FlyBe - 6
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A reginal turboprop that is incapable of flying with a full load on a short domestic
BE861 11 Jan - SOU to MAN.
Normally a 195 but on boarding (on time) notice it is a DH8 (G-JEDV). Obviously not a last minute switch as no issues with BPs at the gate.
The aircraft was almost full with only 3 empty seats. Our departure time of 07:10 came and went with no announcement by cabin crew or flightdeck. Eventually at 07:20 the Captain told us that due to a combination of “modifications” to the aircraft, the weather (it was raining but nothing out of the ordinary) and the short runway at Southampton we were over MTOW. Judging by the murmurings of fellow passengers I don’t think that I was the only one who was astounded that an aircraft operating out of one the airlines main bases, on a short internal flight, was unable to take-off with a full load of passengers.
Over the next 35 minutes various people (dispatchers, loaders, etc) came and went from the cockpit. Eventually the captain told us the caterers would be coming to remove the catering trolleys and this would get us below weight. Shortly after the catering was removed the doors were closed and we departed an hour late.
On arrival at Manchester I joined the other passengers at baggage reclaim and waited for my luggage. A small number of bags came off and then the information board displayed “Baggage Delivery Complete”.
At that moment the penny dropped. They had removed most of the luggage to bring the aircraft below MTOW. At no time did anyone inform the pax they were doing this.
Like many of my fellow passengers I had business papers and other work that I needed for the day in my hold luggage. The only reason I do this is due to the zealousness with which the check-in agents at Southampton enforce the 10kg hand baggage allowance. I used to use a roll-along “Pilot” style briefcase that fitted in the sizers, but having to prove every week that it fitted and then being told to remove items because it was overweight (by 1-2 kgs), I eventually gave up and started carrying a smaller rucksack and putting items in my hold luggage.
I've made in excess of 120 flights on BE over the past 2 years. During that time I've played musical chairs so they can get the trim right. I've also had occurence where pax have been asked to put their hand luggage in to the hold to help with trim. However, this is the worst example. Is the Q400 so sensitive that it can't fly with a full load of pax on a short domestic hop?
One crumb of comfort is that I've just had a text saying my bag is being delivered to my hotel this evening. This saves me a trip to the Trafford Centre to get some clothes for tomorrow although with the £25 compo that BE would give me I wouldn't get much!
Normally a 195 but on boarding (on time) notice it is a DH8 (G-JEDV). Obviously not a last minute switch as no issues with BPs at the gate.
The aircraft was almost full with only 3 empty seats. Our departure time of 07:10 came and went with no announcement by cabin crew or flightdeck. Eventually at 07:20 the Captain told us that due to a combination of “modifications” to the aircraft, the weather (it was raining but nothing out of the ordinary) and the short runway at Southampton we were over MTOW. Judging by the murmurings of fellow passengers I don’t think that I was the only one who was astounded that an aircraft operating out of one the airlines main bases, on a short internal flight, was unable to take-off with a full load of passengers.
Over the next 35 minutes various people (dispatchers, loaders, etc) came and went from the cockpit. Eventually the captain told us the caterers would be coming to remove the catering trolleys and this would get us below weight. Shortly after the catering was removed the doors were closed and we departed an hour late.
On arrival at Manchester I joined the other passengers at baggage reclaim and waited for my luggage. A small number of bags came off and then the information board displayed “Baggage Delivery Complete”.
At that moment the penny dropped. They had removed most of the luggage to bring the aircraft below MTOW. At no time did anyone inform the pax they were doing this.
Like many of my fellow passengers I had business papers and other work that I needed for the day in my hold luggage. The only reason I do this is due to the zealousness with which the check-in agents at Southampton enforce the 10kg hand baggage allowance. I used to use a roll-along “Pilot” style briefcase that fitted in the sizers, but having to prove every week that it fitted and then being told to remove items because it was overweight (by 1-2 kgs), I eventually gave up and started carrying a smaller rucksack and putting items in my hold luggage.
