apodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3386 posts, RR: 7 Posted (11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2192 times:
I was thinking about this for a while. Most of the mainline US carriers rely on a central load planning facility for W & B calculations. The thing I was wondering is could the airlines save money by eliminating this and switching to a different way? For example, Virgin America has their own pilots do W & B using paper and ACARS before flight, and at most regional carriers, W & B is done by the crews using ACARS. I believe at WN, it is done by the Ops Agent who usually boards the flight. Given that most of these airlines can do their W & B and load planning without a central facility, is this really necessary at the legacy carriers, or could they save money by eliminating this?
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2342 posts, RR: 54 Reply 1, posted (11 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2103 times:
At the legacy carriers, the load planning department has to handle long-range planning for how much cargo a flight can carry, balanced out with how much fuel is required, and what a particular aircraft can handle given the expected passenger load. That isn't something a flight crew can do just minutes before departure. What the pilots do at Virgin America is a final W & B check, with the numbers provided by the rampers and the VA load planners. Load planning has to be started hours before an aircraft arrives, and there's no way the crew could do it, since they normally arrive about an hour before departure (on the first flight of the day, later on additional legs). On the regionals, there's also a smaller range of loading variables, such as having a single baggage compartment, with limited ranges of W & B. The legacy carriers, with bigger aircraft, longer flights, and more variables, really do need a central load planning department to handle that info, especially considering the advanced planning requirements for bigger aircraft, and longer flights. Personally, I think doing it that way speeds up the process too. The load info has to be input into a computer somewhere, and it's easier for the ground crew to do that and send the info via ACARS to the crew, than passing the info to the pilots to handle - who would then simply enter it into another computer. Having the ground crew do it reduces the chance of a problem by removing an extra step.
At bigger airlines, what the central load planning department does isn't the same thing as what pilots may do in figuring weight & balance numbers. The final W & B can be figured in the cockpi (Virgin America), or by computer (legacy), but either way, they need a load planning department to come up with the numbers for loading the plane in the first place. I don't think doing the final W & B calculations one way over another would make much, if any, difference in cost to the airline.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
jer757 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 347 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1856 times:
For airlines which use ground staff to calculate the W&B of a flight, Central Load Planning really does save a lot of cash. Instead of having W&B trained dispatchers (dispatcher used in the UK/European sense - i.e. an ops agent trained in W&B) in every airport at every gate, which cost money and command higher salaries, it is much more efficient to have a few people in a centralised centre who get sent the data by a CSA/ramp agent. It also means that the guys in the CLP department do far more loadsheets per day, becoming more expert at it which reduces error rates and may go towards slightly improving fuel efficiency by attaining the 'perfect trim' more closely more of the time.
However it isn't all good. I work for a handling agent who deals with airlines with a CLP department, and those who do not - i.e. I complete the loadsheet at the gate and hand it to the crew before departure. I much prefer completing the loadsheet myself; I know what's going on with the flight, I'm sure the flight is in trim before it pushes back, and if something needs to be changed I can do it there and then myself without phoning/telexing CLP to get them to do it.
I remember once a CLP flight pushing back and taxiing to the runway. When entering the final load data the CLP agent realised the a/c was out of trim. A few manic phone calls and chats over the air-ground radio to the crew meant that about 15 pax had to be moved right to the back of the a/c whilst it was sat there on the taxiway. Hardly very professional looking, and resulted in a few red faces all round. From then on I always make a point of checking the W&B in the system before pushback, just as a second pair of eyes and will contact CLP before I allow the a/c to push back if I have any concerns.
And yes, as mentioned above, long haul flights with 4 cabin classes, carrying tons of cargo, hundreds of bags, burning 100 tons of fuel is a very different ball game to the LoCo carriers where the W&B is simply a case of filling a few numbers in and chucking the bags on!
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 18942 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1818 times:
Quoting apodino (Thread starter): is this really necessary at the legacy carriers, or could they save money by eliminating this?
Remember legacy carriers have already saved a boatload by adopting CLP.
It used to be most carriers had local staff do the work. This meant more folks, more training, more cost. By moving the duties under a single roof combined with things like ACARS, and integrated software applications a small cadre of folks can literally work hundreds of flights in a shift.
Its a bit akin to dispatch - back in the day when communications was not what it is today, airlines would have dispatch offices around the US if not globally. Now from a single central point you can run a global airline just fine.
As far as crews, yes they can do it, however I've personally not been a fan of such especially for larger and containerized aircraft. It often ends up being a last minute rush job when the ops/gate/ramp agents gives them the numbers and I've had to deal with a fair number of issues over the years including a tail scrape due to hasty miscalculation of numbers in the cockpit.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
MSJYOP28Apilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1736 times:
At my airline, I, the dispatcher, do the load control. I release the flight than deal with whatever load issues there are. The station deals with the actual loading of the aircraft based on the plans I send to them. The pilots enter in the final load numbers into the FMS through ACARS. The flight attendant does the zone count and the pilots put the number into the system and see if the ac is nose heavy. If it is then either ballast is loaded or pax are moved to the back of the bus.
When ACARS is inoperative, the pilots have to call us in dispatch and read us their bag and pax count and then dispatch closes out the numbers and reads back the numbers and performance stuff to the captain or first officer.
exFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1625 times:
Quoting jer757 (Reply 2): in every airport at every gate, which cost money and command higher salaries
I wish I got more money. I trained others how to do the manual W/B (for when the computers died, which was often enough) and I was probably the lowest paid agent at the time. Oh the fun working at a small out-station where you did it all.
apodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3386 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Quoting MSJYOP28Apilot (Reply 4): At my airline, I, the dispatcher, do the load control. I release the flight than deal with whatever load issues there are. The station deals with the actual loading of the aircraft based on the plans I send to them. The pilots enter in the final load numbers into the FMS through ACARS. The flight attendant does the zone count and the pilots put the number into the system and see if the ac is nose heavy. If it is then either ballast is loaded or pax are moved to the back of the bus.
When ACARS is inoperative, the pilots have to call us in dispatch and read us their bag and pax count and then dispatch closes out the numbers and reads back the numbers and performance stuff to the captain or first officer.
That's funny because at my carrier it is all calculated through ACARS. I just generate the max weights based on the runway and performance, but the crews do the rest. If the ACARS is deffered, the crews actually do a manual weight and balance sheet themselves prior to departure.
Thanks for the responses. I never really took into account the variables of the bigger airplanes, being a dispatcher of RJ's. I guess some airlines could benefit, but not ones who fly widebodies.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3386 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 347 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
