Safety board wants airline passengers weighed

This topic has brought out many well-thought reactions -- even most of
the
emotional ones have merit. But really, if airlines start weighing us
into the cabin, and I'm talking about our carry-on luggage and coats
in addition to the good old avoir-du-poids, lots of us are going to be
sad on long-haul flights. Think about how much our little electronic
devices weigh these days -- digital camera, PDA, laptop, battery for
laptop, cellphones, etc etc etc. You know -- those things you don't
want to risk putting in your checked bags. Then add in the litre of
water many people bring on board 'cause in economy you can't always
get enough to keep yourself hydrated. Add in the toiletries & change
of underwear we're all told to carry in the cabin "just in case" the
luggage doesn't arrive at the other end. And the flashlight in case
the overhead light doesn't work (again). And the DVD and audio player
in case the on-flight entertainment is not available (again). Then
there's my personal predilection for taking at least 15 pounds' worth
of newspapers and magazines onboard to pass the boring hours between
checkin and arrival at destination city.....

Wait a minute! Lots of the above stuff is carried on board because of
things the airline should be taking care of, but isn't.

Many airlines already restrict the weight as well as dimensions of
carry-on luggage. I know Virgin Atlantic do this, even in their
super-economy cabin, and I know United currently do not. I suspect
it's only a matter of time until all airlines do this. So, it seems to
me that weighing the passengers themselves is only half the issue.

But then, if I had to choose my companions for an emergency exit from
the aircraft, I might favor the ones who went to the gym regularly.

I'll get my (heavy) coat now.

Travel safely,
Cranky

Interestingly enough the safety board is only interested in the average
weight of passengers with clothes and carry on luggage. It would be as
well served by large platform scales which weigh groups of 5 or more.
They really have no interest in individual weights.

The rest of the ranting just represents individual interests. FFM

Judy wrote:

This topic has brought out many well-thought reactions -- even most of
the emotional ones have merit. But really, if airlines start weighing us
into the cabin, and I'm talking about our carry-on luggage and coats
in addition to the good old avoir-du-poids, lots of us are going to be
sad on long-haul flights. Think about how much our little electronic
devices weigh these days -- digital camera, PDA, laptop, battery for
laptop, cellphones, etc etc etc. You know -- those things you don't
want to risk putting in your checked bags. Then add in the litre of
water many people bring on board 'cause in economy you can't always
get enough to keep yourself hydrated. Add in the toiletries & change
of underwear we're all told to carry in the cabin "just in case" the
luggage doesn't arrive at the other end. And the flashlight in case
the overhead light doesn't work (again). And the DVD and audio player
in case the on-flight entertainment is not available (again). Then
there's my personal predilection for taking at least 15 pounds' worth
of newspapers and magazines onboard to pass the boring hours between
checkin and arrival at destination city.....

Wait a minute! Lots of the above stuff is carried on board because of
things the airline should be taking care of, but isn't.

Many airlines already restrict the weight as well as dimensions of
carry-on luggage. I know Virgin Atlantic do this, even in their
super-economy cabin, and I know United currently do not. I suspect
it's only a matter of time until all airlines do this. So, it seems to
me that weighing the passengers themselves is only half the issue.

But then, if I had to choose my companions for an emergency exit from
the aircraft, I might favor the ones who went to the gym regularly.

I'll get my (heavy) coat now.

Travel safely,
Cranky

Miguel Cruz wrote:

misterfact wrote:

During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline passenger
deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United States.

During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have been
NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving.

Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET!

This would be true if - and only if - you had carried as many passengers as
many miles as all the airplanes to fly in the past 40 years.

Otherwise, it means nothing.
miguel

There have been no deaths in flights which I have taked. Oh! Maybe
folks have noticed and that's why they are usually full. FFM

In om
(misterfact) wrote:


During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline
passenger deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United
States.

During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have
been NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving.

Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET!

