Avg. PAX Weights
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avg. PAX Weights
Did a quick search and didn't turn up anything, but don't shoot me if this has been done before. Considering the recent increase of avg pax weights here in Canada I'm curious as to what they are in other parts of the world. Who has the fattest/skinniest PAX???
Summer weights, no carry on.
M - 200lbs (90.7kg)
F - 165lbs (74.8kg)
Summer weights, no carry on.
M - 200lbs (90.7kg)
F - 165lbs (74.8kg)
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBS565 Murdoch University - Airline Economics lectures:
Nominal weight in Australia for passengers and baggage = 77+20 = 97 kgs.
Nominal weight in USA:
FAA (1995) = 75.5+9+11=95.5 kgs
for passengers + carry-on + baggage
Revised
FAA (2003) = 93+9+14 = 116 kgs
for passengers + carry-on + baggage
Nominal weight in Australia for passengers and baggage = 77+20 = 97 kgs.
Nominal weight in USA:
FAA (1995) = 75.5+9+11=95.5 kgs
for passengers + carry-on + baggage
Revised
FAA (2003) = 93+9+14 = 116 kgs
for passengers + carry-on + baggage
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Uk body+carry on;
Male = 88kg,
Female = 70 kg,
Child = 35kg,
unless it is a charter flight then if by some amazing weight watchers programme they suddenly weigh less;
male 83kg, Female 69kg, child 35kg.
Male = 88kg,
Female = 70 kg,
Child = 35kg,
unless it is a charter flight then if by some amazing weight watchers programme they suddenly weigh less;
male 83kg, Female 69kg, child 35kg.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I work for Jet2, we use the standard adult weights, not the charter weights as we are a scheduled carrier, not a holiday charter flight.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA AC120-27D suggests 190/195 lbs summer/winter, with a carry-on policy. Differentiated are 200/205 for males and 179/184 for females.
Canada suggests 200/206 for males and 165/171 for females, AC No. 0235.
Under JAR, it is 185 lbs.
OZ 192/159 males/females. NZ just upped their standard weight from 170 to 190 lbs.
Of course, this all has variations. Charter/non-charter, number of seats in the aircraft etc... and operators are free to make their own surveys.
As for charters, there's typically more females and children/youngsters and less books, laptops etc in the cabin. No diet required, apart from the months of noodles endured by the backpackers prior to buying the tickets!
Canada suggests 200/206 for males and 165/171 for females, AC No. 0235.
Under JAR, it is 185 lbs.
OZ 192/159 males/females. NZ just upped their standard weight from 170 to 190 lbs.
Of course, this all has variations. Charter/non-charter, number of seats in the aircraft etc... and operators are free to make their own surveys.
As for charters, there's typically more females and children/youngsters and less books, laptops etc in the cabin. No diet required, apart from the months of noodles endured by the backpackers prior to buying the tickets!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work for Jet2, we use the standard adult weights, not the charter weights as we are a scheduled carrier, not a holiday charter flight.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: S.E England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LG,
The reason for this is that these weights do not take into account checked luggage. It does take into account carry on luggage.
On a holiday charter flight people will take large suitcases which will of course be taken into account on the loadsheet as a seperate weight. They normally only carry-on small(ish), light, handluggage designed for essential items whilst travelling.
The scheduled passenger however traditionally would be more business travellers who may have no checked luggage but would carry on heavier travel bags with laptops, books, overnight kit etc. Therefore they are the 'heavier' passenger.
Interestingly enough it would be interesting to see how the scheduled low cost model has affected this over the last 10 years.
A carrier can apply to the authority to use a differant standard mass value for each passenger but they would have to undertake a detailed weight survey and submit statistical analysis for it to be considered. We have one for a particular operation we undertake where pax are not allowed any handluggage. Therefore we can use 5kg less per passenger as they have no handluggage.
It all gets very complicated!!!
Cheers
YS
The reason for this is that these weights do not take into account checked luggage. It does take into account carry on luggage.
On a holiday charter flight people will take large suitcases which will of course be taken into account on the loadsheet as a seperate weight. They normally only carry-on small(ish), light, handluggage designed for essential items whilst travelling.
