JetBlue TrueBlue - Passengers removed due to weight balance!

I was on JetBlue 91 from JFK to OAK on Apr 9.

About 10 minutes after everyone boarded and they closed the cabin doors,
the cabin doors were opened again and a JetBlue agent came on board.
He called off the names of about 6 passengers and asked them to identify themselves. He then said that because of "wing weight and balance issues",
everyone who was flying standby had to leave the plane, and their
luggage would be offloaded and returned to them. Some very unhappy people
got up and left. Then he picked several remaining passengers and asked
them to move to different seats, again citing "wing weight and balance issues".
The rest of us were stunned.

Has anyone else experienced this or know what the back story is?

Not uncommon to limit number of passengers on a plane and/or shuffle them around to balance the plane out, but this is more common on smaller regional planes. Certainly after the door is closed to the plane, and everyone is seated, is probably not too common.

The weight count (passengers+cargo) should be performed earlier I think. But, maybe a late change in flight path and/or unexpected weather enroute might require extra fuel and the need to offload some folks? Just some thoughts

If the winds were strong they would need to offload pax to lighten the load so as to avoid a fuel stop. On a full plane balance is generally less of an issue, though if they had some particularly heavy and dense cargo moving bodies around above might be necessary.

At the end of the day I trust those computers they use quite a bit to get that stuff right and if I'm told to move for W&B I do it without fail. Better for the plane to go up at the end of the runway than not. ;)

I've been asked to move only a few times, and even then only on the E190, and when there were only a few people (less than 10) on the flight. sbm12 was probably right in that it was to avoid a fuel stop.

If any of those passengers weren't standby, though, wouldn't they receive the $1000 denied boarding compensation? I definitely wouldn't mind waiting around until the next flight if that was the case.

Has anyone else experienced this or know what the back story is?

There is no backstory. Prior to departure, the flight crew must perform weight and balance calculations on the aircraft to ensure that it can be safely operated on the available runways and in flight through a specified flight plan (taking into account weather activity). If there's an issue, then some weight must be either removed or redistributed to allow safe operation.

Standby customers know that at any time, for any reason, they may be asked to deplane and rebook.

A320s with full fuel are a little bit sensitive to load balance.

A320s with full fuel are a little bit sensitive to load balance.

So what is reason why some passengers has been removed off the aircraft due to weight restrictions? So what about the luggage will be removed off the cargo hold. So it extremely very uncomfortable for the customers who is not standby on the flight. So he will try fly next flight out of JFK-OAK. So I think it would be very extremely headwinds over transcons flight in between Arizona & Nevada or Utah. I think the winds will be settle down by few days to getting better for those days. So the weight balance are very heavy for the luggage who already into the cargo hold.

There is no backstory. Prior to departure, the flight crew must perform weight and balance calculations on the aircraft to ensure that it can be safely operated on the available runways and in flight through a specified flight plan (taking into account weather activity). If there's an issue, then some weight must be either removed or redistributed to allow safe operation.

Standby customers know that at any time, for any reason, they may be asked to deplane and rebook.
OK, that does make sense. It is sobering though to think that a fully booked plane may be too heavy to fly safely without offloading.
Since the calculations are that critical, I assume they would have also bumped regular passengers if there weren't enough standby passengers
to bump.
Can they weigh the entire loaded plane or are they just guessing based on the baggage weight? Since they don't weigh the passengers, what would have happened if the flight has an excess of obese passengers or skinny/child passengers.

So was it a situation where a full plane couldn't have made it without a fuel stop?

Can they weigh the entire loaded plane or are they just guessing based on the baggage weight? Since they don't weigh the passengers, what would have happened if the flight has an excess of obese passengers or skinny/child passengers.

They use a standard weight per passenger, and IIRC it's 150 pounds, which is too low but that's what the book says to do. Also IIRC the aircraft prefers to have weight toward the front rather than the rear. Unloading luggage is a problem because you have to match passengers with luggage if you don't want even more irate passengers.

If any of those passengers weren't standby, though, wouldn't they receive the $1000 denied boarding compensation? I definitely wouldn't mind waiting around until the next flight if that was the case.

Not sure where the $1000 figure comes from, but if they needed to remove confirmed pax, they should have asked for volunteers first. In the case where they did remove anyone non-voluntarily, they should have been paid IDB compensation of the ticket price for that segment or two times the ticket price of the segment, depending on how long the they were delayed to their destination. Those figures are capped at $400/$800. The full rules are here (http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/part%20250.pdf).

