runs as required Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Coming back from Malta to Newcastle last Saturday evening we sat loaded up (though with a fair number of empty seats) and ready for 2 hours on the tarmac while Easyjet tried to persuade 7 of us to 'volunteer' to leave with our baggage. The Captain initially explained it was due to excessive headwinds over northern Europe - which had speeded the outward flight southwards. He said compensation would be paid (though he didn't know how much) and accommodation and a later flight arranged by the Local Agent. What surprised me was that they only discovered the overloading after we'd boarded (though he must have filed his flightplan earlier), that it was a relatively low overloading, and they couldn't refuel at (say) Gatwick if they found they were actually in need. After the Captain announced that compensation would be 200 Euros, a youngish couple 'volunteered' and left. Then there was a long delay. Eventually after over an hour a further dribble of people began to leave after each having done a deal. Clearly the longer you held out, the better the deal. Finally we were told they'd got their 'volunteers' and we'd depart after their hold baggage had been offloaded. Before the days of the 'Market Economy' I remember a Comet IV flight from Cairo to London in the 1960s asked for Volunteers to leave an overloaded manifest. The Captain said "We make it worthwhile. You get £200 compensation, full board at a 5 star hotel and the next flight home in 2 days". I had a wonderful time during those two unexpected days exploring Cairo. dh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Presumably Cairo was a somewhat safer place back in the 1960s than now... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Coming back from Malta to Newcastle last Saturday evening we sat loaded up (though with a fair number of empty seats) and ready for 2 hours on the tarmac while Easyjet tried to persuade 7 of us to 'volunteer' to leave with our baggage. What kind of aircraft is this (that is unable to fly a regular scheduled service with a full fuel load)? (Unless EasyJet don't like to pay for a full fuel load.) I'm wondering if it was an older aircraft (like a 737) that was substituting for a newer version of the aircraft regularly used. Cairo to Newcastle could tax the range of the older 737s but is easily in the reach of the newer variants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Many years ago I was flying back to the UK from Los Angeles. They tried this trick. My daughter, about 13 at the time, wanted to stay on. I said no, as she had to be home for school. A chap behind us in the line told me that if you did want to stay for a couple of extra days then wait for a couple of hours and take a chance that the "bribes" would improve. They usually did and he was a regular who took advantage of the situation. Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted November 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 10, 2015 Something sort of related to this (but not really thinking about it) is that certain offshore safety provisions and boat capacities are based on an assumed average weight per person of 82.75Kg and there is great resistance to increasing that to 95Kg. Now maybe I live in an area of great obesity but if I look around an assumed weight of 95Kg is not particularly generous and 82Kg is not realistic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickstart Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Hi When I worked in Belgium and flew back regularly they often asked for volunteers for a later flight. I regularly volunteered but they never took me up on it. But it did get me quite a few upgrades from economy. All the best Katy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only-Me Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I once used the jump seat on an Aer Lingus flight from Cork to Heahrow.... Oh the good old days have now long gone! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitchinLoco Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Just adding my experience much nicer admitted, but back in the late 90's at Gatwick to Florida the flight was well over booked and wanted 20 ish to stand down. My party was 8 as a family so asked what entailed...Free Tickets each anywhere the airline traveled, and the bad news was the next flight was an hour later!! Bril. My sis and hubby were already using there free tickets from the last trip they stood down. Happened alot back then, do not know about now? Sadly not on my next flight on free tickets! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
runs as required Posted November 10, 2015 Author Share Posted November 10, 2015 What kind of aircraft is this (that is unable to fly a regular scheduled service with a full fuel load)? (Unless EasyJet don't like to pay for a full fuel load.) I'm wondering if it was an older aircraft (like a 737) that was substituting for a newer version of the aircraft regularly used. Cairo to Newcastle could tax the range of the older 737s but is easily in the reach of the newer variants. Last Saturday's Malta - Newcastle Easyjet was an Airbus A320. I reckon you'd be right about Easyjet not liking to pay outside their fuel cost envelope. dh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Looks like this route uses the A320-214 Although this route is within range, when fully fuelled, the range decreases with head wind, passenger load, and baggage load, then finally landing requirements Presumably all was looking well until the head wind was taken into account I suspect the landing requirements became the restriction after the fuel and baggage load were known Removing 7 passengers works out at about 800kg, showing how accurate their calculation was! Equally, when I