the sephardic jews are semitic by race, descendants of the Moses-led bunch. Now, consider that semitic men have even larger he-members than blacks!

      Thus, a circumcised glory as long 1ft (no kidding) is very likely to belong to an arab and somewhat less likely to belong to a sephardic jewish man. Askenazi jews, whites and asians will be much less proud of their loin-cannon firepower.

  10. Call me about their use of metric... by tlambert · · Score: 0

    Call me about their use of metric when they are capable of manufacturing a Boeing 787. Until then, I think I will go with the high technology solution which actually produces working carbon fiber aircraft.

    1. Re:Call me about their use of metric... by mikael_j · · Score: 2

      Seeing as how a Boeing 787 is an American aircraft made by an American company (Boeing) that's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

      There's this other company you may have heard of though, they're called Airbus...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Call me about their use of metric... by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Airbus A380

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    3. Re:Call me about their use of metric... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your phone number? Most of the high-tech parts in the Boeing 787 come from Japan.

    4. Re:Call me about their use of metric... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Actually, Boeing only does the final assembly of the 787.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:Call me about their use of metric... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it was American use of the metric system that produced the Boeing 787 so it would seem that metric is not the differentiating factor here.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Call me about their use of metric... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Call me about their use of metric when they are capable of manufacturing a Boeing 787.

      Much of the B787 structure is actually made in Japan, Italy and elsewhere worldwide where ample carbon-carbon reinforced fiber capacity exists. Boeing does final assembly in the USA, but using mostly foreign sourced components.

      Meanwhile, the Airbus A-380 superjumbo is 99.9% european made and built, if ordered with british Rolls-Royce jet engines (the other turbine option is Pratt and Whitney of USA, I think).

  11. Not United, at least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    United carry on size now is 22cm x 35cm x 56cm, not too far off, really

    1. Re: Not United, at least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experienced travelers don't really bother with shit-tier value airlines like United.

    2. Re: Not United, at least by leftbrainstrain · · Score: 1

      My experience traveling over the last decade has, unfortunately, been quite the opposite. Corporate policy and all.

    3. Re: Not United, at least by stox · · Score: 1

      Log a quarter million miles a year, and United becomes a completely different airline.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    4. Re: Not United, at least by jonwil · · Score: 1

      They do when their boss says "we need you to be in xyz by tomorrow to visit a customer, you have 3 hours to go home, pack some bags and get to the airport in time for your flight in zero-legroom-class on bargain-airlines-r-us, if you dont like it you can go find another job"

  12. I think you are confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think you are confused.

    You are mixing up centimeters and inches again; you meant to say "5.5 inches".

    Also, you appear to be exaggerating.

    1. Re:I think you are confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not confused at all.

      Did you assume that the 14 inches I was referring to was my penis? Why would I want to put my penis in his rectum?

      I'm a nice healthy average thank you very much. Not too big to put it into a woman's ass and be comfortable and even feel good and not too small to just generally be useful.

    2. Re:I think you are confused. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Not too big to put it into a woman's ass and be comfortable and even feel good

      I think you misunderstand the purpose of anal sex. The desired outcome for both parties is not for the recipient to "feel comfortable".

    3. Re:I think you are confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he also typed "woman's" instead of "man's"....

  13. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you go to the hardware store and ask for boards, what system to you use again?

  14. Better system by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Instead of charging extra per bag, ihey should charge on the total weight (of passenger, carry on and checked bags)
    since its the wieght that is the main cost for the modern airliner.

    1. Re:Better system by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      The marginal cost by mass is actually pretty low. The main constraint is the cost of putting the plane in the air.

  15. Re: What are... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I think we Americans enjoy the Imperial system so much because of how upset it makes NonAmericans that we use a completely fucking arbitrary set of measures instead of THEIR completely arbitrary set of measures, and we haven't been peer pressured into adopting the other arbitrary set of measures in 100+ years.

    And as for that bullshit about logical units your science teacher told you, here is the historical definition of a metre before being redefines to be more precise but just as arbitrary in 1983:

    "1 â„ 10,000,000 of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole measured on the circumference through Paris."

    And the candela:

    "The candlepower, which is based on the light emitted from a burning candle of standard properties."

    And now the Imperial units are pegged to the redefined Metric ones anyways.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  16. airlines can suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if they are not going to adopt this new oppressive (clearly a checked luggage cash-grab) standard.

    They can still suck it for all of the other bullshit they put travellers through.

    Like charging parents (i.e. for seat selection prior to the 24-hours-before-the-flight window when all of the seating is gone) to ensure that their kids sit with them and don't get stuck in a middle seat in between two paedophilic creeps.

    Dear Asshole Airlines: get all of your fucking costs together and charge them all at once, up front, on the fucking ticket already. Stop this fucking hidden cost nickel-and-diming bullshit.

  17. IATA, are they Global Super-Villains? by turp182 · · Score: 1

    The IATA is asking for change. Can they make it happen?

    They are, at first, a considerable global consortium of airlines, possibly in the realm of super-villians (given the global nature).

    But, they only charge $15,000 USD per airline annually ($30,000 USD to join).

    https://www.iata.org/about/mem...

    Further, they have 256 member airlines from all around the globe (US based majors included).

    So, they have a guaranteed annual revenue of $3.84M USD (excluding application and acceptance fees, non-recurring).

    And that means they cannot be super-villians. It's a global organization, and they don't make enough money to buy a single US politician.

    Per Open Secrets, US based airlines spent over $30M USD on lobbying and Federal election's in 2014.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...

    I wish the IATA luck with the changes it wants.

    But they are not super-villians.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re:IATA, are they Global Super-Villains? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Bad form, I know, but here is the link to their membership:

      https://www.iata.org/about/mem...

      I copied it into Excel and there were 256 records, 2^8.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  18. Re:What are... by baker_tony · · Score: 1

    Oh, some country doesn't measure width of boards in metric but does so for most everything else, better not use metric at all in America then!
    Sheesh.

  19. Had a hard time finding the comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only after I posted that Slashdot got rid of comments in other forums did someone point out how to find the comments again. If Slashdot does get completely rid of comments, the site will no longer be useful to me, and I won't return, except to see if comments are there. I know I'm not alone in not liking the redesign since there's so few total comments. Other people can't find it either.

  20. Re:What are... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

    the common term is "US customary units". Also, many countries that use metric for many measurements also still use imperial or other units for some measurements. For example, Canada uses the imperial gallon in many situations, which is ~20% bigger than the US gallon.

