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...
Presumably landing fees are a contractual matter so you would have to look at the wording of the contract to determin how the relevant weight is defined for charging purposes. It might be defined totally differently to any regulatory definition.
Good grief. Some of you must be car salesmen ! Slowjet is completely correct when he states that an MTOW is an MTOW is an MTOW. It is the manufacturer's maximum certified Take off weight. Slow did not suggest that Ryanair were declaring lower weights & then exceeding them but that the invitation for naughty cowboys to do so would be there. BOAC then tells us that if he writes on paper to the Regulatory Authority that his aircraft have an MTOW lower than the manufacturer's stated MTOW "he" is now "certifying" a new weight. Blimey BOAC, how powerful you must have felt. You cannot change the MTOW willynilly on every damn sector chaps. You can change the RTOW and the ATOW but that is not what you are charged for. As Slow says, it "might be an irritation" and very expensive to operators who regularly ply the routes at ATOW's a lot lower than the "Certified Max".............Go, on, tell me that "Certified Max" is the name of the guy just sectioned ! Could be the Title of a new mad movie too.eh ?
Use of flexible MTOW has been around for years and used by many operators. Key to this issue is the interpretation of the EuroControl requirement that "the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration". Based on previous experience, this is typically accepted as being the MTOW stated on the individual aircraft's Noise Certificate (carried on board).
From other posts, it would appear that the IAA may have agreed to this being 66,990 kg and thus the Noise Certificate is likely to state this and not the "optional" higher MTOWs quoted of 69,990 or 74,990 however, if this is the case, then it is not clear how the aircraft could have been operated at a MTOW higher than 66,990 (which seems to be being suggested in the newspaper articles) without reference back to the IAA and issue of a revised Noise Certificate at the higher approved MTOW. If the MTOW on the Noise Certificate is either of the higher figures then it would seem this higher MTOW should have been declared and be the basis for the navigation charges to be made.
The other possibility is that the Noise Certificate does state 66,990, and this has been adhered to, and the DFS is looking to use another basis to determine the highest weight "authorised" by the IAA. Maybe they can see the higher MTOW listed in the AFM or Operations Manual and are making the interpretation that, as also IAA "authorised" documents, these can be used to support their position that the charges should be higher.
The interesting thing to know would be the figure quoted on the Noise Certificate.
Let's try to put this to bed once and for all-with an example that we can all follow.
DC10. This a/c has a centre under carriage leg. When certified to it's manufacturer's MTOW it has to use the centre leg.
To reduce airport and nav charges this a/c could be flown at a lower MTOW-all certified and agreed by McDonnell Douglas. You could easily spot whether it was at it's higher weight or not as the centre leg was/wasn't down. Not sure how often you could do this, but probably on a sector basis although with my operator it was only on selected routes.
Landflap there's no need to be disparaging to BOAC but if we're gonna get personal... you really should get out more-or as they used to say-read around your subject.
In my days with Laker, the charges were based on MLW and not MTOW. We had six DC-10-10s. Then we got five DC-10-30s (which had the centre leg and were much heavier).
The centre leg could be operated independently.
Fred came up with this great wheeze whereby he could save money on short routes by landing with the centre gear retracted.
Then he discovered that to get the centre leg back down again while the aeroplane was on the ground involved jacking the aircraft up. Alternatively, the simplest way was to take-off as a #10, put the centre leg down and land as a #30 but that was quite impractical so the wheeze did not last long!
a few small remarks/reminders to re-set the discussion in right track :
Eurocontrol did not set the route charges rules, the individual States that made the CRCO did that . Eurocontrol was asked to manage the scheme, i.e to act as a tax collector for the States.(it keeps 0,3% for that, the rest goes back to the member States)
One of the CRCO aims is to have equality for fair competition in Europe : everyone should follow the same rules, and pay according same rules.
The formula is based on Maximum permissible take off weight (*) , as it is based on " ability to pay" rather than be billed for the actual cost of the service .
