Sorry, you've lost me now.

I haven't seen what an EZY loadsheet looks like - are you saying that they calculate the ZFW using the actual male/female pax split for each particular flight rather than using a standard adult weight ?

If they do, then I agree they should have spotted the overweight in advance.

If they don't, then it's entirely conceivable that the assumption of a typical split would produce a ZFW less than max (as it obviously did), but the addition of the unforeseen males (at 18kg extra for each) would have put them over MZFW or MTOW.

I suspect Easy, like most other airlines, use both and either way they were technically overweight anyway.

I doubt that this aircraft was structurally overweight. Past comments suggest that the male/female ratio would have had a negligible affect on the overall weight of the aircraft. The journey itself was less than 1/6th of the maximum range of a fully loaded A319. Six times more fuel would add much more weight to the aircraft than a few extra men with ski's. Airlines don't carry additional fuel for fun (see the numerous threads on the subject knocking about R&N). Why would they offload passengers to carry extra fuel when they could just refuel in GVA? If there were problems with refueling in GVA, the distance GVA-LPL-GVA still amounts to less than half of the aircrafts fully loaded range. Even if they were flying a 'W' pattern there aren't many destinations which are further away from GVA than LPL.

Edit: I'm not too familiar with the implications of the max ZFW, but it seems to me that an aircraft type which is certified to carry cargo should have a much higher maximum ZFW than would be accounted for by bags and passengers alone (even if many of them were carrying ski's) - EZY don't carry cargo so presumably have a higher ceiling in this regard(?). I happily stand to be corrected on this presumption :)

I would suggest that perhaps they developed some kind of technical fault shortly before departure which reduced their maximum takeoff (or landing) weight (as I alluded to in my earlier post). If this is the case then presumably nobody would have been able to spot that they were overweight until after boarding.

Are there any technical problems which could result in this happening?

EXxB:
Unfortunately not. They asked for volunteers to leave the aircraft and people accepted on Easyjets terms. Had they forced people to disembark then they would be entitled to the full amount under Regulation 261. As Piltdown Man stated, the passengers should have "Kept calm and stayed seated until €250 and a free flight came their way." This seems to have been very badly handled by Easyjet.

I think you're missing the point.

Firstly, I agree with you that we're probably not talking about a ZFW limitation here.

The way I read things is that the fuel loaded, given the originally-calculated passenger weight, produced a take-off weight of just under MTOW. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

Then someone does a few fresh sums and concludes that the unusual male/female pax split has resulted in a higher take-off weight than orginally calculated, that now exceeds MTOW.

The fuel is already on board by now, so my original question stands: which is easier to offload - pax or fuel ? No contest.

Thanks DaveReidUK. I don't disagree with your hypothesis per se, but I don't understand why they would take so much extra fuel on such a short sector that MTOW would become a factor. It doesn't make sense to me...

Looking at the EZY timetable, it appears that the aircraft doesn't head straight back from GVA to LPL.

Assuming that it does, say, a W sequence of legs before ending back at LPL, then the trade-off between the cost of tankering fuel vs the advantage of shorter non-refuelled turnrounds might make sense to EZY, even if it doesn't to us.

The max ZFW problem isn't new with the GVA flights; run into it a few times myself. It's not uncommon to have overloads show up at the flight planning stage, sorting them can be a headache that might not be resolved until 15 minutes before departure.

In this instance though it seems EZY determined to save a few quid and be cheeky in their comp offer has bit them in the bum big time.

Maybe the lesson learned is that they'll just play it straight in future; offer the full whack straight up or just leave bags behind.

For all we know A/C might have been swapped on short notice because of AOG or whatever reason with fuelling for another sector already completed. Or fuelling truck guy screwed up. Or latest EZFW came through to Ops for calculation too late. Or Captain went for that extra fuel on top of possible tankering and, well, made a mistake. Or just the mentioned m/w problem + tankering. A lot of possibilities really :)

Yes, but how ethical is it to ask for volunteers at half the compensation that they would be required to pay for an involuntary denied boarding?

The airlines were given flexibility on the compensation offered to volunteers was on the premise that the airlines could offer something other than money, like free tickets, that would be good for both parties.

So they appeal to the unseasoned (non-pprune type) passenger.

This is, of course, fogged by the passing of time, but I distinctly recall being told that the first thing an ops agent does in the case of an "overweight event" (that's the current platitude, I assume..) is to adjust the pax weight down by the number of children/infants on board and then - if you're close enough - increase taxi fuel.