    Units are complicated and many people overstate the benefits of having uniform worldwide units. If I'm choosing a unit for how I sell my goods, what's more important, that the person down the street is familiar with the unit, or somebody from Ghana will be familiar if he travels to my store.

    Besides, the insistence on worldwide conformity has hints of some sort of New World Order conspiracy.

  21. This is ideal size, even if not required by leftbrainstrain · · Score: 1

    While normally luggage is a bit larger than the dimensions above, the ones above are about the right size to fit on most aircraft. The length of about 21" isn't the problem usually -- it's the other two dimensions. A bag of size 21" x 13" x 7" will fit in the overhead of a Bombardier CRJ200/400/700/900 (fits the long way), which used to be the problem size for me. Gate agents will still insist you tag it for gate check, but the flight attendants usually recognize your bag will fit, if you have one of the models popular with airline crew. I've seen a few rare TravelPro or Tumi bags of small enough dimensions (sorry, don't know models), but the one used more often by pilots (or at least by Delta pilots) and flight attendants in CRJs is the LuggageWorks Stealth 22" 737 Pilot. The "737" in the model name is important to get the right dimensions. It's a little expensive and heavy, but if you travel every week you may also be willing to endure this for a bag that actually fits and doesn't fall apart on you after two or three years of heavy travel like the ones from Target.

  22. Not in the cards? by TheCreeep · · Score: 1

    Do you think removing the share button from slashdot could be in the cards?

  23. Never fly by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Another in a long list of reasons I don't fly. TSA, invasion of privacy, strip searches, terrible service, loaded on like a heard of cattle, no leg room, charges for everything under the sun, delays...it's just easier to drive. I have no reason to travel overseas, would never leave America. If I want to see something overseas, I just look it up. I'd rather travel in the USA. Don't have to deal with the language problem, social problem, anti-American problem.

    1. Re:Never fly by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Just look it up" - spoken like a true idiot. Stay at home - leave the rest of the world for people who grew up.

    2. Re:Never fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you constantly stalk-harass apk? Your post history's evidence you do. No denying it. You're obsessed with him doing better than you have in computing so you stalk him harassing him constantly like a psycho you're showing us you are by doing it. He's challenged you to do better. You prove you can't. You can't prove his lists of points favoring hosts files wrong. You've been shown agreeing with him that he's correct on them from recent replies of yours in exchanges with apk you've had. Dave420, keep smoking that dope. It's amusing seeing you fall into your dope brain pattern everytime of illogic logic calling others names when you are cornered failing due to your drug addled dim brain shorting out, lol! Smoking drugs is not being grown up stupid. It's being an imbecile destroying one's self with drugs. I love seeing you try to play smart only to fall into your usual illogic logic ad hominem attacks Dave420. It's proof the drugs have gotten to your already dim brain and when you get 'frustrated' your dull drug brain shorts out, hahahaha, forcing you to do the only thing you know in calling others names out of frustration at your own stupidity.

  24. Re:WTF is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some of us have jobs which requires us to travel. Anything to avoid wasting my time waiting for checked luggage to be unloaded is a win in my book. Can't go wrong with a weekender bag and a large briefcase. Most airlines doesn't count laptop bags as a carry-on which my briefcase stretch that loophole nicely. Just so you know my briefcase is almost the maximum size of this IATA proposal. Enough clothes for six days in both bags and a blazer I am wearing. Trick is to roll your clothes tightly so that most of the bag aren't taken up by wrinkled clothes that'll take up more space.

  25. Here's the deal by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    If you are an elite 100k flyer the airlines won't screw with you; as long as you aren't trying to drag a hugh bag on they will give you a pass because you are their best customers. The casual flyer will get screwed because the airlines can but they'll bend over backwards for the top tier flyers. Of course, beyond the few dicks most frequent flyers know the drill and just want get to their destination with their stuff with minimal hassle for all involved.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  26. Re:What are... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Unless agreeing upon a 25 page confusing EULA it's metric.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  27. Re: What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the main argument is the benefits of a base-10 based system not that 'logical' lengths that were used. Its trivial to accurately convert between grams and kilograms, kilometres and centimetres, etc. Its a bit more difficult to convert between the US customary units (how many feet is 5 and a 1/2 inches)?

  28. Re:WTF is this doing on /.? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Today many companies pushes for using teleconferences instead.

    Flying have progressively getting less and less comfortable since I started flying in the 80's.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  29. Zero first-world nations still use imperial ... by rssrss · · Score: 2

    Including the US.

    Much of commerce and daily life in the US uses a customary system of measurements that traces its origins to England, before the revolution.

    In 1859 the UK adopted a reformed and rationalized system of weights and measures that was binding on itself and its Imperial possessions, including about a quarter of the Earth's surface at that time.

    The US did not adopt that system. Although in 1959, the US and the Imperial system countries adopted a common definition of the yard in SI units.

    There are extensive differences between the US customary and Imperial systems, especially in units of volume and in larger units of weight.

    All of this is explained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST, a division of the US Department of Commerce [nist.gov]] in Appendix B "Units and Systems of Measurement Their Origin, Development, and Present Status" to their publication Handbook 44 "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices" [PDF].

    While we are correcting misconceptions, the SI system (often called metric) is lawful in the US, and has been so since 1866, and dominates several important activities, such as health care, and the military. What the US has not done, and probably will never do, is outlaw, the customary system.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
  30. Carryon Size is fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's all the other idiots who bring carryon that is clearly too big, or waste space putting their fucking backpacks/purses/coats up there.

  31. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Butthurt over our unit of measure? Really? Tell me how it matters, realistically.

  32. Re: What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A little bit less then half a foot. If you need anything more accurate then that then you need a ruler anyways.

  33. Re:What are... by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Units are complicated and many people overstate the benefits of having uniform worldwide units. If I'm choosing a unit for how I sell my goods, what's more important, that the person down the street is familiar with the unit, or somebody from Ghana will be familiar if he travels to my store.

    In industry, whatever tool or system you're dealing with, you're going to either use something that is either imported or exported or has to be compatible with something that is imported or exported. Thus you are guaranteed that there will be SI units somewhere in your process and it is usually just easier to go with it for the whole process, as is done in the military, NASA, and most US engineering firms. In addition to being internationally compatible, it is also a damn lot easier to use. Sure, if you use no unit but feet, pounds and seconds in your calculation there is no unit conversion that needs to be done, but as soon as you go into the range where you might think in miles or ounces, it becomes fairly difficult to reconcile intuition with units unless you do some fiddly calculations. Whereas a native SI user knows intuitively how long a Km and mm is in the same way an American might recon a mile or an inch.

