Different GW according to route

[Marlboro_2002]

Hi,

am wondering if the companies that you work for use different GW for the same aircraft, just changing them, from route to route, in order to reduce charges thus costs?


Cheers

[groundhogbhx]

Yes a certain airline, soon to be absorbed, uses a reduced mtow for it's 757's. Increases are filled when required for routes such as SSH.

[boredcounter]

M2002

In the good old days, Mearsk Air UK had 4 different B735 GWs, 3 defined by city pair, the 4th for charter and any route not specified by city pairs. It seemed to work well, with no messing about at all on the day.

Bored

[Marlboro_2002]

Interesting....

Can anyone explain how can this be done?
Since you are charged by the MTOW, how do they know that you arenīt cheating?
There must be some kind of authorization involved, I would assume from the CAA that is.



Cheers

[groundhogbhx]

The aircraft in question are listed as having the reduced MTOW (shows in JP Airline Fleets) and a revised MTOW filled for flights expected to exceed it. Cases of exceeding the reduced MTOW were very rare for us, normally exceptional load (unusually high ratio of males to females combined with large number of bags such as golf clubs). Higher MTOW's are normally routine for the longer sectors such as SSH. The CAA could always spot check, noting ATOW, or request copies of loadsheets. The savings must make the paperwork cost effective as the difference is as much as 12 tonnes for the heavyweights.

[42psi]

I'm curious here ..............

There seems to be an assumption that limiting the MTOW is about reducing charges (as in landing fees?).......

However, airports charge landing fees according to generic weights of the a/c type (and series) ... not actual by registration...

Handling agents charge a fee plus per/kilo actual weight handled, normally.

The only cost reduction I'm aware of you achieve by declaring lower MTOW's is some maintenance items.......

I may, of course, have misunderstood ...........





ps .. edited to add: or do you mean NATS en-route charges

[Lauderdale]

Yes, I think they are all reffering to the NAV charges value - not the MTOW airport fees etc charges...........

[groundhogbhx]

En-route charges are by the declared MTOW, landing fees at BHX (when I used to calculate such things for ad-hoc's) were also based on the declared MTOW for each registration as found in JP Airline Fleets, or from the operator. Charging fees for any of the larger aircraft types at a fixed rate would cause major problems as the structural MTOW can vary by 9 tonnes on a 757, and much more the bigger the type. Would you be happy paying the same as a HGW model when you were operating the light weight? Any variation was always filled with the CAA on a flight by flight basis to ensure correct charging.

[Marlboro_2002]

Well in fact all of you are correct.
Reducing the MTOW would reduce the NAV charges, but at some airport, would also reduce the landing fees and parking fees.

However it would not have any effect on handling charges.


Can anyone tell me what companies are currently using this procedure as normal and how can it be done?


Cheers,