They use a standard weight per passenger, and IIRC it's 150 pounds, which is too low but that's what the book says to do.

The current numbers are 190 summer, 195 winter. This includes carry-on luggage, but not checked. Children 2-13 are counted as 82/87 pounds. See the end of this (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/us/faa-reviews-rules-on-passenger-weight-after-crash.html)article for more details.

Even though the passengers were standby, once they are issued a confirmed seat assignment, they are no longer standby.

I sure hope they received IDB compensation.

Wirelessly posted (Apple iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)


If any of those passengers weren't standby, though, wouldn't they receive the $1000 denied boarding compensation? I definitely wouldn't mind waiting around until the next flight if that was the case.

Not sure where the $1000 figure comes from, but if they needed to remove confirmed pax, they should have asked for volunteers first. In the case where they did remove anyone non-voluntarily, they should have been paid IDB compensation of the ticket price for that segment or two times the ticket price of the segment, depending on how long the they were delayed to their destination. Those figures are capped at $400/$800. The full rules are here (http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/part%20250.pdf).

They use a standard weight per passenger, and IIRC it's 150 pounds, which is too low but that's what the book says to do.

The current numbers are 190 summer, 195 winter. This includes carry-on luggage, but not checked. Children 2-13 are counted as 82/87 pounds. See the end of this (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/us/faa-reviews-rules-on-passenger-weight-after-crash.html)article for more details.

The $1000 figure comes from B6's own Passenger Bill of Rights that states that IDB compensation is $1000.

Not sure where the $1000 figure comes from, but if they needed to remove confirmed pax, they should have asked for volunteers first. In the case where they did remove anyone non-voluntarily, they should have been paid IDB compensation of the ticket price for that segment or two times the ticket price of the segment, depending on how long the they were delayed to their destination. Those figures are capped at $400/$800. The full rules are here (http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/part%20250.pdf).


JetBlue has their own bill of rights (http://jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html) for customers, which states:

Customers who are involuntarily denied boarding shall receive $1,000.

Standby customers know that at any time, for any reason, they may be asked to deplane and rebook.It may be the truth that standby passengers "may be asked to deplane and rebook" at any time and for any reason, but I doubt that standby passengers know that. I bet that most figure that once they're on the plane, they're good to go.


Even though the passengers were standby, once they are issued a confirmed seat assignment, they are no longer standby.Where is this stated? Is it in the contract of carriage? DOT regs?

It is sobering though to think that a fully booked plane may be too heavy to fly safely without offloading.

Every airplane has weight limits. The max takeoff weight can be limited by the max structural weight , takeoff climb limit weight, takeoff runway limit weight, takeoff obstacle limit weight, brake energy limit, tire speed limit, max landing weight limit (structural or performance), terrain clearance/driftdown weight limits, or enroute fuel limit weights. It's all calculated prior to each takeoff and whichever limit is more restricting would be their max takeoff weight limit.

JFK-OAK is pushing the range of the A320. With strong headwinds, you aren't going to be able to take a full load.

Can they weigh the entire loaded plane or are they just guessing based on the baggage weight?

It's all average weights. The 190/195 already mentioned is very common. There are several categories of checked bags, i.e. a suitcase is one weight, a duffel bag is a heavier weight, etc. Cargo is weighed and the actual weight is used.

Even though the passengers were standby, once they are issued a confirmed seat assignment, they are no longer standby.

I sure hope they received IDB compensation.

No; they are standby until the flight departs, regardless of whether they are given a seat.

It may be the truth that standby passengers "may be asked to deplane and rebook" at any time and for any reason, but I doubt that standby passengers know that. I bet that most figure that once they're on the plane, they're good to go.

They know that. Non-rev standbys are well aware of the policy, and revenue standbys are to be briefed on it when the standby process is explained.

I have this happen on WN flights in the summertime out of AZ. Not as much lift at the hotter part of the day so they sometimes ask for volunteers. Strangely, last time I did this about two years ago, they offloaded 5 of us, but not our bags as far as I could tell. Mine was waiting for me when I got to Norfolk before my the bags for my new flight had started to arrive at baggage claim.

