Searching \ for '[OT] Air France has rules for fatties' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=air+france+has+rules
Search entire site for: 'Air France has rules for fatties'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Air France has rules for fatties'
2010\01\20@194517 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
Man, I hope they hold off until my translatlantic flight coming up in
feb/march... I flew with them around new year's, and their seats are a
bit on the narrow side for my not super excessive girth.

2010\01\20@201440 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Spehro Pefhany <spam_OUTspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com> wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong with charging by the kg (passenger + luggage),
> but of course there is also a fixed cost associated with a flight.
> Say the airfare is $1,000 plus $3/kg. The petite 90lb gal with a
> carry-on might pay $1,135 and the 350lb man-mountain with 100lb of
> luggage would pay $1,615. But if the big guy requires two seats,
> he'd pay $2,615.

Ah, so let's see I arrive at the check-in desk, and they will measure
my weight + my waist? Or do I have to carry a proof-of-weight from my
GP? Nah, I do not think so if that is any good, I would not fly with
such a company for sure -- I even avoid Ryanair which has that stupid
rules on the luggages...

Tamas


{Quote hidden}

>

2010\01\20@202558 by Orbit Communications

flavicon
face
I suppose the flights will get real cheap if you don't mind sharing the
plane with a terrorist


David Huisman
Managing Director

Orbit Communications Pty Ltd
Unit 1, 16 Donaldson Street, Wyong
NSW, 2259,  AUSTRALIA
Phone +61 (2) 43-554-554    
Fax     +61 (2) 43-554-994
Web    http://www.orbitcoms.com

Wireless Solutions at Work
- BodyGuard vehicle and personnel proximity warning system
- EverPump Tank monitoring and Pump control systems
- FrostAlert Early frost warning system
- GenTemp Remote temperature alarms
- TempSaver Poultry shed monitoring and alarm system
- GSM and 3G remote equipment monitoring and control
- General wireless control and monitoring solutions
- Handheld wireless control systems


-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu] On Behalf
Of Marcel Birthelmer
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2010 11:45 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Air France has rules for fatties

Man, I hope they hold off until my translatlantic flight coming up in
feb/march... I flew with them around new year's, and their seats are a
bit on the narrow side for my not super excessive girth.

2010\01\20@203148 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 08:14 PM 1/20/2010, you wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Spehro Pefhany <EraseMEspeffspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTinterlog.com> wrote:
> > I don't see anything wrong with charging by the kg (passenger + luggage),
> > but of course there is also a fixed cost associated with a flight.
> > Say the airfare is $1,000 plus $3/kg. The petite 90lb gal with a
> > carry-on might pay $1,135 and the 350lb man-mountain with 100lb of
> > luggage would pay $1,615. But if the big guy requires two seats,
> > he'd pay $2,615.
>
>Ah, so let's see I arrive at the check-in desk, and they will measure
>my weight + my waist? Or do I have to carry a proof-of-weight from my
>GP?

Well, you use your credit card for the check-in, which gives them the
ability to take some more money from you. Perhaps the flight back from
Xmas dinner is a bit more than the flight there. That's what the US
airlines do- once they have your CC in their hot little hands, they
can offer you "premium" seating or whatever for a bit of extra money,
maybe order a snack etc. etc. All from what is essentially a vending
machine.

>Nah, I do not think so if that is any good, I would not fly with
>such a company for sure -- I even avoid Ryanair which has that stupid
>rules on the luggages...
>
>Tamas

It would certainly turn some people off. Particularly if there was much of
a choice.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speffspamspam_OUTinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com



2010\01\21@072506 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

> At 08:14 PM 1/20/2010, Tamas wrote:
>> Ah, so let's see I arrive at the check-in desk, and they will measure
>> my weight + my waist? Or do I have to carry a proof-of-weight from
>> my GP?

They do already weigh part of what you take on board: the checked
luggage. And they charge for anything above a certain limit. Adding the
traveler's weight to the calculation is not a big problem.

