Downgraded from Business Class.

[amaroo]

With a takeoff weight somewhere in the region of 400 tonnes (400,000 kg), yes 200 kg at 0.05% of total weight is barely a ripple.

If it's that tight maybe they need to enforce a compulsory toilet visit prior to boarding

 

[ellen10]

Hi all,
I do not want to mislead anyone, but this is what my friend said. She was quite surprised at the scene as she has flown a lot with her husband who was a Qantas engineer for 40 years, until his sudden death late last year. The group was pulled aside at the gate and a loud conversation ensued about not being boarded and weight problems and head winds. Boarding started and she was seated in her seat when a woman boarded late and sat next to her saying she was lucky to get on as she was the last on. QF were concerned about the head winds and the group of 8 were not boarded. At first I thought it may have been an overbooking situation but my friend said there were definitely some spare seats at the back of the plane as she eyed them off to lie down, but someone beat her to it.
I am not blaming QF as there are things beyond their control, I just thought it was a very interesting scenario and yes, as we have seen lots of things impact on us to getting to and from our flight destinations. More than I had previously thought could happen.

 

[dajop]

But as I said up thread we do not know what the remedy was. Those 8 could have been BNE bound pax, transferred to AA flight leaving for LAX 30 mins later and then onto QF flight to BNE arriving 10 mins earlier than they would have if they had continued via SYD. Or they could have been delayed 24 hrs. We just don't know.

 

[Pushka]

But as I said up thread we do not know what the remedy was. Those 8 could have been BNE bound pax, transferred to AA flight leaving for LAX 30 mins later and then onto QF flight to BNE arriving 10 mins earlier than they would have if they had continued via SYD. Or they could have been delayed 24 hrs. We just don't know.

No, we don't know. it could have been a nice ending for them. Or not.

 

[JohnPhelan]

I don't buy that just taking off 8 passengers solved a weight issue in a plane. Using an average weight of 80 kgs, that's only 640 kilograms. On a plane load of 400 pax, the weight would be around 32,000 kgs (average 80 kgs). A bit scary to think that just 640 kgs solves a problem methinks.

It does solve the problem if the problem is that the aircraft is 600kg overweight!

 

[RAM]

Yes that would go down well as PR. Offloading passengers at the last minute for freight. But yes who knows what happened in this case and as they were in economy, who cares!

Come the revolution....

On last minute cargo, at DXB saw a hatch back driven onto front cargo load lifter after boarding had begun for LHR. Then neatly drove into the EK A380.

Parking must be expensive at that airport if the pilot parks his car on board!

 

[RAM]

It does solve the problem if the problem is that the aircraft is 600kg overweight!

I may be wrong, but at cruise the fuel consumption of the A380 (Q config) is 12,000 kgs/hour. So 600kg only gives 5 minutes extra flight time (less actually).

In reality at 80 kg/passenger weight plus 20kg bags and 10kg carry on would be closer to 900kg or 7.5 minutes.

Or if passengers at the gate are asked to please avail themselves of the terminal toilet facilities as either they offload some water or 8 passengers (selected from those who do not use the terminal toilet before boarding).

May not be PC but it is a solution that does not disrupt the travel of 8 passengers. Saving 300+ toilet flushes and basin washes as well as weight of urine and faeces would be well in excess of 1,000 kg saving.

 

[jsoprano]

Or if passengers at the gate are asked to please avail themselves of the terminal toilet facilities as either they offload some water or 8 passengers (selected from those who do not use the terminal toilet before boarding).

May not be PC but it is a solution that does not disrupt the travel of 8 passengers. Saving 300+ toilet flushes and basin washes as well as weight of urine and faeces would be well in excess of 1,000 kg saving.

Problem with that is that pax are not actually weighed (or have you ever been when checking-in or boarding?) but an average figure is used, and this figure does not change whether someone goes to the loo or not. (It's advisable to go right before boarding anyway and I guess most people would do it especially on long-haul, because you never now how long boarding, taxiing etc. might take before the seatbelt signs are finally switched off.) So put this solution aside.

To those who say "offloading 8 pax doesn't make a difference", well I am not a pilot nor an engineer, but if all the parameters for the flight including weather, weight etc. say that an additional 600 kg of fuel are required to make the numbers add up, then I guess offloading pax or cargo to the equivalent of 600 kg is what does make the difference. It doesn't mean the plane would get into SYD on the last drop of fuel, because there would of course still be reserves, but that's what's required for the Captain to sign off I guess.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Problem with that is that pax are not actually weighed (or have you ever been when checking-in or boarding?)