The questions remaining in this case are , which MTOW is on the certificate of registry ( or noise certificate ) and were the FR cases mentioned by Germany just " errors" or a systematic strategy to avoid paying the full charges.
(*) the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration.
everyone should follow the same rules, and pay according same rules
How do we know that?
Yes, it is alleged FR has one interpretation of the rule but that has only emerged following spot checks. What chance there are a number of other airlines remaining silent because they do exactly the same as it is alleged is FR practice?
To give a real life example the company I used to work for had a fleet of B-757s. They were based all over the country with the furthest summer destination during the summer being Pafos.
All the aircraft had a similar structural MTOW that was certified by Boeing. However the aircraft based in Glasgow require more fuel to fly to Pafos than an aircraft based at East Mids (Its further away). Therefore the Glasgow based aircraft was certified by the CAA to have a greater take-off weight than the EMA aircraft although both are lower than the Boeing structural MTOW. i.e 103,999 kg rather then 98,999kg both less than 115,000kg structural weight.
If during the summer a Glasgow aircraft went long term tech and was replaced by an EMA aircraft the CAA would be advised and the certified weight changed. During the winter some aircraft were flown to the USA of Xmas trips. These aircraft were recertified up to the maximum structural weight due the extra fuel required.
These changes were not done on a sector by sector basis but on an 'as required' basis. As has already been stated Eurocontrol charge for use of the airways on a weight band basis i.e. its cheaper to be at the top of band C than the bottom of band D, like council tax.
What Ryan Air appear to be doing is claiming their aircraft are band C weights and then flying at band D weights therefore avoiding the extra charges. Tax evasion, fraud, incompetance, honest mistake, call it what you will.
I'm confused. I must be missing the point here. It is entirely possible i've had one too many... Are people actually claiming that RYR are deliberately recording lower MtoW than the actual? The initial post quoted a German newspaper (and remember, the newspapers are very accurate) saying that RYR routienly exceeded the stated MTOW (on the loadsheet, i presume) to dodge fees. Not once in the 6 years I've been in the company have I seen this done. The procedure is quite legal, and RYR is not the only company who does this, and the only time this would be exceeded would be by mistake. I can't think of a captain who would do this on purpose, especially not for Ryanair!
Boris - welcome to page 5. As I understand the OP's post. neither the OP nor the paper mentioned 'loadsheet MTOW'. Whatever 'involvement' of individual crews, if any, will be for any enquiry to establish. I suspect none.
As BOAC says, I don't think any of the newspaper reports, or quotes from DFW spokesman, are referring to the crews making inaccurate loadsheet entries. The alleged under reporting of the MTOW would be in the figures provided to Eurocontrol in the annual return submitted by the operator - according to the quote attributed to the DFW spokesman, a MTOW of only 66,990 has been reported to Eurocontrol but the aircraft have been operated at higher "approved" MTOW (under a flexible MTOW regime). The issue is that, if a flexible MTOW regime is being used, the operator is required to report (and will be charged for every sector) at the highest allowable MTOW and cannot just pick and choose.
As per a previous post, there could be a secondary issue if the Noise Certificate for the aircraft is also only stating an approved MTOW of 66,990 (which seems to be confirmed by the data published on the IAA website) and the aircraft is operated at a higher MTOW. As far as I am aware, the Noise Certificate forms part of the aircraft's certification so the MTOW stated should not be exceeded.
Wasn't MOL done for driving his black cab in a bus lane? Also whats the truth concerning Ryanair "Airside" vehicles using red diesel when driven landside. I think you should look at the culture in Ryanair an attitude that is peddled by it's CEO. If you can get away with it do so until you get caught! ISNT IT BETTER TO TRANSGRESS AND BEG FORGIVENESS 'SORRY M'LUD IT WAS A CLERICAL ERROR' it wont happen again!!! Pull the other one it's got sleigh bells on