fanoftristars From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1573 posts, RR: 5 Posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3751 times:
I'm sitting at the gate at JFK on an Airbus 320. We're flight DL107 to SLC. We're over 45 min delayed now because our aircraft was loaded overweight (according to the captain). They're removing cargo now, but is it really not possible for the A320 to fly JFK-SLC with full passengers and cargo? I'm betting the 737-800 wouldn't have an issue with JFK runway lengths. Would this happen to the 738?
zbbylw From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1922 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3655 times:
The A320 can actually take off from shorter runways than the 737-800 as far as I am aware. What could have happened is that they were tankering some fuel into SLC, plus a tad too much cargo and volia a bit over weight. On a full bus with lots of people and some cargo stranger things have happened. It could very well be the landing weight that is limiting as far as I know the runway in SLC sits a fair ways above SL. There is a lot about this flight that we don't know but rest assured that the A320 could do JFK to SLC with a full passenger load unless something was up.
As an example: with an MEL if they had one of the brakes deactivated the RTO performance could have an issue.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2511 posts, RR: 45 Reply 3, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3480 times:
Quoting fanoftristars (Thread starter): They're removing cargo now, but is it really not possible for the A320 to fly JFK-SLC with full passengers and cargo? I'm betting the 737-800 wouldn't have an issue with JFK runway lengths. Would this happen to the 738?
MEL's and a variety of other things can grossly reduce the allowable takeoff weight; I have had excessive cargo put on every plane I have flown at some point, including the DC-9, MD-80, A-320, 737,757, and 767 (among others.) If a plane is planned with less than full passengers and load planners elect to put some heavy cargo on the aircraft, if the plane fills up in the last hour, or has more bags than expected show up it can require removing cargo, or bags, or fuel, or people. I have done all four under different circumstances. Without knowing the exact circumstances in much greater detail you can't form any valid conclusions about this case.
FI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1054 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3474 times:
The root cause of this is Central Load Control. Each separate department adds their weight in. It isn't until right before departure that final weights are sent. Only then is it apparent there is a problem. Been there, done that!
737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
VC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 959 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3008 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 3):
MEL's and a variety of other things can grossly reduce the allowable takeoff weight; I have had excessive cargo put on every plane I have flown at some point, including the DC-9, MD-80, A-320, 737,757, and 767 (among others.) If a plane is planned with less than full passengers and load planners elect to put some heavy cargo on the aircraft, if the plane fills up in the last hour, or has more bags than expected show up it can require removing cargo, or bags, or fuel, or people. I have done all four under different circumstances. Without knowing the exact circumstances in much greater detail you can't form any valid conclusions about this case.
Good insights, thanks! I'm just spitballin' here, but could a drastic change in winds or routing also affect weights?
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6016 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2729 times:
Quoting fanoftristars (Thread starter): I'm sitting at the gate at JFK on an Airbus 320. We're flight DL107 to SLC. We're over 45 min delayed now because our aircraft was loaded overweight (according to the captain). They're removing cargo now, but is it really not possible for the A320 to fly JFK-SLC with full passengers and cargo?
That's correct. Loaded to MZFW (full passengers and cargo) the fuel tanks can be filled only half roughly. No way can such an A320 make JFK - SLC.
Quoting fanoftristars (Thread starter): I'm betting the 737-800 wouldn't have an issue with JFK runway lengths.
It's not a question about runway length. Both A320 and B738 can easily take off at MTOW at JFK with plenty of runway to spare.
Yup, it's the same old story. Both planes can make roughly US transcon with full passenger load and no cargo. Load one tonne of cargo on top of that, then you load one tonne less fuel. At MZFW also the B738 maxes out on MTOW with roughly half full tanks and will no way make it anywhere near SLC.
You just experienced a slip in the basic DL load planning system. They will probably do better tomorrow.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
ricknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 474 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2263 times:
Quoting FI642 (Reply 4): The root cause of this is Central Load Control. Each separate department adds their weight in. It isn't until right before departure that final weights are sent. Only then is it apparent there is a problem. Been there, done that!
Did some accountant think it would save money by not working all this out till the last minute?
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2215 times:
Quoting ricknroll (Reply 8): Quoting FI642 (Reply 4):
The root cause of this is Central Load Control. Each separate department adds their weight in. It isn't until right before departure that final weights are sent. Only then is it apparent there is a problem. Been there, done that!
Did some accountant think it would save money by not working all this out till the last minute?
Seems to invite problems that could be avoided. What's the reason for doing things the way they are done now if it occasionally leads to needing to unload?
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2113 times:
I assume they base their weights on load assumptions based on reservations. The freight department will want to put as much of their load in, but last minute pax, extra fuel (weather, tankering, aircraft switch...), or even a MEL item can change that. Add the tight scheduling of regional ops and you can end up with stuff on board whose room has been rented to someone else already...
Quoting fanoftristars (Thread starter): I'm betting the 737-800 wouldn't have an issue with JFK runway lengths. Would this happen to the 738?
Are you looking for an explanation or ammunition?...
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4275 posts, RR: 36 Reply 11, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1905 times:
My guess is that last minute passengers, or last minute cargo put the aircraft over MTOW, due to the fuel already loaded.
It's not that the aircraft can't do it, its more that when you get close to MTOW, these things need careful planning. This could happen to any aircraft type at any airport.
Weight and Balance is dynamic, and the load agent will work with the information he has and adjust it as factors change. If he detects a possible problem, he will advise the necessary departments. But ... sometimes things happen all at once ... the Captain will need 3000kgs more fuel, at the same time Cargo see open weight and adds 3000kgs of cargo, at the same time that Sales sees 30 open seats and fills them due to cancellations (3000kgs) ... everyone vying for the same open weight. And not all can be accommodated.
It doesn't happen open, but it does happen!
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1573 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4772 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1922 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1054 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6016 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2012, 13 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 474 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
