Excess Baggage

I like efficiency. If by ‘first and foremost’ you mean nothing more than ‘first’, then just say ‘first’. And if you’re not sure what the difference is between aiding and abetting, then just say ‘aiding’. Probably no one will notice or mind. Why am I talking about this? Probably just because I’m confused. I want the world to be simpler than it is. I want to know if there is any good reason that I have heard this sentence so many times that I have memorized it: “Federal law prohibits disabling or tampering with the smoke detectors in the lavatories in any way.”

Many things are wrong with this sentence. The first is that I have it memorized. The second is that it is said without feeling, as if it has been said thousands of times before just now. I don’t take the fact that it has been said thousands of times before this as a legitimate excuse. Have you ever seen a bored stripper? They excite you about as much as a bored fast food worker, with or without their clothes. You breathe in and out everyday. If it doesn’t excite you, then die—don’t complain. The third thing that’s wrong with this sentence is that it’s not clear why there should be a fine for tampering with a smoke detector in a way that doesn’t disable it. What if you tampered with it in a way that made it better? What if you just replaced the battery without their permission?

The fourth thing that’s wrong with this sentence is that it is beside the point. They’ve already told you that smoking is prohibited, and now they’re telling you that disabling or tampering with the smoke detector is prohibited. But why? Isn’t the only reason that anyone would want to disable a smoke detector that they want to have a smoke? Otherwise, you would expect there to be a parallel fine for disabling the soap dispenser. But there’s not. So if this is what’s going on, then what they’re saying is something like this: “Rule #1: Don’t smoke. Rule #2: Don’t break Rule #1.” Which makes me wonder why there’s not a third rule, something like: If you don’t pay your fine for breaking Rule #2, then we’ll fine you more.

The only thing that’s worse than beside-the-point-ness is inconsistency, and that’s not lacking here either. A few feet below the smoke detector, there are two pictures on the lid of the waste bin. One indicates that you should put your waste there, the other indicates that you should not put your cigarette butts there. Why, I ask, would anyone that was prohibited from smoking have cigarette butts that they needed to dispose of? The question they have forced me to ask now is, ‘Well then where am I supposed to put my cigarette butts?’ Luckily, they have also answered this. Next to the toilet paper is a metal square which has a picture of a cigarette butt. In-credible! I love flying. Free food, free movies, free booz. Now I’m just waiting for them to walk down the aisles and start handing out free cigarettes.


“Excess Baggage” was first published in 2003 in Argus, an Australian magazine.