Liquids are dense and heavy. Is this too simplistic an argument?

[Atman]

It seems everyone is baffled about the ban of an element from air flights. "Liquids?" WTF?

But what is heavier, a big fluffy pillow or a bottle of Suave shampoo? That little bottle of shampoo is going to be two or three times the weight of a pillow, but packed in only a small, cylindrical space. All liquids are heavy. So if we ban liquids (instead of very fat flyers), the plane can cut a tremendous amount of weight off of each flight, which in turn increases fuel efficiency, which obviously translates to $$$. Since W already bailed out his airlines buddies once, he can't go back to that same well. Is this just a stop-gap?

Too easy? Your thoughts, please!

[Avalux]

1. Well, you can still pack the stuff in your checked luggage.

So with that in mind, the weight would just be somewhere else. Of course in the short-term, there was/is an awful lot of stuff being thrown away.

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. OK....Then, if checked luggage can carry bottled liquids

what's to keep someone from sending a signal to it if it's their intent to blow the plane?


This whole idea of banning ALL liquids, except for prescriptions, is insane. And as for prescriptions, it's possible that someone has a bottle with their name on it, but it's really just something explosive.


Unless I it's the only way to get somewhere, or absolutely have to make time due to an emergency or death, I'm not flying anymore. I don't mind driving, and I certainly don't mind a cruise now and then :D

[Bluebear]

2. The shampoo is still onboard though, just in checked baggage

The weight is ultimately not being saved. just in a different portion of the jet.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. Well I Think This Is A New Height In Conspiracy Theory.

With all due respect and all LOL Just seems a bit far fetched and needlessly complicated, not to mention potentially ineffective since many flyers have been turned off by the regulations.

[Atman]

5. Really? How many people dumped a few pounds of the stuff last week?

A friend of mine was caught up in the middle of all this last week, and had to dump all his toothpaste and shampoo and such before boarding the plane. Did he just re-purchase at the next airport convenience store? No. No point, because they got checked again, and every liquid missed the first time was dumped. So did he just shift it to his luggage? No. He DIDN'T TAKE IT AT ALL. Now, I'm about to fly overseas. Will I waste precious luggage space packing shampoo bottles and shaving cream and all that crap when I know I can just purchase it at my destination? Hell no. Who would?

But do the math, and I'm sure you'll find that a shitload of excess weight has been jetisoned by this "no liquids" policy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Wait, You're Seriously Considering This As Viable And Potentially Likely?

You actually have some serious convictions about this being a reasonable explanation?

Whoa... Ok then, to each their own. :wow:

[Atman]

8. Why do you think it ISN'T plausible?

In your luggage, what weighs more, three t-shirts or a small bottle of shampoo? The shampoo. Liquids are dense and take up lots of space for their weight. But before you go as anti-conspiracy-insane as you want to accuse me of being, maybe you could explain yourself. Do you think I'm saying this all happened simply as a way to take liquids off of airplanes? If you do, you're way, way more dense than a bottle of Sauve. Likewise, if you don't think BushCo would fall back to its old opportunistic self to help out its corporate contributors, you're like a super-thick Herbal Essance 'poo; Feels rich and lathery, but just the same old shit in a different bottle.

[Lex]

11. Liquids aren't banned from airplanes.

Just from carry on luggage. You just check the bags that have shampoos and gels and stuff.

[Atman]

14. Correct. A fact which I never disputed, and in fact, addressed.

So...what else...?

[Lex]

15. Well, it kind of renders your opening post's theory null

because people can still carry all the shampoo they want on airplanes--they just have to check the bag is all.

[Atman]

18. Sure, as long as you ignore any of the tenents of my post.

Of course you COULD pack all your shampoo and stuff into your checked bags. Of course you COULD.

As long as you leave out all the other variables, and say everything is the same as it was two weeks ago.

Except, now you can't carry on any luggage. And your checked luggage is limited. You are limited for space, and you're travelling. Hmmm...I've yet to stay in a hotel or motel, even the sleaziest Motel 6, that didn't provide soap and shampoo. If there is ANYTHING I know I can leave out of my luggage, as a traveler, I know it is soap and shampoo. It is free anywhere I am going. As is most anything any modern traveler might need unless he is going on an extreme outing to the jungle or something. You keep your "Americano-centric" attitude, that everybody must have Herbal Orgasmics shampoo in order to survive. But lets say you're only HALF right...

DO THE MATH...

How much does a bottle of shampoo weigh?

How many travelers/bags per day?

How many bottles of shampoo, etc, are left behind by others, even if YOU think the idea is silly? Now, the airlines have been public about the weight issue as it pertains to passengers. Fat people weigh more, and on an airplane, weight is one serious determinant of fuel efficiency. You may laugh and say you'll just check your shampoo. But will you really? When all the packing is done and you have to choose between the six t-shirts and the three Bermuda shorts or the shampoo and conditioner, which is gonna get left behind? Multiply that by several million -- million -- passengers. Laugh all you want. Maybe you're right. But do the math first before you rag on me. Remember, BushCo hired Hollywood screenwriters to come up with stuff they couldn't think of. Maybe you're head is just not ready for prime time?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. This Thread Should Be Moved To The August 10th Forum.

