Ryanair authority problems

[Tu.114]

One question to those in the know, please.

From the previous posts, I gather that the procedure is as follows: for each individual flight, the Commander (or the company) decides on the MTOW du jour; the flight will then be loaded, fuelled and executed according to this number.

But what next? Will the company compile a list of each flight against the used MTOW and send it to the authority every so often so they can be properly billed? And to which authority will that be - seeing that Eurocontrol seems to have no knowledge on different possible MTOWs for one fleet, it seems that for FR, the Irish CAA or ATC provider is the recipient and then just hogged this information?

If so, the hot water FR seems to be in will likely be shared by this authority.

[captplaystation]

I think this one will be less easy to whitewash than other debacles (even with the full cooperation of the IAA ) if indeed the errors in reporting MTOW required/applied to individual flights is found to be outwith the normal tolerances expected of a lowly (grossly overpaid) Captain . . . as dear Michael would classify all his employees entrusted with 1/300th of his daily business.

[Dg800]

Then what is the point of using flexible MTOM?

Maybe handling charges are actually based on the flex-MTOM for the specific sector? This may vary from airport to airport, so there is no guarantee that it will always save you money. Unless, of course, you do cheat and always declare the current MTOM even if the applicable regulations say otherwise.

[Dg800]

But what next? Will the company compile a list of each flight against the used MTOW and send it to the authority every so often so they can be properly billed? And to which authority will that be - seeing that Eurocontrol seems to have no knowledge on different possible MTOWs for one fleet, it seems that for FR, the Irish CAA or ATC provider is the recipient and then just hogged this information?

One of the points raised by German ATC is that they don't have access to this information, unless they actually board the plane and ask to see the papers. As this is very time-consuming, one of their stated goals is to get a court to order the IAA to make this information available to them, regardless of data protection laws in effect.

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by LMX

According to Eurocontrol (Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on route charges | EUROCONTROL):

"The MTOW declared should be the maximum certificated take-off weight of the aircraft. In the case of multiple certificated take-off weights, the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration."

Then what is the point of using flexible MTOM?

Eurocontrol is not the only charge which is assessed on the basis of MTOW - most airport landing fees are as well. Of course Ryanair negotiates their own deal at the majority of their airports, but having a flex MTOW allows them to shift the starting point for the negotiation downwards. They tell airports that the MTOW is 67T and conduct the fee negotiation on that basis.

[slowjet]

All seems a bit of a fiddle. MTOW is MTOW is MTOW. It is a structual figure. Of course, one may be limited to an RTOW. Almost everyday in my previos life, I was. Of course, the ATOW might be even lower. I can see the irritation of being charged for a MTOW when, most of the time, I am a lot lighter than that. But, to declare an MTOW lower than the certified max is telling a porky isn't it ? Then, to load up to the certified MTOW and set off for Bongobongo is very naughty.

[Dg800]

Then, to load up to the certified MTOW and set off for Bongobongo is very naughty.

That's true but it's also not what Ryanair is being accused of and is completely irrelevant here, as ATOW is not what charges are actually based on (see the Eurocontrol FAQ for confirmation). If you declare a reduced MTOW and always have ATOW<RTOW then all is fine and dandy, until you also try and get en-route charges based on the RTOW instead of the structural, certified, absolute MTOW.

Ciao,

Dg800

[Bengerman]

Come on, this is very simple.

Ryanair has declared a lower MTOW to save money. Nothing wrong with that!

They have then allegedly flown sectors at a weight greater than that.

So, either fraud (if deliberate) or negligence (if through oversight).

Either way naughty and worthy of a good financial spanking.

[Dg800]

They have then flown sectors at a weight greater than that.

No they haven't. Even if they had it would then be a disciplinary (and hence internal to Ryanair) and not a financial matter as en-route charges must always be based on maximum structural TOW as per certification (please read the Eurocontrol FAQ via the link previously posted by LMX).

Half tongue in cheek: if you keep making false claims about Ryanair they might try and subpoena your data from PPRune. I'd be more careful if I were you.

[Hockham Admiral]

JW411,

When HeavyLift started flying the Belfast around the world the Chief Pilot was Bob Reynolds (who I am sure you will remember) and he usually told ATC or whoever that it was a "Super Hercules" with an MTOW of 155,000lbs...........
But that was Bob... I'm quite sure that HLA would never have dreamed that one up....

[Chopper Doc]

from the Irish register Ryan Air have 66,9900 kg listed as the MTOW. The information is readily available as download from the Irish CAA website.

[Chopper Doc]

The information is already available on the Irish CAA website.

[Dg800]

That's interesting. So, it appears Ryanair got the IAA to publish a weight lower than the actual certified MTOM (allegedly!).

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by dg800

must always be based on maximum structural TOW as per certification

- I think you misunderstand the wording? 'Certified' means as presented on a certificate and does NOT refer to manufacturer's 'certified' MTOW. Thus if an a/c is 'certified' at a MTOW lower than the manufacturer's max that is the 'certified' MTOW for Eurocontrol charging. Most airlines (including the big ones) do this - the way you see it, there is no point.

Read cyrano:
"In the case of multiple certificated take-off weights, the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration." which is that provided to the state by the operator and refers to specific airframes, not a 'type'. As cyrano says, this applies to lots of other charges too.

[16024]

Does this not revolve around whether placarding (and accompanying engineering sign-off) counts as certification?
I was under the impression that this was entirely Kosher.
Only if the details are changed at the subsequent invoicing stage would it be dodgy.
When I was involved the company were very careful that the aircraft departed home base at the highest weight to cover the MTOWs for the series of flights, unless engineering was available down route.

[BOAC]

Also involved,of course, is the 'mechanism' to convey this figure to relevant bodies like EuroC and airfields, conceivably on a trip by trip basis.

Interesting to see what comes out in the wash.

[Dg800]

I think you misunderstand the wording? 'Certified' means as presented on a certificate and does NOT refer to manufacturer's 'certified' MTOW.

That's what I meant too. My apologies if I didn't make it clear because of the inappropriate wording I used.

[BOAC]

Yes - these MTOWs are not 'structural', but 'administrative'. I think we all seem to agree - interesting 'enquiries' ahead and probably quite a few ramp checks + copies of load sheets garnered from agents for the poor boys and girls.

[cockney steve]

As an" outsider", I can see the logic of "paying by weight" for Airport and Ground-handling charges.....It's self-evident that a 50 ton lump is going to cause more wear and tear than a 35-ton lump......it's not linear, of course.

The road-transport industry had l long fight with the Eurocrats because Continental lorries were allowed a higher axle-loading than UK ones.....hence a spate of bridge-works, roadwidening, bend-straightening and sub-base replacements. IIRC, a 10% extra axle-loading = 30% extra road-wear.

So, One can understand an "ON THE GROUND" weight-charging regime.

pax or cargo is not relevant, because the pax-charge is on a per-head basis.

Once off the ground, a big jet would appear to use exactly the same resources as a private IFR flight.

Logic dictates that an empty positioning flight should be cheaper than a "full" flight, all other details being the same.

Common-sense dictates, therefore , that the element of trust works BOTH WAYS....."euro" cannot expect the same revenue from a full aircraft , as an empty one. If the "certifying authority" is willing to issue a "weight-certificate" on an individual airframe/flight basis, that seems fair, reasonable and logical, given the Eurocrat's (allegedly) entrenched dogmatic and inflexible position on this..........no different to lorries going in/out of a facility via a weighbridge and levies being based on that factor.

but what would I know, I don't have my snout in a trough of gold.

[darkroomsource]

Once off the ground, a big jet would appear to use exactly the same resources as a private IFR flight.

Actually no. A lot of research has been done on this in the US due to the regular call by the airlines to charge user fees for GA aircraft.

The 'private IFR' flights are MOSTLY at different altitudes, speeds and distances. It is generally accepted that the average GA 'private IFR' flight uses significantly less system resources in flight than an airline flight.