I've made in excess of 120 flights on BE over the past 2 years. During that time I've played musical chairs so they can get the trim right. I've also had occurence where pax have been asked to put their hand luggage in to the hold to help with trim. However, this is the worst example. Is the Q400 so sensitive that it can't fly with a full load of pax on a short domestic hop?
One crumb of comfort is that I've just had a text saying my bag is being delivered to my hotel this evening. This saves me a trip to the Trafford Centre to get some clothes for tomorrow although with the £25 compo that BE would give me I wouldn't get much!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is right Gaza
It would have been a landing weight restriction as to why things were offloaded. The max landing weight of the Q400 is 28,009kg. If you were nearly full, with lots of bags etc then you could have been close to the max take-off weight of 28,998kg. The trip fuel between MAN & SOU can be as little as 800kg meaning an overweight landing. Factor in SOU's short runway and icing conditions the regulated landing weight could be alot less than 28,009kg. Something has to give, generally it is positioning crew first, followed by bags. They could have offloaded pax, so it isn't all bad. Just one of those things.
It would have been a landing weight restriction as to why things were offloaded. The max landing weight of the Q400 is 28,009kg. If you were nearly full, with lots of bags etc then you could have been close to the max take-off weight of 28,998kg. The trip fuel between MAN & SOU can be as little as 800kg meaning an overweight landing. Factor in SOU's short runway and icing conditions the regulated landing weight could be alot less than 28,009kg. Something has to give, generally it is positioning crew first, followed by bags. They could have offloaded pax, so it isn't all bad. Just one of those things.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason the aircraft was over it's max take-off weight was only due to the runway length at Southampton i imagine.
Basically the heavier the aircraft the longer it takes to take-off. Also if the runway conditions were damp/wet, windspeed, obstacles on take-off climb-out can all add ore reduce the max take-off weight.
Other issues is that if fuel was allready placed on the aircraft for round/trip or possible the weather at destination not expected to be good therefore extra holding & diversion fuel. This may have all been done before the final passenger/bag weight was provided adding to the aircraft being overweight.
On domestic lo-cost scheduled flights it is very difficult to calculate bags per passenger ratio sometimes it's 1 bag in every 5 passenger and on the odd day it can be one bag per passenger roughly.
In regards to trim issues and being moved about. Weight and balance of the a/c is like a see-saw. The main landing gear is approx the central pivet in this see-saw. As you look at the Dash 8-Q400 aircraft it is naturally sloaping upwards from front to back. This means that the plane is naturally nose heavy. Or trim is Foreward when empty. The issue is that naturally passengers choose to sit closer to the front and maybe a habit for reserving seats together towards the front after being stung by free-seating airlines. It is ideal for passengers to be sat 1/3 in the front and 2/3 in the back of the aircraft.
In an ideal world if the aircraft is out of trim then any seat changes can be made at the gate. However with a check-in closure time of -20 to STD this can become difficult at times. So people who haven't paid to select their seat unfortunatly are the first to be moved.
There is another issue in the equasion that sometimes the paperwork and trim is perfectly legal when the paperwork is handed to the Captain. However he/she may feel that it is too close to the limit and some passengers are required to move to ensure a better trim. Sometimes passengers also get moved because others have not sat in their allocated seats which are stated on their boarding cards.
Basically the heavier the aircraft the longer it takes to take-off. Also if the runway conditions were damp/wet, windspeed, obstacles on take-off climb-out can all add ore reduce the max take-off weight.
Other issues is that if fuel was allready placed on the aircraft for round/trip or possible the weather at destination not expected to be good therefore extra holding & diversion fuel. This may have all been done before the final passenger/bag weight was provided adding to the aircraft being overweight.
On domestic lo-cost scheduled flights it is very difficult to calculate bags per passenger ratio sometimes it's 1 bag in every 5 passenger and on the odd day it can be one bag per passenger roughly.