    So you may say: "why don't I buy a 2 pounds of apples, then walk a mile to work where I use SI to design parts and trajectories and what not?" Problem is, if you're thinking in non SI, then non SI units tend to sneak into where they don't belong. The Mars Climate Orbiter for example fell out of the sky because Lockheed used pound-seconds instead of newton-seconds in a calculation.

    Considering how much success other countries have had switching, I'm always surprised at America's feeble efforts to do so. I think it is just something to do with Americans natural paranoia about as you say a "New World Order" or whatever else that prevents it.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  34. Re:What are... by TWX · · Score: 0, Troll

    Thing is, while I do agree that a standard unit that allows for easy conversion has its advantages, the Metric System's units do not correlate well to real-world situations. 0 degrees Fahrenheit through 100 degrees Fahrenheit correspond well with the temperature range at which a human can work outdoors without resorting to special equipment. A foot, as it is similar to the anatomical part of the same name, is sized conveniently to work with in the physical world with things that the average person will interact with in arms-reach. A gallon of water is about at the limit of what most people can pour and handle in drinkable liquid.

    I don't find the centimeter to be terribly useful, it's too big to replace the quarter-inch where high precision isn't important and the millimeter is too small in the same situations. There is no equivalent to the foot. Degrees Celsius are too far apart to make for gradation on weather maps; when all of the UK is at almost the same temperature on the scale it isn't doing a good job of differentiation. Likewise for tools; it's not common to find fractional units below 1/16 of an inch, but that is still larger than millimeters, so more wrenches and sockets are needed to cover a given size range than with SAE tools, and it's much easier to say above a certain size to stop using 1/16 inch divisions and use 1/8" or 1/4", but there is no clear case for when to start skipping whole-mm sizes.

    I do agree that the Metric System works well for science. The relationship between joules, cubic centimeters, and degrees can really make science and engineering easy, and in those realms where the temperatures reach below the units-place digit and where the precision reaches down below tenths of millimeters it makes a lot of sense. It just seems...applied... to everything else whether it fits or not.

    Admittedly I grew up in a Fractional world, but it still feels like SI isn't quite right even though it is internally consistent.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  35. Even Better system by freeze128 · · Score: 3, Funny

    A better solution would be to stop building planes that have a CYLINDRICAL fuselage when all our baggage is RECTANGULAR!

    1. Re:Even Better system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cylindrical (it's not really) fuselage is a pressure vessel. Weight and drag will go up substantially if your sci-fi minus the science rectangular space ship were built.

  36. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those fucking "cm" things after the numbers? Midget inches?

    Go fuck yourself Europe.

    Also, frist post.

    Get on with the times you fucking hillbilly.

  37. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You realize that your entire justification for using your existing units is because you are used to them right? Believe me when I tell you that metric units seem completely reasonable for the kinds of everyday things that people encounter when you are used to using them. We even have weather maps, beers, and shoes!

    At least try to internalize the fact that you aren't being remotely objective.

  38. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An imperial gallon is simply 4 Liters, a metric measurement.
    The US does use a lot of Metric and has been doing fine. What the US doesn't do is constantly convert back constantly.

    I go to the store and buy a gallon of milk and a 2 Liter bottle of my favorite soda. I may pick up 750 mL of wine. I use Metric sockets on my car, but buy 14 inch tires. How many oz in my soda? how many mm in my tire? Who cares?

    Use is slowly going metric. The biggest roadblock to conversion was in the early 1980's when they sold gas by the liter and it became obvious it was a ploy to sell very little gas for a lot of money. Having a choice between a dollar a gallon or 35 cents per Liter quickly showed the lower price on the sign meant rip-off.

    Liters for high priced gas was a knife in the baby.

  39. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fell in the troll trap. This article has nothing to do with nerd news. Dice threw it up because they knew it would touch off the masturbatory metric vs standard flamewar we sometimes have. The AC to whom you replied is probably samzenpus himself.

    While we're at it, Dice, wtf is up with the missing "read the X comments" link after the summary?? In what world does it make sense to take make me look at a comment ballon with no relationship to the summary? In what world does it make sense to remove what is essentially the "read more" link from the summary? Did you totally misunderstand the beta revolt and decide to implement that shit piecemeal to shut us up?

    It won't work. We'll still leave, just more slowly.

  40. Re: What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's exactly 5.5/12 of a foot. What's the problem?

  41. Is't that the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is bags are too big, therefore anyone with a bag that is too big will need a new bag. *DUH*

    Also, this is as much about reducing chaos and frustration with people trying to board with oversize/too much carry-on, not just about being able to fit everything in the overhead bins.

  42. Re:What are... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    i disagree, especially about the temperature scale. 98% of the human experience falls between 0 F and 100 F. in metric, the range is -20 C to 40 C. You must agree that the F scale is much more intuitive.

    Proponents of the metric system make two points:
    1) the rest of the world does it so it must be good
    2) it feels intuitively nice, orders of magnitude, etc.

    the above point speaks to number two on this list.

  43. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Metric. Board sizes are expressed in either centimetres or millimetres.

  44. Re:WTF is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    could it also be you just gained in physical size since the 80's?

  45. Re:What are... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    the common term is "US customary units". Also, many countries that use metric for many measurements also still use imperial or other units for some measurements. For example, Canada uses the imperial gallon in many situations, which is ~20% bigger than the US gallon.

    Hmm... sounds like the good old times when every region used a different length cubit based on the length of the arm of their current king. Isn't that highly confusing when talking to someone from Canada?

    Units are complicated and many people overstate the benefits of having uniform worldwide units. If I'm choosing a unit for how I sell my goods, what's more important, that the person down the street is familiar with the unit, or somebody from Ghana will be familiar if he travels to my store.

    Now say... which units would make sense to be used in international air travel..... probably the ones that are understood in all countries including Ghana.

    You may go back to your corner store, but this is not about your pint of beer or quart of milk.

    --
    bickerdyke
  46. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what about the confusing (and stupid) "It's 5 degrees below outside!". Below what we ask? In metric it is obvious.

  47. Re:What are... by Sique · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thing is, while I do agree that a standard unit that allows for easy conversion has its advantages, the Metric System's units do not correlate well to real-world situations. 0 degrees Fahrenheit through 100 degrees Fahrenheit correspond well with the temperature range at which a human can work outdoors without resorting to special equipment. A foot, as it is similar to the anatomical part of the same name, is sized conveniently to work with in the physical world with things that the average person will interact with in arms-reach. A gallon of water is about at the limit of what most people can pour and handle in drinkable liquid.