{Quote hidden}

They all have luggage rules, of course. I definitely felt ripped off
when I had to pay some $100 or $200 for a few kg overweight in my
checked luggage, while the next passenger did not have to pay anything
for overweight -- even though he and his luggage together brought more
to the scale than me and my luggage.

Where's the logic in that? Is luggage weight more expensive than
traveler weight? Why do I have to pay for his extra weight (which is
what essentially was and is happening)?

Gerhard

2010\01\21@073708 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
>
> They all have luggage rules, of course. I definitely felt ripped off
> when I had to pay some $100 or $200 for a few kg overweight in my
> checked luggage, while the next passenger did not have to pay anything
> for overweight -- even though he and his luggage together brought more
> to the scale than me and my luggage.
>
> Where's the logic in that? Is luggage weight more expensive than
> traveler weight? Why do I have to pay for his extra weight (which is
> what essentially was and is happening)?

Do you honestly think that there is a reason for charging extra for
luggage other than "let's see how we can extract more money from these
people"? With tickets being as cheap as they are, they have to make
their money somewhere.

2010\01\21@075555 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>They do already weigh part of what you take on board: the checked
>luggage.

Many also weigh the hand luggage at checkin.

2010\01\21@144803 by Richard Prosser

picon face
In about 1985 I flew on "Great Lakes Airways" or something similar
from IIRC Toronto to London, Ontario.

When you checked in, the whole area in front of the counter was a
weighbridge so you were weighed, along with all your bags
"automatically". They didn't charge extra for the heavies, but I think
they used it to organise their seating plan and presumably to maximise
freight.

RP

2010/1/22 Alan B. Pearce <@spam@Alan.B.PearceKILLspamspamstfc.ac.uk>:
>>They do already weigh part of what you take on board: the checked
>>luggage.
>
> Many also weigh the hand luggage at checkin.
> -

2010\01\21@155519 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Weight and balance is critical on all aircraft, but the smaller the
aircraft, the tighter the tolerances in general. If the nose is too
heavy, it will be difficult to bring the nose high for a smooth landing,
and maybe even takeoff. If the tail is too heavy, it may be impossible
to keep the plane from stalling (wing quit flying). And there are fuel
economy and issues if icing is encountered. They were concerned with the
balance of the aircraft, and wanted to place the weight in appropriate
locations. It is the pilots responsibility to calculate the center of
gravity, and not fly if outside acceptable limits . This calculation may
be done with a pre-programmed computer, or some planes have load cells,
measure hydraulic pressure or other sensors that determine the weight
and balance on the ramp. Fuel management is part of the scenario. The
airforce tankers (KC-135 ?) need to manage the fuel tanks that are being
emptied closely as they air refuel.

Richard Prosser wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> --

2010\01\21@162328 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
That's true, modern airliners have ballast. However, they are
calculating the passenger's weight using an equation (which I do not
know what is that, maybe they have the gender and the age as well on
the variables). This method is proved to be working as I have not
heard of any accident caused by unbalanced aircraft (maybe on a small
plane where the payload was not properly secured).

Also they are calculating the necessary power needed to take-off
calculated by the weight, length of the runway and even the air
density -- so they unlikely to use full-power therefore saving not
just on fuel but also on the maintenance costs. But again, I am not
sure if they could come up with a much better resolution by measuring
the appropriate weight of the passengers to compensate that fewer
people are willing to fly with them.

Tamas



On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Carl Denk <RemoveMEcdenkTakeThisOuTspamwindstream.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\01\21@164609 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Marcel Birthelmer
<TakeThisOuTmarcelb.listsEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> They all have luggage rules, of course. I definitely felt ripped off
>> when I had to pay some $100 or $200 for a few kg overweight in my
>> checked luggage, while the next passenger did not have to pay anything
>> for overweight -- even though he and his luggage together brought more
>> to the scale than me and my luggage.
>>
>> Where's the logic in that? Is luggage weight more expensive than
>> traveler weight? Why do I have to pay for his extra weight (which is
>> what essentially was and is happening)?
>
> Do you honestly think that there is a reason for charging extra for
> luggage other than "let's see how we can extract more money from these
> people"? With tickets being as cheap as they are, they have to make
> their money somewhere.

