Monday, January 21, 2008

Trapped!

Kim and I are now officially criminals. For our trip to Vietnam we stocked up on plenty of presents for Kim's family, including a bread maker so I could introduce Vegemite sandwiches to the heathens (a universal thumbs down by the way Dave, they preferred Nuttella). In addition to this, we bought eight enormous tins of baby milk powder for Kim's friend who's baby has gone off breast milk. We were beginning to think we might be a tad over the aircraft's weight limit, but still we kept packing gallantly. As part of our continuing program of East-West cultural exchange, we decided also to take two of those collapsible foot scooters that were once all the rage during the dot-com boom. Now, we thought, we really ARE over the limit. Singapore airlines allows up to twenty kilograms of checked luggage, and seven kilograms of carry-on per person, or fifty four kilos between us, and we had the feeling we had shot way through that.
So we turned up to the airport, checked in, and sure enough, our checked luggage was ten kilos over. This turned out to be no big deal, Kim has a very sweet smile, and my dumb, naive first time traveller impersonation exhibits an approximation to sincerity that only reflexive relationships can. We were waved right through.
At this stage we thought the danger had passed. Upon passing through the customs X-ray
check however, our carry-on was treacherously weighed! From an allowable fourteen kilos we came in at a whopping forty! Of course, the Aussie customs guy was as unsmiling and cold as any Stalinist bureaucrat, and he wrote "Excess Weight twenty six kg*$30=$780" at the top of our boarding passes. The bastard wouldn't even let us go out of the departure lounge to dump our stuff and come back in. Well, I thought, that's our holiday gone. Kim however, is not to be trifled with. She made the rather insightful observation that the guy made no entries into his computer and that in fact, the only record of our crime was in our possession. Furthermore, we had printed out our own boarding passes from home (a relatively recent advance in e-ticketing for which all criminal opportunities have evidently, not yet been exposed). Who was to say then, that our boarding passes had to be an A4 page? What if, for example, they had a few inches at the top shaved off? Of course, my pocket-knife scissors were stowed away, but Kim, ever resourceful, used her laminated bakers delight rewards card as a makeshift paper knife, and calmly eviscerated our little problem. Not a very big change to the universe. The only difference was that instead of two sheets of paper we now had two sheets and two little strips. Now, at this point, I admit I was a little worried. I am pretty sure that the penalty for trying to avoid paying $780 is even more than $780, but we were committed now. Splitting up to avoid detection we lined up to board, Kim with 10 kilos, and me with 30, trying to look as though we were each carrying 7. My thinking though, was that the people checking our passes are bored, more worried about drugs than illicit Higgs boson surpluses, and, at 11:45pm, starting to get tired. Remembering my CIA days (or at least Jack Ryan's), I attempted with nonchalance to blend in with the all-Asian-Businessman crowd as much as possible.
Of course, you know how this ends. If we had gotten caught you would not now be reading this smug, self-congratulatory post. Of course we got through, without a further hassle, and I have to take my hat to my beautiful partner in crime. Kim is a genius at counter-counter-espionage. Perhaps the difference between her and me is that while I have grown up believing that surveillance bureaucracy is implacable, unreasonable, and omni-cognisant, Kim's experience is that they are implacable, unreasonable, dysfunctional, half-paralysed, and spasming. Thus, she is possibly better trained to spot loopholes in the system.
I'd like to end this post with a question posed to my readers (of which I'm sure there are none, given my appallingly long absence from this blog); Do you believe that Kim and I, weighing vastly less than the average passenger, should feel guilty about overloading the plane, even though our combined human-luggage weight is still less than normal? Should obese people be charged excess baggage? Has Sam read too many Tom Clancy novels? These are questions, I think, for us all to ponder as we go about our daily lives.
Until next time, Ye Hasera, and goodnight.

17 comments:

David Barry said...

That was an epically funny tale, which I think rivals my spaghetti story.

The question of whether you feel guilty or not is an interesting one. Probably you plus 30kg weigh less than at least one person on board that aircraft. But I would think that airlines expect a range of weights of people, light people like yourself included, and set the luggage limits equal for everyone based on the average. If you believe in this rather authoritarian system, you should feel guilty.

