Weight restrictions on airbuses
- Thread starter crusher
- Start date
Yes, I've done all the training. However on this flight we were given only the one runway on the TPS. I did call the number at the bottom of the sheet and I did talk with my dispatcher also. And yes, dispatch is in PIT. My mistake. PIT, Philly they are all in a foreign land to me! Haven't been back to the east since the 80's.
N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,037
- 1,529
It is frustrating at times. Mostly when an agent doesn't enter the final pax count or the ramp doesn't enter the final cargo weights (and then goes to lunch). But, since you get paid by the hour, make one call or ACARS messsage advising "NO WT+BAL"and work on your Sudoku. You've done your job.
Must be nice staying West of the Mississippi River. However, you owe it to yourself to take a field trip to PHL just for fun. The city is great, lots of American History, The Mint, and don't forget those Cheesesteaks.
Wouldn't it be nice, in this computer world we live in, to have all the data needed to fly available via a notebook computer in the cockpit? Way back before BKI, several check airman were Beta-testing just such a device. Sadly, the program was ended never to be seen again.
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
Just seen on US Flight Status that US 942 SFO-PHL (Red-Eye) is being diverted to PIT. Can't make it Eastbound? Get rid of the plane.
Flagstop. When was the last time you saw that? 1485 SFO-PIT canx.
We asked for a flagstop from MCO-LAS one night a couple weeks back. Had about 12 conx from TPA that we were going to have to reroute anyway with the orig canx flight, but could get about 60 LAS customers on the flight if they stopped to pick them up. No would do since it would affect "many" conx from MCO (about 20 people). So because you MIGHT misconx 20 people, you'd rather strand 60 that we could definitely get to where they want to go to? Made no sense at all to us. In order for us to be an LCC, you'd think they would consider getting 60 there and MAYBE misconx 20 to be the lower cost option?
Flight # 1485
Depart San Francisco, CA
Date 12/31/2007
Gate
Scheduled 10:25 PM
Actual
Status Cancelled Flight Status
Diverted To
Date
Actual
Arrive Pittsburgh, PA
Date 1/1/2008
Gate
Scheduled 6:07 AM
Actual
Status Cancelled
USstew23
Veteran
The thing is that I can NEVER recall ANY of this stuff happening before on the East on any aircraft. It's just since the cutover to West using CLP that this happened (Not that its the fault of any West employees). Maybe one of the marketing people decided that the system needed to be "tweaked". Something has certainly gone sour though and that is for sure.
legacy-to-LCC
Veteran
- Feb 20, 2004
- 778
- 2
absolutely something is "sour"!!
considering that east used this system with a much more diverse fleet type and much more complex route structure.
enter regional HP...and a perfectly good system now projects w&b deficiencies on DCA-LGA?!?!?!?!?!?! how many nautical miles is that mission?
more proof that ANYTHING HP management touches breaks...and often beyond repair.
oh well, i will just bury my head in the sand like the rest of the DoUgIe lovers...
nevertheless, happy new year!!
I'd really like to know what the weight problems are on the short hops. Bash East or West all you want (seems all most of you are interested in anyway, slamming on your coworkers), but I'D like to figure out the OPs problem. WHY are these flights being restricted? I'm not talking "it's a bad East (or West) system, but the what's over? Is it a takeoff issue? Landing? Hell, I doubt it, but what about ZFW? I'm waiting to find out that it's actually a landing restriction due to hold fuel. That's where my money is. Carry extra hold fuel, but that fuel puts you over MLDW.
It was my experience short hop w&b problems were generally landing weight. The only solution was to lower the fuel load, and we frequently coordinated with the crew/dispatch to do that.
One of the more ludicrous situations was a B737-400 that was short hop in/ short hop out. Dispoatch fueled it thru our station, since we had higher fuel costs.
Problem was, given our outbound pax/cargo load, the a/c landed with enough fuel to make it overweight for departure (exceeded destination landing limit). Sooo, we wound up defueling the bird!
One would think one walk down this primrose path would suffice, and dispatch would get a clue. Wrong! It got to the point we monitered inbound loads and called dispatch before the flight was fueled upline to warn them of this condition.
After many calls and memos to no avail, we said "screw it, let the train wreck happen," causing many delays and added costs.
Only then did the powers that be wise up.
Funny....I work PHX-PHL pretty often and the only "delays" I've had have been trying to get out of PHL the next day. Unless I'm on one of the first flights out in the morning, my flights are always delayed. The later in the day it is, the worse it gets.
I also used to work the LAX-JFK, and LAX-BOS flights a lot when we had the transcons using the Airbus. NEVER, ever had a "fuel stop" diversion. Not even in the winter when we had headwinds.
I also used to work the LAX-JFK, and LAX-BOS flights a lot when we had the transcons using the Airbus. NEVER, ever had a "fuel stop" diversion. Not even in the winter when we had headwinds.
It's quite obvious that both systems worked fine prior to the merger. The "implementation"of the new system is what is producing unnecessary lost revenue and delays. Running a good Airline requires a strong commitment and understanding that we are in a operationally dependent business. It's not a conceptual industry that we are in. It's a totally operational. Other than lip service, there is simply no evidence to suggest that USAirways has a strong commitment to running an Airline from the ground up. We are a top down company and that is why we produce such poor results. No pilot East or West wants to arbitrarily leave weight behind in any form. Our business is simple "if" you understand that it is totally operationally driven...
i just worked a phl-las flt on the 31st that was weight restriced by 23 seats on the 757. i have never seen that before on the 757.
beachboy
Veteran
- Jul 7, 2006
- 1,484
- 48
We are run by people that think you can make more legroom by removing a headrest. Hello! 
The problem is getting worse. We never dealt with this crap before. "DING DONG" Pilot: "Load control needs to know how many people are sitting from rows 18-23 and then 30-33. They also want to know what they had for breakfast and also how many suitcases they checked. If they had pancakes or waffles they want them moved to row 11 forward but only if the person there is under 178 pounds." :blink: :blink: I mean seriously that was exaggerated but not by much. I am getting the strangest requests for counts. I just laugh. I am passed the point of even asking.
The problem is getting worse. We never dealt with this crap before. "DING DONG" Pilot: "Load control needs to know how many people are sitting from rows 18-23 and then 30-33. They also want to know what they had for breakfast and also how many suitcases they checked. If they had pancakes or waffles they want them moved to row 11 forward but only if the person there is under 178 pounds." :blink: :blink: I mean seriously that was exaggerated but not by much. I am getting the strangest requests for counts. I just laugh. I am passed the point of even asking.
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
How does WN do it when they have open seating? It appears something is going haywire. Where are they gonna do fuel stops BDA-PHL? PHX-HNL?