    As someone who grew up within the Metric system, I have the same issues with the imperial units. I find them completely unintuitive and out of my normal experience. What good is a foot as a unit? There is barely anything that is a foot long, except a foot. But the working space on my desk is 1 meter wide. The distance from my desk to the wall behind me has to be at least 1 meter to allow me to sit behind my desk. The length of my legs from the hips down is about 1 meter. What good is Fahrenheit either? When my thermometer shows 0 Celsius, I know I have to drive carefully, as the roads might be frozen. Much easier to remember than 32 F. 20 Celsius is a nice spring day, 25 Celsius means I don't need a jacket, and 30 Celsius means it's getting hot outside. Nice, round numbers. But 68 F, 77 F and 86 F? Horrible! 1 Liter of any drinkable liquid weighs 1 kilogram. That's easy. How much pounds is that? And why the difference between liquid ounces and weigh ounces? Catastrophic! 1 km is the distance I walk within 10 minutes. Easy. A mile? Something about 16 minutes. 100 km is the distance I drive within one hour on the Autobahn, even including heavy traffic. Easy. 100 miles? Yeah, one and a half hour, maybe a little more. How inconvient!

    Metric works well with my experience. Metric works for me. Imperial units do not.

    See how it boils down to whatever you grew up with? Imperial units are in no way more or less intuitive than metric ones. You just remember the real world examples that fit within the imperial units. I remember the real world examples that work well with metric units. None of them is more natural than the other one.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  48. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    98% of the human experience falls between 0 F and 100 F.

    Pardon my ignorance, but 0.98 human experience is how many libraries of Congress?

  49. Re:What are... by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Centimetres, a metric measure. The entire world (not just Europe) with the exception of Liberia, Myanmar and USA use it. I'm sure you must be proud to be part of the only 1st world nation still using the deprecated imperial measurements.

    This sir, is completely and utterly not true.

    The US uses US Customary Units. The Imperial system was established in the English parliament as the Weights and Measures act of 1824, near to some 50 years after the US cut the apron strings. To say they are advanced as the Imperial system is a utter falsification.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  50. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, many countries that use metric for many measurements also still use imperial or other units for some measurements.

    I suppose that you are using an imperial 'many' for that. Two is not enough to count as 'many' in metric.

  51. You know nothing of airline industry by aepervius · · Score: 0

    It is blindly obvious you are paying for the travel from point A to point B without luggage. Carry on and free baggage are only a convenience. "The advertised ticket price is the *only* thing the airline should be allowed to charge you for your seat, baggage (checked or carry-on up to a regulated size and weight), and any additional services offered to you during booking, in the airport or on the plane." which would lead to airline making sure that it is blindly obvious that you are not paying " it is ALREADY blindly obvious. Which is why for all big carrier I know of for big alliance (one world, star alliance) you are not paying for luggage, you are paying for excess luggage. That may be different for discounter like Ryanair but it is not the case for standard carrier. Heck the things is called an EBT (as in "excess baggage") or used to before the advent of EMD (electronic miscellaneous document).

    "It's also high time that overbooking or fuel surcharges were banned, as well. It's not like the airline refunds you a portion of your ticket prices when gas costs less than expected, or refunds you if you decide not to travel on a ticket you paid for, so what possible reason is there for them to be allowed to raise the contractually-agreed price after you've already paid it or to sell your seat to somebody else as well and hope one of you doesn't show up?"
    Firstly you do not pay AFTERWARD a surcharge. You pay it at the moment you pay your ticket and it is included in the price. The things is often the reservation is separated in time to the payment. All fee, services and tax are calculated at the moment you PAY, not at the moment you reserve. And it is quite clearly indicated normally when you book, except a few airline which advertise they guarantee you a price at reservation. And the contract is not "signed" at reservation by the way it is "signed" at payment. Which is why for example you can do a res , and then simply say "screw it I am a noshow" and thus making sure the airline has to overbook or get screwed with a non saleable place and thus loss of money. And do not get me started with double booking by some people (cheapo tariff and normal eco tariff, if they get the place in the cheapo one they simply refund the normal tariff).

    "or refunds you if you decide not to travel on a ticket you paid for"
    You actually get a refund for tickets you do not travel. Depending on your tariff it may be partial, full, or minimal. That is why you can get a cheapo ticket : you forgoe the ability to get a refund or free rebooking. Want to be able to refund ? Then stop buying the cheapest tarif and get the normal undiscounted tariff.


    "Sadly, there's zero chance any of this will ever happen" There is no chance that will happen because your post is based of a totally erroneous understanding on the reservation and ticket sale process. Why this was modded insightful is a wonder.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:You know nothing of airline industry by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Which is why for all big carrier I know of for big alliance (one world, star alliance) you are not paying for luggage, you are paying for excess luggage. That may be different for discounter like Ryanair but it is not the case for standard carrier.

      You obviously haven't traveled recently in the United States. Many of the "standard carriers" today charge for any checked bag in domestic travel. The "budget" airlines now often charge for carry-ons beyond the size of a basic "personal item."

      Whether you like these new policies or not, the fact is that most carriers these days in the U.S. will charge you to bring standard baggage which was allowed for decades. (Don't believe me? See domestic baggage fees here comparing different airlines.)

    2. Re:You know nothing of airline industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think all of your responses are based an a non-US experience. Most US carriers charge for any checked bags. If you ask about the fuel surcharge they will tell you it is because of fluctuating fuel prices, but can't explain why that isn't just figured into the already always changing prices of the ticket. The majority of tickets in the US are "non-refundable" and in some cases you can pay a fee to use them at a later time, but the fee itself is often a couple of hundred dollars. If you don't pay the fee, you lose the cost of the ticket if you don't fly. If you cancel before the flight you can often have a "credit" that can be used for a later flight (with a change fee) but not a refund. Given such a system you can see why overbooking makes less sense to consumers in the US, because very few people on any given flight have a refundable ticket. Your strategy of booking two tickets to get the cheaper flight would not work because you would not get the refund. The airlines are simply hoping that some travelers don't make the flight (missed connections, etc.) so they can sell the same seat twice on a popular flight time and shift the overbook to a less popular flight later in the day or the next day. Typically the most oversold flights are early morning and late evening flights and the overflow from those flights is shuffled to the midday flights.

  52. Silly system by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Instead of charging extra per bag, ihey should charge on the total weight (of passenger, carry on and checked bags)
    since its the wieght that is the main cost for the modern airliner.

    You honestly think airlines haven't considered that. They figured out it costs more than it will save.

    Besides that, do you think an airport rent-a-cop is going to tell Mr SteroidJunkie that he has to pay and Mr Tubby gets through for free he weighs more than the Chubster?

