US Airlines Say Smaller Carry-Ons Are Not In the Cards 273
New submitter callgen writes: Airlines for America, a trade group for U.S. carriers, has rejected proposed international standards for carry-on bags. Last week, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced an initiative to "optimize" airlines' accommodation of carry-on bags by suggesting a new standard luggage size. It suggested a standard of 55cm x 35cm x 19cm, 58% of the size that Southwest allows. Most standard carry-ons are larger than IATA's recommendations, meaning travelers would have to purchase new luggage if the smaller size was adopted.
Stop charging for checked bag (Score:5, Insightful)
If too much carry on luggage is a problem, then stop charging for checking a bag. When everyone got a checked back for free, there was plenty of overhead storage space, not to mention loading and unloading passengers was a lot faster because people weren't blocking the isles dealing with their carry ons. Now everyone tries to carry on as much as they can so they don't have to pay.
Re:Stop charging for checked bag (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also high time that overbooking or fuel surcharges were banned, as well. It's not like the airline refunds you a portion of your ticket prices when gas costs less than expected, or refunds you if you decide not to travel on a ticket you paid for, so what possible reason is there for them to be allowed to raise the contractually-agreed price after you've already paid it or to sell your seat to somebody else as well and hope one of you doesn't show up?
Sadly, there's zero chance any of this will ever happen because our government operates solely in the interests of big business, not what's best for the general public. But I can dream, can't I?
Re:Stop charging for checked bag (Score:4, Interesting)
Can they also regulated the size and weight of the passenger for that price?
The cost of flying a plane increases with weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, it would totally be worth it. Especially with a large board displaying the weight, and comical cartoon animal animations accompanying the values. But sadly, we no longer have "shame" in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Plus larger people wouldn't travel, and then the cost of tickets would increase.
Wait, what? Lower demand to you means higher prices? Maybe a bit less 420, dave.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're concerned about delays, then for an annual fee you could sign up to be PreWeighed by the TSA. Then you could breeze right by the passengers waiting in line at the scale.
Re: (Score:2)
is there a pre-fondling program we could join? you know, get it all done at once, in one, uhhhh, lump sum ?
Re: (Score:3)
There is an upper limit on the bag mass for handling reasons. So one bag at 35kg and one bag at 5kg is not the same as two bags at 20kg even though the combined mass is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
"ban this, ban that" - as if you have so much more information than everybody else in the market what will work best. That takes gumption.
Sadly, there's zero chance any of this will ever happen because our government operates solely in the interests of big business, not what's best for the general public.
Well, yeah - that's the whole point - to protect them from competition. What do you think campaign donations are for?
And the answer, like it or not, is regulation.
Or, you know, let more airlines into the
Re: (Score:2)
What the government should do is:
1.Eliminate laws like the Wright Amendment (that restricts what airlines can do when flying out of Dallas Love Field, Fort Worth Meacham and Addison in order to protect Dallas/Fort Worth International) and any other similar restrictions (such as restrictions on the size or gate count of airports and restrictions on which airlines can fly to/from a given airport and where they can fly from/to). Let unrestricted competition rule and let the most efficient airports (and the one
Re: (Score:3)
Those are the rules in the EU. They are one of the reasons why the EU is so great for consumers. The price they advertise is the price you pay, baggage included. But the rules go much further than that.
If your flight is delayed by more than four hours you get serious compensation. The only exception is if the delay is due to extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances. Bird strikes are pretty common, so you get compensation if that happens. Problems fuelling, mechanical issues etc. all yield hundreds of E
Re: (Score:2)
Hidden fees are out of control in the airline industry
I hope they keep getting more and more out of control. No I really do. I have no fond memories at all of the price of an airline ticket in the past. Going to the next capital city used to be a planned holiday, on Tuesday it was a simple and cheap day trip because I had to run an errand.
I say keep charging. Charge us per the kilo for everything we do. Charge us for all amenities except for water and toilets. Maybe that will stop the idiot next to me from getting wasted on bloody marys because they are free (
Re: (Score:2)
no fees for flight related service would be enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and flights were much more expensive too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stop charging for checked bag (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. I moved from Australia to the US a couple of years ago. I am a very frequent flier (140+ segments per year).