watch the loading numbers (for fuel) at Glasgow Airport, it is very rare to see an aircraft filled to the brim! It is nearer to the range for the route plus about 20% Even the B757 that operate from Glasgow Airport to Newark (New York) only take about 85% of the maximum they could take Instead they request Track A or B, rather than fill to the brim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekl Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 What kind of aircraft is this (that is unable to fly a regular scheduled service with a full fuel load)? (Unless EasyJet don't like to pay for a full fuel load.) I'm wondering if it was an older aircraft (like a 737) that was substituting for a newer version of the aircraft regularly used. Cairo to Newcastle could tax the range of the older 737s but is easily in the reach of the newer variants. Easyjet use newish A320s, not 737s. Big issue on the purchase of new aircraft between Stelios and current management recently (current management won, if I read the stories correctly). Seems a bit odd - you would expect them to be able to fly a full load. Although not exactly a frequent flyer, I find it rare not to be in a full aircraft. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 What kind of aircraft is this (that is unable to fly a regular scheduled service with a full fuel load)? Happens in the US as well. About a year ago, we flew United Express from Houston to Calgary. At checkin, they were weighing everything very carefully. Then my son heard the gate agent being given directions by a manager which included the phrase "No compensation". They appealed for volunteers to be bumped. I don't know what was being offered, but it evidently wasn't enough, as they loaded the plane then announced that, because of headwinds, we would stop at Denver to refuel. As a result, we missed our connecting Calgary-Vancouver flight plus the following one, which was the last of the night. United did put us up for the night in an airport hotel, but would not pay for food, or for our extra parking costs at Vancouver airport. (As part of the correspondence about this, I was told that unexpected headwinds encountered after takeoff from Houston had caused the pilot to divert to Denver for extra fuel - a straight lie.) (Can you tell that I don't like United?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (Can you tell that I don't like United?) Does anyone like United? I know lots of United frequent flyers - and they do so only because of the flights offered where they live. Canadians get stuck with United because of the Air Canada Star Alliance partnership. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Pushing medium range jets to (almost) long haul flights seems to be an unintended consequence that goes back to US deregulation. With deregulation, the hub system, along with fleet standardization on medium range jets like the 737 or A320 became the norm. What this thread shows is how stretched this system gets as the new versions of those airframes offer extended range options, along with more point-to-point, straight-line navigation and airlines trying to offer flights further from their hubs - all bound by the envelope of maximizing fuel-consumption over flight time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakydoke Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 ?.....when I watch the loading numbers (for fuel) at Glasgow Airport, it is very rare to see an aircraft filled to the brim!It is nearer to the range for the route plus about 20% Even the B757 that operate from Glasgow Airport to Newark (New York) only take about 85% of the maximum they could takeInstead they request Track A or B, rather than fill to the brim It doesn't work like that, planes are not filled "to the brim". The fuel carried is a carefully calculated amount to be sufficient for the planned route to destination, including weather and wind expected en-route. Factors taken into consideration include aircraft weight (including number of passengers, baggage, freight etc), available take off runway length, runway conditions and local air temperature. There is also the legally required fuel for a minimum of 30 minutes holding in the air at the destination, in case there's a delay in landing due to factors like weather, traffic delay, blocked runway or other operational reasons. There then has to be enough fuel to make an approach to landing, perform a "go around" if a landing approach has to be abandoned. If a landing or subsequent attempt to land is not possible then there has to be fuel to fly to the chosen alternate (diversion) airfield listed in the flight plan, fuel to hold at the alternate airfield (same reasons) and for a landing. That is all required by law. Extra fuel may be carried for other reasons, on top of which pilots traditionally like to add a bit extra for contingency, but this is now a carefully calculated figure too. Having worked out the required fuel load, there is very little scope to carry extra, unless for valid reasons. Unnecessary extra fuel is extra weight, which in itself requires fuel to be burned to carry it. In other words it's highly uneconomical to do so and avoided unless for safety or commercial reasons. There is absolutely no question of infringing the minimum safe and legal requirements, but above that the margins these days are very tight and highly managed, due to the enormous cost of operating commercial aircraft (fuel is just one factor) and the relatively low profit margins. With regards to the flight in question, a couple of factors that may have come into play on that day, apart from the strong headwinds and longish distance, would be the forecast weather conditions on arrival at Newcastle (strong crosswinds, low visibility, low cloud, thunderstorms etc,), which may have delayed or