In regards to trim issues and being moved about. Weight and balance of the a/c is like a see-saw. The main landing gear is approx the central pivet in this see-saw. As you look at the Dash 8-Q400 aircraft it is naturally sloaping upwards from front to back. This means that the plane is naturally nose heavy. Or trim is Foreward when empty. The issue is that naturally passengers choose to sit closer to the front and maybe a habit for reserving seats together towards the front after being stung by free-seating airlines. It is ideal for passengers to be sat 1/3 in the front and 2/3 in the back of the aircraft.
In an ideal world if the aircraft is out of trim then any seat changes can be made at the gate. However with a check-in closure time of -20 to STD this can become difficult at times. So people who haven't paid to select their seat unfortunatly are the first to be moved.
There is another issue in the equasion that sometimes the paperwork and trim is perfectly legal when the paperwork is handed to the Captain. However he/she may feel that it is too close to the limit and some passengers are required to move to ensure a better trim. Sometimes passengers also get moved because others have not sat in their allocated seats which are stated on their boarding cards.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind. I am sure passengers were no more baffled by that than the regular pre-departure announcements that the aircraft are "trim sensitive". Two Flybe flights last week and the different passenger sitting next to me on each one asked me if I knew what "trim sensitive" meant. One crew member overheard and very polite though she was, didn't understand enough herself to be able to explain it in layman's terms to the poor confused chap sitting beside me.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: BHX
Age: 44
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gaza
Just for clarity,
Icing conditions are deemed to exist, for departure, when the temperature is below 10ºC and below 5ºC for landing.
The crew have no option (or desire) to operate the aircraft outside its limitations and sometimes it is necessary to make adjustments to achieve this. Of course, the crew are unlikely to know this until presented with the loadsheet.
Just for clarity,
Icing conditions are deemed to exist, for departure, when the temperature is below 10ºC and below 5ºC for landing.
The crew have no option (or desire) to operate the aircraft outside its limitations and sometimes it is necessary to make adjustments to achieve this. Of course, the crew are unlikely to know this until presented with the loadsheet.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the informative responses.
I'd like to point out that I am not criticising he crew for not "getting on with it" and ignoring the limitations. My main critisism is with the aircraft itself in that for something whose "bread and butter" is regional operations it should be able to handle a wide variety of situations.
The only thing I will critisise the crew for is not telling us the luggage had been offloaded. If I knew that was happening I would probably have got off and taken the train instead. That way I'd have been able to work and not lost a dyas work.
Coffin Corner - The captain definatley said overweigh for takeoff.
mathers_wales_uk - I'd be surprised if they don't know with a high degree of certainty how may bags will be on a flight. After all most pax book bags in advance to avoid the high charges at the airport.
WRT to seats the BE online check-in engine seems to be quite good at distributing the load. It only makes available certain seats for pre-allocation and seems to allocate most seats at the rear.
I'd like to point out that I am not criticising he crew for not "getting on with it" and ignoring the limitations. My main critisism is with the aircraft itself in that for something whose "bread and butter" is regional operations it should be able to handle a wide variety of situations.
The only thing I will critisise the crew for is not telling us the luggage had been offloaded. If I knew that was happening I would probably have got off and taken the train instead. That way I'd have been able to work and not lost a dyas work.
Coffin Corner - The captain definatley said overweigh for takeoff.
mathers_wales_uk - I'd be surprised if they don't know with a high degree of certainty how may bags will be on a flight. After all most pax book bags in advance to avoid the high charges at the airport.
WRT to seats the BE online check-in engine seems to be quite good at distributing the load. It only makes available certain seats for pre-allocation and seems to allocate most seats at the rear.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: , England
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing I will critisise the crew for is not telling us the luggage had been offloaded. If I knew that was happening I would probably have got off and taken the train instead. That way I'd have been able to work and not lost a dyas work.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree that not informing you an your fellow passengers that your bags have been left behind was wrong. I am suprised that there wasn't a nosey passenger on board that spotted the bags coming off the aircraft.
I have been in similar case in the past where the crew have decided not to inform passengers at the other end or during flight in case they kick up a fuss and actually leave the handling agents the other end to break the news.
Yes passengers book bags in advanced however it is in individual passengers reservations as then they have the option to check-in the bag or not. It is not practical to go through all passengers individual reservations for every flight and work out if their male, female, child and if they have any bags booked.