In Australia it was never a problem getting overhead space because:
(a) The carry on bag size limits were enforced
(b) Most airlines (including the major two - Qantas and Virgin) allow one checked bag as part of the ticket price (I won't say 'free', but it's not charged as an extra fee)
(c) Less of those godforsaken small regional jets (EMB 120s, 175s and CRJ 200s and 700s in particular) that have tiny overhead bins. The proportion of flights in the US (and Canada) that these aircraft amazes me. You get them even between major (4M+ population) cities. You'd never get anything smaller than a 737 or A320 in Australia between major city pairs.
Having said that, addressing (a) and/or (b) alone would probably be enough to solve the issue in North America.
Re: (Score:2)
(c) Less of those godforsaken small regional jets (EMB 120s, 175s and CRJ 200s and 700s in particular) that have tiny overhead bins. The proportion of flights in the US (and Canada) that these aircraft amazes me. You get them even between major (4M+ population) cities. You'd never get anything smaller than a 737 or A320 in Australia between major city pairs.
Virgin still operates the EMB 190's between some cities on low volume flights. They're slowly being replaced by A320's and 737's though. But regional flights are still dominated by small jets, 717's Fokker 70's, Dash 8's and even old BAe146's.
The Regional jets aren't bad if they're being used correctly. I've flown between Panama and Santiago, DR on a EMB 190 and it was fine but COPA are actually a decent airline (checked baggage, free seat selection, food and drink) but that was only a 3 hour flight (as
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I moved from Australia to the US a couple of years ago. I am a very frequent flier (140+ segments per year).
In Australia it was never a problem getting overhead space because:
(a) The carry on bag size limits were enforced
(b) Most airlines (including the major two - Qantas and Virgin) allow one checked bag as part of the ticket price (I won't say 'free', but it's not charged as an extra fee)
(c) Less of those godforsaken small regional jets (EMB 120s, 175s and CRJ 200s and 700s in particular) that have tiny overhead bins. The proportion of flights in the US (and Canada) that these aircraft amazes me. You get them even between major (4M+ population) cities. You'd never get anything smaller than a 737 or A320 in Australia between major city pairs.
Having said that, addressing (a) and/or (b) alone would probably be enough to solve the issue in North America.
The airline market in the US is much more competitive with many more players. Most don't compete on flying experience, they compete on all the things leading up to a purchase decision. So they compete on price and choice. If an airline offer 6 flights a day from Milwaukee but a competitor offers only 2, the one offering 6 is probably going to do more business. Their flights fit better into people's schedules and it opens up more opportunities for reasonable connections. They would be stupid not to offe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If too much carry on luggage is a problem, then stop charging for checking a bag. When everyone got a checked back for free, there was plenty of overhead storage space, not to mention loading and unloading passengers was a lot faster because people weren't blocking the isles dealing with their carry ons. Now everyone tries to carry on as much as they can so they don't have to pay.
Pretty much this.
However this means that they will have to allocate storage for baggage instead of selling that storage for cargo... Erm, which means ticket prices go up.
You can fly from LA to DC for $170 If you would like to remember how bad prices used to be, feel free to come to Australia where Perth to Sydney (roughly the same amount of air time) is around $400.
Realistically US airlines are going to need to do something about oversized carry ons but they're probably going to go along the same r
Re: (Score:2)
Amen.
On every flight that I've been on in the last couple of years where the first checked bag was free, there has been ample overhead storage space, sometimes entirely empty bins on planes with filled seats!
And the reverse has been true. The airlines that charge for the bag (*ahem* American Airlines) have consistently had departure delays as the flight attendants spend everyone's time to convince the last few people to check their bags because the've squeezed every possible bit of room out of the overhead
Re: (Score:2)
But the Cargo hold is full as well... why? Because your airline is using the storage that USED to be used for Checked baggage to ship packages!
They started adding fees for these things and now their SOLUTION is to reduce the size of the bag because "surprise! People take stuff when they travel!"
Next thing you know, there will be an "air fee." "Oh, you wanted to BREATHE on your trip? Well that's going to cost you."
