Mtow A332
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, otherwise I would've known this. Nothing else changed. I think Airbus is behind this. If this is the case, more members should notice it.
Regards
Capriati
Regards
Capriati
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paperwork exercise by accountants? Lower MTOW = lower landing fees. Perhaps they concluded that the higher MTOW was rarely or never used and figured they could save money?
Just a speculative scenario. It has been done in the past.
Just a speculative scenario. It has been done in the past.
As Nom De Guerre points out, the change to a different weight variant is normally done for commercial reasons relevant to their specific routes and operation. Lower weight variants are commonly done to save landing fees which can be calculated based on declared MTOW. Weight variant changes are done at the specific airlines request and should have been implemented by Airbus SB to ensure that all weight placards (flight deck, landing gear...) and operational documentation are correctly revised. This is a relatively routine type of airline request and action.
Capriati, assuming that you are using the abbreviation A332 to represent A330-200 then I would suggest you need to confirm this with your airline. According to the EASA A330 Type Certificate Data Sheet, I don't believe that Airbus have certified a weight variant with 228T MTOW!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Bad D and Nom De Guerre, thank you for the quick replies.
Big Bad D, yes I do point out the A330-200. I assumed you used this Type Certificate Data Sheet (page 20): http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/...20May%2009.pdf
I see that this one is issue 17, issued on May 29th 2009. This may imply that they are updated regularly. There might be a new one out. I will check this with my airline and let you know. I don't have direct access to Airbus SBs.
Regards
Capriati
Big Bad D, yes I do point out the A330-200. I assumed you used this Type Certificate Data Sheet (page 20): http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/...20May%2009.pdf
I see that this one is issue 17, issued on May 29th 2009. This may imply that they are updated regularly. There might be a new one out. I will check this with my airline and let you know. I don't have direct access to Airbus SBs.
Regards
Capriati
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: CGK to HKG
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My companies A330-300 are operated at 205T purely for the reasons mentioned, to save on landing fees - Cargo boys don't like it when their pallets are occasionally left behind....
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very common reason for something like that. We can even use a different MTOW every single flight to accomodate the loading we have. That way we never pay too much airway or landing fee.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do not indicate which country 'Cloud 9' is in, but En-route (Eurocontrol) charges are based on the sqr root of MTOW/50. Some airports charge landing fees based on MLW, some on MTOW. It could even be insurance. Your company will doubtless have found a new MTOW band that saves a bit of moolah somewhere/somewhow on your route structure. As long as the new MTOW is practical and below the max certified by AI and correctly documented (a/c docs and load system) there is no problem. It is a pretty common practice
