Future330Capt
Newbie
- Aug 23, 2007
- 7
- 0
3 degrees on rwy 9 compared to 3.6 on rwy 27 is about 2 to 3 fpm more on the appr in relation to your weight not a big deal Now if you want to see step angle approaches check out london city airport.
Weight restrictions on airbuses
- Thread starter crusher
- Start date
3 degrees on rwy 9 compared to 3.6 on rwy 27 is about 2 to 3 fpm more on the appr in relation to your weight not a big deal Now if you want to see step angle approaches check out london city airport.
Problem is...it depends on the config of OAK,SJC,MRY and the surrounding commercial airports to allow for a Runway 01R approach plus the terrain is a factor as well.
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
That is a rare event landing on 1 in SFO. I was there a few years ago when they were just using the 28's for Takeoffs and Landings and the 1's were shut down due to OAK Ops they said. By the time my flight taxied out, we took off from 1L, first one of the day. Back in late 90's I was in the UA terminal and there were using 28's for both that day, but I remember that most jets taking off from 28 do a hard 90 degree turn right just after they left the ground. UA's 777 was amazing to watch turn. Also at the end of 28 when the Asian flights go over the Rental Garage, that sure shakes you.
Future330Capt
Newbie
- Aug 23, 2007
- 7
- 0
Wanted to follow up with my corporate.communications email and the followup I've been getting from various people who have responded. I have asked for and received permission to share the info in the following email with my fellow employees.
Hi XXXXXX,
I just wanted to give you an update of where we are with our review and analysis of the restricted flights. We analyzed a full year's worth of data and identified every flight that was flagged as "capped" or "restricted" in the Sabre FOS system. Without getting into the nitty-gritty details, I can tell you that there are a few problems that we have identified that we are addressing. To give you an example, we have found that although nothing in the FOS system has changed, it appears that with the increasing capability of the customer to select their own seats through the website or at the kiosks, that problems for load-critical aircraft such as the B737-400 and A321 are created under light loading conditions. Since we use actual seat assignment providing the most accurate assessment of balance possible, when the majority of customers choose to sit forward in the cabin, we tend to be out of balance forward of the forward CG limits. We are taking immediate action to correct this by re-evaluating the CG limits and possibly expanding for relief. We have to this point been fairly conservative with the development of our CG envelope and there may be some room for improvement. These changes must be approved by the FAA and we're likely looking at 3-4 weeks for implementation. There are a few other items we're working on as well to improve the FOS product including better payload prediction modeling that will help in the identification of "restricted" flights. You can expect to see additional changes within the next few months.
Please understand that up until the end of last year, the major focus of our effort has been centered on a safe and legal transition to a single certificate and FOS implementation for "west" operations. While this is not an excuse and I take full responsibility for the data and systems we are charged with maintaining, I think it is important to understand the influences on our decision-making. When we had a choice between two philosophies, we necessarily chose the more conservative approach so we wouldn't jeopardize the certificate merge and/or FOS integration. We are now better able to analyze and tweak the system for efficiencies. Please accept my apologies for any pain caused at the station level, but know we are working hard to improve things.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks!
XXXX
So, now they know there's a problem. Let's see how its handled and how long it takes to get some things back on track.
For what it's worth, my flight out of LAS (to clt) last week had these issues. Agents said it was restricted and I was the last non-rev to get on the aircraft, despite the fact that several seats were still empty.
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
A 757 should make that route no problem, even an A321. I guess it is better to upset a few customers than to add a few gallons of fuel. Where is the logic, remember that the people bumped from this flight just adds weight to the next. Maybe those passengers got lucky, flew another carrier.
