Airbus Differing MLW

[ask26]

Some Airbus A320's have their MLW as 66T, others 64.5T.

The variance in MTOW can often be assigned to over-flight fees, but does anyone know if there are any structural differences between aircraft with different MLWs, e.g. Oleo inflation levels.

Cheers

[Piltdown Man]

As aircraft manufacturers are greedy beyond avarice, you'll find weights are negotiable values. The more you pay, the more you can have. I'm sure increased weights and temperatures will also required some additional engineering input but generally a laser/inject printer performs most of the required engineering.

[rogerg]

As aircraft manufacturers are greedy beyond avarice
Do you know how much it cost to develop and put into production a modern aircraft?

[ASRAAM]

Probably the same for a 66 tonner as it does for a 64.5 tonner!

[c100driver]

Not A320 but my company had two MTOW for our B737, one certified for domestic operations and one for international operations. Same aircraft tails with no difference in tyre pressures or strut inflation.

The original operator (the one who did the tail specific aircraft specification from the manufacture) would have chosen the desired weights from the manufacturer catalogue, usually it is just a AFM supplement but others are equipment related such as engine power requested, undercarriage (heavy or light weight) etc.

[Metro man]

Airbus were talking about offering a regional A330 which would have been cheaper than a normal one but not have had the payload for long haul. However there would be an option to upgrade the paperwork to normal specs in future by paying. The aircraft were the same, it simply allowed Airbus to expand the market without dropping the price of the entire line.

Computer printers are often identical throughout the range but the lower priced ones have features crippled because it is cheaper than producing different specifications for each model.

[barit1]

One airline (close neighbor to USA) ordered their longhaul bird with all structural ungrades for highest TOGW/MLW, but then had lightweight brakes installed to reduce MLW to "optimize" (heh...) their landing fees. This "derated" plane met their current mission requirements.

But they had the option to regain full spec performance in the future by buying the bigger brakes and attendant paperwork.

This may be more common today, but 30 years ago it was a clever, legal dodge. :}

[Ollie Onion]

British Airways used to do it, regularly changed the MTOW to take advantage of cheaper airways fees.