I recently took a RT to SFO on UA181 and UA824 and noticed that I had to be carefull to not bang by head against the TV screens hanging from the cealing (I'm 6'2").
While I was seated I started wondering why UA still has these heavy CRT TVs installed. For sure, both energy consumption ($$$) and weight ($$$) could be reduced when these CRTs are removed and LCD screens installed. Any ideas why this has not happened?
I also would suggest removal of the arm rests of the middle seat. My fellow row mates certainly did not want to use them.

I have just been wondering if they are loading too much water in the tanks onto most flights. Do they actively monitor how much water is used each flight and try to cut it to the typical maximum use? Water weighs *a lot*.

United are already way ahead of you here having decided that FAs are superfluous weight, they have got rid of 1 on transcons and other flights.

Perhaps next to go will be ramekins for warmed nuts - plastic is lighter
Back to plastic cutlery and plastic wine glasses. The possibilities are endless on the downward spiral

KiwiPanda

That one is actually carefully monitored industry-wide -- it got a lot of attention a couple of years ago and most (all?) airlines drastically reduced the amount they carried in their water tanks.

IATA have a fuel efficiency guide that includes a weight-reduction checklist.

But I've always agreed with the OP about those gigantic CRT's.

I've seen them on the ceiling, but never on the sealing...

FAA certification is a major roadblock. Likelt the same reason they don't just replace the big-screen CRT projectors with LCD projectors.

Magazines could go. This would leave FTers the opportunity to graffiti the lavatories instead.

AA claims to achieve cost savings from polished vs painted planes. Boeing seems to agree but the weight difference is modest:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...xt.html#table1

Not painting certainly worked well for NASA and the Space Shuttle. Though that was a payload issue, not a cost issue.

Am I missing something? It seems to me that Boeing does not agree.

Lobby FAA for decrease in restroom number requirement. Aircrafts with more than 2 restrooms, remove them until there's only two. Attempt to reduce restroom down to only 1 if possible.

Announce at the gate that there's only 2 restrooms, and to please relieve oneself prior to boarding.

With more passengers standing in the aisles, this serves multiple functions:

1. Customers in line waiting to use the restroom and trying to hold it in, likely will shift weight from one feet to another and have lower risk for deep vein thrombosis.

2. On narrowbody jets, the long line will prevent FA from serving drinks. "So sorry ladies and gents, but we cannot get through; 'tis not our fault." This result in lower expense from less drink restocking. Not serving drinks has positive spiral effect of decreasing passengers' need to use restroom, less spills on carpet, less liquid to throw up when air sick, and less deep cleaning.

3. With more passengers "doing their business" at airport restroom, they will bring less weight on-board.

4. Passengers are less likely to ask for coffee or any caffeine-containing drink.

5. Passengers are less likely to eat a big meal prior to boarding a flight, thus bringing less weight on-board.

6. Passengers are less likely to ask for second serving of food or complain about food portion. Some may even decline food in first class altogether.

7. Long line at the restroom will act as deterrent to those who seeks to join mile high club in the lavatory.

8. RCC members will consume less food/drink prior to boarding for fear of having to "go" in-flight, saving UA even more money.

9. Most importantly, space gained by removal of restroom can facilitate installation of extra seats, resulting in increased revenue.

That study was from way back in 1998. I'd guess using today's jet fuel prices, the cost savings going the polishing route is rather significant.

Why not remove one FA and use the co-pilot as that FA. The co-pilot can be in the cockpit during take-off/landing, and servicing the passengers during the flight.
.
.

speak of the devil:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/bu.../11air.html?hp
"Airlines Seek Out New Ways to Save on Fuel as Costs Soar"

and they even mention water.

Little one ounce paper cups yesterday for the room temp nuts - DEN-LGA
Also no hot towels. Probably saved 10 lbs on the flight.

The FAA is against LCDs? In bed with the CRT manufacturer?