Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sorry No Food/Drink As The Aircrafts Overweight!  
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3001 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8154 times:

I just loved this story in the Independent Newspaper today by their travel writer Simon Calder it really made me chuckle!

Apparently easyJet flight 2203 LTN-MAD was delayed for over an hour as the aircraft had to have all the Food and Drinks Trollys taken off including the Inflight Magazines as the aircraft was over the Maximum Take Off weight. They decided to do this as opposed to offloading any of the 149 passengers on the flight.

It does make me wonder how the aircraft a 737-700 was over the maximum weight as as these aircrafts operate on a lot longer routes and with the same number of passengers in an all Y configuration to destinations like Cyprus, Greece and the Canary Islands. Austraus springs to mind!

I think the actual reason is the pilot had miscalculated the amount of fuel required for the flight in relation to the weight of the payload and not had time to order additional fuel. Could LTN's 7000ft runway also be a factor?

Here is the news article if you want a chuckle - (I would copy and paste it - but think I will get in trouble if I do that!)...

http://travel.independent.co.uk/news_and_advice/story.jsp?story=641868



[Edited 2005-05-29 00:06:22]

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13032 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8137 times:

It isn't uncommon to remove pax, luggage, freight on some flights do to needed fuel loads combined with high altitude ops (MEX, DEN for example) or very hot weather (PHX in the summer for example). I have never heard of offloading the food/beverage services to reduce MTOW.

User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8134 times:

Quote:
They decided to do this as opposed to offloading any of the 149 passengers on the flight.

How would you like to be the passenger that was booted to make room for drinks?

Quote:
I think the actual reason is the pilot had miscalculated the amount of fuel required for the flight in relation to the weght of the payload.

I think you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
Could LTN's 7000ft runway also been a factor?

Yes. Along with destination runway length, temperature at departure and destination, and a host of other factors that play in to it. It's no simple matter of "is the weight below certified max gross".



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8105 times:

Had an experience similar to this a few years ago on a Loganair Saab 340 on a relatively short trip from Edinburgh to the Shetlands. The Captain informed us there would be no food or drink on the flight as due to the number of passengers and winds at our destination the aircraft weight was marginal to get in at our destination.

The other options were to loose a passenger off the flight or stop to refuel on the way back.


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8094 times:

Wait until the A380 enters service - methinks alot of folks on SIN-LHR and LAX-SYD will be going hungry...


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3001 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8060 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 2):
I think you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I never said I did know what Im talking about, and comments from members like you really p*ss me off... When you make jumped up comments to other members and there is many other ways to make constructive feed back.

I however think my comments in the original post are valid. The fuel for the aircraft will be ordered about 2-3hrs before the flight and they could have under estimated the amount of fuel required as there could have been a number of passengers with excess baggage and there could have been a number of passengers that were on standby or booked at the last minute accounting for the additional weight.

Also LCC in the UK will only carry the exact amount of fuel for the required journey and don't want to be carrying the additional weight of fuel that is not essentiall for that journey. They would rather refuel everytime the aircraft does a turn around as opposed to be refuel once or twice in the day.


User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8048 times:

Avek00,

No, a new age of in flight cannibalism is about to dawn.

Antares


User currently offlineKL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5119 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8025 times:

They had probably a high load of very profitable cargo in the hold. Easy is very good on cargo.

KL911



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2074 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7944 times:

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 4):
Wait until the A380 enters service - methinks alot of folks on SIN-LHR and LAX-SYD will be going hungry...

Yeah, that ugly whale is so heavy that they have to fly with only 37 pax.  fight 

Do you really want to switch such a thread into B vs. A?  banghead 

Axel



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7920 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 5):
Also LCC in the UK will only carry the exact amount of fuel for the required journey and don't want to be carrying the additional weight of fuel that is not essentiall for that journey.

Sucks for them if they have to hold, or divert, for some unforeseen reason.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7876 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 2):
How would you like to be the passenger that was booted to make room for drinks?