Once the passengers check-in the system automatically breaks the passengers into Males, Females, Children & Infants including the number of bags checked-in in the system.
I have been in similar case in the past where the crew have decided not to inform passengers at the other end or during flight in case they kick up a fuss and actually leave the handling agents the other end to break the news.
Yes passengers book bags in advanced however it is in individual passengers reservations as then they have the option to check-in the bag or not. It is not practical to go through all passengers individual reservations for every flight and work out if their male, female, child and if they have any bags booked.
Once the passengers check-in the system automatically breaks the passengers into Males, Females, Children & Infants including the number of bags checked-in in the system.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Isle Of Man
Age: 40
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds to me like the problem wasnt icing but just that the runway was wet which increases take off distances and stopping distances cos the brakes dont work so well in the wet, just like on my mini
. So MTOW is fine on dry but cant be achieved when wet wet wet.
. So MTOW is fine on dry but cant be achieved when wet wet wet.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gaza,
I certainly appreciate your frustration having your bag left behind, it is incredibly annoying.
Hopefully this might answer your query. I suspect, like the Captain mentioned and you have passed on, that the aircraft was over MTOM, more specifically in this case the RTOM (Regulated Takeoff Mass). Whilst with a full load of passengers, sufficient fuel and baggage you wouldn't expect this to be an issue for an aircraft at an airline's main base, however, in icing conditions for the Q400 it can become a problem.
For clarity Icing conditions exist on the ground and for takeoff when the Static air temperature is 10 degrees celcius or below and visible moisture is present or visibility less than 1600m (Fog). As you mentioned it was raining, this coupled with a temperature which is likely to be below 10 degrees at this time of year meant that an Icing departure would be required.
For the Q400 this means our Propeller Anti icing equipment is on for takeoff, which takes away power from the aircraft's engines and therefore degrades the aircraft performance. This isn't particularly noticeable with two engines operating, but all performance is calculated on the assumption of an engine failure. The level degradation in performance depends on many factors, such as wind direction, Pressure, temperature, runway length, up or down slope, airport elevation etc. I have seen an icing departure reduce the MTOM by over 2000kgs in some instances which as you can see leads to quite an issue for a full aircraft which was already close to the aircraft MTOM of 28998kg. Southampton is a relatively short runway therefore performance losses are very likely, Gatwick or Manchester there are likely to be no issues.
The runway being wet itself would not have decreased the MTOM, it would have simply reduced V1, this is the speed at which if we have an engine failure, we must continue the takeoff.
In terms of leaving bags behind, this is frustrating and is something which rarely happens. A combination of factors could lead to this: A full passenger load, icing departure, high required fuel (SOU - MAN is a short hop, however the fuel uplifted will depend not only on the actual weather conditions, but also the forecast weather conditions, so if MAN and diversion airfields were forecasting poor weather such as Fog, then the fuel carried can be quite a lot more than just required to get to Manchester) and unusually high number of bags. Whilst I don't want to be making excuses, I'm just trying to explain how a number of factors can lead to bags being left behind. Why this wasn't communicated is something I can't comment on due to not being there.
I hope this helps a little bit.
I certainly appreciate your frustration having your bag left behind, it is incredibly annoying.
Hopefully this might answer your query. I suspect, like the Captain mentioned and you have passed on, that the aircraft was over MTOM, more specifically in this case the RTOM (Regulated Takeoff Mass). Whilst with a full load of passengers, sufficient fuel and baggage you wouldn't expect this to be an issue for an aircraft at an airline's main base, however, in icing conditions for the Q400 it can become a problem.
For clarity Icing conditions exist on the ground and for takeoff when the Static air temperature is 10 degrees celcius or below and visible moisture is present or visibility less than 1600m (Fog). As you mentioned it was raining, this coupled with a temperature which is likely to be below 10 degrees at this time of year meant that an Icing departure would be required.
