Possible scam with take-off weight at Ryanair

[RCMike]

Anyway...
I don't really believe (read: i can hardly imagine) that this was just a mistake...
You just don't decide your MTOW in 1,2,3...
You do studies about it and then pick what suits your operations best.

[sn26567]

I take a few days holiday, and the kindergarten opens again.

Gentlemen, please, can we talk like civilised people in this forum without saying harsh words about our colleagues?

Thanks!

[sean1982]

According to Eurocontrol (Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on route charges | EUROCONTROL):

"The MTOW declared should be the maximum certificated take-off weight of the aircraft. In the case of multiple certificated take-off weights, the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration."

And as in Ireland everytime an engineer assigns a new MTOW to the aircraft (according to Boeing procedures) that will be the highest weight authorised for that airplane. In other words, if an engineer changes the weight of the airplane to 66.990kg that will be the highest authorised weight for the IAA untill it gets changed again.

RCMike please read, thanks

[RCMike]

I can read... I gave my opinion! good to read yours... again!

[sean1982]

friendly .. whatever, I'm waisting my time here

[sean1982]

I'll try and explain how it's works:

Most FR flights are short enough to be operated with a low MTOW of 66.990kg. At the start of the day the pilots will look at the flights, planned pax loads and fuel and decide if the flights are possible. On the longer flights obviously 66.990 kg will not suffice and they will call engineering to effectivlt change the MTOW to 69.990 or even 74.990 (very unsual) They will then change the weight in the tech log and on the flightdeck placard and email the IAA about the change. At the end of the day the planes will be returned to 66.990 and this will then again be emailed to the iAA.

So yes, you can change your MTOW in 1,2,3 and ryanair did choose what suits them best.

[fcw]

Anyway...
I don't really believe
You just don't decide your MTOW in 1,2,3...

Well yes you do and the only reason this option is offered by both Airbus and Boeing is reducing ATC fees, there is absolutely no other benefit in it.

[FlightMate]

It´s indeed annoying to always read about Ryanair being bad, being dangerous, etc...
It seems there is a word amongst journos to talk about Ryanair in a bad way every week.

I personnaly would feel safer flying with Ryanair than with AF!

On this topic, a lot of airlines use different MTOW depending on their destinations, and indeed, it´s to save on ATC fees.

Hell, why would you use a A380 at MTOW to fly CDG-LHR for example.

My question now is: doensn´t SN do the same? And if not, why not? (They could save money by doing it)

[OO-ITR]

I still have to read the first factual post from you

why dont you try harder and have a closer look on this forum Im sure you can do it

In fact I'm the first one to admit when FR makes mistakes, and yes, I do not regard HLN.be good journalists. Furthermore the 3 people commenting on me here, are the only 3 FR bashers on the forum, 'nough said

you can hardly call Die Welt and De Standaard bad journalists !

[teddybAIR]

I have the impression we need to make the discussion a lilttle more objective again, so therefore a few questions. Can anyone enlighten me on the official definitions of the following terms:

> Maximum Take-off Weight
> Maximum Allowable Take-off Weight
> Flex Weight

I can not help it, but I have the impression that throughout the different posts in this thread, we talk about different of the above terms. So let's get our vocabulary on the same page before continuing the discussion, shall we?

[earthman]

It would appear from one of the quoted articles that what Ryanair did was declare the plane MTOW to be 67 tons but then taking off at more than 67 tons.

[Flanker2]

I can explain the issue as I've been briefed on it.

Ryanair can change the MTOW as they wish for the B738. It's called a paper de-rate.
Benefits are of many natures, going from reduced ATC fees to reduced landing fees and reduced parking fees.

Some instances such as Eurocontrol and German institutions work with individual aircraft profiles instead of per individual flights, because their billing systems are primitive and they can't take the workload of having to bill each flight with a variable MTOW parameter (they could but they don't want to).

So in such instance, you need to declare the highest that aircraft is going to use as this is put inside the aircraft profile for the billing. If you de-rate it further it still has the benefit as other airspace or airport providers may accept to take the MTOW per flight.

For me, this is clear.
Ryanair messed up and will have to pay for every penny they didn't pay. They should also be fined for wrongful declarations.

Even clearer is that amateurs are running the billing departments at Eurocontrol and in Germany, and that they finally hired some professional who smelled something fishy.
To me, it seems unfair that Ryanair and any other airline should pay for MTOW that they aren't using, and as such, it's for Eurocontrol and Germany to adapt their billing system, so that they can bill each flight separately.

On the other hand, Eurocontrol or Germany could have done this on purpose to generate interest from unpaid fees, so they shouldn't be entitled to interests on the unpaid sums.

Even better would be to switch from landing fees to take-off fees (what lands today eventually takes-off later on or another day, unless it's parked for a long time, and parking generates fees anyway) and to calculate all airspace usage fees based on take-off weight iso MTOW. The reason they don't do that... is because it will put more pressure on the fuel policies at individual airlines.

[tolipanebas]

Some instances such as Eurocontrol work with individual aircraft profiles instead of per individual flights, because their billing systems are primitive and they can't take the workload of having to bill each flight with a variable MTOW parameter.

Primitive or not, it's the rule and it is clearly stated by them that things are done this way too, BTW.

I wonder which part of the text:

In the case of multiple certificated take-off weights, the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration."

