Airlines and baggage
With holiday season upon us, once more we will be turning up at the airport with our carefully weighed bags, and standing in the check-in queues waiting our turn. And if our bags are overweight, then it's time to get out the credit card.

Now I weigh under 75kg. I once sat next to a bloke who was easily twice my weight. But he still had a baggage allowance of 20kg. Why didn't he have to pay excess baggage on his belly?

The system is an excuse to make money. I travelled to Tallinn on a band gig a couple of years back. We were charged £240 each way excess baggage (and we were trying to travel light!). Now we claimed it back from the agency for whom we were working, but that's not the point. On the way over, I was reading an article in the KLM magazine boasting about how fuel efficient their fleet was, and it gave a figure (which I've forgotten) of how much fuel they used on average per 100kg, per 100km. I did a sum and it turns out our excess baggage used only an extra tenner in fuel costs!

Discuss.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 11:02, 15 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

Take a train instead if possible.
Longer trip, but much less hassle.
( mistaspakkaman and the inedible shifting caterpillars, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 11:11, Reply)

Hmm.
I understand why the excess baggage charge is there, but I do think you have a point.

I wonder what the weight limit is on, say, a 747 before it won't get off the ground (although a quick google search says 394,625kg).

I don't want to be the person who is on the back-end of 400 tonnes smashing back in to the tarmac because the plane was too bloody heavy.

EDIT: Bloody right, Al. I saw on the news this morning that they are going to open a high-speed rail link between London and Glasgow. Which is all well and good, except that it'll probably still be four times as expensive as flying is. I have to go to Cumbria for a wedding in September and the train tickets are £90 each. If train travel wasn't so expensive and unreliable, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 11:17, Reply)

@Spakka
Yes, absolutely. I try to do as much travel as possible (that's not easily done by bicycle) by train. It's far less hassle, and if you book far enough in advance, it can be really quite cheap. Hell, I just booked tickets to Newcastle for the end of August, and it only came to about 50 pounds return, taking 2 1/2 hours each way: this is cheaper and faster than flying (once you take into account airport taxes etc, and check-in times for flying).
(The Empress it seems you CAN polish a turd!, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 11:22, Reply)

@al
Last year, I managed to get a single train-ticket from London to Glasgow for £15 (the return cost £17.50). Did book it more than a month in advance though.

Also, the railways on the Continent are much better than the UK railways.
( mistaspakkaman and the inedible shifting caterpillars, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 11:23, Reply)

@DiT
I'm not complaining about excess baggage charges per se. However, I would say that the standard 20kg allowance is a tad stingy (US airlines still allow 32kg) and that the excess charges are way in excess of the actual cost to the airline.

So here's my suggestion. Why not have measure a combined weight of bag plus passenger? Allow say 110kg total, subject to a maximum baggage weight of 30kg, which means a big 16st lad will still get 10kg allowance and someone like me would get the full 30kg allowance.

No doubt there are logistics to consider, and also someone will bleat about human rights, but what do you reckon?

Edit - to all of you recommending the train, fine. I use trains when I can, but it's difficult finding one that goes from Edinburgh Waverley to the USA.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 11:36, Reply)

K2k6
Oh, I worded it wrongly!

I was going to suggest a combined passenger/luggage weight, but thought people would think it was silly.

It probably is, in a way. But I like the idea.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 11:41, Reply)

good idea in theory
although the much bigger people would need much bigger clothes, which take up more room in the luggage. so they would have to take fewer of them and either wash them every other day of their holiday or just get smelly.
(happylittletulip helpless and delicious, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 11:42, Reply)

They could always
pack lightweight clothing, as their fat would keep them warm.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 11:58, Reply)

Many airlines
use the excess space in the holds of their aeroplanes to carry cargo, for which they can make a lot of money (it's one reason why budget airlines can charge such low rates for their flights). If you're taking up room with your stuff (how dare you?!) then it reduces the amount of cargo they can take and therefore how much money they can make.

I'm not saying it's fair! But I think that's why they charge so much.
( thealternativefact, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 12:10, Reply)

Tie some helium balloons to your suitcase
Then it will be lighter, so you can get more in your luggage allowance.
( le brian, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 14:50, Reply)

GAAAAAAAAAHHAZHAHAHAHAHA!
I used to work with a show that had 100 kilos of luggage between the three of us, and we would travel abroad around twice a week. Up until recently, you were allowed 20 to 25 kilos of luggage each, and any excess would be charged. I weigh 55 kilos. Why does mr fatty arse cheeks get to go on the plane with his 40 extra kilos of fat when we have to pay up to £200 for out 20 extra kilos? No logic there.
Also, 23 kilo bag limit? I am but a girl, and I can quite happily single handedly handle 40 kg. There are two of you, and I'm quite sure that you were able to manage 16 kg each as per the old 32 kg limit. Why the change? You are being paid to carry stuff. You can handle it retards.

*breathes*

EDIT: Clendrix, it's because they're trying to discourage people from checking in bags. The fewer bags they have to load on and off, the faster their turnaround, and the more they can use the plane. Airlines also incurr costs for being at the airport, which is why you often get taken to the edge of the runway to sit still for a few hours.
( Madam Marlboro wonders if you've found her yet, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 15:17, Reply)

@MM
I have a keyboard weighing 42kg in its flight case. It's pretty heavy, even for me, and was responsible for a back injury I had a few years back. I used to take it on aircraft, but under the new rules, I'm not allowed to, because a single item of luggage can't exceed 32 (or is it 36?) kilograms.

Fortunately I have a smaller keyboard which I use most of the time.

Still, if you can handle 40kg easily, would you like to be a roadie? (unpaid, unfortunately!)
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 15:30, Reply)

K2k6
Kind as your offer is, I think I'm going to stick with my new calling, which involves very little carrying. Can does not necessarily mean want to.

If it's helpful, there's a company called Oakleigh Cases that are very wonderful with making flight cases. They managed to get ours (empty) down from 32kg to 16kg with all the fittings it needs, so might work well for you guys.
( Madam Marlboro wonders if you've found her yet, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 15:53, Reply)

I have a lightweight case
for my small keyboard. I was toying with the idea of getting one for my Kurzweil too, as I'd save about 8 or 9kg I reckon. But I don't use it much now, and we usually take an end each, so it's less of a bother.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 16:00, Reply)

Yeah - I try to travel light too,
but I can't help but feel stupid when stood beside an elephant dressed as a human.

I'd happily suffer the indignity of being weighed together with my luggage if it means that I pay a price which reflects the difficulty in getting me from here to there.
(Shippy likes linebreaks and doesn't care what you think, Mon 21 Jul 2008, 16:09, Reply)