I was denied boarding on an SAAB340 MIA-EYW because my connection was late and even though my seat was available and the door was open, they had already packed it decided my 6'2" frame was going to be too much. This was AEagle.

They put me on a competing airline since they were all the final flights of the night (USAirways Express was the carrier), and AA gave me a small travel voucher, and all was fine. (this was before I stopped flying AA). Due to the inconvenience and the fact my luggage would arrive the next day, USAirways also gave me an overnight kit with a nice leatherette zipper pouch that I still use today!

Had I known they could have taken off the soda cans and let me fly, I likely still would have gone on the other plane for the voucher and the overnight kit.  Smile Either way, my luggage would have been delayed.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7818 times:

Quote:
I never said I did know what Im talking about, and comments from members like you really p*ss me off... When you make jumped up comments to other members and there is many other ways to make constructive feed back.

Yeah? Armchair QBs who question the actions of a pilot really piss me off, so I guess we're even.

Quote:
I however think my comments in the original post are valid. The fuel for the aircraft will be ordered about 2-3hrs before the flight and they could have under estimated the amount of fuel required as there could have been a number of passengers with excess baggage and there could have been a number of passengers that were on standby or booked at the last minute accounting for the additional weight.

Yes, it's a possibility that it was miscalculated fuel, however it's not the only possibility, nor the most common one for weight issues.

Quote:
Also LCC in the UK will only carry the exact amount of fuel for the required journey and don't want to be carrying the additional weight of fuel that is not essentiall for that journey. They would rather refuel everytime the aircraft does a turn around as opposed to be refuel once or twice in the day.

Most airlines do this, though they will also figure in the cost of fuel at each airport the airplane will visit and may tanker extra fuel to avoid high costs in some locations.

Quote:
Sucks for them if they have to hold, or divert, for some unforeseen reason.

The amount of fuel required for a trip allocates a certain amount for holding and diverting. The specific amount depends on location of suitable diversion airports and the weather conditions.



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineBluebellyA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7797 times:

I'm certainly glad that this is not happening on the TG BKK-JFK non-stop that i'm about to return home on!!!  Wow!

User currently offlineKohflot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7771 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
I think the actual reason is the pilot had miscalculated the amount of fuel required for the flight in relation to the weight of the payload and not had time to order additional fuel.



Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 5):
The fuel for the aircraft will be ordered about 2-3hrs before the flight and they could have under estimated the amount of fuel required as there could have been a number of passengers with excess baggage and there could have been..

Sounds like EasyJet could use licensed aircraft dispatchers...


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7776 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):

Haha, thanks for the funny story. Weird indeed   
Maybe the passengers simply were carrying too much baggage with them (more than ground staff had initially anticipated). Better offload the food and magazines though, than to offload pax.

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 2):
I think you don't have any idea what you're talking about.



Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 5):
I never said I did know what Im talking about, and comments from members like you really p*ss me off... When you make jumped up comments to other members and there is many other ways to make constructive feed back.

Ignore him! By reacting you are only doing exactly what he want's to achieve... pissing you off.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 4):
Wait until the A380 enters service - methinks alot of folks on SIN-LHR and LAX-SYD will be going hungry...

Well... think again! Jesus, some people always have to start about this again. Getting really annoying.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 1):
It isn't uncommon to remove pax, luggage, freight on some flights do to needed fuel loads combined with high altitude ops (MEX, DEN for example) or very hot weather (PHX in the summer for example). I have never heard of offloading the food/beverage services to reduce MTOW.

True! But I don't think it played a factor in this particular example. Luton is neither high up, nor hot   And I would have thought that LEMD is within a reasonable range for it not to be necessary to offload stuff from the 737-700. Hmmm....

[Edited 2005-05-29 02:29:30]

[Edited 2005-05-29 02:30:35]


Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7705 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 11):
The amount of fuel required for a trip allocates a certain amount for holding and diverting. The specific amount depends on location of suitable diversion airports and the weather conditions.

