Easy Jet flight overweight - 4 Pax disembarked
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Jet flight overweight - 4 Pax disembarked
I read this in a UK Tabloid
"One passenger, Simon Lay, told the press about the odd incident. He said that the plane was delayed by an hour and a half because the combination of passengers and their luggage was 300kg over the weight limit.
He told the Liverpool Echo that the airline offered £100 to anyone prepared to leave the flight, but there were no volunteers. Then a group of passengers clubbed together to bump it up to £200 per person, and four volunteers appeared."
SFAIK passengers are assumed to be a certain weight, checked baggage is weighed but hand luggage isn't so how did anyone know that the aircraft was overweight and by how much?
"One passenger, Simon Lay, told the press about the odd incident. He said that the plane was delayed by an hour and a half because the combination of passengers and their luggage was 300kg over the weight limit.
He told the Liverpool Echo that the airline offered £100 to anyone prepared to leave the flight, but there were no volunteers. Then a group of passengers clubbed together to bump it up to £200 per person, and four volunteers appeared."
SFAIK passengers are assumed to be a certain weight, checked baggage is weighed but hand luggage isn't so how did anyone know that the aircraft was overweight and by how much?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Structurally overweight, or performance limited by runway/weather concerned that day?? Ski flight?? Route to be flown?? En route winds back from 6+ hours away??
There are many variables...
There are many variables...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFAIK passengers are assumed to be a certain weight, checked baggage is weighed but hand luggage isn't so how did anyone know that the aircraft was overweight and by how much?
the airline offered £100 to anyone prepared to leave the flight, but there were no volunteers. Then a group of passengers clubbed together to bump it up to £200 per person, and four volunteers appeared.
If everyone had held their nerve, EZY would have themselves upped the incentive until they had enough volunteers, and nobody would have been out of pocket.
Worth reading this account of the event on AOL, if only for some of the ludicrous comments: EasyJet passengers whip round before take-off - AOL Money UK
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Where its at
Age: 40
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Structurally overweight, or performance limited by runway/weather concerned that day?? Ski flight?? Route to be flown?? En route winds back from 6+ hours away??
There are many variables...
There are many variables...
I'd be very surprised if this aircraft was structurally overweight, even if it was laden down with heavy ski's- Liverpool to Geneva is a short journey for an A319. There's almost certainly much more to this story than is indicated in the article.
If it's true that passengers clubbed together to increase the compensation offered for volunteers to leave the flight, then this would be very bad PR for Easyjet. They seem to be trying very hard to differentiate themselves as a 'value' airline, rather than a 'budget' carrier.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft overweight? No problem. Keep calm, stay seated until €250 and a free flight comes your way. I hope EasyJet weren't trying to escape with just £100. Also, the flight has to arrive within three hours of schedule otherwise everybody gets a bung. It's worth a look here.
PM
PM
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article said that the overweight was "caused " by the unusual distribution of men/women on this flight. From memory there were something like 120 men and only 15 women instead of the assumed 50/50 (ish ) and since men are calculated as weighing 10-15 kg more than women, this gave the "theoretical " excess.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something doesn't seem right here. Liverpool's runway is 2286m in length and even at maximum weight that should be plenty long enough. MTOW is around 75t vs an empty weight of 41t for an A319. (Or 213kg for each of the 159 passengers)
LPL-GVA is just over 1000km, a relatively short flight for an aircraft with a (fully loaded) range of 6,700km. (Yes, I know, holding and alternatives could add 30-50%)
LPL-GVA is just over 1000km, a relatively short flight for an aircraft with a (fully loaded) range of 6,700km. (Yes, I know, holding and alternatives could add 30-50%)
LPL-GVA is just over 1000km, a relatively short flight for an aircraft with a (fully loaded) range of 6,700km. (Yes, I know, holding and alternatives could add 30-50%)
It's a lot easier to offload pax at short notice than fuel.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, you are right. my mistake was in thinking Squezzy was in the business of flying pax to their destination. They've handled this very poorly, if the press reports are to be believed.
Edited to add: their statutory minimum was to provide any passengers denied boarding with €250 (£210) and with a rerouting. They appear to have breached Regulation 261 here.
Note that the regulation provides no excuse for denied boarding, no "extraordinary circumstances" defense in this case.
Edited to add: their statutory minimum was to provide any passengers denied boarding with €250 (£210) and with a rerouting. They appear to have breached Regulation 261 here.
Note that the regulation provides no excuse for denied boarding, no "extraordinary circumstances" defense in this case.
Last edited by ExXB; 20th Jan 2013 at 18:36.
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
It's a lot easier to offload pax at short notice than fuel.
It's a lot easier to offload pax at short notice than fuel.
20th Jan 2013 19:13
YS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LPL-GVA sector fuel would be irrelevant if fuel was being tankered for subsequent legs as well.
It's a lot easier to offload pax at short notice than fuel.
It's also quite simple to find out the final ZFW before uplifting fuel to avoid having to offload either.
It was clearly later on in the proceedings that it dawned on EZY that the abnormal male/female pax ratio was likely to have resulted in a higher ZFW than that assumed.
See post #8.
Hang on, if they knew the final ZFW why wouldn't they spot the weight problem then?
Clearly if the actual mix is far from typical (as in this case), the loadsheet won't reflect the true ZFW. I'm not saying that the difference would be critical, but in this instance somebody obviously did think it was.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that's the all adult weight. The male/female weights are 88kg and 70kg respectively. In this instance using the all adult weight gives a 'weight' 270kg less. Both processes are legal, obviously.
With the final ZFW based on either they would have been overweight so should have spotted it before they'd loaded, everybody, every bag and all that fuel no?
With the final ZFW based on either they would have been overweight so should have spotted it before they'd loaded, everybody, every bag and all that fuel no?
Last edited by Lord Spandex Masher; 20th Jan 2013 at 21:36.