VB pax unload
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]
Shoot me down in flames for saying this but offloading passengers like this at the last minute surely has to say a lot about the professionalism of those at Virgin. They would have had a number of options that could have been adopted but apparently took the easy way out - for a start, better planning would have gone a long way to avoid this unfortunate situation that stuffed up the holiday plans of a couple of innocent punters.
[/QUOTE]
Ken, you shot yourself down in flames with your nonsensical repsonse. You once again prove that you are possibly the dumbest, ill-informed, uneducated aviator to ever grace the pages of Pprune. Every time you speak a large roll of toilet paper is required to mop up the trail of excrement you leave behind.
It is time you took your laminated plane photos and bottle of baby oil back into the bathroom and fade away.
Please, be gone with you and your stupid comments, tosspot.....
Shoot me down in flames for saying this but offloading passengers like this at the last minute surely has to say a lot about the professionalism of those at Virgin. They would have had a number of options that could have been adopted but apparently took the easy way out - for a start, better planning would have gone a long way to avoid this unfortunate situation that stuffed up the holiday plans of a couple of innocent punters.
[/QUOTE]
Ken, you shot yourself down in flames with your nonsensical repsonse. You once again prove that you are possibly the dumbest, ill-informed, uneducated aviator to ever grace the pages of Pprune. Every time you speak a large roll of toilet paper is required to mop up the trail of excrement you leave behind.
It is time you took your laminated plane photos and bottle of baby oil back into the bathroom and fade away.
Please, be gone with you and your stupid comments, tosspot.....
There may be a logical answer of why(crew duty?) - but why not drop into DRW for a tech-stop ? I know AN used to sometimes have to drop into KAL or ASP on BNE-PER flights in the early low MTOW A320s, and that at times Qflink have to drop into Weipa outa Horn on the Q300 so as to not offload pax ?
I know the tech stop is not ideal or cheap, but rightly or wrongly DJ has copped a lot of bad press over this, I doubt a tech-stop would have made the press.
I know the tech stop is not ideal or cheap, but rightly or wrongly DJ has copped a lot of bad press over this, I doubt a tech-stop would have made the press.
You just beat me to it, Puff, I was posting the same thing but being too long winded (even saying I tended to agree with Ken!!!!!). But essentially I was saying: why not lob into Alice or something? This is pretty poor stuff.....
And exactly right, Oldmate - part of my first long winded post. too many people confusing Ramp weights/MTOW/taxi fuels etc. This was all about having more fuel AT THE OTHER END, not about having too much weight at take off.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: location loaction
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldmate, your correct. Something I didn't consider. The taxi fuel isn't co sidered in the MBRW for the flight becuase it's burnt prior to take off. Too much sugar for me today, damn rabbits!
All in all it seems it depends on what point of view your looking from. Managment may say ditch the pax and go, beancounters will definitley say that also, if your customer service orientated you'd say make a stop to get some gas.
The only down side is the bloody media got a hold of it and made a song and dance about it which amounted to bad publicity. In saying this I doubt very much if they decided to make a stop the media wouldn't bother reporting on it either so your cactus either way.
Well done lads, seems you made a good call.
Rocket
All in all it seems it depends on what point of view your looking from. Managment may say ditch the pax and go, beancounters will definitley say that also, if your customer service orientated you'd say make a stop to get some gas.
The only down side is the bloody media got a hold of it and made a song and dance about it which amounted to bad publicity. In saying this I doubt very much if they decided to make a stop the media wouldn't bother reporting on it either so your cactus either way.
Well done lads, seems you made a good call.
Rocket
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was all about having more fuel AT THE OTHER END, not about having too much weight at take off.
Possibly much more to this event than is obvious?
Parabellum.... hello?? They WANTED the bloody fuel at the other end! They needed a TEMPO or an alternate or something, right? And they couldn't put it, plus flight fuel, plus variable reserve, plus fixed reserve, plus approach allowance, plus X+2 passengers on and be under MTOW in Melbourne! They were going to be about 200kg too heavy ex MEL.
Quickest and cheapest solution? reduce the pax count by 2. So now have all the above fuel (inc the operational reqt) and X passengers. Now they are down to MTOW in MEL and have the full operational requirement at the other end.
Better solution from customer point-of-view? Take less fuel out of MEL, leave extra 2 punters on, lob into AS or DN. Gas up there for the next sector to WADD - less flight fuel, less reserves, can still get pax and operational reqt fuel (Alt, TEMPO, whatever) on!