The scheduled passenger however traditionally would be more business travellers who may have no checked luggage but would carry on heavier travel bags with laptops, books, overnight kit etc. Therefore they are the 'heavier' passenger.
Interestingly enough it would be interesting to see how the scheduled low cost model has affected this over the last 10 years.
A carrier can apply to the authority to use a differant standard mass value for each passenger but they would have to undertake a detailed weight survey and submit statistical analysis for it to be considered. We have one for a particular operation we undertake where pax are not allowed any handluggage. Therefore we can use 5kg less per passenger as they have no handluggage.
It all gets very complicated!!!
Cheers
YS
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typically, the actual weights are increasing. They're then updated (read: upped) with significant intervals. This means that most operators are reluctant to perform their own surveys. They're likely to end up having to use heavier std weights than their competitors.
The FAA allowance for no carry-on ops is 6 lbs off the pax weight, while plane-side loaded bags are to be counted at 20 lbs or so. Interesting, innit?
Cheers,
Fred
The FAA allowance for no carry-on ops is 6 lbs off the pax weight, while plane-side loaded bags are to be counted at 20 lbs or so. Interesting, innit?
Cheers,
Fred
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weights for Easyjet are:
M=93kg, F=75kg, C=30kg
All recently increased by 5kg to reflect new hand baggage allowances.
Ryanair use tables for the weights of Adult and Child passengers, and I've never actually bothered to calculate if this works out as a standard weight per person regardless of the numbers or not.
MyTravel use a standard adult weight of 89kg, but this can be changed if the flight is predominantly Male or Female. Can't remember the alternative weights off the top of my head though.
M=93kg, F=75kg, C=30kg
All recently increased by 5kg to reflect new hand baggage allowances.
Ryanair use tables for the weights of Adult and Child passengers, and I've never actually bothered to calculate if this works out as a standard weight per person regardless of the numbers or not.
MyTravel use a standard adult weight of 89kg, but this can be changed if the flight is predominantly Male or Female. Can't remember the alternative weights off the top of my head though.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, average baggage weights are used - 13kg for International flights, 11kg for domestics.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the total number of bags checked in is counted, then factored by the appropriate figure. ie. 123 total bags checked in on international flight = 1599kg. Hand baggage weights are included in the respective adult/child weight.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines have the option of using actual or standard weights for baggage. On larger aircraft, for the sake of convenience, standard weights are normally what is used. For more performance limited aircraft, it may well be more beneficial to use actual weights.
Going back to easyjet as an example again, if the aircraft is operating a flight to a ski destination for example, and there is a substantial amount of ski/sporting equipment being carried, then the actual weights of this equipment may be used on the aircraft loadsheet as it is loaded into a seperate hold to the regular baggage (for which standard weights will still be used).
Not really any definitive, one size fits all, answer I'm afraid.
Going back to easyjet as an example again, if the aircraft is operating a flight to a ski destination for example, and there is a substantial amount of ski/sporting equipment being carried, then the actual weights of this equipment may be used on the aircraft loadsheet as it is loaded into a seperate hold to the regular baggage (for which standard weights will still be used).
Not really any definitive, one size fits all, answer I'm afraid.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another (and, possibly, the main) reason for actual weights being more beneficial in smaller aircraft is that the standard weights have to be larger for smaller a/c. This is since one non-standard passenger will have a larger impact on the average weight of the actual passengers boarded. A larger sample of people will statistically have a much larger probability of being close to the actual mean of the entire population. With few pax, you have to use larger average weights to be safe from severe overweight conditions.
I recall the New Zealand CAA being a bit above par in describing the theory behind it all. Check out AC119-4, I think that's the one.
Cheers,
Fred
I recall the New Zealand CAA being a bit above par in describing the theory behind it all. Check out AC119-4, I think that's the one.
Cheers,
Fred
For more performance limited aircraft, it may well be more beneficial to use actual weights.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I am not a mathematician nor a statatician either, but if I look at the US figures (at the start of the thread), then the significance for say the year 2010 is truly remarkable. I dread to even think beyond that.