Start charging for carry on bags! (Score:2)
The loading and unloading time of an aircraft is extended by 20 minutes or more just to accommodate those who want to carry on their luggage. I say make a checked bag free, but charge the $25 for anything other than a personal carry-on (purse, laptop). That will stop a lot of this delay and save money/schedule as well as ease security lines.
Re: (Score:2)
>just to accommodate those who want to carry on their luggage
I don't want to carry on luggage. I want to avoid baggage claim, not lose my bag and skip the line at check in. Carrying on is just means, not the motivation.
IATA can't seem to communicate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stop charging for checked bag (Score:5, Insightful)
And frankly, if you want efficient stowage, having a standard size is a GOOD thing. There's a reason container ships use standard container sizes, and that air freight uses standard unit load devices: It's the most efficient way possible to fit in the maximum quantity of cargo. The same is true of baggage -- if there's a standard carry-on size, overhead compartments get made (on all but the smallest aircraft) to fit that size as efficiently as possible.
And that's why the whole IATA proposal is bunkum -- if they decrease size just fractionally, all that will do on most aircraft is leave small spaces in each overhead compartment that aren't sufficient to fit another bag. You're not going to get any more people jamming bags in the overheads without a very significant change in bag size, or a redesign of the overheads to match the new, smaller bag sizes optimally.
Re: (Score:3)
Even with the standard sizes defined in most airports, I routinely see people bringing aboard bags that if they were forced to check against the model next to most gates, they would not remotely pass. (These people usually have significant elite status, and that may be why they're not questioned. Those same people should be able to check the bag for free, or afford the $25 for the extra bag if they're already checking their limit. I say this as someone who travels 10-15 times a year and checks his bag w
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the sizers are built to the same specs that the airlines ignore, and the airlines ignore the speca for the same reason that the passengers do: they are sized for the smallest Embraer puddle jumper that the airline flies, not for the planes that they fly for 95% of their routes. I routinely
Re: (Score:2)
I know a couple of pro photographers and they pack up their gear in well-padded Pelican cases that get checked as they often travel with more than they could carry onboard anyway. One includes a starter's pistol in the checked luggage because the FAA classifies it as a firearm and the airlines therefore track it much more closely.
I usually carry my own gear (couple of notebooks, various networking and wireless gear, etc.) in a fairly large backpack, and it usually fits under the seat in front of me. Howev
Re: (Score:2)
I would never ever check in my camera gear. That is simply to much risk and the insurance doesn't cover it - you would need to buy a special insurance for that and that would probably be very expensive since bags are frequently lost or even stolen.
We are talking about thousands of dollars of gears for any keen photographer so checking it is simply not an option. And it is not only the cost of the gear - you would loose photographic time to. If you travel somewhere with your gear, you are probably going to u
Re:Stop charging for checked bag (Score:4, Interesting)
I would never ever check in my camera gear. That is simply to much risk and the insurance doesn't cover it - you would need to buy a special insurance for that and that would probably be very expensive since bags are frequently lost or even stolen.
I worked on the ramp for several years in one of the busiest airports in the US, and if you pack a camera in a good-sized pelican case you won't have any issues. For one thing I have never seen one break or get damaged. But the main reason is this: honestly, pelican cases never get thrown because the person stacking the bin (or the one passing the bags to him if it's a long bin and they have enough gate crew members) usually sits on one. If you want to go cheap and don't really have anything too fragile, one of the guys I worked with said he always used a large rolling cooler for his luggage (strong, watertight, plus then you have a cooler when you get to your destination). When you have to stack 100-150 bags in a 757 in the middle of summer, there's nothing like the simple joy of getting a good pelican case to sit on and a working bin carpet.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's different on US airlines, but whenever I fly UK to Japan the rules are:
- 1 carry on bag with a size limit
- 1 hand bag / laptop bag
- 1 camera with bag
- 1 umbrella / walking stick
- extras allowed for passengers with babies
So a standard size bag might not help that much, because people are going to be shoving their randomly shaped items in there too. Seems like the best option would be to allow more check-in luggage.
