Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

VB pax unload

Old 24th Apr 2011, 11:37
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hands up who on here knows all the facts?...

Case closed.
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 11:42
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What he said ↑

Especially EWL... I have, for many years, respected you as a learned and knowledgable poster on these forums (and continue to do so) - but was surprised to see you jumping to conclusions & a bit of diatrabe without knowing anything other than the 'facts' presented on this forum.

No one has presented any coal-face facts about the compensation & recovery options offered to the pax involved, nor about the decision making processes involved in this case - so any comments here are only pure speculation.
sinala1 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 11:54
  #43 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orstraylia
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regardless of the facts

It's not a great PR look is it??

EWL summed it up best, late bags aint going to spoil your Bali trip too much surely, so long as the reason is given in simple lay terms I imagine most would accept the inconvenience with a token gesture of compensation.

The other question WRT additional fuel being required is at what thrust rating do these aircraft operate?

I'm led to believe 24K where as they are capable of 26K but for VB being tight fisted at the time of delivery would have avoided these circumstances on the majority of these "long" sectors with the additional thrust assuming there was a performance issue and they were not at MTOW associated with the assumed holding requirement.

Jumping into fox hole now.
Bumpfoh is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 12:17
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What was the TAF for destination and alternate?
Anthill is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 12:26
  #45 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
porch monkey

thereby taking off overweight?
Don't sound so surprised. 200kgs, if it is 'overweight' is no more than the water left on the airframe after a shower of rain and if you are using standard weights on a charter/holiday flight you can pretty much guarantee you are underweight. Try and get the picture, 200kgs set against 60,000kgs is inconsiderable. If you are stuck for such a minuscule amount you must get the AFM out, not the quick reference handy cards, go through them chart by chart, temperature, slope, wind, pressure altitude etc. 200kgs will be a lot less than the thickness of a pencil.
parabellum is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 12:35
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The facts that we DO know Mr Hat are that 2 pax were bumped after they had boarded.

What we do not know is if it was a change in the enroute WX, local temperature or some other external factor.

One would hope that it wasn't just the load controller suddenly discovering that the flight was over maximum brake release weight after it had boarded. If that is the case they need their arse kicked all the way to Denpasar.

sinala1 - I was operating on the known facts as above which are very straight forward and ignore what the cause was.

Unless all the baggage was already offloaded which is highly unlikely then I believe the wrong action was taken. Simple knee jerk reaction without thinking the situation through.

I am assuming that we are dealing with contractors who may or may not be penalised if an aeroplane pushes back late and this may have prompted brain fade in getting a swift solution. I am happy to be corrected on all the preceeding posts if necessary as I am totally unsure.

Another possibility to get around the problem that has been floated is burn extra in the taxi. Don't like that at all as the required block and reserve fuel is eroded.

Personally I would not be happy signing that aeroplane out ans the taxi fuel calculation should not come into the maximum BRW.

It wasn't a Goroka departure where you could jam on 16.5 of flap at vr and then stick the nose down into the valley to build airspeed.

What I was talking about was the basic culture of problem solving and how DJ bought themselves a worldload of hurt through a poor and untrained decision.

Best all

Eastwest Loco is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 12:51
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Eastwest Loco
a poor and untrained decision.
Which, if you were there and present for the entire decision making process, I would agree with - but you were not, and as such your statement is baseless.

I respect you immensely EWL but in the spirit of healthy debate, I disagree with you in this case. You are making generalisations about a process you had no involvement in whatsoever. Of course there are "best practice" procedures that apply, and to which you refer - but who knows what extenuating circumstances applied to this specific case?
sinala1 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 13:25
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Parrabellum, the 737-800 MTOW is approx 79 tonne, carries 20.8 tonne of fuel and ML - DPS is still a long way in the 73, especially if there is weather at the other end or the ALT add to that headwinds coming into winter. Like someone else posted, they needed the fuel at the other end. Pencil thickness wouldn't have come into it either, dont use those charts for TOW calculations.
kimir is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 14:06
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania and High Wollemi
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
other options and driving the system.

whilst bumping the pax may fix the one flight problem is this a symptom of a poor flight planning and management system sitting behind the operating crew??

Some things to consider

- change the cruise schedule> is a long range cruise avbl. Was it used.
- do DJ have a long range cruise table in the flight planning system.
- alternate airway or haggle with ATC for a direct track to reduce the track miles.
- does the trip need high speed cruise due to crew duty time. Is this an out and back trip or do the crew slip in DPS??? could time be made up on the return leg to stay in duty time limits.
- is there a set heading allowance that could be dropped by using an alternate runway vis depart direct on track. haggle this with ATC
- is the AUSOTS system best route of the day. don't recall it being calculated for a 737-800
- what payload study allowed commercial staff to sell the full capacity ( bums on seats)
- what statistical winds were used to determine the commercial planned payload . what percentage winds were used. Do DJ do payload studies.
- did the dispatcher doing the plan advise ops control that an offload was higly likely. Ops control should have known about this hours prior to the crew having to fix the problem. Ops control system failure!!!!
- was the dispatcher overloaded and just turning out sausage flight plans.
- did the crew take fuel above flight planned.
- what was the tail number fuel burn correction on that airframe. Could an aircraft swap to one with a lower fuel burn get them there?? Is there a procedure to only task light fuel burn aircraft on payload limited sectors.
- did the dispatcher ( flight planner ) try changing planned level or just take the levels that came out of the system. how many alternate plan options were tried.
- is the fuel policy being applied correctly?????
- can you reduce the potable water??
- any freight or low priority bags?

Pretty big system failure sitting behind this event which should have been sorted before the crew got the cops involved.

Last edited by catseye; 24th Apr 2011 at 14:35. Reason: typo
catseye is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 14:22
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh, for crying out load - it was 200kgs!!! To off load people for 200kgs extra fuel is ridiculous in the extreme.

I'm sorry, but at cruise fuel flows that is approx 5 mins flying time & anyone with half an ounce of airmanship could have found a way around it legally. Either there is a hell of a lot more to the story (and there usually is) or someone dropped the ball big time!

Perhaps some of you guys should step back from the trees a bit & take a look at the forest!
Oakape is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 14:53
  #51 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sinala I totally accept and understand your point.

There may well have been more going on than is evident beyond the max BRW problem that may even come down to the bumped passengers and a shoddy cover up.

We may indeed never know.

On the simple cause and effect I still stand by bumping baggage/freight and handling that but as you rightly point out we do not know the whole story.

I know what I would have done, but hell - I have made some massive miscalls over the years.

Don't make errors often even now, but when I do they are normally of Biblical proportions and cost me bucks.

Best regards

Eastwest Loco is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 16:37
  #52 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just reduce the CI to 0 that will save at least 200kg
ASX200 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 17:58
  #53 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The comments about 200kg making no difference do not seem to have grasped the simple concept that the captain signs for the flight on the basis that is legal. If weather is such that extra is needed, lets say as an example potentially below minimum weather forecast, then the flight plan lists the extra diversion fuel required to suitable alternates.

Max landing weight is mostly the limiting factor if, as you hope, you can land at your destination. How you get the weight down is the issue. We almost always offload bags as that is easiest in the short term as this thread demonstrates. However I note that the newspaper article also describes passenger's frustration at having their bags unloaded.
lederhosen is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2011, 22:47
  #54 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: All over the Planet
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

You're way too smart for some of the Neanderthals around here. You have spelled out many of the options and questions I had in mind. I wonder if the deep-thinkers will try to shut you up as well? It will be fascinating to know the DJ response to yr many justified questions and comments. Well put.
Ken Borough is offline  

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

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.