Ryanair doesn't fully understand?
If the explanation sean1982 gave would have been acceptable, then the above text is completely useless because an aircraft can never have multiple certified take-off weights at once, can it?
The text is there to point out that eurocontrol does not accept the flex weight (or similar) program Boeing (as well as other manufacturers) have come up with and still bases its bills on the highest MTOW version written on the official certificates of the plane, not on what some engineer writes in the tech log of the flight as that's not a re-certification or anything like that, it's just a maintenance release to operate within the existing certification.

Ryanair messed up and will have to pay for every penny they didn't pay. They should also be fined for wrongful declarations.

The flex weight program of Boeing is not nearly as useful as they claim it to be since Eurocontrol doesn't want of it. You can be forgiven for needing a briefing on it, but seriously, an airline that runs 300+ Boeing planes, didn't know that???? Or did they, yet decided to try and see if they could get away with it nevertheless?

it would be to switch from landing fees to take-off fees (what lands today eventually takes-off later on or another day, unless it's parked for a long time, and parking generates fees anyway) and to calculate all airspace usage fees based on take-off weight iso MTOW. The reason they don't do that... is because it will put more pressure on the fuel policies at individual airlines.

I agree with you, although such a system is even more widely open to scams than the present one, but if done correctly it would indeed force everybody to pay the right fees AND it would slightly favour airlines that run with lower loadfactors as you'll basically only pay for what you use then. Surely Ryanair can't be against that, can it, even if it means it will have to pay even more then?

[fcw]

It would appear from one of the quoted articles that what Ryanair did was declare the plane MTOW to be 67 tons but then taking off at more than 67 tons.

Not at all, and that is why I called it bullshit from the journo!
The aircraft were derated to 67 tons and took off LESS than that weight, BUT the germans want taxes paid on 75 tons which is the maximum certified take off weight for the 737-8.
I will try again to make it clear:
FAA/EASA certify the 737-8 up to 75 ton.
Operators can derate it to 70, 65,... this derate takes is just paperwork and takes minutes, as long as it is derated the pilots respect the derated weight. If more weight is needed an engineer is called to remove the derate.
Ryanair was paying fees on the derated weight, the germans want to be paid for max certified take off weight.
Airbus has the same, be it a bit more complicated, option. Numerous airlines around the world accept it, numerous air traffic services accept it.
Is this really front page news???

[Inquirer]

is this really front page news???

A violation of rules -unintentional or not- by Ryan Air which can lead to rectifications of up to M50€ per annum is definitely worth being reported on, IMHO.

After reading through this topic, I can't but wonder how on earth something like this is possible in an airline as big as Ryan Air? Very humiliating to have an external audit reveil these kind of elementary administrative deficiencies in your operations.

It isn't the first time QC at Ryan Air was found caught napping, unless all these slips are indeed not so unintended as the airline wants to make believe? One can't but notice that each time the error played out advantageous to the airline.

[sean1982]

Well MTOW changes and updating of the registry etc are the national aviation authorities task. If they let on FR to believe that it was possible when it was not is is the IAA's responsibility and not the airline

[Passenger]

We will probably have more details when someone from the brand new Ryanair Pilots Union reacts here.

http://www.ryanairpilotgroup.com

[9vsmu]

maybe a bit off topic, but MTOW can change per flight.

The 747-400F has variable MZFW, going from 276000 up to 288000. Apart from the fact that other limitations such as cg-limits and cummulative loads change, the MTOW is also affected.

This can vary from 394625 (at mzfw 276691) to 367863 (at 288031).

I wonder what weight is used for calculating the fees.

[Inquirer]

Well MTOW changes and updating of the registry etc are the national aviation authorities task. If they let on FR to believe that it was possible when it was not is is the IAA's responsibility and not the airline

Sorry Sean, but while I fully understand what you want to say here, I don't agree with it for the simple reason national aviation authorities are not supposed to be bothering about any commercial or financial aspects which stem from their official rules and their legislation.

I think it was flanker2, or possibly tolip, who said that just because they have allowed the use a certain procedure from the Boeing toolbox, mustn't mean that procedure also has to come with all of the financial benefits you hope for and Boeing eagerly talks about when it tries to sell their planes.

In this case, whereas the procedure was approved indeed, it seems it is also 'de facto' rather pointless given one partner in the commercial process doesn't want to take it into consideration for calculating its fees: knowing that and taking it into consideration for real world use is not the responsibility of the Irish aviation authorities, it's that of the airline as the authorities are not supposed to know where or what you intend to do with all the possibilities they approve for use by you.

As somebody who's involved in QC myself, I find it very weird that an airline the size of Ryan Air needs to be told about all this; I must say that apart from product quality and consistency itself, procedural compliance is one of the key domains of QC, especially in today's day and age where all industrial processes are governed by loads of rules and directives from different authorities.

[fcw]

Why does everybody blame FR??
Shouldn't we blaming the German authorities?
When FR pays less in CRL than BruAir in Bru it is unfair, but when FR has to pay more you find it normal, strange!
I will make it clear with an example:
EZY buys two factory fresh 319's (G-EZYA and G-EZYB) with a max certified TOW of 70 ton and uses them, in accordance with an Airbus option at variable Max TOW of 64, 66 and 68 ton.
After 5 years G-EZYA is sold to BruAir, who can't afford new aircraft, and becomes OO-BRU, with 66ton as Max TOW on its Airworthiness Certificate.
One day both in Berlin, G-EZYB (derated to 66ton on that day) and OO-BRU both operate BER-BRU, they both take off with 60ton, well under their maximum weight. So both aircraft are identical, the have the same Max TOW and the same actual TOW and are operating the same route.
According to the German authorities EZY will have to pay more in fees than BruAIr.
Is this fair? Level playing field anybody?