Re: (Score:3)
I would have expected US carriers to back this (Score:4, Insightful)
Smaller carry-ons would reduce their utility for many people, resulting in more mandatory checked back and more mandatory checked bag fees. The flight attendants would like it because there would be less boarding chaos with morons who fuck up the overhead bins. And the luggage industry would have a field day.
Really, if you stop and think about this it's a miracle they're not backing it, because if they did everybody but the consumer makes money off the deal.
Re: (Score:3)
Smart carriers don't want you to check bags, the hold is much more valuable carrying freight and freight doesn't require the army of workers that checked bags do.
Re:I would have expected US carriers to back this (Score:4, Informative)
Smart carriers don't want you to check bags, the hold is much more valuable carrying freight and freight doesn't require the army of workers that checked bags do.
As someone who has worked for an airline in both a ramp and air cargo capacity yes, they do. A checked bag might pass through the hands of 7 people, from acceptance to loading to unloading to delivery to baggage claim. Cargo goes through an acceptance agent, then another person takes it to a staging area, where at least 1 person then builds it into a container or cart. Then another person drives the container to another staging area, where another person takes from the cargo facility staging area to the gate for the flight. Then the gate crew takes it, moves it alongside the plane, then someone else puts it on the belt and the person in the bin stacks it. When the plane arrives at it's destination is it loaded into another cart/container, taken to the local freight facility, where it it is broken down, staged for pick-up, then finally delivered to the driver picking it up. That is at least 13 people handling 1 piece of frieght. And that assumes it is a small piece of freight going on a narrow body. Frieght going on a wide-body aircraft take even more people: we would routinely have 3-4+ people breaking down a single PMC. It is not unreasonable to have 20 people in some way handling 1 piece of freight. And that does not include the truck drivers or originating/destination shipper/freight forwarder facilities, or if it has to be inspected by customs for international shipments.
But yes, by wieght cargo is more profitable because airlines can charge a premium for it, especially with things that have to be sent by air cargo such as perishable products (foodstuff, medicine, flowers-you have no idea how many hundreds of boxed of hydrangreas are shipped are freight to Dubai every week), time sensitive items, live animals, human remains, and valuable items such as gold or other precious metals or exotic/expensive cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart carriers don't want you to check bags, the hold is much more valuable carrying freight and freight doesn't require the army of workers that checked bags do.
Greedy carriers don't want you to check bags, don't want you to bring carry-on, would rather you slim down and weigh less than 135 lb and have a 28 inch waist, that way they could cram one more seat per aisle, would like to do away with rest rooms, want you to line up nicely and fill the plane as if they are pouring water..
Actually they would rather you don't fly at all, just give them the money they feel they are entitled to and stay home.
Re: (Score:2)
They will start doing it, just not right away.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't back it because it will irritate the frequent fliers that make up the core of every airline's business. I don't think it will ultimately get much international traction, either, as airlines that cater to the upper class continue to do their own thing, putting pressure on any airline that does implement the proposed standard.
Re: (Score:2)
more mandatory checked bag fees.
LOL Did someone pass the idea that the airlines are FORCED to charge you for checking baggages?
"Forced! Forced I say! Why, I don't know what we'll do if the Big Government makes us take more money in fees from our passengers!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother with new rules? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just enforce the fucking current rules.
I've yet to see anyone - except on tiny turboprops - forced to tag and check their godforsaken, obviously bigger than the fucking demonstrative cubic area display, entire motherfucking overhead compartment consuming suitcase.
Tell these fuckers, "Yeah, no." And suddenly, there won't be a problem.
Profanity because fuck you, I'm not moving my backpack under my seat and having three inches of leg room for six hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I see it happen all the time with regional jets. By the time they hit the last boarding group it's assumed the overheads are full, and they'll often start tagging every single roll-on for gate check-in. Maybe you're just not flying enough?
As for intercontinental jumbos, no surpri
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
^ Found the guy delaying boarding by virtue of his roller bag that can't even fit down the center aisle.
First they made food portions smaller (Score:2)
now they're shrinking carry-on luggage?