Boy, you certainly make no effort to disguise the fact that you're a major
idiot.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Still waiting for any comment:

"It is safer to take the train than flying"

If you want to tell us that it is unfair to compare death statistics
from flying vs. train travel because so many more people make use of
air travel than train travel- then the same also has to hold true
comparing safety of flying vs. auto. So many more people drive than
fly at any one time.

Bert Hyman wrote in message .. .
In om
(misterfact) wrote:


During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline
passenger deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United
States.

During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have
been NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving.

Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET!

Boy, you certainly make no effort to disguise the fact that you're a major
idiot.

If you want to look at death statistics- trains are much safer than
the airlines!

But then, you'd probably say, "That's an unfair comparison because
so many more people fly than take the train." If you want to say THAT
- I'de say you're right. Likewise, comparing airline to auto death
statistics is unfair also since many more people are driving at any
one time than flying. So any comparison between auto and airplane
safety is unfair unless you use equal, representative samples- i.e.
total US airline deaths compared to auto deaths in say, Ohio.


"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message ...
Miguel Cruz wrote:

misterfact wrote:

During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline passenger
deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United States.

During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have been
NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving.

Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET!

This would be true if - and only if - you had carried as many passengers as
many miles as all the airplanes to fly in the past 40 years.

Otherwise, it means nothing.
miguel

There have been no deaths in flights which I have taked. Oh! Maybe
folks have noticed and that's why they are usually full. FFM

misterfact wrote:
If you want to look at death statistics- trains are much safer than
the airlines!

But then, you'd probably say, "That's an unfair comparison because
so many more people fly than take the train." If you want to say THAT
- I'de say you're right. Likewise, comparing airline to auto death
statistics is unfair also since many more people are driving at any
one time than flying. So any comparison between auto and airplane
safety is unfair unless you use equal, representative samples- i.e.
total US airline deaths compared to auto deaths in say, Ohio.


How about deaths per passenger mile, which is how such statistics are
usually compared?

misterfact wrote:
If you want to look at death statistics- trains are much safer than
the airlines!

And, notably, about 10 times safer than cars.

But then, you'd probably say, "That's an unfair comparison because
so many more people fly than take the train."

No, I don't think anyone else would say that.

If you want to say THAT - I'de say you're right. Likewise, comparing
airline to auto death statistics is unfair also since many more people are
driving at any one time than flying.

Doesn't matter, since the numbers of both are large enough to get good
stats.

So any comparison between auto and airplane safety is unfair unless you
use equal, representative samples- i.e. total US airline deaths compared
to auto deaths in say, Ohio.

Only if you can't do junior-high school math.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

In article ,
mtravelkay wrote:
....
How about deaths per passenger mile, which is how such statistics are
usually compared?

You obviously haven't been following along. The whole point of this thread
is that this guy thinks the conventional stats are meaningless, and wants
us to calculate them his way. So, suggesting that we calculate them the
conventional way isn't going to cut any ice.

OK so your car is safe - I want to go from Seattle to Tokyo in 12 hours
travel time. Up for the drive?

"misterfact" wrote in message
om...
If you want to look at death statistics- trains are much safer than
the airlines!

But then, you'd probably say, "That's an unfair comparison because
so many more people fly than take the train." If you want to say THAT
- I'de say you're right. Likewise, comparing airline to auto death
statistics is unfair also since many more people are driving at any
one time than flying. So any comparison between auto and airplane
safety is unfair unless you use equal, representative samples- i.e.
total US airline deaths compared to auto deaths in say, Ohio.


"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...
Miguel Cruz wrote:

misterfact wrote:

During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline passenger
deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United States.

During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have
been
NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving.

Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET!

This would be true if - and only if - you had carried as many
passengers as
many miles as all the airplanes to fly in the past 40 years.

Otherwise, it means nothing.
miguel

There have been no deaths in flights which I have taked. Oh! Maybe
folks have noticed and that's why they are usually full. FFM