    BTW, when you fly on light aircraft in commercial service like a Dash-8, you do get weighed because that plane has a very low MTOW. There's a reason they know it's unworkable.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  53. It's obvious by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    If it needs wheels, it is not a frgggin' carry-on!

    Overhead bins do NOT mean that there is a compartment for each passenger! You're supposed to share that space! But no, everyone nowadays has to bring these cases that aren't much smaller than the suitcase I regularly use for checked baggage! carry on is your survival pack with stuff you need between checking and retrieving your regular baggage, plus a pair of clean underwear and a towel and what you might need if your regular baggage is late.

    --
    bickerdyke
  54. Re:What are... by umghhh · · Score: 1

    In metric Europe we still use inches for pipes and some such. Life, it seems, is never easy.

  55. Old Continent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Europe, low cost airlines (wooden-bench airlines in local parlance) traditionally measured free cabin carry-on luggage as 1pcs of max. 55x40x20cm.

    Then WizzAir, a shady swiss-financed newcomer rival to the Ryanair giant, reduced free baggage size to 1pcs of 42x32x25cm, so that it must fit under the seat in front of you. Simultaneously they introduced paid "large" carry-on luggage with standard IATA dimensions of max. 56x45x25cm and allowed cargo hold baggage to grow to max. 32 kilos per piece. The idea was to steer people from carrying overhead bin cabin luggage at all, because the A-320 / B-737 are designed to only have rack space for 90pcs of IATA standard size baggage, that is only ~half of the 180-188 person maximum capacity. This often caused caused tight 25-30 mins turn-around slots to be missed as pax and stewardesses argued over excess luggages that just wouldn't fit. Sometimes a toilet cubicle had to be stuffed full of Samsonites to be able to take off. (It takes huge time to transfer already cabined baggage to the cargo hold.) Now Wizz can easily meet the timetable and earn extra money, clever.

    The big rival Ryanair responded by keeping their cabin bag size unchanged, but allowing one extra laptop bag or small 35x20x20cm handbag to be carried onboard for free as well. On the other hand, only the first 90 people in the security check queue can actually carry these in the cabin, the rest must submit them for transport in the plane's cargo hold, for free. (In contrast, Ryanair CEO's original goal was to eliminate cargo hold loaded lugagge at all and expect people to buy everything they need at the destination and throw them away at the end of holiday. This proved to be a daydream.)

    Anyhow, since low-cost travelers are often on tight schedule, many dislike submitting baggege into the cargo hold, because onloading times are unpredictable. Furthermore, overland mobility is much easier with a backpack or a backpack-small trolley compared to the multiple Samsonite mini-18 wheelers, some people submit to the cargo hold.

  56. Re: What are... by umghhh · · Score: 1

    'my pound is better than your pound (I can cheat better this way too)' being a main argument of not adopting common units till french revolution came and forced everybody to use common scientifically but still arbitrarily chosen units. It was the widely adopted because of benefits it offered, at least everywhere where French army went trough. Everybody else adopted it, I guess at the point where they standardized units to use on national level. I guess US was too big manufacturer of things to ever comply and UK did not like the French and continental things in general (thus forcing 'Made in Germany' to show where bad quality was). At the end you convert as much as we in Europe do. Sometimes we do not and expensive satellites fall from the skies. Some would fall anyway because somebody forgot to test things properly etc.

  57. Re:What are... by Yomers · · Score: 2
    Quotes from "London is better for tech" enterprises:

    According to a story and trivia questions in Germany, Fahrenheit actually chose the lowest air temperature measured in his hometown Danzig in winter 1708/09 as 0 F, and only later had the need to be able to make this value reproducible using brine.

    The third point, 96 degrees, was approximately the human body temperature, then called "blood-heat".

    So Fahrenheit vs Celsius 0-100: coldest temp at Danzig, winter 1708/09 and a "blood-heat" vs freezing water and boiling water temperatures. Are you sure the first is more intuitive?

  58. Re:What are... by umghhh · · Score: 1

    This article has nothing to do with different units systems but with the standard carry-on bag size. Besides that you are right - it is a mental masturbation most of the time to discuss different units. Sometimes you learn something. Sometimes you just enjoy the ride - why cannot you just enjoy the ride? It is Friday after all.

  59. Re: What are... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the American Revolution was the NWO, meant to cast down the monarchies and oligharcies that were all the rage. Then of course the French had to go and fuck it all up by setting the prime example of what not to do that every manaical asshole flavor of totalitarian has been trying to top since.

  60. Re: What are... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Which is stupid anyway because apart from grade school math done on your fingers and toes base ten is flatly inferior to bases 12, 16, and 20 depending on the situation.

  61. Re:What are... by gtall · · Score: 1

    Not natural paranoia, it is more the government has less of a say over regulating life than other countries. The governments could mandate it over there while in the U.S., it just looks like yet another Washington experiment.

    Also, the U.S. is an island nation, more or less. And large enough to have its own economy. Europe is composed of little toy countries that are much more interconnected. They need a system of easy conversion just to help erase the borders a bit. The U.S. economy has been big enough not to give a flying rat's ass. That's slowing changing now that everyone wants a net positive export/import balance of payments. The free trade deals the U.S. pushed through in last 30 years encourage that. And the push for metrics would have more behind it if it weren't for the Chinese. Americans see the free trade deals as the Chinese taking advantage rather than dealing fairly...a bit like how they are raping Africa.

  62. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... during a switch specify $X/gallon and $Y/liter.. problem solved.... To start with have the signs stay on gallon but all receipts will specify both.. After a year switch the signs to specify in liters and keep the double-specification on the receipts.... after 2 years most people will have adjusted without any companies being able to sneak in a price-increase..

  63. How about just enforcing existing sizes? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Every single flight there is always several scumbags trying to force an obviously too overstuffed or too big of a bag in the overhead. They just let them continue to smash other peoples stuff and force it in there instead of saying, Bag must be checked, $25.00 plus a $10 cheap jerk fee.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  64. Interesting choice by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Not once have I seen an airline actually enforce carry-on size regulations, in 40 years of air travel.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Interesting choice by neminem · · Score: 1

      Southwest never has, which is nice of them. When we flew international on SWISS last year, they absolutely did enforce it strictly (a little too strictly, I didn't even agree with them that it was too large according to their own specifications). However, they also checked our bag that they claimed was too big, for free, so that was nice of them too.

      I'd be ok with standardization, but it would be ridiculous to standardize at way worse than the current kinda-sorta-standard.