Fuck, there's only so much air you can pump out of a vacu-seal. I can only get two suits, four sets of undercrackers, a pair of sneakers and my laptop into carry-on as it is. BTW, here a carry-on follows Ryanair's example: 55x40x20cm, to fit in the overhead. Ryanair also allows a smaller piece of hand luggage as a second (since May last year as their passenger cabins only have rack space for 90 carry-ons, excess baggage goes into the hold), which in practical terms mea
Re: (Score:2)
You've just identified your own problem: Ryanair. Stop trying to save yourself a few pennies and just buy a seat on a decent airline. Just as a random example, British Airways allows carry-on of 56x45x25cm. That might not sound a lot, but crunch the numbers and BA is giving you 43% greater carry-on allowance per passenger.
So-called "budget" airlines almost always work out to be significantly more-expensive than their tra
Better system (Score:2)
Instead of charging extra per bag, ihey should charge on the total weight (of passenger, carry on and checked bags)
since its the wieght that is the main cost for the modern airliner.
Even Better system (Score:4, Funny)
Silly system (Score:2)
Instead of charging extra per bag, ihey should charge on the total weight (of passenger, carry on and checked bags)
since its the wieght that is the main cost for the modern airliner.
You honestly think airlines haven't considered that. They figured out it costs more than it will save.
Besides that, do you think an airport rent-a-cop is going to tell Mr SteroidJunkie that he has to pay and Mr Tubby gets through for free he weighs more than the Chubster?
BTW, when you fly on light aircraft in commercial service like a Dash-8, you do get weighed because that plane has a very low MTOW. There's a reason they know it's unworkable.
Re: (Score:2)
The marginal cost by mass is actually pretty low. The main constraint is the cost of putting the plane in the air.
IATA, are they Global Super-Villains? (Score:2)
The IATA is asking for change. Can they make it happen?
They are, at first, a considerable global consortium of airlines, possibly in the realm of super-villians (given the global nature).
But, they only charge $15,000 USD per airline annually ($30,000 USD to join).
https://www.iata.org/about/mem... [iata.org]
Further, they have 256 member airlines from all around the globe (US based majors included).
So, they have a guaranteed annual revenue of $3.84M USD (excluding application and acceptance fees, non-recurring).
And tha
Re: (Score:2)
Bad form, I know, but here is the link to their membership:
https://www.iata.org/about/mem... [iata.org]
I copied it into Excel and there were 256 records, 2^8.
Not in the cards? (Score:2)
Here's the deal (Score:2)
It's obvious (Score:2)
If it needs wheels, it is not a frgggin' carry-on!
Overhead bins do NOT mean that there is a compartment for each passenger! You're supposed to share that space! But no, everyone nowadays has to bring these cases that aren't much smaller than the suitcase I regularly use for checked baggage! carry on is your survival pack with stuff you need between checking and retrieving your regular baggage, plus a pair of clean underwear and a towel and what you might need if your regular baggage is late.
How about just enforcing existing sizes? (Score:2)
Every single flight there is always several scumbags trying to force an obviously too overstuffed or too big of a bag in the overhead. They just let them continue to smash other peoples stuff and force it in there instead of saying, Bag must be checked, $25.00 plus a $10 cheap jerk fee.
Interesting choice (Score:2)
Re:What are... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Centimetres, a metric measure. The entire world (not just Europe) with the exception of Liberia, Myanmar and USA use it. I'm sure you must be proud to be part of the only 1st world nation still using the deprecated imperial measurements.
This sir, is completely and utterly not true.
The US uses US Customary Units. The Imperial system was established in the English parliament as the Weights and Measures act of 1824, near to some 50 years after the US cut the apron strings. To say they are advanced as the Imperial system is a utter falsification.
Re:What are... (Score:5, Funny)
Is that metric or imperial zero?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless agreeing upon a 25 page confusing EULA it's metric.
Zero first-world nations still use imperial ... (Score:3)
Including the US.
Much of commerce and daily life in the US uses a customary system of measurements that traces its origins to England, before the revolution.
In 1859 the UK adopted a reformed and rationalized system of weights and measures that was binding on itself and its Imperial possessions, including about a quarter of the Earth's surface at that time.
