OK, even I can't defend this ...

[bydesign77]

Could have been customs, I suppose

 

[cranberry]

OK, at what point is it worth it to stop off at the UPS store and ship your luggage? Might be easier just to fill out an Fedex/UPS slip, tip some hotel dude $10, and have your stuff show up at your home or next hotel.

 

[bydesign77]

The following is a quote for a 55-pound bag (most ticket counter agents will allow you to fudge on overweight up to four pounds, as long as you're not a ****) to ship from my house (Middle Georgia) to my brother-in-law's house in Port Orchard, Wash.

Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:00 PM FedEx Priority Overnight® 325.88
Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:30 PM FedEx Standard Overnight® 316.09
Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:00 PM FedEx 2Day® 261.64
Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:00 PM FedEx Express Saver® 173.58
End of day(5 Business Days) FedEx Home Delivery® 63.61

So, coming home, if you're willing to be without your belongings for a week, then it's cheaper to send that 55-pound bag via FedEx. I think they go up if it weighs more.

But to get it to your house or your destination within even a smidgen as fast as an airline can do it, it's $325.

So, it still doesn't make sense to try and do it that way.

I just found out, though, they are imposing these fees on non-revs as well, which is just crazy. Employees and their pass riders still get two free bags (and these are free, well, because the employee isn't paying for the flight, either) but if it's over 50 pounds, they have to pay, too.

 

[beardpuller]

You should be charged for carry-ons, not checked bags.

This is the key point. I really marvel at how USAirways, which I fly all the time, can't get this right. It has gotten so the flight attendants start warning the first people who board the plane about limited space, and every subsequent group gets an increasingly shrill haranguing about having "chosen to bring aboard a carry-on bag." (I love that wording, by the way. Like I was standing in the councourse near my gate and thought, "Auntie Anne's Pretzels? No -- I'm going to procure a rollaboard and bring it with me instead!")
Clearly, overuse of carry-ons creates huge problems, especially in Airbuses, which have smaller bins than 737s. So they exacerbate the problems by charging people for checking luggage. Wow.
Furthering my incentive for carrying on, is anybody gonna know if my bin-sized carryon weighs 51 pounds? I don't think so.
Incredibly stupid.

 

[bydesign77]

You should be charged for carry-ons, not checked bags.

This is the key point. I really marvel at how USAirways, which I fly all the time, can't get this right. It has gotten so the flight attendants start warning the first people who board the plane about limited space, and every subsequent group gets an increasingly shrill haranguing about having "chosen to bring aboard a carry-on bag." (I love that wording, by the way. Like I was standing in the councourse near my gate and thought, "Auntie Anne's Pretzels? No -- I'm going to procure a rollaboard and bring it with me instead!")
Clearly, overuse of carry-ons creates huge problems, especially in Airbuses, which have smaller bins than 737s. So they exacerbate the problems by charging people for checking luggage. Wow.
Furthering my incentive for carrying on, is anybody gonna know if my bin-sized carryon weighs 51 pounds? I don't think so.
Incredibly stupid.

Charging for carry-ons would increase the number of checked bags, which means more fuel has to be added to the plane, which is an increased cost. Remember, those carry on bags are included in the weight calculations of the passengers, which means a lighter load, which requires less fuel.

And on US's -37s, especially going to Florida in the summer, the more weight needed for extra fuel do to possible thunderstorms means fewer people can be on the plane. I had to pull 25 passengers off a full plane before because we couldn't go with the weight as it was. That's not a good situation either.

The main culprits of carry-ons not fitting are: Not the right size carry-on (too big) and people putting jackets, smaller items such as purses and what not, in the overhead bins, and then people can't put their bags in, which means they are going to end up checked as well. If people would put their smaller bags under the seat in front of them, hold on to their jackets and let EVERYONE on first to put up the bigger carry-ons, then almost always, everything will fit. I've seen it happen.

 

[beardpuller]

You should be charged for carry-ons, not checked bags.

This is the key point. I really marvel at how USAirways, which I fly all the time, can't get this right. It has gotten so the flight attendants start warning the first people who board the plane about limited space, and every subsequent group gets an increasingly shrill haranguing about having "chosen to bring aboard a carry-on bag." (I love that wording, by the way. Like I was standing in the councourse near my gate and thought, "Auntie Anne's Pretzels? No -- I'm going to procure a rollaboard and bring it with me instead!")
Clearly, overuse of carry-ons creates huge problems, especially in Airbuses, which have smaller bins than 737s. So they exacerbate the problems by charging people for checking luggage. Wow.
Furthering my incentive for carrying on, is anybody gonna know if my bin-sized carryon weighs 51 pounds? I don't think so.
Incredibly stupid.

Charging for carry-ons would increase the number of checked bags, which means more fuel has to be added to the plane, which is an increased cost. Remember, those carry on bags are included in the weight calculations of the passengers, which means a lighter load, which requires less fuel.

And on US's -37s, especially going to Florida in the summer, the more weight needed for extra fuel do to possible thunderstorms means fewer people can be on the plane. I had to pull 25 passengers off a full plane before because we couldn't go with the weight as it was. That's not a good situation either.

The main culprits of carry-ons not fitting are: Not the right size carry-on (too big) and people putting jackets, smaller items such as purses and what not, in the overhead bins, and then people can't put their bags in, which means they are going to end up checked as well. If people would put their smaller bags under the seat in front of them, hold on to their jackets and let EVERYONE on first to put up the bigger carry-ons, then almost always, everything will fit. I've seen it happen.

I don't for one minute doubt your expertise, and I'm not trying to be a smartass, but ... so my carryon weighs more under the plane than it weighs in the bin? I guess you're saying they use different estimates and they can cram a lot of baggage into the passenger cabin estimate. But if you pan back a little, does this all really make sense? It's the same bag, wherever it rides, right?

 

[bydesign77]

When weight and balance is calculated for the FAA, there are a few compenents:

The aircraft itself. The number of checked bags. The number of checked duffels. Cargo. Fuel. And passengers.

Crew and their bags are included already in the plane's weight, along with sodas, etc.

Checked bags are 30 pounds. Checked duffels are 50.

Fuel is number of gallons times 6.7 (on average...this varies with temperature).

Cargo is how ever much it weighs. This and fuel are the most accurately weighed part.

And passenger are 185 in the summer and 195 in thew winter. That includes everything, including your carryon. Children under 12 are half.

Doesn't matter if it's me, who weighs 300. Or suzie who weighs 100. We're both 185 for the calculations.

So, if you have a bag you carry on, you weight contribution is 185. If you check that bag, it's now 215, or if it's real heavy 235.

Whomever is doing AWABS has to determine the proper amount of fuel for that flight based on weight. The higher the weight, the more fuel required by the FAA for that route.

So yes, where that bag is counted makes a difference.