prevented a landing and the distance and fuel required to fly to the alternate airfield that was filed on the flight plan. Even with good weather forecast at Newcastle, the distance to the alternate airfield would still be significant regardless. The alternate is mostly dictated by the airline company's requirements or policy, but could be impacted on by the forecast weather there, or any number of considerations. It is most likely that barring any weather or other operational reasons pertaining on the day, the alternate airfield would have been another airport that EasyJet operate from, or one of their operational bases. That could for example be Manchester, Edinburgh or even as far away as Gatwick. When you work that lot out, you can see that suddenly you are carrying a lot of fuel, all those factors I mentioned above come into play and the limits of range, fuel and payload are reached. Hence the aircraft being calculated as "overloaded" and a need to shed payload, I.e. Passengers and their bags. I hope that makes sense? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Metr0Land Posted November 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 11, 2015 Pushing medium range jets to (almost) long haul flights seems to be an unintended consequence that goes back to US deregulation. With deregulation, the hub system, along with fleet standardization on medium range jets like the 737 or A320 became the norm. What this thread shows is how stretched this system gets as the new versions of those airframes offer extended range options, along with more point-to-point, straight-line navigation and airlines trying to offer flights further from their hubs - all bound by the envelope of maximizing fuel-consumption over flight time. Indeed, I recall in the 80's and 90's Cathay Pacific had this phrase 'economic misuse of resourses'. ie if your route network in theory meant you need 25 x Boeing 747 and 10 x Tristar they'd buy 35 x 747 as the hassle of having not quite the right aircraft on the day on some occasions was more than outweighed by the cost savings on spares/training etc of standarising on one type. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PMP Posted November 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 11, 2015 Oakydokes post is reasonably accurate, and covers suitably the primary reasons that will have been addressed, there are other factors that come into play regarding the specific aircraft, engine power for example. Some sectors are flown as 'tanking' sectors depending on fuel costs, ie the aircraft will take extra fuel as its cheaper to fuel at a specific location, a tanking sector can have an impact on the available load to be carried. Offload of pax or bags/cargo is a standard procedure. In extremis if there aren't sufficient volunteers the flight can be cancelled, and the aircraft subsequently positioned empty to the destination. En route diversions to pick up fuel aren't an option as the costs associated with it are too expensive, and can have other implications regarding the operation of the aircraft and crew utilisation. easyJet/Ryanair don't operate hub and spoke systems, they are point to point carriers. The adoption of 737/A320 family types wasn't due to deregulation, it was due to fuel economy after the US fuel crisis in the 70's, the high by pass ratio jets were developed which gave fuel economy and noise improvements. In Europe there's rarely any straight line navigation available, and air space is at a premium so planned flight levels may not be available impacting on fuel burn significantly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Are there still circumstances where aircraft "dump" fuel before landing, and if so how often? This would seem a good reason for not filling to the brim. I also wonder if the fuel is cheaper at a "home" airport for the operator. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted November 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 11, 2015 Are there still circumstances where aircraft "dump" fuel before landing, and if so how often? This would seem a good reason for not filling to the brim. I also wonder if the fuel is cheaper at a "home" airport for the operator. I think only as a last resort. I'm sure I've heard cases of problems being found after takeoff that don't affect the safety of the plane in the air but do make landing dangerous, and the plane has ended up circling for a couple of hours to burn off the fuel (must've felt a lot longer for everyone on the plane). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Are there still circumstances where aircraft "dump" fuel before landing, and if so how often? This still happens is the plain has to land for an emergency of some form like a plain problem, or a health problem of a passenger, remove passengers who are causing trouble on the plane etc. So there is too much fuel on the plane to land safely for fire risk. I think only as a last resort. I'm sure I've heard cases of problems being found after takeoff that don't affect the safety of the plane in the air but do make landing dangerous, and the plane has ended up circling for a couple of hours to burn off the fuel (must've felt a lot longer for everyone on the plane). Fuel will only be dumped as a last resort, usually as a matter of safety or operational expediency, following the sort of unexpected problems alluded to by GWR 1835 and Reorte above. It is only done if the aircraft will be above its maximum permitted landing weight, on landing. There are however, many aircraft types that don't have the facility to dump fuel, so they'll just fly around and use it up (colloquially - "burn off"). Sometimes that can take a long time. Landing above the max. landing weight could lead to over stress or even damage to the airframe, but at the very least