A more laissez-faire approach would, as you suggest, be to charge everyone according to their body+luggage weight, with the body weight above a certain threshold (you wouldn't want to encourage anorexia). This would provide a healthy boost in the battle against obesity, and more importantly mean that we would get cheaper tickets.

In the latter approach, though, you're still guilty of lying about your weight.

On the other hand, it sounds like you flew a dirt-cheap airline. These are notorious for gouging you on overweight luggage. They (obviously!) don't make it easily clear what the penalties are, which makes them ideal for guilt-assuaging. A bigger airline might have charged you an extra $100 or $200.

Tinos said...

Yeah, obese people should be charged extra (of course I would be disadvantaged by such a policy). When I get on flights I wear tonnes of clothing (like, 7 shirts), hence leaving more space in my bags for more important things. ;)

Don't know if what you did was wrong. From a utilitarian perspective it seems you have increased overall human happiness by not paying the fee. But then again, maybe the airline used more fuel because of you, and so made a loss on you.

Hewhoblogs said...

The point is moot. I have forwarded this to the Vietnamese authorities.

See you in 20 years.

Geoff said...

That was an epically funny tale, which I think rivals my spaghetti story.

It rivals your spaghetti story Dave, in how well it epitomises the life of the person telling it.

Also, good to see you posting to your blog again Sam, ya dofus. And get your bicycle off my desk!

Tinos said...

What's this spaghetti story about Dave?

David Barry said...

It's about me, spaghetti, Thai beef salad, and the Brunswick Hotel.

Unknown said...

It's a triumph of modern spoken literature is what it is, Dave. Don't sell it short.

Sam, I wouldn't worry. If those kilograms had been in your check in luggage the price would have been considerably smaller.

I did much research on excess charges when moving to Melbourne. My check in bags were about 10 kilos over and the girl at the desk ignored it. She didn't even weigh the guitar, which would have made even more excess. I was prepared to pay excess, and was more worried about going over 35kg and being charged $80 rather than $30. Instead I paid 0.

Also, my carry-on included a handbag (with two hard drives in it) a backpack (filled with books) and a coles bag (filled with books, including stewart and kreyszig, as well as a clarinet). So I was not only probably over the 7kg limit, but also taking too many bags on.

Nobody noticed.

The way I see it, planes have a margin of error, and can afford to have a couple of people heedlessly thwart the rules. And even if everybody reading this blog thinks "well, I can go and take much excess on a plane now!" It is quite unlikely that they will all be on the same flight.

Andrew said...

I have absolutely no idea why I clicked on the link to your blog, Sam, but I do so and what do you know .... A POST!!

The idea of taking combined human-luggage weight appears an eminently reasonable one, but somehow I can't see the airlines going for it.....

Geoff said...

I have your bike.

SpacePup said...

Brilliant Sam :) If I'd read this without knowing the author I would've guessed you anyway :P

Are there links to Dave's Spaghetti story? It's been built up so much now.

David Barry said...

I don't believe the spaghetti story has ever been published on the WWW.

Andrew said...

Curiously, I would submit that the spaghetti story is a rare example of a tale the first hearing of which can only be improved by a build-up. You're in for a treat, Ty.

Anonymous said...

yes sam, carrying that much weight is an act of terrorism.

its a downwards spiral from here dude. It starts with something small like overloading planes, then comes tax fraud and that leads to 13 items in the "12 or less" lane...

.

Sam said...

Which Luke is this?

Anonymous said...

I'm going to suggest it's a Luke you don't know. Or at least a Luke you didn't expect.

Sometimes, when you post things to such admirable www portals as blogger (I'm calling it a portal for now anyway. humour me.), people you didn't expect reveal that they have been reading and possibly gaining considerable enjoyment from your online emissions for a frighteningly unspecified period of time.

Like now, for instance.

Sam said...

I am quite prepared to humour you, Alex Mercer especially as I am not current on the strict definitions of an internet portal.

David Barry said...

The OED is very up-to-date on portals, having revised its entry for the noun some time in the last few weeks.

5. Computing. Originally: a server or web site that provides Internet access. Later also: a web site or service that provides access to a number of sources of information and facilities, such as a directory of links to other web sites, search engines, email, online shopping, etc.