The term 'exact amount required' means that which is required by the regulations. In the US, for you and I, that would equate to trip, alternate (if required,) reserve (mandatory,) or holding if deemed necessary. Notice that I said 'unforeseen' in my post for both holding and diversion. Therefore, the 'exact amount required' that they would put on, as originally stated by Gilesdavies, would be burn and reserve. Now, would you like to takeoff to a somewhere that is 10 and clear, with no holding, or contingiency, only to get a reroute that will take you 100 miles off course?



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7673 times:

Quote:

How long before this "guesstimate" is replaced by actual weight - with prospective travellers obliged to stand on scales before a final fare is settled?

That would be more fair. In this world, profit is the leading objective (Sad but true). For the companies, that means cut costs where you can. For the constumers, that means you have what you pay for i.e. in a restaurant, if you eat more, you cost more, hence you pay more. That should be the same in the aviation industry: "You fly F class, you pay more; you cost more by being heavy, you pay more", simple as that. I would totally agree paying more for my 1m89-tall 85kgs-heavy body if somebody else can save money (the company, other pax, or both).

Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 5):
comments from members like you really p*ss me off... When you make jumped up comments to other members and there is many other ways to make constructive feed back.



Quoting Ralgha (Reply 11):
Yeah? Armchair QBs who question the actions of a pilot really piss me off, so I guess we're even.

Hey! Make LOVE  hearts , not war  box .
Just watch what you write and try to be the reader of your post...


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7645 times:

Quoting Antares (Reply 6):
a new age of in flight cannibalism is about to dawn.

Does eating a stewardess count as cannibalism if I neither bit nor swallowed?  tongue 


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7622 times:

Quote:
How long before this "guesstimate" is replaced by actual weight - with prospective travellers obliged to stand on scales before a final fare is settled?

It'll be very very long, in fact that will never change. When I worked at the check-in desk in the good old days I was surprised when I was getting my training and was told that we do in fact use guesstimates for pax. If a male was standing in front of me I hit the M button, for females the F button, and for children the C button. These buttons accounted for 80, 60, and 20 kg respectively. Infants were considered to weigh 0 kg. But seriously, when you see the discrepancies in airlines between actual and inputted weights of luggage, the weight of passengers will be the lesser concern! LOL Big grin

By the way: Imagine the look on the ladies' faces when asked to stand on the scale for "weight & balance" reasons of the aircraft! I can picture lots of slapping going on.  bigthumbsup 



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7589 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 18):
By the way: Imagine the look on the ladies' faces when asked to stand on the scale for "weight & balance" reasons of the aircraft! I can picture lots of slapping going on.   

That one is easy to solve - just have the weight display cut 20 pounds off the actual, while recording actual weight. A great way to generate customer loyalty!


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7573 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
That one is easy to solve - just have the weight display cut 20 pounds off the actual, while recording actual weight. A great way to generate customer loyalty!

Hahaha, they'll be flying with you a lot more often then Big grin
Right I'm off to bed... gnite  zzz 



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7569 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 18):
By the way: Imagine the look on the ladies' faces when asked to stand on the scale for "weight & balance" reasons of the aircraft! I can picture lots of slapping going on.

Couldn't it be done in an anonymous, all automatic, manner? e.g. the tare doesn't display the weight, it adds automatically the measurements, and you insert your credit card to pay for your weight Big grin

I mean, weight is one of the biggest issue in aviation. When you hear about airlines:
- counting the number of children to put less fuel,
- calculating that carrying 1 more ton of fuel than required will save $100 for the return leg (e.g. if fuel is more expensive at your destination),
- taxiing on one engine to save a few bucks,
- and the list goes on and on...
Then you think weighting people before boarding is not such a big deal.


User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 6955 times:

Would be interesting to see how they calculated the DOW of the aircraft then.


Put the staff on a scale and reduce the weight.

WEIRD


User currently offlineBoeing733 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5649 times:

I think what has happened here is that a Block fuel figure has been calculated on an estimated zero fuel weight (EZFW), upto an hour prior to departure. Check-in closed 30 mins prior to departure (or in that region) and an actual zero fuel weight (ZFW) was calculated. Obviously, due to the high loads of passengers, luggage, cargo, etc, the ZFW was a hell of a lot more than the EZFW, by which time the aircraft would have had the fuel loaded.