Actively aided and abetted by the cockpit crew

Yes, but how ethical is it to ask for volunteers at half the compensation that they would be required to pay for an involuntary denied boarding?


Depends entirely on the individual passengers circumstances and what their ongoing arrangements might be.

If changing flights didnt do any more than delay my arrival at final destination by an hour I would happlily accept 50 quid. If one misses ongoing connections then the amount required might be very large.

Asking for volunteers to disembark is a perfectly reasonable arrangement, which, in my limited experience, works very effectively.

No, the passengers' circumstances determine whether it's a practical and effective strategy. Whether it's an ethical one is an entirely different question.

No, the passengers' circumstances determine whether it's a practical and effective strategy. Whether it's an ethical one is an entirely different question.

Then as far as I am concerned it is entirely ethical. The airline has a problem and asking for volunteers is the best way to fix it.
The volunteer makes the decision as to what compensates for their personal disruption.

In may be within the letter of the Regulation, but is not within the intent. Squeezy is hoping you are ignorant of the Regulation. They win if you are.

The downside of this is more intervention by Regulators.

The EC has suggested in the past that airlines should not be permitted to involuntarily deny boarding - i.e. that volunteers must be found, even if it results in a bidding war.

It would serve Squeezy right, if this was to occur.

Dear me!

I get the impression there are a lot of people commenting here who know diddley squat about commercial ops and loading.

For education of the spotters here....
Loadsheets at EZY are done by the flight crew if they're lucky ten minutes before departure. Last minute changes come after that. So go figure how much "in advance" (in advance of what, fer chrissakes? is there a deadline for when spotters think this should have been spotted?) any revelation of overweight is likely to occur.

d'uh oh!

re- ethics...They're a BUSINESS..Pax were quite entitled to refuse, but obviously NONE had read the t's & c's of their contract with the carrier.

for goodness' sake! they're supposedly adults!-As such, they don't need their hand held and their ass wiped for them.

IMHO Easy made the right business decision...they're not a damned charity. Any pax who sold-out "cheap" may well be retrospectively miffed...Tough cheddar! be a bit more savvy next time.

This incident DOES make a good case for what another poster jokingly suggested.....WEIGH each Pax and charge excess for excess weight!

if "standard" weight was set at a reasonable level ,I see no rational grounds for objection. Lighter pax will just enjoy a less cramped seat than their porkier fellow travellers.

It comes as some relief to find some contributions from posters who know something about EZY operations.

Siftydog’s comments (#27) about ZFW issues on GVA flights is telling. But of course it does not need a ZFW limit exceedance to generate a flight planning problem. It is enough to have a ZFW increase beyond the assumptions made in the fuel uplift decision and for the problem not to be identified until too late. In that case the issue most likely becomes the planned Maximum Landing Weight. It would only be a takeoff weight issue if they had scheduled an aircraft with the low MTOW (64000 kgs), but surely they would not do that for this service ?

The assumption has been made that the culprit is over aggressive tankering. Well maybe. But has anyone looked at the GVA and alternate forecasts for the period specific to the flight ? I do not have the details myself but I do know that in that general time span there were weather issues at GVA resulting in a number of diversions. In those circumstances carrying a significant amount of extra fuel to cater for runway closures holding and potential diversion would seem a sensible operational decision.

Is it ethical to be awarded 250 euro's compensation if your flight has only cost you 30 quid? When my train is delayed, why am I not entitled to the same 250 euro's?

If you want a discussion on ethics, fine, let's have it!

Does it ?

AFAIK nobody, least of all EasyJet, has made any reference to passengers being overweight. We're told simply that there was an “exceptionally high proportion of male passengers".

Or are you suggesting gender quotas on every flight ?

CS, Have you read Squeezy's T&Cs?

I just tried to find what they say in these circumstances. There is some stuff on denied boarding, and a link to another page with their interpretations of the Regulation. Finally I find the rule on what happens for an overbooking, but not when passengers are denied boarding for other reasons, such as this.

I expect one reason they got no volunteers at £100 was because some were aware of their rights. But for EZY to sit there and let their other passengers reach into their wallets, when it was their responsibility to deal with the situation, THAT was unethical.

Yes I know they are a business and yes I know that ethics in business are almost nonexistent anywhere. But that isn't going to stop me from my comments.