The US did not adopt that system. Although in 1959, the US and the Imperial system countries adopted a common definition of the yard in SI units.
There are
Re:What are... (Score:5, Insightful)
Units are complicated and many people overstate the benefits of having uniform worldwide units. If I'm choosing a unit for how I sell my goods, what's more important, that the person down the street is familiar with the unit, or somebody from Ghana will be familiar if he travels to my store.
In industry, whatever tool or system you're dealing with, you're going to either use something that is either imported or exported or has to be compatible with something that is imported or exported. Thus you are guaranteed that there will be SI units somewhere in your process and it is usually just easier to go with it for the whole process, as is done in the military, NASA, and most US engineering firms. In addition to being internationally compatible, it is also a damn lot easier to use. Sure, if you use no unit but feet, pounds and seconds in your calculation there is no unit conversion that needs to be done, but as soon as you go into the range where you might think in miles or ounces, it becomes fairly difficult to reconcile intuition with units unless you do some fiddly calculations. Whereas a native SI user knows intuitively how long a Km and mm is in the same way an American might recon a mile or an inch.
So you may say: "why don't I buy a 2 pounds of apples, then walk a mile to work where I use SI to design parts and trajectories and what not?" Problem is, if you're thinking in non SI, then non SI units tend to sneak into where they don't belong. The Mars Climate Orbiter for example fell out of the sky because Lockheed used pound-seconds instead of newton-seconds in a calculation.
Considering how much success other countries have had switching, I'm always surprised at America's feeble efforts to do so. I think it is just something to do with Americans natural paranoia about as you say a "New World Order" or whatever else that prevents it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not natural paranoia, it is more the government has less of a say over regulating life than other countries. The governments could mandate it over there while in the U.S., it just looks like yet another Washington experiment.
Also, the U.S. is an island nation, more or less. And large enough to have its own economy. Europe is composed of little toy countries that are much more interconnected. They need a system of easy conversion just to help erase the borders a bit. The U.S. economy has been big enough not
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how much success other countries have had switching, I'm always surprised at America's feeble efforts to do so. I think it is just something to do with Americans natural paranoia about as you say a "New World Order" or whatever else that prevents it.
Government organizations have for the most part already switched. However the government doesn't have the power to mandate that the private sector switch. And the private sector tends to stick to what its customers know.
Re: (Score:2)
the common term is "US customary units". Also, many countries that use metric for many measurements also still use imperial or other units for some measurements. For example, Canada uses the imperial gallon in many situations, which is ~20% bigger than the US gallon.
Hmm... sounds like the good old times when every region used a different length cubit based on the length of the arm of their current king. Isn't that highly confusing when talking to someone from Canada?
Units are complicated and many people overstate the benefits of having uniform worldwide units. If I'm choosing a unit for how I sell my goods, what's more important, that the person down the street is familiar with the unit, or somebody from Ghana will be familiar if he travels to my store.
Now say... which units would make sense to be used in international air travel..... probably the ones that are understood in all countries including Ghana.
You may go back to your corner store, but this is not about your pint of beer or quart of milk.
Re: What are... (Score:2)
Yeah, the American Revolution was the NWO, meant to cast down the monarchies and oligharcies that were all the rage. Then of course the French had to go and fuck it all up by setting the prime example of what not to do that every manaical asshole flavor of totalitarian has been trying to top since.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You realize that your entire justification for using your existing units is because you are used to them right? Believe me when I tell you that metric units seem completely reasonable for the kinds of everyday things that people encounter when you are used to using them. We even have weather maps, beers, and shoes!
At least try to internalize the fact that you aren't being remotely objective.
Re: (Score:2)
i disagree, especially about the temperature scale. 98% of the human experience falls between 0 F and 100 F. in metric, the range is -20 C to 40 C. You must agree that the F scale is much more intuitive.
Proponents of the metric system make two points:
1) the rest of the world does it so it must be good
2) it feels intuitively nice, orders of magnitude, etc.
the above point speaks to number two on this list.
