PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 19th Dec 2012, 21:38   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 2,928
I think this one will be less easy to whitewash than other debacles (even with the full cooperation of the IAA ) if indeed the errors in reporting MTOW required/applied to individual flights is found to be outwith the normal tolerances expected of a lowly (grossly overpaid) Captain . . . as dear Michael would classify all his employees entrusted with 1/300th of his daily business.
captplaystation is online now   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 08:59   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 43
Posts: 462
Quote:
Then what is the point of using flexible MTOM?
Maybe handling charges are actually based on the flex-MTOM for the specific sector? This may vary from airport to airport, so there is no guarantee that it will always save you money. Unless, of course, you do cheat and always declare the current MTOM even if the applicable regulations say otherwise.
Dg800 is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 09:11   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 43
Posts: 462
Quote:
But what next? Will the company compile a list of each flight against the used MTOW and send it to the authority every so often so they can be properly billed? And to which authority will that be - seeing that Eurocontrol seems to have no knowledge on different possible MTOWs for one fleet, it seems that for FR, the Irish CAA or ATC provider is the recipient and then just hogged this information?
One of the points raised by German ATC is that they don't have access to this information, unless they actually board the plane and ask to see the papers. As this is very time-consuming, one of their stated goals is to get a court to order the IAA to make this information available to them, regardless of data protection laws in effect.
Dg800 is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 10:08   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMX View Post
According to Eurocontrol (Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on route charges | EUROCONTROL):

"The MTOW declared should be the maximum certificated take-off weight of the aircraft. In the case of multiple certificated take-off weights, the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration."

Then what is the point of using flexible MTOM?
Eurocontrol is not the only charge which is assessed on the basis of MTOW - most airport landing fees are as well. Of course Ryanair negotiates their own deal at the majority of their airports, but having a flex MTOW allows them to shift the starting point for the negotiation downwards. They tell airports that the MTOW is 67T and conduct the fee negotiation on that basis.
Cyrano is online now   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 11:15   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 242
All seems a bit of a fiddle. MTOW is MTOW is MTOW. It is a structual figure. Of course, one may be limited to an RTOW. Almost everyday in my previos life, I was. Of course, the ATOW might be even lower. I can see the irritation of being charged for a MTOW when, most of the time, I am a lot lighter than that. But, to declare an MTOW lower than the certified max is telling a porky isn't it ? Then, to load up to the certified MTOW and set off for Bongobongo is very naughty.

Last edited by slowjet; 20th Dec 2012 at 11:16.
slowjet is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 11:22   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 43
Posts: 462
Quote:
Then, to load up to the certified MTOW and set off for Bongobongo is very naughty.
That's true but it's also not what Ryanair is being accused of and is completely irrelevant here, as ATOW is not what charges are actually based on (see the Eurocontrol FAQ for confirmation). If you declare a reduced MTOW and always have ATOW<RTOW then all is fine and dandy, until you also try and get en-route charges based on the RTOW instead of the structural, certified, absolute MTOW.

Ciao,

Dg800

Last edited by Dg800; 20th Dec 2012 at 11:22.
Dg800 is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 11:24   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 185
Come on, this is very simple.

Ryanair has declared a lower MTOW to save money. Nothing wrong with that!

They have then allegedly flown sectors at a weight greater than that.

So, either fraud (if deliberate) or negligence (if through oversight).

Either way naughty and worthy of a good financial spanking.

Last edited by Bengerman; 20th Dec 2012 at 11:48.
Bengerman is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 11:41   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 43
Posts: 462
Quote:
They have then flown sectors at a weight greater than that.
No they haven't. Even if they had it would then be a disciplinary (and hence internal to Ryanair) and not a financial matter as en-route charges must always be based on maximum structural TOW as per certification (please read the Eurocontrol FAQ via the link previously posted by LMX).

Half tongue in cheek: if you keep making false claims about Ryanair they might try and subpoena your data from PPRuNe. I'd be more careful if I were you.

