Notices
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Mtow A332

Old 3rd November 2009 | 10:17
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Cloud Nine
Mtow A332

MTOW of my company's A332 recently changed from 233000 kg to 228000 kg. Does anyone know more about this?

Regards
Capriati
Capriati is offline  
Reply
Old 3rd November 2009 | 10:25
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: PURPA
Could they have perhaps changed the thrust settings on the engines or the engines themselves?
vinayak is offline  
Reply
Old 3rd November 2009 | 10:32
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Cloud Nine
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
Capriati is offline  
Reply
Old 3rd November 2009 | 10:42
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: USA
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.
Nom De Guerre is offline  
Reply
Old 3rd November 2009 | 11:52
  #5 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: France
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.
Big Bad D is offline  
Reply
Old 3rd November 2009 | 12:13
  #6 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: France
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!
Big Bad D is offline  
Reply
Old 3rd November 2009 | 12:33
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Cloud Nine
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
Capriati is offline  
Reply
Old 3rd November 2009 | 15:06
  #8 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: France
Capriati, please see your Private Messages if you would like me to check further regarding this specific point.
BBD
Big Bad D is offline  
Reply
Old 8th November 2009 | 01:30
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Cloud Nine
Found out the reason for the changed MTOW: lower landing fees and lower fees for crossing airspaces.
NDG and BBD; lots of thanks.

Regards
Capriati
Capriati is offline  
Reply
Old 8th November 2009 | 08:44
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
From: CGK to HKG
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....
Tinwacker is offline  
Reply
Old 8th November 2009 | 09:12
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 34
From: I wouldn't know.
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.
Denti is offline  
Reply
Old 8th November 2009 | 10:18
  #12 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
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
BOAC is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.