  65. Start charging for carry on bags! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    The loading and unloading time of an aircraft is extended by 20 minutes or more just to accommodate those who want to carry on their luggage. I say make a checked bag free, but charge the $25 for anything other than a personal carry-on (purse, laptop). That will stop a lot of this delay and save money/schedule as well as ease security lines.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Start charging for carry on bags! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >just to accommodate those who want to carry on their luggage

      I don't want to carry on luggage. I want to avoid baggage claim, not lose my bag and skip the line at check in. Carrying on is just means, not the motivation.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Start charging for carry on bags! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The loading and unloading time of an aircraft is extended much more because the idiots in charge want to load from the front instead of the back first.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  66. charge for carry-on, not checked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about this:
    * everyone gets one free checked luggage
    * your first carry-on items is $10
    * your second and subsequent ones are $50

  67. IATA can't seem to communicate by DingerX · · Score: 1
    Whether this becomes an excuse for shrinking carry-ons is a different story, and that's how the news organizations have tried to field it. But if you look at their latest press release, they try to be clear:

    The Cabin OK guideline is smaller than the size set by most airlines as their maximum acceptable for carry-on baggage. Thus, passengers with Cabin OK carry-on baggage can travel with a greater assurance that it will be acceptable across the different airline requirements. And, when travelling on a participating airline there is a further benefit: those bags with a Cabin OK logo will have a priority (determined individually by each airline) for staying in the cabin should its cabin capacity be exceeded and some baggage need to be moved to the hold.

    What they're trying to say is the following: thanks in part to airlines charging for luggage, passengers often encounter situations where the plane is full and some bags are gate-checked, at no additional cost to the passenger. On some of the smaller aircraft, many "perfectly legal"-sized bags are out of necessity gate-checked. The "Cabin OK" logo is IATA's way to signal that, barring exceptional circumstances, that bag need never be checked at the gate. The idea is that the gate agent need only grab the trolleys without the logo to ensure space on a full flight.

  68. Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok, so why does the whole world use such a fucked up time system? 60/60/24? 7 days? 28/29/30/31? The only natural measurement is the solar year, and that's a little iffy.

    1. Re:Time by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      One month is roughly equivalent to a lunar month (29.5 days).

      The problem is how to make a calendar that is both lunar and solar at the same time. i.e. one that matches both the lunar and the solar cycle. Where a day is a solar day and a month the length of the lunar cycle and the year is length of the solar cycle.

      IIRC the Maya made all months the same length (20 days) and added a couple of spurious holidays in the end of the year to pad the calendar out.

      Someone did try a 'metric calendar' at one point. Google 'French Republican Calendar'. It was a disaster.

  69. Re:What are... by Kartu · · Score: 1

    I don't get why your post was moderated "troll"...

    Anyway, what's wrong with Celsius for temperature, please?
    0 - is when water starts to freeze vs Farenheit's temperature when mixture of water and salt (and something else) starts to freeze.
    100 - is boiling water (dayum hot). vs Farenheit's 97.88 "normal body temperature" (WTF?)
    Farenheit is also finer than it needs to be (you don't really distinguish between 97 and 95, whereas 2-3 degrees Celsius is already noticeable)
    So C correlates to real word situation much better than F.

    A foot, is not just a foot, but a certain guy's foot. If I could measure things using mine, and that number would still work for others, it would make sense. But it's somebody else's foot (some English king?), how can I use it? There is no problem assessing what size things are in metric system either.

    I can give you one counter example though, of imperial units still being used in Europe: hose diameter. It's still quite often measured in inches. 1", 5/4, 3/4, 1/2 inch is easier to remember, than millimeters.

  70. Re:What are... by azcoyote · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's good to hear your perspective and see that our perceptions about the intuitiveness of our measurement systems is relative. I've always thought that the larger scale of Fahrenheit was convenient because units of 10 distinguished temperatures well (70's are distinct from 80's), but it's clear that you use units of 5 in Celsius for the same purpose.

    Of course I admit that my reluctance to change to metric has more to do with American nationalism than with any sure superiority of our units (although I despise using centimeters for small around-the-house measurements when inches and 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 inches feel better to me). But at the same time, I think that it is as necessary to have multiple measurement systems as it is to have multiple languages. In the 20th c. especially many people believed that the era of different tongues was coming to an end, but I think that despite the prevalence of English and Chinese around the world, there will always be multiple languages because culture can never be simplified into a single thing. Even in the USA it's possible to go to another region where they use some different words, different phrasings, different ways of thinking, and this is simply a natural occurrence akin to genetic diversity. The more distinct a culture, the more distinct its use of a language, so native English speakers in India do not speak exactly the same English as in the USA or UK. An absolute universal language can never be anything but an artificial construct disconnected from real culture, hence the problem with Esperanto. (And I do recognize that there are some native Esperanto speakers, but that does not remove its failure as a universal, a-cultural language.)

    In the end, the U.S. uses the metric system when it's helpful (e.g. in science), and there is no pressing need to switch to it completely. Just because we use the US system doesn't mean that we don't understand the metric system and aren't taught it in schools.

    --
    Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
  71. Re:What are... by rastos1 · · Score: 2

    your entire justification for using your existing units is because you are used to them right?

    Could you, please, clarify how does following fit into imperial system?

    One Joule is equal to the energy transferred (or work done) when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one meter.

    One Volt is a potential difference between two parallel, infinite planes spaced 1 meter apart that create an electric field of 1 Newton per Coulomb.

    One Ampere is constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2*10^-7 newton per metre of length.

    One Tesla is equal to one Weber per square meter.

    How does all that translate to imperial?

  72. Re:What are... by khr · · Score: 1

    1 Liter of any drinkable liquid weighs 1 kilogram. That's easy. How much pounds is that? And why the difference between liquid ounces and weigh ounces? Catastrophic!

    Catastrophic is a bit of an overstatement... It's easy, an ounce of any drinkable liquid weighs an ounce... (for the same variations as your silly 1 liter weighs 1 kilogram things...)

  73. Re:What are... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    In Fahrenheit, it is obvious as well. 0 is the coldest you can get saturated salt water and 100 is human body temperature. Slight adjustments were made to the scale over time and measurements got more accurate which is why these aren't the exact values anymore. Still doesn't change the fact that the system is intuitive as 0 is cold and 100 is hot as perceived by humans. If water cared what the temperature was, Celsius might make sense for water to use.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  74. Re:What are... by danbert8 · · Score: 2

    Yes, 0 is cold, 100 is hot as perceived by humans... Water might care about when it freezes and boils, but outside of a laboratory, most people don't. They just want to know if they need to put on a coat or wear shorts.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  75. Re:What are... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    One ton of shit is equal to a ton of shit. A mile from your current location is a mile away from you.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  76. Re:What are... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Why do you want to sodomize someone with your mother's dildo?

