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? |
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... :} |
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? |
Checked baggage is normally a standard weight as well. |
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 |
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... 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. |
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 |
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.
|
The only thing you know for certain will be Michael O'leary reading this and dreaming of charging by the passenger kilo :)
|
Michael O'Leary reads Pprune???
What's his username?????? :ok: |
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%) It's a lot easier to offload pax at short notice than fuel. |
Thanks for that link, PM. I've printed off the information and we will carry it with us in our hand luggage. So far we've been lucky, but you never know . . .
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 7645074)
It's a lot easier to offload pax at short notice than fuel.
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. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK It's a lot easier to offload pax at short notice than fuel. 20th Jan 2013 19:13 YS |
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?
|
Hang on, if they knew the final ZFW why wouldn't they spot the weight problem then? http://www.planeweighs.com/images/lo...s/Picture1.jpg 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. |
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? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.