Disclaimer: I am guessing and making presumptions about the precise circumstances. But it'll be something like this. Nothing to do with being overweight for landing!!
(why am I here!?
)
Quickest and cheapest solution? reduce the pax count by 2. So now have all the above fuel (inc the operational reqt) and X passengers. Now they are down to MTOW in MEL and have the full operational requirement at the other end.
Better solution from customer point-of-view? Take less fuel out of MEL, leave extra 2 punters on, lob into AS or DN. Gas up there for the next sector to WADD - less flight fuel, less reserves, can still get pax and operational reqt fuel (Alt, TEMPO, whatever) on!
Disclaimer: I am guessing and making presumptions about the precise circumstances. But it'll be something like this. Nothing to do with being overweight for landing!!
(why am I here!?
)
Last edited by Ushuaia; 24th Apr 2011 at 05:39.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you have missed the point I made in my first post Ushuaia.
And not so much of the,
If you don't mind.
And not so much of the,
Parabellum.... hello?? They WANTED the bloody fuel at the other end!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This amazes me.
I guess the old airline culture has screamed into the never-never.
Logic would decree offload 10 bags, contact Garauda and ask if they can uplift them. That should give you a new max BRW under the limit.
Have DPS ready to organise delivery after clearance from the GA aeroplane.
That is SOP for all majors I am aware of when something goes awry. Slap a rush tag on the bag and ensure it is delivered post haste on arrival.
Now - DJ may have note embraced agreements with others they share they skies with and did not have that option.
If not, then why not?
Just because they operate outside the legacy carrier mindset doesn't mean they cant use some of the more logical traditional past and present practices of the rest of the team.
Having worked F27-100 aircraft at Wynyard one learnt that a hot day and a full ship meant the Crew, their lunch and the passengers was all that was going. Ansett would uplift what they could and the rest was on its way to LST for the DC9.
I just find the decision ridiculous when they could have thrown 10 bags on SQ or GA over SIN or CGK, advised the passengers on board that some bags had been delayed and avoided potentially millions of dollars damage in public perception from the negative publicity.
People are defending the call by the crew in earlier posts, but I am sorry but I consider it poorly thought out and amateur.
That may well be a function of lack of directional training.
Think it over DJ. A lot of damage beyond the 2 bumped passengers has been done.
I now sit back waiting for the bath I will no doubt get.
Best all
EWL
I guess the old airline culture has screamed into the never-never.
Logic would decree offload 10 bags, contact Garauda and ask if they can uplift them. That should give you a new max BRW under the limit.
Have DPS ready to organise delivery after clearance from the GA aeroplane.
That is SOP for all majors I am aware of when something goes awry. Slap a rush tag on the bag and ensure it is delivered post haste on arrival.
Now - DJ may have note embraced agreements with others they share they skies with and did not have that option.
If not, then why not?
Just because they operate outside the legacy carrier mindset doesn't mean they cant use some of the more logical traditional past and present practices of the rest of the team.
Having worked F27-100 aircraft at Wynyard one learnt that a hot day and a full ship meant the Crew, their lunch and the passengers was all that was going. Ansett would uplift what they could and the rest was on its way to LST for the DC9.
I just find the decision ridiculous when they could have thrown 10 bags on SQ or GA over SIN or CGK, advised the passengers on board that some bags had been delayed and avoided potentially millions of dollars damage in public perception from the negative publicity.
People are defending the call by the crew in earlier posts, but I am sorry but I consider it poorly thought out and amateur.
That may well be a function of lack of directional training.
Think it over DJ. A lot of damage beyond the 2 bumped passengers has been done.
I now sit back waiting for the bath I will no doubt get.
Best all
EWL
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only down side is the bloody media got a hold of it and made a song and dance about it which amounted to bad publicity.
Were there any incentives offered or was it just a too bad so sad? Virgin certainly haven't said that they offered anything as compensation.
As a pax, I wouldn't have been very happy with a too bad so sad; not if I'd got there on time and paid for a proper ticket on Virgin who are trying to assure everyone that they're not a LCC anymore. I don't blame the pilots for doing what had to be done (nor am I an airline pilot so I wouldn't have a clue about their options) but the whole way it was done sounds a bit average.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think these flights are overbooked, they are usually capped around the 130 mark.
Perfect routes for the 739 with an extra fuel tank. You will find Lion doing this to avoid capped flights and will commence flights into Melbourne this year.