    --
    Time to offend someone
  77. Re:What are... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    For human experience, 0 should be very cold, and 100 should be very hot. That makes sense. In your system, 0 is moderately cold and 100 is dead. Also Fahrenheit's specific degrees were originally based on 64 integer gradations between fresh water freezing temp and human body temperature which could be done fractionally once you established the relatively constant endpoints.

    I guess if you want accurate measurements you shouldn't use feet, but is great for estimating... You can visualize the length of a foot pretty easy and the length of an average adult male's pace is just about 2.5 feet which makes for a nice 10ft per 4 paces. There are advantages to every system, why do you think the one based on arbitrary science benchmarks and decimals is better than the one based on human experiences and fractions?

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  78. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mars Climate Orbiter for example fell out of the sky because Lockheed used pound-seconds instead of newton-seconds in a calculation.

    No, it didn't. The reason it failed is because Lockheed provided data with no units whatsoever, and NASA used that data without asking what the units were. Each side made an assumption about the units. This was a clear case of why units should always be stated.

  79. Re:What are... by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is barely anything that is a foot long

    But how many centimeters long is a pornstar?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  80. Re:WTF is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roll your clothes? Isn't it more efficient to have them neatly folded flat?

  81. Re:What are... by dj245 · · Score: 1

    You realize that your entire justification for using your existing units is because you are used to them right? Believe me when I tell you that metric units seem completely reasonable for the kinds of everyday things that people encounter when you are used to using them. We even have weather maps, beers, and shoes!

    At least try to internalize the fact that you aren't being remotely objective.

    Terrible examples. I have drank "pints" (not liters) of beers all over the world. That's how they were sold.
    Shoe sizes have at least 6 different standards, not including the US or counting women's sizing standards.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  82. Re:WTF is this doing on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why we need a much better train system. Flying sucks, there's no doubt about it, but traveling by train is much more comfortable. The problem is that it's too slow and doesn't go enough places; it works pretty well along the northeast corridor but that's about it. If we had good high(er) speed rail in this country, regional travel by train could become much more popular. It wouldn't work so well for coast-to-coast travel, but if you're staying within one region or so (like DC to Chicago for instance), a 200mph train would be a great service.

  83. Re:What are... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

    An imperial gallon is simply 4 Liters, a metric measurement.

    nopee. an imperial gallon is a little more than 4.5 liters.

    you're thinking of the little-used unit "quadliter", which falls between a US gallon and an imperial gallon.

  84. Re:What are... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    Are you sure the first is more intuitive?

    after reading your post, with the words "danzig", "1708/09", "brine", and "blood-heat", the answer is obviously yes. none of those words are part of my human experience.

  85. My Airline has No Limit, Except Weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The airline I fly has no size limit for carryons (except the size of the passenger compartment of the plane) and no weight limit except for the gross weight of the plane. Plus, they go many more places than most of the "big" airlines... I'm very happy with them.

    Cheers
    Peacock

  86. Re:What are... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    Considering how much success other countries have had switching, I'm always surprised at America's feeble efforts to do so. I think it is just something to do with Americans natural paranoia about as you say a "New World Order" or whatever else that prevents it.

    Government organizations have for the most part already switched. However the government doesn't have the power to mandate that the private sector switch. And the private sector tends to stick to what its customers know.

  87. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that metric or imperial zero?

    Metric. There are 100 centizeros in a zero and 10 millizeros in a centizero. If you need to measure larger zeros, there's the kilozero That's how you can tell. SO much easier than the imperial standard.

  88. Re:What are... by torkus · · Score: 2

    And a pint is a pound ... it's not that complicated and how often do you really care how much a liquid weighs in your personal life? If you do this professionally/scientifically then it's just working knowledge to know this stuff.

    Don't get me wrong, the metric system definitely easier to use in a lot of cases...but not so much easier that it really matters for daily life.

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  89. Re:What are... by alex67500 · · Score: 1

    Everybody in the UK knows a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter, easy peasy

  90. Re:What are... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    I use metric regularly, and I'm a US citizen, living in the States.

    We may not have passed a law mandating this, but it's a fact, the US is a both systems nation.

    Now go back to your EU and pay attention to your own problems.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  91. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not 65, 75, 85 degrees in your example?

    On the highway, if I'm driving 60 mph (~100kph), I know I'm going a mile a minute. So, see a sign for "rest stop, 40 miles", I know it'll take me about 40 minutes to get there. In metric, how long does it take you to drive 64 km at 100kph?

    Examples can be pulled out of each. The metric system is not some system where all math problems are magically simplified for us.

  92. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did grow up in the US, so I'm sure I'm influenced by what I'm used to, but...

    I'm surprised that I hardly ever see anyone discuss cooking with imperial vs. metric units. Imperial weights and volumes are almost all related by powers of 2, which makes it simple to double or halve most recipes. That isn't to say that metric is that much more difficult, but I use metric quite frequently as an engineer, but I find it much easier to keep track of imperial units when cooking where I don't want to take the time to write things down.

    Besides, shouldn't a computer-oriented site have more people who like things related by powers of 2 than powers of 10?

  93. Re:What are... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    If Metric is so important to you, why don't you use Kelvin temperatures?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  94. Re:What are... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    One Volt is a potential difference between two parallel, infinite planes spaced 1 meter apart that create an electric field of 1 Newton per Coulomb.

    One Ampere is constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2*10^-7 newton per metre of length.

    How do you go about measuring those infinite things?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  95. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, I've got a foot long measuring device conveniently named a foot bolted to my body. If you can't figure out how long a foot is, well, then, uhh, I guess you need to stick to arbitrary units.

  96. get rid of overhead bins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone is too dumb to store their garbage in them quickly

  97. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If water cared what the temperature was, Celsius might make sense for water to use.

    Such as water freezes at 0C and boils at 100C?

  98. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's because the UK's pints/gallons are bigger.

  99. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easier to divide things into 2 or 3 with crude or no tools than it is to do the same operation by 10. Given the timeframe when they were developed, it's easy to see why they are all based on being multiples of 2 and/or 3.

  100. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's basically what you learned first. As an American, I think in US units, just like I think in English. I know Spanish, just like I know SI - I just have to think about it a little more before I can use it.

    Btw, in US units, it's really easy to tell how long it'll take you to get somewhere. 60mph (100ish km/h) = 1 mi/min. 100mi = 100 mins

  101. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > It's easy, an ounce of any drinkable liquid weighs an ounce...