Yes I do - extra weight requires more lift, which requires more power
from the engines, which requires more fuel, which costs the airline
money. Airlines have certainly always charged for excess baggage for
this reason well before the advent of the charging model used by
budget airlines.

I have plenty of experience of being close to or over weight limits
given the sports I do - sports which of course mean that my bodyweight
is reduced by more than the sports equipment excess luggage I'm
transporting. One good one was flying to the US where we had 2 bags
each, max weight of each bag 32kg - between 4 of us we had a tad over
250kg, and had to do a bit of transferring of kit!

Chris

2010\01\21@165841 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
I think that for safety reasons, take-off is always done at maximum
power. This gives you the best rate of climb and angle of climb on
takeoff which allows you to clear obstacles near the airport in the
event of engine failure. In fact, I think jet engine thrust controls
usually go above 100% rated fan speed (I think 105%) and this extra 5%
is only used for emergencies and for short durations (like takeoff).

Sean


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaispamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\01\21@173112 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> This method is proved to be working as I have not
> heard of any accident caused by unbalanced aircraft (maybe on a small
> plane where the payload was not properly secured).

I recall a disaster-postmortem-analysis on VT (or maybe youtube) where
imbalance was the cause. As a result they switched (at least for that
type of aircraft) to a more sophisticated estimation.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\01\21@174425 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Sean Breheny <RemoveMEshb7EraseMEspamEraseMEcornell.edu> wrote:
> I think that for safety reasons, take-off is always done at maximum
> power. This gives you the best rate of climb and angle of climb on
> takeoff which allows you to clear obstacles near the airport in the
> event of engine failure. In fact, I think jet engine thrust controls
> usually go above 100% rated fan speed (I think 105%) and this extra 5%
> is only used for emergencies and for short durations (like takeoff).

>From wikipedia:
"Large transport category (airliner) aircraft may use a reduced power
for takeoff, where less than full power is applied in order to prolong
engine life, reduce maintenance costs and reduce noise emissions. In
some emergency cases, the power used can then be increased to increase
the aircraft's performance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeoff

With my model planes I usually do the full thrust but then if anything
happens it is unlikely to cause serious accidents -- except destroying
the plane of course. And I do not really care if the engine lasts for
2 years or 20 :-)

Tamas


{Quote hidden}

>

2010\01\21@174457 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
I thought there was something in the last year that due to the heavier
average weight, that the average weight that the airlines use for
estimating the passenger weight was raised by 10 lbs. or so.

Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\01\21@174508 by Grant Tudor

picon face
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Sean Breheny <RemoveMEshb7KILLspamspamcornell.edu> wrote:

> I think that for safety reasons, take-off is always done at maximum
> power. This gives you the best rate of climb and angle of climb on
> takeoff which allows you to clear obstacles near the airport in the
> event of engine failure. In fact, I think jet engine thrust controls
> usually go above 100% rated fan speed (I think 105%) and this extra 5%
> is only used for emergencies and for short durations (like takeoff).
>
> Sean
>
> I understand that engine thrust for take-off is not set to maximum but is
based on take-off weight and other factors. Sometimes they get it wrong:

www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2009/release/2009_21.aspx

2010\01\21@193357 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> >  >...ave not
> >> heard of any accident caused by unbalanced aircraft (maybe on a small
> >> plane where the payload was not properly secured).

Light aircraft have been destroyed due to this.

Another interesting consuence of gross overloading is "Wing in ground
effect" where you can take off and "fly" as long as you remaind within
the air "cushion" formed between the craft and ground. Climb out of
that and you find you cannot fly - and generally you cannot
successfully manage to reenter the ground effect mode from the
resultant stall.