Oh wait, that's right, there isn't one yet. Maybe there will be soon? :rofl:

[Atman]

13. Hey, maybe with a few more rofl's you'll be able to make your point!

What about my post do you find implausible. Just get up off the floor and explain yourself.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. No Need. The One Was Adequate Enough To Make My Point.

I find the entire concept absurd. Firstly, you are talking about pennies in a bucket in the overall cost of flying, and that's if your scenario of not bringing liquids on planes was even real: Which it isn't. Like many DU'ers have stated these are still on board but no longer in carryon luggage. The fact you chose to forego bringing them at all is irrelevant, as many people have and will continue to choose to keep bringing them: Unless of course, you think that your liquids alone are enough to drive this theory lol.

Even further, the additional inconveniences will most definitely turn other people off to flying at all, which equates to less ticket sales, which equates to less money. But Wait! That means less weight on the plane! Cha-ching! More money for the corporate fat cats! Oh, wait, that doesn't make any sense. Actually, neither does the rest of the scenario.

Excuse me for about 10 minutes. I'm gonna go out to the river in my backyard and take a few casts. I have a sudden urge to do a little fishing...

On Edit: Ok, I'm back. I didn't catch anything either. :rofl: (ok ok, so one more)

[earth mom]

25. CT? Hardly. It's just common sense.

I thought the same thing but didn't post it and I'm sure many others thought the same thing too. The airlines have done everything they could since 911 to cut their costs including cutting meals, cutting luggage allowances, charging heavier people for 2 seats and cramming as many people as possible into a plane! This is more of the same because everyone knows that liquids are heavy. Everyone except you from the sound of it.

The airlines will save millions with this new ploy. :grr:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Hey, Several People Think Mother Mary Was On Toast Too.

There's always more than one that will buy into a far fetched theory.

[earth mom]

27. People who have foolishly been terrorized by these terror-nazis

have lost all common sense and rationality. These guys will do ANYTHING to scare us so they can stay in power. What's not to understand about that?! Once people get that basic premise, and link everything * and his band of thugs have done from 9/11 to the Patriot Act to Iraq to Katrina to Domestic Spying to this new b.s. meme-notice how they tried to use it for political advantage?!-it all falls into place.

Connect the dots.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. I Connected The Dots And When Completed Saw A Picture Of A Tin Foil Hat

I'm not saying there isn't some legitimacy to the connections of some of the other things you mention, but I still find the theory of banning liquids in order to bail out the airlines and save gas money as a huge stretch of the imagination within the plane of reality.

[valerief]

7. Interesting, and sleazy enough to be true. n/t

[QuestionAll...]

9. Bush is dense as well, and heavy handed, throw him in the trash. nt

[savemefromdumbya]

10. Planes need passengers to make profit

Blair and Bush have just almost killed the airline industry with their 9/11 and these liquid plots. People don't want to fly.

[karlrschneider]

17. I think you haven't weighed many things. A big pillow weighs more

than a 10 oz. bottle of shampoo. The airlines didn't initiate the 'liquid ban', the TSA did.
(I'm not quarreling with the stupidity of the rule, just trying to clear up what seem to be some
misconceptions on your part)

I promise you the bean counters are well aware that if their own airline had unilaterally banned
those items, they would lose more revenue than they would wish - one less passenger would cost them
a lot more than the added fuel to carry 20 with 5 pounds of cosmetics each.

[Atman]

21. Let's make one thing perfectly clear (read this post first, new readers)

I am not, in any way shape or form, trying to make the case that the TSA or BushCo instigated staged this entire thing just to keep liquids off planes and thus save money for the airlines. In fact, I'm kind of embarrassed to think that there are DUers who'd think that is what my OP stated. But the fact is, we've heard many stories about excess weight on planes costing the carriers money. We've heard about heavy passengers. We've also heard about airlines discontinuing PILLOWS AND BLANKETS, to save fuel costs.

Read that again...you can't get a pillow or a blanket on most flights now because they are too heavy. But my thinking that liquids are heavy is just crazy conspiracy theory. Blankets and pillows are too heavy. Shampoo bottles are not. Okay. Whatever. I'm still flying. They'll bring down whatever the fuck plane they want to bring down, and our government is powerless to stop them.

[karlrschneider]

23. It seemed to me you were trying to make the case that the airlines

were either behind or supportive of the "liquid ban." I attempted to make the case that such an action would be detrimental to their own profits, and I stand by my claim.

And you CAN bring blankets. The reason many airlines stopped providing them was not for fuel savings, but for acquisition, storage, cleaning and maintenance costs. And you seem to be contradicting your
own allegations by -now- claiming they are "too heavy" when you originally commented on the "density" of liquids. I guess I really don't get what you actually are trying to say here. :eyes:

[sweetheart]

19. Then passengers should pay by the pound/kilo?

How many pounds do you weigh, mam, 159, i'm sorry, mam, but
you owe and extra 40 dollars for the extra air fuel it will
take to transport your fat.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. You lost me when you called liquid an element.

[Atman]

22. Sorry.

Don't read any further, then.

It was a mistake to call liquid an "element." My bad. You can focus on that, or what you know to be the substance of the post.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Actually, the "liquid is an element" thing...

was one of the more lucid parts of your post. A couple of hundred years out of date, but still lucid.