For the Q400 this means our Propeller Anti icing equipment is on for takeoff, which takes away power from the aircraft's engines and therefore degrades the aircraft performance. This isn't particularly noticeable with two engines operating, but all performance is calculated on the assumption of an engine failure. The level degradation in performance depends on many factors, such as wind direction, Pressure, temperature, runway length, up or down slope, airport elevation etc. I have seen an icing departure reduce the MTOM by over 2000kgs in some instances which as you can see leads to quite an issue for a full aircraft which was already close to the aircraft MTOM of 28998kg. Southampton is a relatively short runway therefore performance losses are very likely, Gatwick or Manchester there are likely to be no issues.
The runway being wet itself would not have decreased the MTOM, it would have simply reduced V1, this is the speed at which if we have an engine failure, we must continue the takeoff.
In terms of leaving bags behind, this is frustrating and is something which rarely happens. A combination of factors could lead to this: A full passenger load, icing departure, high required fuel (SOU - MAN is a short hop, however the fuel uplifted will depend not only on the actual weather conditions, but also the forecast weather conditions, so if MAN and diversion airfields were forecasting poor weather such as Fog, then the fuel carried can be quite a lot more than just required to get to Manchester) and unusually high number of bags. Whilst I don't want to be making excuses, I'm just trying to explain how a number of factors can lead to bags being left behind. Why this wasn't communicated is something I can't comment on due to not being there.
I hope this helps a little bit.
Last edited by Flyer2007; 11th Jan 2011 at 23:07.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tyne and Wear
Age: 35
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyer 2007
Your response was very informative and detailed, and i realise that extra fuel is required for diversions etc. But can fuel just not be taken off the aircraft, obviously leaving enough for eventualities? Or enough to reduce the aircrafts weight to fit in with the limitations and just have a fuel stop en-route if needs be?
As from the publics perspective it is stupid to swap an aircraft for a aircraft which is potentially always going to have this problem in Southampton during the winters months? Obviously their could be operational requirements whilst this is done, but surely Flybe should know this.
As this problem about aircraft weight was also documented in the news today, except with a different airline and at a different airport. As for the tension and upset of course it is going to happen, but passengers should have a right to know that bags are getting removed. From working on a ground operations role, i have had to deal with this situation and we do not get given much inforation why it has happened. Having to tell a passenger that their dialysis machine was removed for weight issues does not bode well.
Your response was very informative and detailed, and i realise that extra fuel is required for diversions etc. But can fuel just not be taken off the aircraft, obviously leaving enough for eventualities? Or enough to reduce the aircrafts weight to fit in with the limitations and just have a fuel stop en-route if needs be?
As from the publics perspective it is stupid to swap an aircraft for a aircraft which is potentially always going to have this problem in Southampton during the winters months? Obviously their could be operational requirements whilst this is done, but surely Flybe should know this.
As this problem about aircraft weight was also documented in the news today, except with a different airline and at a different airport. As for the tension and upset of course it is going to happen, but passengers should have a right to know that bags are getting removed. From working on a ground operations role, i have had to deal with this situation and we do not get given much inforation why it has happened. Having to tell a passenger that their dialysis machine was removed for weight issues does not bode well.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyer2007 - Excellent response. 
Thank you.
The captain did refer to "modifications" on that particular aircraft (G-JEDV) that were a contributing factor.
The good news was that as I walked in to the hotel last night to check-in the courier was dropping my bag off with the porter so thankfully I didn't have to visit the Trafford Centre!
Thank you. The captain did refer to "modifications" on that particular aircraft (G-JEDV) that were a contributing factor.
The good news was that as I walked in to the hotel last night to check-in the courier was dropping my bag off with the porter so thankfully I didn't have to visit the Trafford Centre!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue of bags being left behind used to happen weekly on a Boeing 737-800 operated by XL Airways from Cardiff to Sharm el Sheikh.
Approx 50 bags used to be left behind every week however passengers never knew of this and had actually been lied to guranteeing that all bags were all loaded after a passenger spotted bags being removed from aircraft.
Bags would be taken by courrier and loaded on to another flight from London arriving at Sharm el Sheik 2 days later.