It is an extremely difficult and lengthy process to de-fuel an aircraft, so rather than delay the flight to do this or offload a fare-paying passenger, the Captain decided to leave the galley behind. Top marks to the Captain for coming up with that idea.

With reference to easyJet using licensed dispatchers, they are already well into a thorough training course using Glasgow College of Nautical Studies to train their staff for the JAA Flight Dispatcher's license. As a former dispatcher myself, they had already introduced company licenses for agents which qualified them at different levels for both dispatch and mass and balance.

Saucer of milk, table 2 please for those above .....



They Say That Life's A Carousel, Spinning Fast, You've Got To Ride It Well
User currently offlinePapaNovember From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 473 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5121 times:

Quoting Boeing733 (Reply 23):
It is an extremely difficult and lengthy process to de-fuel an aircraft

That's what I thought the problem was. They (whomever "they" is) ordered too much fuel, huh?


25 Flpuck6 : This is funny ... because I am weight and balanced qualified in my company and the catering equipment and water are part of the zero fuel weight. Mayb
26 Jcavinato : This situation happened at SCE once with a F-27 (United flight to DUL). They mistakenly took on too much fuel, and the choice was to ask for volunteer
27 Boeing733 : The galley etc forms part of the Dry Operating Weight, which, added to the Total Traffic Load (the weight of all the passengers, their bags + any frei
28 Mav75 : My guess is that the crew (or dispatcher if easyjet has them) OVERestimated the amount of fuel needed for the trip, which would have been further com
29 Post contains images Goldenshield : Better to be safe than sorry.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
There Is No Such Thing As The 777-200ER? posted Sat Nov 27 1999 17:16:36 by Lufthansa
Airbus Anounces Galois As The New CEO At Airbus posted Mon Oct 9 2006 19:11:36 by 777ATech
No Wake Constraints For The A380 posted Thu Sep 28 2006 19:24:57 by BoomBoom
Why No Western Aircraft On The Russian Register? posted Thu Jul 27 2006 18:08:28 by TradewindL1011
EK-no Intention To Cancel The A380 Orders... posted Wed Jun 21 2006 14:33:44 by Beaucaire
Southwest To U.S.P.S. "Sorry No More" posted Mon Jun 12 2006 19:38:13 by Jeffinbwi
No More PR To The Gulf?! posted Sat Apr 22 2006 19:22:01 by MD90fan
NO SIA Order At The Show posted Mon Feb 20 2006 10:27:30 by FCKC
There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch posted Sun Feb 19 2006 16:32:43 by Pe@rson
How Come No One Has Got The MD-10 Upgrade? posted Tue Sep 27 2005 15:32:42 by MD90fan
There Is No Such Thing As The 777-200ER? posted Sat Nov 27 1999 17:16:36 by Lufthansa
Why Are No Russian Airliners In The Desert? posted Wed Nov 24 2010 04:50:59 by Aviatorcraig
Why No USA Equal To The Paris/Farnbourgh posted Tue Jul 20 2010 19:53:14 by rsmith6621a
Why No A300 B4 On The LAX-Hawaii Route? posted Sun May 2 2010 07:10:05 by 747400sp
No Cockpit Shots Of The Dreamliner? posted Thu Apr 22 2010 13:08:42 by FlyASAGuy2005
Could The 77W End Up As The Next MD11F? posted Wed Apr 21 2010 13:38:02 by LHCVG
Why No 238t Mtow For The A330-300? posted Tue Apr 20 2010 10:55:02 by EA772LR
Why No DL 764 In The Latest Livery? posted Mon May 18 2009 15:02:16 by American 767
CO No CLE-MDW On The Web (including Multi-stop)?!? posted Thu Feb 5 2009 16:56:56 by Lincoln
No Hidden Fees, Unless You're Overweight posted Thu Nov 27 2008 13:09:24 by AirframeAS