If a 747 can carry a fucking space shuttle on its back then I'm calling bullshit on an overweight baggage charge.
If a 747 can carry a fucking space shuttle on its back then I'm calling bullshit…
You are here: Home / Google+ Posts / If a 747 can carry a fucking space shuttle on its back then I'm calling bullshit…
About Paul Spoerry
I’m a groovy cat who’s into technology, Eastern Thought, and house music. I’m a proud and dedicated father to the coolest little guy on the planet (seriously, I'm NOT biased). I’m fascinated by ninjas, the Internet, and anybody who can balance objects on their nose for long periods of time.
I have a utility belt full of programming languages and a database of all my knowledge on databases... I practice code fu. Oh, I've also done actual Kung Fu, and have a black belt in Tae Kwon Do.
I run. I meditate. I dance. I blog at PaulSpoerry.com, tweet @PaulSpoerry, and I'm here on Google+.
I'm currently work for IBM developing web enabled insurance applications for IBM and support and develop a non-profit called The LittleBigFund.
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
But there are no people…and no baggage.
The shuttle doesn't have fat Americans hauling a ton of carry on. Airlines are right in this case, you don't get free shipping just for buying a seat.
I agree!!
Up until recently you did +Daphne Sylk; came with the price of the ticket.
There's an image for you: the space shuttle weighs less than a plane full of Americans.
So nic pic
Know this… At any given time there could be a dead body right under your feet when you travel…
I know that is meant to be funny, but just because it can carry more weight doesn't mean it doesn't cost more in fuel to do so.
Money makes you lignt!
It's the obviousness that makes it funny +Lincoln Anderson; it's called a joke.
Ahhhh. A joke. Now I get it. My bad.
+Paul Spoerry +Lincoln Anderson joke aside again, also they want to keep each bag relatively light because it is actual human beings that load and unload them, one by one. (Sometimes you are allowed to have two bags that each weigh 50, but not one that weighs 80.)
For some reason looking at that pic, I really want another craft ontop of the space shuttle too.
See but then they would charge you an overweight shuttle charge +Thomas Wrobel.
You're argument is a bit flawed. You're comparing the capability of the aircraft when that's not what the luggage surcharge is about. The surcharge is about having to use extra fuel to keep the plane in the air.
Now, I still think the surcharges are bullshit though. Airlines are adding more and more bullshit charges everyday.
wow
I believe the overweight baggage charge is related to union mandates that anything over a certain weight (50 pounds) is considered as too heavy to lift safely, and therefore incurs an excess baggage charge because it has to be handled differently, and that costs more. I have heard people saying its weight distribution and fuel consumption – thats BS, thats not why they charge for excess baggage fees.
Also, +Paul Spoerry …this from NASA:
_"….a Boeing 747 with a space shuttle strapped on its roof weighs less — that's right, less — than a 747 airliner full of passengers.
At first that might seem counterintuitive, but Lisa Malone, a spokeswoman for NASA, says the 747 they use is stripped clean of anything in the main cabin. There's a cockpit and a big empty shell."_
+Trevor Stolber I'm not buying that theory. Some airlines charge extra for bags as light at 41 pounds and some don't charge for excessive weight, just size.
cheaper to mail the luggage
I would want three more to see how well it could balance
To pay more money
Hii inatosha sana
I have no idea what the comment above this means but I'm not getting on a plane with that person.
Am not sure with that
I dont knw about it..