BA: "Weight Restriction" on a UK Domestic Flight!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA: "Weight Restriction" on a UK Domestic Flight!?
Hi,
Can someone clear up a little query I have?
Just had a relative trying to standby (ID90) on a Heathrow-Newcastle flight.
4 staff standing by, 6 seats available on the a/c (737-400).
However, check-in staff said that they couldn't load any of the stand-bys because of a "weight restriction".
To me this seems monumentally stupid.........on a Friday afternoon it would seem obvious that every UK domestic flight was going to go out full to the seams........and it's not as if it's a 6000nm sector with unfavourable winds!!
Can someone clear up a little query I have?
Just had a relative trying to standby (ID90) on a Heathrow-Newcastle flight.
4 staff standing by, 6 seats available on the a/c (737-400).
However, check-in staff said that they couldn't load any of the stand-bys because of a "weight restriction".
To me this seems monumentally stupid.........on a Friday afternoon it would seem obvious that every UK domestic flight was going to go out full to the seams........and it's not as if it's a 6000nm sector with unfavourable winds!!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could have been:
1. Landing wt restriction at NCL. If the weather goes cack (which it can do in NCL with very little notice) the a/c is limited to the Cat3 max landing wt. I don't have the perf manual to hand, but I remember it is quite restrictive.
2. Some a/c defect leading to a lower than normal weight restriction.
3. They may have been carrying round trip fuel (for economy), up to normal max landing weight. In which case getting staff on comes second to saving dosh.
1. Landing wt restriction at NCL. If the weather goes cack (which it can do in NCL with very little notice) the a/c is limited to the Cat3 max landing wt. I don't have the perf manual to hand, but I remember it is quite restrictive.
2. Some a/c defect leading to a lower than normal weight restriction.
3. They may have been carrying round trip fuel (for economy), up to normal max landing weight. In which case getting staff on comes second to saving dosh.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a host of "political" problems in BA at the moment, and domestic staff travel / jump seats are one of them!
Whilst all of the above reasons are perfectly plausible, so is <<However, check-in staff said that they couldn't load any of the stand-bys because of a "weight restriction". >> being today's stock excuse for "No"...
NoD
Whilst all of the above reasons are perfectly plausible, so is <<However, check-in staff said that they couldn't load any of the stand-bys because of a "weight restriction". >> being today's stock excuse for "No"...
NoD
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and apart from the political reasons, NCL is a tankering sector (round trip fuel). On a 734 probably requires about 7.5 tonnes.
ZFW is about 34t, a full load 13 and max ldg 55. Say 5t fuel remaining, that would give you 34+13+5 = 52t landing, so no immediate clue as to problem - it may be that the wx was below Cat1 and max ldg wt was lower, or a defect as has been suggested.
ZFW is about 34t, a full load 13 and max ldg 55. Say 5t fuel remaining, that would give you 34+13+5 = 52t landing, so no immediate clue as to problem - it may be that the wx was below Cat1 and max ldg wt was lower, or a defect as has been suggested.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very interesting and informative replies, thanks.
Wx for the information was absolutely perfect......not a cloud in the sky and no wind. Same as the forecast for the day after.......so not particularly likely to change.
So it sounds like a tech. problem.
Although NigelOnDraft's explanation sounds more and more plausible everytime I read it!
(BTW: One of the standbys was flight crew in from HKG, another Cabin Crew from JFK. I doubt they enjoyed the subsequent drive up to NCL on a Friday afternoon...........)
Wx for the information was absolutely perfect......not a cloud in the sky and no wind. Same as the forecast for the day after.......so not particularly likely to change.
So it sounds like a tech. problem.
Although NigelOnDraft's explanation sounds more and more plausible everytime I read it!
(BTW: One of the standbys was flight crew in from HKG, another Cabin Crew from JFK. I doubt they enjoyed the subsequent drive up to NCL on a Friday afternoon...........)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"One of the standbys was flight crew in from HKG, another Cabin Crew from JFK. I doubt they enjoyed the subsequent drive up to NCL on a Friday afternoon"
I'm sure you're not suggesting that 'commuters' should get special treatment, but there does seem to be the feeling amoung many that they should. Remember there is no such thing as a 'commuter' - your status is defined by your ticket type. Whoever has the highest priority should get on regardless of their reason for travel.
Jumpseats, of course, are at the discretion of the skipper.
I'm sure you're not suggesting that 'commuters' should get special treatment, but there does seem to be the feeling amoung many that they should. Remember there is no such thing as a 'commuter' - your status is defined by your ticket type. Whoever has the highest priority should get on regardless of their reason for travel.
Jumpseats, of course, are at the discretion of the skipper.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all. Obviously staff travel is a tremendous bargain and you take your chances; but I thought in this case there was a bit of a c__k up.
Also, a question about scheduling.......what I would have thought were peak flights (Fri afternoon) are operated by a mix of 734s, 319s and 320s..........whereas on Sunday lunchtime the NCL-LHR flight is operated by a 757. That went out pretty empty.
Also, a question about scheduling.......what I would have thought were peak flights (Fri afternoon) are operated by a mix of 734s, 319s and 320s..........whereas on Sunday lunchtime the NCL-LHR flight is operated by a 757. That went out pretty empty.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BL..
<<what I would have thought were peak flights (Fri afternoon) are operated by a mix of 734s, 319s and 320s>>
Yes - but so is everything else "peak" then...
Much as the airline world would like to, you can't have 30 x 767 on Friday night, which magically transform themselves into A318s for Saturday afternoon...
NoD
<<what I would have thought were peak flights (Fri afternoon) are operated by a mix of 734s, 319s and 320s>>
Yes - but so is everything else "peak" then...
Much as the airline world would like to, you can't have 30 x 767 on Friday night, which magically transform themselves into A318s for Saturday afternoon...
NoD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course........
But isn't the problem:
1. High yield business strategy thought of.
2. Aircraft size reduction (757s to 319s on s/h)
3. High yield business market collapses.
4. High load-factor "bums on seats" strategy thought of.
5. Aircraft size increase (318s canx, 321s coming....)
But I suppose this little episode shows that 4. is being achieved, which is a good thing.
But isn't the problem:
1. High yield business strategy thought of.
2. Aircraft size reduction (757s to 319s on s/h)
3. High yield business market collapses.
4. High load-factor "bums on seats" strategy thought of.
5. Aircraft size increase (318s canx, 321s coming....)
But I suppose this little episode shows that 4. is being achieved, which is a good thing.