Re: (Score:3)
According to a story and trivia questions in Germany, Fahrenheit actually chose the lowest air temperature measured in his hometown Danzig in winter 1708/09 as 0 F, and only later had the need to be able to make this value reproducible using brine.
The third point, 96 degrees, was approximately the human body temperature, then called "blood-heat".
So Fahrenheit vs Celsius 0-100: coldest temp at Danzig, winter 1708/09 and a "blood-heat" vs freezing water and boiling water temperatures. Are you sure the first is more intuitive?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, 0 is cold, 100 is hot as perceived by humans... Water might care about when it freezes and boils, but outside of a laboratory, most people don't. They just want to know if they need to put on a coat or wear shorts.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure the first is more intuitive?
after reading your post, with the words "danzig", "1708/09", "brine", and "blood-heat", the answer is obviously yes. none of those words are part of my human experience.
Re: (Score:2)
In Fahrenheit, it is obvious as well. 0 is the coldest you can get saturated salt water and 100 is human body temperature. Slight adjustments were made to the scale over time and measurements got more accurate which is why these aren't the exact values anymore. Still doesn't change the fact that the system is intuitive as 0 is cold and 100 is hot as perceived by humans. If water cared what the temperature was, Celsius might make sense for water to use.
Re: (Score:3)
Could you, please, clarify how does following fit into imperial system?
One Joule is equal to the energy transferred (or work done) when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one meter.
One Volt is a potential difference between two parallel, infinite planes spaced 1 meter apart that create an electric field of 1 Newton per Coulomb.
One Ampere is constant current which, if maintained in two stra
Re: (Score:2)
One ton of shit is equal to a ton of shit. A mile from your current location is a mile away from you.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that your entire justification for using your existing units is because you are used to them right? Believe me when I tell you that metric units seem completely reasonable for the kinds of everyday things that people encounter when you are used to using them. We even have weather maps, beers, and shoes!
At least try to internalize the fact that you aren't being remotely objective.
Terrible examples. I have drank "pints" (not liters) of beers all over the world. That's how they were sold.
Shoe sizes have at least 6 different standards [channeladvisor.com], not including the US or counting women's sizing standards.
Re:What are... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thing is, while I do agree that a standard unit that allows for easy conversion has its advantages, the Metric System's units do not correlate well to real-world situations. 0 degrees Fahrenheit through 100 degrees Fahrenheit correspond well with the temperature range at which a human can work outdoors without resorting to special equipment. A foot, as it is similar to the anatomical part of the same name, is sized conveniently to work with in the physical world with things that the average person will interact with in arms-reach. A gallon of water is about at the limit of what most people can pour and handle in drinkable liquid.
As someone who grew up within the Metric system, I have the same issues with the imperial units. I find them completely unintuitive and out of my normal experience. What good is a foot as a unit? There is barely anything that is a foot long, except a foot. But the working space on my desk is 1 meter wide. The distance from my desk to the wall behind me has to be at least 1 meter to allow me to sit behind my desk. The length of my legs from the hips down is about 1 meter. What good is Fahrenheit either? When my thermometer shows 0 Celsius, I know I have to drive carefully, as the roads might be frozen. Much easier to remember than 32 F. 20 Celsius is a nice spring day, 25 Celsius means I don't need a jacket, and 30 Celsius means it's getting hot outside. Nice, round numbers. But 68 F, 77 F and 86 F? Horrible! 1 Liter of any drinkable liquid weighs 1 kilogram. That's easy. How much pounds is that? And why the difference between liquid ounces and weigh ounces? Catastrophic! 1 km is the distance I walk within 10 minutes. Easy. A mile? Something about 16 minutes. 100 km is the distance I drive within one hour on the Autobahn, even including heavy traffic. Easy. 100 miles? Yeah, one and a half hour, maybe a little more. How inconvient!
Metric works well with my experience. Metric works for me. Imperial units do not.
See how it boils down to whatever you grew up with? Imperial units are in no way more or less intuitive than metric ones. You just remember the real world examples that fit within the imperial units. I remember the real world examples that work well with metric units. None of them is more natural than the other one.