Reason given was to load more fuel however Thomson Airways operate Cardiff-Sharm el Sheikh with no such issues. So not sure if it's dependent on engine type or if the XL aircraft had no winglets.
Gaza
If the incident referring to you in the paper is the Easyjet one at Birmingham then that was an allmighty cock-up of another sort especially to over fill the aircraft with fuel.
Ph1l1pncl
Fuel can only be removed from an aircraft if there is a empty fuel bowser available. They cannot offload fuel and put it back into the bowser as all the fuel will then be contaminated.
However i am not sure if this is possible on all aircraft as some are over wign refuelling and others are under wing refuelling. Last request i had for this was on a Boeing 777-200 but it was too complicated and time consuming to do so in the end it was agreed with the Captain and Fuel bowser not to proceed.
Approx 50 bags used to be left behind every week however passengers never knew of this and had actually been lied to guranteeing that all bags were all loaded after a passenger spotted bags being removed from aircraft.
Bags would be taken by courrier and loaded on to another flight from London arriving at Sharm el Sheik 2 days later.
Reason given was to load more fuel however Thomson Airways operate Cardiff-Sharm el Sheikh with no such issues. So not sure if it's dependent on engine type or if the XL aircraft had no winglets.
Gaza
If the incident referring to you in the paper is the Easyjet one at Birmingham then that was an allmighty cock-up of another sort especially to over fill the aircraft with fuel.
Ph1l1pncl
Fuel can only be removed from an aircraft if there is a empty fuel bowser available. They cannot offload fuel and put it back into the bowser as all the fuel will then be contaminated.
However i am not sure if this is possible on all aircraft as some are over wign refuelling and others are under wing refuelling. Last request i had for this was on a Boeing 777-200 but it was too complicated and time consuming to do so in the end it was agreed with the Captain and Fuel bowser not to proceed.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaza,
I'm glad you got bag in time, whilst clearly not ideal, I'm pleased to see they got your bag to you quickly, it does save trekking around the Old Trafford Centre
. Glad it cleared things up, I know as a passenger you can sometimes think "how is this possible?" but when the holes in the swiss cheese line up unusual issues can occur. On occasion only with a long explanation can fully explain what's happening and why. For most passengers this long explanation would be baffling, therefore the simple reason is normally given, often followed by passenger's pulling funny face's and thinking its all "rather ridiculous and that BA wouldn't have this problem".
Ph1l1pncl
As WingoWango mentioned taking off the extra fuel would unfortunately defeat the object of carrying the extra fuel in case of diversion. If for example they were unable to land in MAN and needed to divert, but didn't have sufficient fuel, the situation would be a whole lot worse, dire in fact. As an example a few weeks back our diversion fuel was considerably greater than our trip fuel (fuel that would be burned between our original departure and arrival airport) due to the fact that most of the UK had fog forecast for the best part of the day. So hopefully you can see that a route that may only burn 800kg's of fuel en route may actually require something close to 2500/3000kg onboard, if the weather or other factors dictate.
As others have also brought up, the question of mentioning the bags is difficult. It can lead to outrage amongst the passengers, demanding whose bag will make it, whose won't and why should the person next to them get their bag and not them? Consuming more time than if some were taken off and put on the next flight two hours later. It's a tough call to honest.
I'm glad you got bag in time, whilst clearly not ideal, I'm pleased to see they got your bag to you quickly, it does save trekking around the Old Trafford Centre
. Glad it cleared things up, I know as a passenger you can sometimes think "how is this possible?" but when the holes in the swiss cheese line up unusual issues can occur. On occasion only with a long explanation can fully explain what's happening and why. For most passengers this long explanation would be baffling, therefore the simple reason is normally given, often followed by passenger's pulling funny face's and thinking its all "rather ridiculous and that BA wouldn't have this problem". Ph1l1pncl
As WingoWango mentioned taking off the extra fuel would unfortunately defeat the object of carrying the extra fuel in case of diversion. If for example they were unable to land in MAN and needed to divert, but didn't have sufficient fuel, the situation would be a whole lot worse, dire in fact. As an example a few weeks back our diversion fuel was considerably greater than our trip fuel (fuel that would be burned between our original departure and arrival airport) due to the fact that most of the UK had fog forecast for the best part of the day. So hopefully you can see that a route that may only burn 800kg's of fuel en route may actually require something close to 2500/3000kg onboard, if the weather or other factors dictate.