    There is "normal" ounce and troy ounce, so that your silver coins has about 10% of weight conveniently stolen...

  102. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is barely anything that is a foot long

    But how many centimeters long is a pornstar?

    And what does he order from Subway after a day pounding snatch?

  103. Re:What are... by thanq · · Score: 1

    Hiking, camping, moving, home construction, gardening. I've always used liters = kg in those to asses how much it will weight, how many trips I need to make, how many people and what types of vehicles or containers I need.

  104. Re:What are... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    A foot-long hotdog is about a foot long. Upper and lower legs, upper and lower arms, are each about a cubit. If you need a 1:1 conversion, a hand is about a decimeter,

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  105. Re:What are... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Oh, please learn to spell "assess". I didn't come here to read anal pornography.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  106. Re:What are... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    1 troy ounce = 1.09714286 avoirdupois ounces. Apothecary ounce is same as troy ounce. A US pint of water weighs 1.04375 avoirdupois pounds. 0.04375 = 7/160.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  107. Re:What are... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Historically, body temperature was estimated at 37C, and exactly converted to 98.6F. Alas, that's a failed attempt at accuracy, as the typical human body temperature is a tad below 37C. And tad is an English measure.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  108. Re:What are... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    To make things convenient for photographers, we should all use the photographic-metric unit for temperature, the dekamired.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  109. Re:What are... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The insult here is that when I ask for a 2 x 4, I get a 1-1/2 x 3-1/2. Lumber dimensions are a nonlinear lie.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  110. Why spelling matters by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Whales know their [sic] fat.

    This time, your spelling error still makes a proper sentence, but destroys the meaning of your post. Now consider the hilarity that ensues when "know" is understood in the Biblical sense.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  111. Re:What are... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

    How do you go about measuring those infinite things?

    You grab a (metric!) measuring tape and off you go!

  112. Re:What are... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    I was actually half-trolling (implying that the US is no longer a first-world country), but intentionally wrote it so that it could be interpreted either way.

    Besides, the US does use the metric system for a lot of things, including most manufacturing and science. A lot of goods people buy are really created in metric sizes, which are then converted when they print the label.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  113. You can't put a pound of H2O in a box... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...shaped like a cube, 1 foot or 10 inches on each side and get a 1 gallon of volume.

    Nor can you subdivide up and down between the sizes without hauling out some really unintuitive fractions - while various measures use various fractions.
    Number of inches in a foot or a yard is NOT the number of ounces in a pint, quart or a gallon.
    Nor do any of those match with ounces, pounds and stones.
    And not only that, an ounce is not the same value OR fraction of a pint (1/20) and of a pound (1/16).
    How many ounces in a glass of water? Well it depends...

    Meanwhile...
    1 meter = 10 x 1 decimeter = 100 x 1 centimeter = 1000 x 1 millimeter
    1 liter = 10 x 1 deciliter = 100 x 1 centiliter = 1000 x 1 milliliter
    1 kilogram = 10 x 1 hectogram = 100 x 1 decagram = 1000 x 1 gram = 1000000 x 1 milligram
    1 liter of H2O = 1 kilogram of H2O = 1 cubic decimeter of H2O

    0 degrees Celsius = freezing point of H2O while 100 degrees Celsius = boiling point of H2O
    I.e. Points where it changes aggregate states from liquid to solid and from liquid to gas.
    Points at which you are no longer measuring temperature of a liquid. Ends of the scale.

    Fahrenheit?
    0 is the point of change of aggregate state of 1:1:1 mixture of salt, water and ice - while 100 is a couple of degrees above "blood temperature".
    Which is stupid in so many ways I don't even want to go into it.
    And no... "100 degrees means it's hot outside" is not a good rule of thumb due to a simple fact that no two people are alike or have exactly the same preferences.

    And that's without going into more technical measures like Watt, Volt, Ampere, Calories etc. which are all based and interact with other SI units.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  114. Re:What are... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    Catastrophic is a bit of an overstatement... It's easy, an ounce of any drinkable liquid weighs an ounce... (for the same variations as your silly 1 liter weighs 1 kilogram things...)

    holy shit you're right. I never realized that before. That makes it so easy! And, as the person says below, a pint of water weighs a pound.

  115. Re:What are... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    oh gawd, we didn't even get to units for photographers. what the eff is an f-stop? I never understood it, other than to intuit that it is the inverse fraction of something that may otherwise make sense.

  116. Re:What are... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Units are complicated and many people overstate the benefits of having uniform worldwide units. If I'm choosing a unit for how I sell my goods, what's more important, that the person down the street is familiar with the unit, or somebody from Ghana will be familiar if he travels to my store.

    In industry, whatever tool or system you're dealing with, you're going to either use something that is either imported or exported or has to be compatible with something that is imported or exported. Thus you are guaranteed that there will be SI units somewhere in your process and it is usually just easier to go with it for the whole process, as is done in the military, NASA, and most US engineering firms. In addition to being internationally compatible, it is also a damn lot easier to use. Sure, if you use no unit but feet, pounds and seconds in your calculation there is no unit conversion that needs to be done, but as soon as you go into the range where you might think in miles or ounces, it becomes fairly difficult to reconcile intuition with units unless you do some fiddly calculations. Whereas a native SI user knows intuitively how long a Km and mm is in the same way an American might recon a mile or an inch.

    So you may say: "why don't I buy a 2 pounds of apples, then walk a mile to work where I use SI to design parts and trajectories and what not?" Problem is, if you're thinking in non SI, then non SI units tend to sneak into where they don't belong. The Mars Climate Orbiter for example fell out of the sky because Lockheed used pound-seconds instead of newton-seconds in a calculation.

    Considering how much success other countries have had switching, I'm always surprised at America's feeble efforts to do so. I think it is just something to do with Americans natural paranoia about as you say a "New World Order" or whatever else that prevents it.

    I think the legislators are all dumb, and think that the population is as dumb as they themselves are. Start with temperature. For 2 years mention both Celcius and Faharenheit, and after 2 years (or even 3) drop Faharenheit. Thats what Canada did. We transitioned to metric long ago, and thats helped Honda, Toyota and non-American car manufacturers to get a foothold in Canada and elsewhere. We have tools designed for metric measurements, not tools designed to American standards.
    We do keep certain traditional sizes, such as a 4'x8' panels, and 2x4 inch lumber. But the houses are constructed with Metric measure. And new construction is done with prefabricated panels, measured and machined using metric measure, and with the panels fitting together precisely.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada