Ryanair authority problems
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then what is the point of using flexible MTOM?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
"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?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by slowjet; 20th Dec 2012 at 10:16.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then, to load up to the certified MTOW and set off for Bongobongo is very naughty.
Ciao,
Dg800
Last edited by Dg800; 20th Dec 2012 at 10:22.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Bengerman; 20th Dec 2012 at 10:48.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have then flown sectors at a weight greater than that.
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.
Last edited by Dg800; 20th Dec 2012 at 10:41.
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....
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....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dg800
must always be based on maximum structural TOW as per certification
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Interesting to see what comes out in the wash.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you misunderstand the wording? 'Certified' means as presented on a certificate and does NOT refer to manufacturer's 'certified' MTOW.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once off the ground, a big jet would appear to use exactly the same resources as a private IFR flight.
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.