Perfect routes for the 739 with an extra fuel tank. You will find Lion doing this to avoid capped flights and will commence flights into Melbourne this year.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not from me EW, I suspect, as an old hand, you are well familiar with the long standing paper practice of increasing the taxi burn off to achieve a MTOW restriction and the cruise burn to achieve a landing weight restriction if we are talking relatively minuscule amounts that are almost certainly covered by the use of standard weights.
If this a/c had a MTOW of, say, 60,000kgs then two pax at 200 kgs will be equal to 00.33% of MTOW.
The last thing an operator should do is offload pax, unfortunately initiative and lateral thinking are taking a back seat whilst a cavalier attitude is creeping into some parts of the industry.
If this a/c had a MTOW of, say, 60,000kgs then two pax at 200 kgs will be equal to 00.33% of MTOW.
The last thing an operator should do is offload pax, unfortunately initiative and lateral thinking are taking a back seat whilst a cavalier attitude is creeping into some parts of the industry.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly right, Eastwest Loco, for large weights. Smaller weights can be handled more flexibly, though.
Regarding large weight problems, I had to take all pax bags off to get out of Wellington for Brisbane once (ROK as only alt, 34 at WLG as tailwind too high for 16).
Bags sent to CHC to make the next flight to BNE. Made PA to that effect & had one guy say that he needed his bags, as he was connecting to LHR. Left his on & took crew bags off, to be sent to CHC only, as we were doing BNE-CHC once we got to BNE. Also told the pax in layman terms that the takeoff performance would look very good to them, but that we had to cover the engine failure senario, which was much worse.
Everybody was happy to make the flight & get their bags later in the day. As far as I am aware there was not one complaint.
Flight Ops felt that the number of seats should have been limited out of WLG for performance reasons from the get go, but commercial wouldn't listen. As most flights managed to get out over time, perhaps they were right. Big picture stuff I guess.
Regarding large weight problems, I had to take all pax bags off to get out of Wellington for Brisbane once (ROK as only alt, 34 at WLG as tailwind too high for 16).
Bags sent to CHC to make the next flight to BNE. Made PA to that effect & had one guy say that he needed his bags, as he was connecting to LHR. Left his on & took crew bags off, to be sent to CHC only, as we were doing BNE-CHC once we got to BNE. Also told the pax in layman terms that the takeoff performance would look very good to them, but that we had to cover the engine failure senario, which was much worse.
Everybody was happy to make the flight & get their bags later in the day. As far as I am aware there was not one complaint.
Flight Ops felt that the number of seats should have been limited out of WLG for performance reasons from the get go, but commercial wouldn't listen. As most flights managed to get out over time, perhaps they were right. Big picture stuff I guess.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not from me EW, I suspect, as an old hand, you are well familiar with the long standing paper practice of increasing the taxi burn off to achieve a MTOW restriction and the cruise burn to achieve a landing weight restriction if we are talking relatively minuscule amounts that are almost certainly covered by the use of standard weights.
For the record, I did not criticize the operating crew. Rather, I was having a shot at Virgin's "planning" and the fact that the organisation took the easiest decision of all. As some of the nay-sayers will have read after having made their rather hysterical, vitriolic and insulting posts, there were several options that could have been sucessfully implemented. It's not rocket science.
Challenges such as that presented to DJ the other day are normally outside the scope of VBAs/LCCs so it ought not come as a great surprise that they screw up when so confronted. Would Qantas have offloaded SLF in like manner or would they have had a variety of strategies in place to solve the dilemma?
Challenges such as that presented to DJ the other day are normally outside the scope of VBAs/LCCs so it ought not come as a great surprise that they screw up when so confronted. Would Qantas have offloaded SLF in like manner or would they have had a variety of strategies in place to solve the dilemma?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As some of the nay-sayers will have read after having made their rather hysterical, vitriolic and insulting posts
Ken, did you call ? Did they let you out of the retirement home this evening ? Please go away so I do not have to taunt you a second time.
Also, I know you are old and your sight is poor but please use a smaller font when posting, your large bolded letters are like you in general -somewhat space wasting and adding an unnecessary carbon footprint.
Now, again, please, be gone with you, you ridiculous human being.....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parabellum, please help me understand what you are saying here. Are you arguing to put the extra 200kg on and simply up the taxi fuel allowance on paper, thereby taking off overweight? Or are you saying park at the holding point or wherever and burn the excess? The point was to have the fuel at the other end, so (b) doesn't work. Help me out here?