Last edited by Dg800; 20th Dec 2012 at 11:41.
Dg800 is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 11:50   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gt Hockham
Posts: 91
JW411,

When HeavyLift started flying the Belfast around the world the Chief Pilot was Bob Reynolds (who I am sure you will remember) and he usually told ATC or whoever that it was a "Super Hercules" with an MTOW of 155,000lbs...........
But that was Bob... I'm quite sure that HLA would never have dreamed that one up....
Hockham Admiral is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 11:54   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In a Hangar
Posts: 67
from the Irish register Ryan Air have 66,9900 kg listed as the MTOW. The information is readily available as download from the Irish CAA website.
Chopper Doc is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 11:55   #51 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In a Hangar
Posts: 67
The information is already available on the Irish CAA website.
Chopper Doc is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 11:58   #52 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 43
Posts: 462
That's interesting. So, it appears Ryanair got the IAA to publish a weight lower than the actual certified MTOM (allegedly!).
Dg800 is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 11:58   #53 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by dg800
must always be based on maximum structural TOW as per certification
- I think you misunderstand the wording? 'Certified' means as presented on a certificate and does NOT refer to manufacturer's 'certified' MTOW. Thus if an a/c is 'certified' at a MTOW lower than the manufacturer's max that is the 'certified' MTOW for Eurocontrol charging. Most airlines (including the big ones) do this - the way you see it, there is no point.

Read cyrano:
"In the case of multiple certificated take-off weights, the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration." which is that provided to the state by the operator and refers to specific airframes, not a 'type'. As cyrano says, this applies to lots of other charges too.
BOAC is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 12:22   #54 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 171
Does this not revolve around whether placarding (and accompanying engineering sign-off) counts as certification?
I was under the impression that this was entirely Kosher.
Only if the details are changed at the subsequent invoicing stage would it be dodgy.
When I was involved the company were very careful that the aircraft departed home base at the highest weight to cover the MTOWs for the series of flights, unless engineering was available down route.
16024 is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 12:33   #55 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,672
Also involved,of course, is the 'mechanism' to convey this figure to relevant bodies like EuroC and airfields, conceivably on a trip by trip basis.

Interesting to see what comes out in the wash.
BOAC is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 12:56   #56 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 43
Posts: 462
Quote:
I think you misunderstand the wording? 'Certified' means as presented on a certificate and does NOT refer to manufacturer's 'certified' MTOW.
That's what I meant too. My apologies if I didn't make it clear because of the inappropriate wording I used.
Dg800 is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 14:10   #57 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,672
Yes - these MTOWs are not 'structural', but 'administrative'. I think we all seem to agree - interesting 'enquiries' ahead and probably quite a few ramp checks + copies of load sheets garnered from agents for the poor boys and girls.
BOAC is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 14:14   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,112
As an" outsider", I can see the logic of "paying by weight" for Airport and Ground-handling charges.....It's self-evident that a 50 ton lump is going to cause more wear and tear than a 35-ton lump......it's not linear, of course.

The road-transport industry had l long fight with the Eurocrats because Continental lorries were allowed a higher axle-loading than UK ones.....hence a spate of bridge-works, roadwidening, bend-straightening and sub-base replacements. IIRC, a 10% extra axle-loading = 30% extra road-wear.

So, One can understand an "ON THE GROUND" weight-charging regime.

pax or cargo is not relevant, because the pax-charge is on a per-head basis.

Once off the ground, a big jet would appear to use exactly the same resources as a private IFR flight.

Logic dictates that an empty positioning flight should be cheaper than a "full" flight, all other details being the same.

Common-sense dictates, therefore , that the element of trust works BOTH WAYS....."euro" cannot expect the same revenue from a full aircraft , as an empty one. If the "certifying authority" is willing to issue a "weight-certificate" on an individual airframe/flight basis, that seems fair, reasonable and logical, given the Eurocrat's (allegedly) entrenched dogmatic and inflexible position on this..........no different to lorries going in/out of a facility via a weighbridge and levies being based on that factor.

but what would I know, I don't have my snout in a trough of gold.
cockney steve is online now   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 14:24   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 483
Quote:
Once off the ground, a big jet would appear to use exactly the same resources as a private IFR flight.
Actually no. A lot of research has been done on this in the US due to the regular call by the airlines to charge user fees for GA aircraft.

The 'private IFR' flights are MOSTLY at different altitudes, speeds and distances. It is generally accepted that the average GA 'private IFR' flight uses significantly less system resources in flight than an airline flight.
darkroomsource is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 18:21   #60 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Herts/Essex border, near London.
Age: 50
Posts: 11
Quote:
The road-transport industry had l long fight with the Eurocrats because Continental lorries were allowed a higher axle-loading than UK ones.....hence a spate of bridge-works, roadwidening, bend-straightening and sub-base replacements. IIRC, a 10% extra axle-loading = 30% extra road-wear.
I remember when that was all going on, it being stated that road wear is proportional to the fifth(!) power of axle-weight. A quick Google to check that I wasn't dreaming this reveals that the true picture is (of course!) more complex, but yes, it can be anywhere from the third power to the ninth(!!) power, depending upon the type of road surface...
Ambient Sheep is online now   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 23:00.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network