Japanese Airline asks passengers to use toilet before boarding

Believe me Bra... nobody has to ask me to use the restroom before I board a plane...



Hmmmmm... maybe I've been greener than I thought I was...

 

From the above link:

Their reasoning is off: If the average person's bladder capacity is 15 oz, few if any people will normally board a plane with more than 7 or 8 oz "on board." Getting everyone to pee will probably only eliminate 4 oz per person.

They'd "save" more weight if they asked people not to eat a meal before boarding.

How about this for a promotion: Refrain from eating for 8 hours before your flight, and we'll give you a free meal when you land.

Now, if I was running an airline, I would charge passengers according to the total weight of themselves and all their luggage, including carry-on. I would also give over-size passengers over-size seats, at no additional charge, since they'd be paying for their weight. Oh, and crying babies would go in the luggage compartment.
:behindsofa:
​

 

Daniel laugh it up, for all you know you could meet the girl of your dreams tomorrow and decide to have one of your own down the line.

 

A few years ago, I had to endure a screaming baby from Schiphol to JFK. I was looking for an Eject Seat function, to either launch the baby or myself out of the jet

Oh, that was a long miserable flight ...

 

When I fly I carry a couple of foam ear plugs + my ipod + $49 noise canceling compact headphones. I can plug in the ear plugs or enjoy some tunes and it's bye-bye baby.

 

Does this mean you FOUND the seat eject button? My record for crying baby flight was DTW to SEL, 14 hours WHAT A PAIN!
I think the real reason ANA is asking passengers to use the toilet before boarding is so they sit down and buckle up in flight. I swear some people thing the seat belt sign means get up and run around the airplane.

 

From Canada, you say ... and you didn't know how to prepare? Well the fix is just one word:
FLASK





.

 

That's insane. No food for eight hours plus the duration of the flight? I'd need an emergency IV before the plane even took off.

I like that idea. But it would never fly.

 

You are VERY lucky in that regard!

I like the idea of shoving the screaming child into the cargo hold

Oh don't worry, I was VERY well "oiled" after that flight. It's a wonder I could even walk off the plane. The stewardesses made sure of that, apologizing for the little brat.

 

Never fly....airline flights....HAR! HAR! I get it! :rofl:

 

After a prostate operation, no, eerrmm, fluid, comes out. Combine that with the usual precautions, and I'm more likely to be elected emperor of the world than have a kid, even if girls didn't turn and run any time I get within 50 miles of asking them on a date.

 

You'd never consider adoption? What if your "perfect girl" already comes with a little one as a package deal?

When my kids were little, I was smart enough to make sure the little ones were due for a nap on the flight. It helped that I brought plenty of snacks and toys. Crying and screaming wasn't a huge issue, even when they were really tiny.

 

As infants I'm sure we all got on some stranger's nerves at one time or another, but our parents of that generation did their level best to keep us quiet. Unlike today's parents who seem to think the little devil has as many rights as the hard working paying passengers. I really don't see why they don't reserve the seats at the front of the section for families with children. The kids could play together, the screamers could scream into the padded wall inches from their faces, and the rest of the plane would know at least there was an effort at providing them some sort of immunity from lousy parenting. Barring that I strongly believe the parents of the screamers should be forced to purchase tickets for those affected by their lousy parenting skills...or let's find a study which concludes flying by children under X age is bad for their health and they are refused entrance until they are above X age, like smoking and drinking.

 

In some cases, screamers are the parents fault - the kid is upset because they can't play with toy X, or because they have to sit in the seat the whole time, or because they got told off for kicking someone's seat when they were bored. In other cases, however, the parent's aren't at fault - the child is screaming because they haven't equalized the pressure in their inner ear like we all do when we take off - it's a very unpleasant, and often painful experience. for those kids, i feel nothing but sympathy.

All that being said, i was an excellent flier as a kid - never screamed once. My sister, very prone to ear infections and the like, was horrible at it. On one occasion, however, i did get a nice old lady screaming (and by nice, i mean not so nice). The airline had double-booked my seat. Being young, me, my sister, and my parents took the pre-boarding option, and settled in... The lady was one of the last to board, and started yelling about how it was her seat and she wanted her seat. Of course, the airline tried to do the right thing - they had another open seat on the plane (also an isle seat) and asked her to take that one instead. After all, that's better than splitting up a family with young children, right? This lady was extremely upset, however, yelling and screaming for probably 10 minutes.

Of course, an attitude like that today will get you tossed off the plane into the hands of security.

 

so is yours... actually that is not right either. the logic you infer that the weight reduction is too little to make a difference is wrong. to overcome gravity and lift any weight requires energy so even the slightest amount of weight reduction is a good thing. but that is not the only consideration

your suggestion of not eating requires a personal comfort sacrifice that i personally would consider way too much compromise on my part especially considering the small savings in fuel.

so lets go back to the airlines suggestion. what exactly am i sacrificing? well, barring taking laxatives, i dont feel that i am sacrificing anything. does anyone else feel they would be??

so we have very little personal sacrifice (if any) for "some" gain. granted its gain to the airlines pocket in reduced fuel costs... but i still feel that saving the world's resources for a rainyier day (is that a word?) does benefit my offspring and i am more than willing to contribute

P.S. be careful what you offer for free. there are many businesses that bit off way more than they could chew by offering something that was more than they could pay for

**edit** on screaming child; whem Rene and i were flying back from PCD, we had a child conveniently directly behind us who was crying. she was young, did not understand the concept of swallowing to prevent pressure build up in her ears. Rene said she always had hard candy when flying with her children to prevent this. if screaming children are an issue, maybe you should attempt to creep out the parents by wearing a long rain coat and offering candy?

 

I would not adopt an infant. There are plenty of people willing to adopt infants, and my startle reflex is much too strong for me to deal with an infant. If I had a wife who really wanted it, I would agree to adopting a child, conditional upon all of us being compatible.

I have asked out single mothers. Like all women, they turn me down. Marrying a woman with a kid or kids would again be conditional on compatibility with the kid(s) as well as the woman. But since women react to an invitation for coffee as though I'd tried to hand them a paper bag overflowing with fresh cow manure, the likelihood of my marrying anybody is vanishingly small.

I didn't say there was no point in going to the bathroom before getting on a plane. I said that the savings would be considerably less than 15 oz per passenger. I'd guess 4 oz per passenger on average. I already go to the bathroom before getting on the plane, so they'd save nothing on me.

Part of the reason we are in the present mess is that nobody is willing to sacrifice anything. The Prius is a popular car because you make no sacrifices at all for improved FE. But you've seen people's reaction to the idea of driving a low-speed electric car: "Oh, no, I couldn't possibly give up my right to burn a gallon of gas every time I want to go to the store for a carton of milk. I need my SUV because I drive in the snow once a year." Etc.

 

no doubt that the unwillingness to sacrifice is not in short supply and daniel as you have alluded to, justifying the desire to spend all kinds of money with frivolous reasons also abound.

i used to know a guy who spent over $10,000 customizing his 4 wheel drive pickup including a $3,000 set of off road tires. obtw, his truck has NEVER had a spec of dirt on it.

 

After you spend that much money getting an off-road vehicle just perfect, you certainly don't want to get it dirty!