As others have also brought up, the question of mentioning the bags is difficult. It can lead to outrage amongst the passengers, demanding whose bag will make it, whose won't and why should the person next to them get their bag and not them? Consuming more time than if some were taken off and put on the next flight two hours later. It's a tough call to honest.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something strange is happening on this thread. Yesterday and today I have notifications of replies (and what they contain) but by the time I open the thread they are gone. 
Yesterday's post gave a view on what the modifications were and today's expressed a view on why it may have been overweight.
Have these posts been deleted by the mods?
Yesterday's post gave a view on what the modifications were and today's expressed a view on why it may have been overweight.
Have these posts been deleted by the mods?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian
I can see that post but there were at least 2 others that seemed to have ben posted but are no longer there. I have the names of the posters on the email notfications along with what they posted but they are not on this thread.
I can see that post but there were at least 2 others that seemed to have ben posted but are no longer there. I have the names of the posters on the email notfications along with what they posted but they are not on this thread.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some things are posted on here by people who then realise it's against company policy or just risks getting themselves in trouble saying it. Mentioning specifics of aircraft mods is not very clever to do, even though you might think it's relevant.
Some aircraft types have non-structural fiaring parts that are made of lightweight fibreglass and in places where you wouldn't think they'd make a difference. Spares are not always kept and thus occasionally you'll see a gap and bit of light green paint on the back of bulges or fairings on wing trailing edges or undercarriage legs, etc. The original part may have cracked and been removed and something called a configuration deviation List is carried in aircraft manuals to allow operation in these cases while the new parts are painted up and sent out to meet up with the aircraft asomewhere where they and engineers co-incide.
Happens for all types and companies. Some of these pieces actually cause a significant penalty as the drag increases. Hence the weight reduction for performance. Actually giving details for a particular company or aircraft type is not best practice- as it changes from time to time and is calculated when required. You just need to know it happens and is cheaper and less annoying than grounding the aircraft and cancelling your flight.
I hate leaving bags behind. However, it's better than leaving passengers or finding yourself running low on fuel with nowhere to land.....
Some aircraft types have non-structural fiaring parts that are made of lightweight fibreglass and in places where you wouldn't think they'd make a difference. Spares are not always kept and thus occasionally you'll see a gap and bit of light green paint on the back of bulges or fairings on wing trailing edges or undercarriage legs, etc. The original part may have cracked and been removed and something called a configuration deviation List is carried in aircraft manuals to allow operation in these cases while the new parts are painted up and sent out to meet up with the aircraft asomewhere where they and engineers co-incide.
Happens for all types and companies. Some of these pieces actually cause a significant penalty as the drag increases. Hence the weight reduction for performance. Actually giving details for a particular company or aircraft type is not best practice- as it changes from time to time and is calculated when required. You just need to know it happens and is cheaper and less annoying than grounding the aircraft and cancelling your flight.
I hate leaving bags behind. However, it's better than leaving passengers or finding yourself running low on fuel with nowhere to land.....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Leeds
Age: 63
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on your circumstances and the reason you are travelling. I can think of a number of reasons why it might be better not to travel if your baggage has been offloaded, indeed your baggage may contain items which are vital to your trip. With bar coded baggage tags it would take only a couple of minutes to identify which passengers have had their baggage offloaded, and to tell them so that they at least have the option of not travelling if they wish.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. As I said at the start my bag had papers and books in it that I needed for the day. Other passengers were in the same position with some having put their laptops in their bags. People are forced to do this due to he business-traveller-unfriendly policies adopted by FlyBe. I would guess that a substantial number of pax on routes such as SOU-MAN are business travellers so some recognition of this would not go amiss. Easyjet mange to have very business traveller friendly policies so it would be good to see BE do the same.