I have this happen on WN flights in the summertime out of AZ. Not as much lift at the hotter part of the day so they sometimes ask for volunteers. Strangely, last time I did this about two years ago, they offloaded 5 of us, but not our bags as far as I could tell. Mine was waiting for me when I got to Norfolk before my the bags for my new flight had started to arrive at baggage claim.

If I recall, Arizona also limits take-off power settings because of noise issues for all the people who didn't notice they parked their houses at the end of a runway.

If I recall, Arizona also limits take-off power settings because of noise issues for all the people who didn't notice they parked their houses at the end of a runway.

There is no such limit at PHX.

JFK-OAK sees a decent amount of mail/cargo. Mail/cargo takes priority over standby.

I have actually been pulled off an LGB-JFK flight for cargo weight. My girlfriend and I plus about 7 other standby folks were removed because of a mis-communication between the cockpit/ground crews (what was on the load plan wasnt what was actually loaded). Most pilots will try to make things work and un-officially will try to take standby over cargo, but when it's in the stations hands (when pilots say no more cargo, the first question asked is who is standby) the standbys will come off and cargo will fly.

If you are on a light flight, sometimes we need to bring bassengers to the front due to the EML seats. In the beginning these seats were selling less than normal tickets and the ground crews had a hard time balancing the airplane without the normal amount of pax in front. It's really dissappeared lately but the company can't make up their mind about how they want the ground ops people to load things. I really can't blame them.

if they needed to remove confirmed pax, they should have asked for volunteers first. In the case where they did remove anyone non-voluntarily, they should have been paid IDB compensation of the ticket price for that segment or two times the ticket price of the segment, depending on how long the they were delayed to their destination. Those figures are capped at $400/$800. The full rules are here (http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/part%20250.pdf).

The DOT's denied boarding compensation rules do not apply in cases where an airplane must depart with empty seats due to weight and balance issues. I'm not sure if Jetblue's policy has a similar exclusion.

if they needed to remove confirmed pax, they should have asked for volunteers first. In the case where they did remove anyone non-voluntarily, they should have been paid IDB compensation of the ticket price for that segment or two times the ticket price of the segment, depending on how long the they were delayed to their destination. Those figures are capped at $400/$800. The full rules are here (http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/part%20250.pdf).

The DOT's denied boarding compensation rules do not apply in cases where an airplane must depart with empty seats due to weight and balance issues. I'm not sure if Jetblue's policy has a similar exclusion.

I'm pretty sure that was true under the old rules. Here is a snippet from the new rule enacted last April (linked above) where it says the W/B exception is now only for planes seating 60 or fewer.


Sec. 250.6 Exceptions to eligibility for denied boarding compensation.
...
(b) The flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger because of substitution of equipment of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons; or, on an aircraft with a designed passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats, the flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger due to weight/balance restrictions when required by operational or safety reasons;

Every airplane has weight limits. The max takeoff weight can be limited by the max structural weight , takeoff climb limit weight, takeoff runway limit weight, takeoff obstacle limit weight, brake energy limit, tire speed limit, max landing weight limit (structural or performance), terrain clearance/driftdown weight limits, or enroute fuel limit weights. It's all calculated prior to each takeoff and whichever limit is more restricting would be their max takeoff weight limit.

JFK-OAK is pushing the range of the A320. With strong headwinds, you aren't going to be able to take a full load.

This is the crux of the problem. On the one hand, I could say far too many airlines are using airplanes on routes for which they weren't designed. On the other hand, I could point out that a smaller-capacity, truly transcontinental airplane isn't being built right now by any of the major manufacturers. The 767 is too big for most uses, and the 757 is out of production. But the 737 and Airbus series -- even the -900 and 321 -- don't really have a reliable transcontinental range.

This is the crux of the problem. On the one hand, I could say far too many airlines are using airplanes on routes for which they weren't designed. On the other hand, I could point out that a smaller-capacity, truly transcontinental airplane isn't being built right now by any of the major manufacturers. The 767 is too big for most uses, and the 757 is out of production. But the 737 and Airbus series -- even the -900 and 321 -- don't really have a reliable transcontinental range.

The 737-900ER has the range, as does (I believe) the A319.

The 737-900ER has the range, as does (I believe) the A319.

The A319 is also WAY down on capacity when compared to a 752 or 739. The A321 which is the only true airbi with a compatible pax load was having a lot of issues when doing transcons for US, most needed tech stops along the way in the winter. Although this said the newer models seem to be better.