would require an inspection which would result in it being taken out of service for a period of time. Higher landing weight could affect the approach and landing speed, so has implications if runway length or weather limitations are a factor. Usually carrying out a landing above limits would only take place in a dire emergency, where there was an immediate threat to the safety and lives of the aircraft, crew and passengers. Fuel dumping, or burning off fuel isn't too regularly an occurrence, but does happen every now and then, particularly when an aircraft has to return to the departure airport, or divert to another for whatever reason not long after take off and sufficient fuel hasn't yet been used to reduce the aircraft weight to below the maximum landing weight. i.e. It depends how long the aircraft has been airborne and how much fuel has been used up. The length of time required to dump or burn off fuel depends on the total load and fuel carried, so heavily laden long haul flights are affected most, particularly with the larger wide body types. Many flights operated on short haul and European flights will easily be within weight limits and will be able to return and land straight away, as they'll be under the max landing weight on take off. or shortly afterwards. The once fairly common ferrying, or "tanking" of fuel is less frequently carried out these days due to the costs involved outweighing the advantages. Many airlines will nowadays almost never do it, except where commercial or operational necessity prevails. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 As for volunteering to be off loaded, about 4 years ago our friends were on the way to Oz via Dubai with Emirates as a family of three. At Heathrow they were asked if they would volunteer to be "bumped" and were offered suitable compensation. As the other Heathrow and Gatwick departures to Dubai were chocked full, they were offered a departure from Birmingham later in the day, which would connect with the next Dubai-OZ flight. That obviously required some sweetening to entice them. The deal was.... Limo whisked them from Heathrow to BHX (Brum airport). (They arrived with just over an hour and a bit before departure). Upgraded to Business class (sleeper seats) all the way to OZ and for the later return to London via Dubai. The upgrade provided use of the Executive lounge at Dubai (both ways) and Sydney on return. Free economy return tickets for three from the UK to Dubai, for a future flight (to be taken with a year). Plus a cash figure, which I can't remember, but think was about £200 or so. After rather quick consideration they took it. Arrived in OZ only a few hours late, had a tale to tell and later that year had a cheap weeks holiday in Dubai. They upgraded the free tickets to Business class with the Emirates points earned on the previous trip, so basically they had got 3 Free return Business Class tickets. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 So very common in my experience flying internally within US and Canada. Always took advantage when the schedule allowed, of obtaining tax free money from a flight the employer paid for. There aren't many free rides in this world, so you need to grab them when available. The loot went straight into my 'hobbies' pot, so it still brings joy in the way of books, music reproduction, and on the layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Does anyone like United? I know lots of United frequent flyers - and they do so only because of the flights offered where they live. Canadians get stuck with United because of the Air Canada Star Alliance partnership. Well, United are at least decent when re-booking due to issues. I think they get lots of practice. Not may favourite airline, especially after dumping me at O'Hare at midnight with a hotel voucher that the hotel wouldn't honour (wouldn't send the shuttlebus for the half-dozen of us, claiming that they were full). They are (or were when I was flying) relatively cheap. The only time I've actively avoided flying United was when one of the legs was going to be operated by Shuttle America (a United connector). Having flown that (Denver to Toronto) leg on Shuttle America before, I wasn't going to do it again. I booked Portland-Dallas-Toronto on American rather than Portland-Denver-Toronto on United. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted November 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 11, 2015 With aircraft fuel, is it generally tax free on international flights (or perhaps all flights?), as it is effectively being 'exported'? Just curious as local taxes would make a significant difference to the fuel price? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
runs as required Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 Many thanks to you all for taking the trouble to reply with some most interesting info. A highpoint in my life was enjoying a PPL briefly back in my thirties flying a Cessna onto high altitude bush strips to get around my building sites in East Africa (often as not following the EAR&H railway lines) in the days when a 'computer' was a circular slide rule strapped to my knee. ...Which is why I still try to follow what the flight deck might be up to during a flight. I found out later in the Malta-Newcastle flight that refuelling in France could cost 50,00 Euros, that some 'volunteers' had effectively recouped the cost of their holiday and others accepted a future free flight! On a Jet2.com flight a few years ago we had an emergency detour to land at Geneva for a guy to be met by ambulance and para medics after suffering a heart attack (a quicker response from 40,000 ft than I had from home a few years back !). We had to wait while we took extra fuel on board then. dh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.