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

Well they are now going to let you carry less than 4 oz of some liquids.

I'm so grateful to the authorities.

The next terror device will be blue. They won't let you carry blue items.

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

Mxsmanic wrote
How far off can aircraft weight be, percentage-wise, before it makes a
potentially hazardous difference in flight characteristics?

1%-2% would not even be noticed except in total fuel burn on a long
flight. 5% would be noticed by the pilot, but only takeoff distance,
climb rate, and maximum altitude attainable. 10% would certainly
cause performance problems. However, most flights are not weight
limited by the maximum certificated T.O. weight, but by some other
performance limit...RW length, obstacles, landing weight, etc.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:35:00 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:
I've e-mailed a question about this to the FAA but I have not yet
received a reply.

Don't hold your breath... I've tried for over a year to get them and
the TSA to differentiate between a 'gun' and 'gun parts' and no one
wants to put their name on the line by making a decision... Since they
won't specify which collection of parts of a firearm constitute a
complete 'gun', any collection of gun parts would have to be declared
as a gun in your baggage... Which means that a single screw that holds
the grips on a handgun must be declared and and more importantly, the
bag containing it must be locked...

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:39:21 +0000, Crash Lander wrote:

Business class ticket sales will drop!

Hopefully, all ticket sales will drop. I understand that commercial air
travel is a requirement for some, and I'm sorry for those people. But why
should the rest of the flying population suffer such indignities?

Teleconferencing firms should win big out of this. And, hopefully, this
will save businesses money that can be passed on to consumers.

As consumers we save money, leaving more to spend on our own flying.
The airlines use less fuel, reducing fuel costs. The airlines use less
airspace, leaving more for us.

I like this plan.

- Andrew

Jose wrote:
Well they are now going to let you carry less than 4 oz of some liquids.

I'm so grateful to the authorities.

The next terror device will be blue. They won't let you carry blue items.

Jose
LMFAO.

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

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:
don't check company proprietary information.
So, what to do with my palm?

Jose
I've been getting all sorts of answers like, "oh, just do this" since this
whole thing came up. Problem is, you can't "just do that" like people
think. It's narrow-minded thinking at its best.

Well they are now going to let you carry less than 4 oz of some liquids.


That does a lot of good now that they've already stolen my medication,
doesn't it?

And 4 oz of water isn't going to get you very far. I simply don't
understand why you can't bring drinks bought in the sterile area. Why
don't they just admit their security sucks?

The next terror device will be blue. They won't let you carry blue items.
LMFAO.

Sadly, I am serious. After Columbine, a number of school districts
banned trenchcoats.

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

Talk about seeing the silver lining....

If there is a dramatic reduction in commercial ticket sales, the Av. Trust
fund revenues will wither (similar to the post- 9/11 situation), since
commerical ticket taxes comprise the overwhelming bulk of trust fund
revenues.

In that case, the already considerable political pressure to impose user
fees will probably be unstoppable. And GA airports receiving annual
operating and capital subsidies will have to finance projects on their own
and will have to generate revenues sufficient to cover expenses without
federal handouts (as it should be, obviously).

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:35:00 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:
I've e-mailed a question about this to the FAA but I have not yet
received a reply.

Don't hold your breath... I've tried for over a year to get them and
the TSA to differentiate between a 'gun' and 'gun parts' and no one
wants to put their name on the line by making a decision... Since they
won't specify which collection of parts of a firearm constitute a
complete 'gun', any collection of gun parts would have to be declared
as a gun in your baggage... Which means that a single screw that holds
the grips on a handgun must be declared and and more importantly, the
bag containing it must be locked...

I think you'd be safe if you used the same definition as the federal
government which would be the part that has the serial number on it. As an
example a 1911 pistol the frame is the gun and is what is regulated. In the
case of an AR-15 it would be the lower receiver.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

All well and good, but that doesn't resolve the problem I've raised,...

The problem here is that the presumed weight for carry-on luggage
right now is some non-zero number x, when in fact the real carry-on
luggage weight is zero.

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