There are some craft which ONLY fly using WIG effect - craft that look
like aeroplanes but can only 'fly' metres off the surface. I think the
Russians may have some large domestic ones and I think there are large
military cract that use this method. Gargoyle knows.


     Russell

2010\01\21@195724 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
The ground effect is in effect for 50% of the wing span above ground
level. With our Cozy, a canard pusher configuration, the canard (small
front wing) getting sufficient to lift the nose was necessary to get off
the runway, and then out of ground effect. It was not unusual, in
particular at high altitudes and temperatures, to on takeoff, climb to
the canard 5 foot off the runway, not be able to gain anymore altitude
until another 10 knots speed was achieved, and then normal climb could
be effected. This could be additional 500 - 1000 feet of runway or clear
area beyond. The more forward the center of gravity, the more apparent
this effect was. For all planes, high altitude and temperatures can
increase takeoff distance by 100%. The term is density altitude. There
are simple circular slide rules to calculate the effect.

With large planes (DC-10, 747, 727 size), I have seen several videos of
the tail being dragged on the runway with a shower of sparks. I never
heard, but I could guess that some of those had a rearward center of
gravity, for a variety of reasons including mistakes in loading or fuel
management.

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\01\22@042907 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
> When you checked in, the whole area in front of the counter was a
> weighbridge so you were weighed, along with all your bags
> "automatically". They didn't charge extra for the heavies, but I think
> they used it to organise their seating plan and presumably to maximise
> freight.

I remember in a past job air freighting a crate that was about a meter cube,
containing a piece of equipment, with it going on the same plane as me. As
it was being weighed in the freight depot of the small airport we were at,
the pretty checking girl wandered through with a tag to put on it. She
stepped on the floor level scales just as they were reading the weight,
which made it look about twice as heavy as its real weight. I think the
young lass was a bit embarrassed, but I wouldn't have minded here coming
with me ...

2010\01\22@044505 by Richard Prosser

picon face
And then there was the time I was traveling with a fibre optic
splicer. It weighed something like 1kg more than the 32kg limit. No
problems going to Brisbane, but they wouldn't accept it on the way
back. I had to push it on a trolley 200m or so down a semi-surfaced
road to the airfreight office. They then reviewed the situation and
put it on the same flight as me as checked baggage anyway - at no
additional charge.
My main worry was that it would get lost in transit as it was worth
about $A50k !!

RP



2010/1/22 Alan B. Pearce <Alan.B.PearceSTOPspamspamspam_OUTstfc.ac.uk>:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\01\22@053527 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>And then there was the time I was traveling with a fibre optic
>splicer. It weighed something like 1kg more than the 32kg limit.

Every time I have travelled through Australia I have found the check in
staff to be the most pedantic of any anywhere in the world for restricting
the weight limit of items. I have had it at both airports and train
stations. A bit of friendly leeway just doesn't exist when checking in
there - your example is the first I have heard of there.

2010\01\23@205509 by Justin Richards

face picon face
off subject a bit ...

I live in Australia but found Aussie customs to be the most
intimidating out of the handful of countries i have visited.  I
imagine it is worse for visitors especially those with limited
English.  I find the customs forms a challenge.

15 kg limit on the internal planes we catch to work and on a hot 44
deg c day they knock it down to 8 kg.  What do you do with the excess.
Leave it behind.

2010\01\24@043712 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Unfortunately I have not yet visited Australia, however, watching
those series about airports and customs -- there are many different
series, and sometimes amusing, other times just boring. Anyway, they
show many countries from the commonwealth and I found Australian
customs are very picky. I felt sorry about people there, many times
people were just geniue tourists but they have made a small mistake
like putting a small vegetables into the luggage to cook and then they
had to pay a huge fine...

Anyway, what do you mean by they have dropped the luggage allowance to
8kg? They did not mention that before the departure?