Re:What are... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course I admit that my reluctance to change to metric has more to do with American nationalism than with any sure superiority of our units (although I despise using centimeters for small around-the-house measurements when inches and 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 inches feel better to me). But at the same time, I think that it is as necessary to have multiple measurement systems as it is to have multiple languages. In the 20th c. especially many people believed that the era of different tongues was coming to an end, but I think that despite the prevalence of English and Chinese around the world, there will always be multiple languages because culture can never be simplified into a single thing. Even in the USA it's possible to go to another region where they use some different words, different phrasings, different ways of thinking, and this is simply a natural occurrence akin to genetic diversity. The more distinct a culture, the more distinct its use of a language, so native English speakers in India do not speak exactly the same English as in the USA or UK. An absolute universal language can never be anything but an artificial construct disconnected from real culture, hence the problem with Esperanto. (And I do recognize that there are some native Esperanto speakers, but that does not remove its failure as a universal, a-cultural language.)
In the end, the U.S. uses the metric system when it's helpful (e.g. in science), and there is no pressing need to switch to it completely. Just because we use the US system doesn't mean that we don't understand the metric system and aren't taught it in schools.
Re: (Score:2)
1 Liter of any drinkable liquid weighs 1 kilogram. That's easy. How much pounds is that? And why the difference between liquid ounces and weigh ounces? Catastrophic!
Catastrophic is a bit of an overstatement... It's easy, an ounce of any drinkable liquid weighs an ounce... (for the same variations as your silly 1 liter weighs 1 kilogram things...)
Re: (Score:3)
And a pint is a pound ... it's not that complicated and how often do you really care how much a liquid weighs in your personal life? If you do this professionally/scientifically then it's just working knowledge to know this stuff.
Don't get me wrong, the metric system definitely easier to use in a lot of cases...but not so much easier that it really matters for daily life.
Re:What are... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is barely anything that is a foot long
But how many centimeters long is a pornstar?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not 65, 75, 85 degrees in your example?
On the highway, if I'm driving 60 mph (~100kph), I know I'm going a mile a minute. So, see a sign for "rest stop, 40 miles", I know it'll take me about 40 minutes to get there. In metric, how long does it take you to drive 64 km at 100kph?
Examples can be pulled out of each. The metric system is not some system where all math problems are magically simplified for us.
Re: (Score:2)
For human experience, 0 should be very cold, and 100 should be very hot. That makes sense. In your system, 0 is moderately cold and 100 is dead. Also Fahrenheit's specific degrees were originally based on 64 integer gradations between fresh water freezing temp and human body temperature which could be done fractionally once you established the relatively constant endpoints.
I guess if you want accurate measurements you shouldn't use feet, but is great for estimating... You can visualize the length of a foot
Re: (Score:3)
An imperial gallon is simply 4 Liters, a metric measurement.
nopee. an imperial gallon is a little more than 4.5 liters [google.com].
you're thinking of the little-used unit "quadliter", which falls between a US gallon and an imperial gallon.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, some country doesn't measure width of boards in metric but does so for most everything else, better not use metric at all in America then!
Sheesh.
Re: (Score:3)
Seeing as how a Boeing 787 is an American aircraft made by an American company (Boeing) that's unlikely to happen anytime soon.
There's this other company you may have heard of though, they're called Airbus...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Boeing only does the final assembly of the 787.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Airbus A380
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What are... (Score:2)
Which is stupid anyway because apart from grade school math done on your fingers and toes base ten is flatly inferior to bases 12, 16, and 20 depending on the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not too big to put it into a woman's ass and be comfortable and even feel good
I think you misunderstand the purpose of anal sex. The desired outcome for both parties is not for the recipient to "feel comfortable".
Re: (Score:2)
Today many companies pushes for using teleconferences instead.
Flying have progressively getting less and less comfortable since I started flying in the 80's.
Re: (Score:2)
Log a quarter million miles a year, and United becomes a completely different airline.
Re: (Score:2)
They do when their boss says "we need you to be in xyz by tomorrow to visit a customer, you have 3 hours to go home, pack some bags and get to the airport in time for your flight in zero-legroom-class on bargain-airlines-r-us, if you dont like it you can go find another job"
Re: (Score:2)