We were when we flew from Kiev to Simferapol in 1999 - I guess with the dodgy plane we were on it was a good thing although a tad embarrassing.

 

[RAM]

We were when we flew from Kiev to Simferapol in 1999 - I guess with the dodgy plane we were on it was a good thing although a tad embarrassing.

Those shoes were REALLY well made - who'da guessed!

 

[maninblack]

I am not blaming QF as there are things beyond their control.

What was beyond their control?

 

[JohnK]

Another example of excellent yield management? I suppose the head winds can't be helped but a bit late to leave it till the passengers are at the gate IMO.

How about offloading freight first? Luggage?

If this was such a serious issue what would happen if they found out about the head winds after take-off? Turn back?

 

[straitman]

How about offloading freight first? Luggage?

If this was such a serious issue what would happen if they found out about the head winds after take-off? Turn back?

Just to put it into perspective as everyone is talking about it.

Flight planning is done on forecast winds. If a new forecast is issued and has a slight increase in headwind for part of a sector it could just be enough to push the numbers into the red. In that case offloading 6 pax and baggage may just be what is required to push them back into the black.

From what I've read I believe that there is not a lot of freight carried ex DFW so it's possible that off loading freight was not an option.

Once airborne pilots work with the real winds which sometimes make things better and sometimes make them worse.

If things are worse than planned then you look at the options which include changing levels and/or using some of the reserves. (That's what they are there for). If it still is not working then a diversion with all it's associated issues becomes a necessity.

 

[Danger]

Problem with that is that pax are not actually weighed (or have you ever been when checking-in or boarding?) but an average figure is used, and this figure does not change whether someone goes to the loo or not.

I'm genuinely surprised that in the seemingly cut-throat world of aviation costings, passengers aren't weighed at check-in. It would be completely blind; the check-in agent and even back-end staff would not know the weight of an individual passenger. At check-in, the passenger jumps on the scale, a light flashes at the agent's computer to say the weight has been recorded and off you go. Only the aggregate weight is recorded (eg. passenger 1, 79ks; passenger 2, 101kgs, passenger 3, 47kgs etc.). Surely it's something for LCCs to look at.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm genuinely surprised that in the seemingly cut-throat world of aviation costings, passengers aren't weighed at check-in. It would be completely blind; the check-in agent and even back-end staff would not know the weight of an individual passenger. At check-in, the passenger jumps on the scale, a light flashes at the agent's computer to say the weight has been recorded and off you go. Only the aggregate weight is recorded (eg. passenger 1, 79ks; passenger 2, 101kgs, passenger 3, 47kgs etc.). Surely it's something for LCCs to look at.

Except many LCCs prefer passengers to skip check-in at airports, so the weight would only be finalsised at boarding. Too late by then.

 

[love_the_life]

We were when we flew from Kiev to Simferapol in 1999 - I guess with the dodgy plane we were on it was a good thing although a tad embarrassing.

OT but for my work, we sometimes charter planes in the NT to bring people from community into bigger centres and also for us to visit community. It can be a bit embarrassing to ring the store and ask if so and so is a large person or a 'skinny one' so that we can get a handle on the number of passengers we can pick up. We've had staff members who have had to leave luggage behind to make the weight.

 

[DC3]

And your fare is adjusted by your weight at check-in. Some winners and some losers.

 

[Pushka]

I heard yesterday from colleague at work who is travelling overseas this month in Y with Cathay. Cathay have overbooked Y and their group was asked to travel a day earlier or later - in J class. They jumped at it.

 

[ellen10]

I heard yesterday from colleague at work who is travelling overseas this month in Y with Cathay. Cathay have overbooked Y and their group was asked to travel a day earlier or later - in J class. They jumped at it.

ooh thats nice!

 

[BD1959]

How about offloading freight first? Luggage?

If this was such a serious issue what would happen if they found out about the head winds after take-off? Turn back?

Was on a severely delayed QF5 early one SIN morning when, during taxy, the pilot announced we were overweight and as a consequence we had to sit on the runway (yes, that little traffic we held there) whilst he burnt off some fuel.

Regards,

BD