Tamas



On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Justin Richards
<spamBeGonejustin.richardsSTOPspamspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
> off subject a bit ...
>
> I live in Australia but found Aussie customs to be the most
> intimidating out of the handful of countries i have visited.  I
> imagine it is worse for visitors especially those with limited
> English.  I find the customs forms a challenge.
>
> 15 kg limit on the internal planes we catch to work and on a hot 44
> deg c day they knock it down to 8 kg.  What do you do with the excess.
>  Leave it behind.
>

2010\01\24@052751 by Justin Richards

face picon face
No warning, just depends on the heat and number of passengers.
>
> Anyway, what do you mean by they have dropped the luggage allowance to
> 8kg? They did not mention that before the departure?
>
> Tamas
>

2010\01\24@150109 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Is that policy due to consideration for the baggage handlers or
because of the plane's lower lift capacity in hot air?

I does sound a bit harsh if it's just to save a bit of sweat.

RP

2010/1/24 Justin Richards <KILLspamjustin.richardsspamBeGonespamgmail.com>:
> No warning, just depends on the heat and number of passengers.
>>
>> Anyway, what do you mean by they have dropped the luggage allowance to
>> 8kg? They did not mention that before the departure?
>>
>> Tamas
>>
> -

2010\01\24@151618 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
I doubt that this is fair! They can definitely save on fuel if the
plane is lighter, and I can imagine that if the air is too hot then
the density is so low that they would loose some bucks by puting more
power during take-off. But then they should just say that the
allowance is only 8kg, or the ticket price is higher rather than just
saying that yeah, you can carry up to 15kg IF YOU ARE LUCKY. No, I
thing Justin, you need to look for another airliner.

Tamas



On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Richard Prosser <EraseMErhprosserspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> --

2010\01\24@153713 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
I would be very confident to say, that the weight restrictions are due
to the aircraft's weight/balance considerations for that particular
runway, at that moment for runway length and surface condition
(concrete, short grass, long grass, sand, mud), temperature, runway
slope, flight path obstructions, and wind conditions. It could be if you
wait for a later flight, when the air is cooler, or wind conditions
changed, the weight could be allowed. Each aircraft has a set of
operating limitations that are approved by the FAA (or your countries
equivalent) and published in the pilot's manual. This will have the
required runway length for the prevailing conditions. Departure flight
path obstructions - it may take several miles to turn an aircraft in an
area of hilly terrain to clear the obstructions. And yes, there is a
fairly small fuel savings with a lighter aircraft, but there is a
required minimum fuel to arrive with at the destination to provide for
safety from running out of fuel due to the unexpected. Any fuel left
behind, doesn't help if there are unforeseen weather, traffic, an
accident closing runway, etc. Gasoline weighs 6 lbs./gallon.  Here are
some links to info:
http://sportys.com/PilotShop/product/9305
http://www.findmysoft.com/pda_mobile/DSSTop-Takeoff-Performance-Computer-for-Pocket-PC-download.html

There are sloped runways that always land uphill and depart downhill,
and all sorts of what sounds goofy operating restrictions unless one is
familiar with the physics of flight.

Richard Prosser wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> --

2010\01\24@233724 by Justin Richards

face picon face
Dont have the luxury of another airliner.  There are 3 flights a week
in Western Australia from Perth to a remote town and we are happy to
have those.

These are Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia twin-turboprop commuter airliner,
produced by Embraer of Brazil that can take 30 passengers (on a good
day).

thing Justin, you need to look for another airliner.
Tamas

2010\01\25@024731 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Justin Richards
<.....justin.richardsspam_OUTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Dont have the luxury of another airliner.  There are 3 flights a week
> in Western Australia from Perth to a remote town and we are happy to
> have those.


I remember flying from Perth to Broome on a rickety turbo prop. I seem
to remember that most intra-WA air traffic is to get miners from their
home to the worksite, or something like that.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...