dgparent

The FA's kept coming on the PA saying this was a weight and balance flight, it was a very light load something like 42 passengers. They kept saying it is a weight and balance flight and you can't switch seats, also the last time they came on the mentioned there would be no upgrades either, 2 were on the list there were 6 open F seats. I have not seen that before on a mainline aircraft.

formeraa

Was it an A321? I had the same thing happen in late November on the late afternoon ATL-PHX flight. The funny thing is that they had subbed an A321 for an A320. Even so, the flight was about 60% full. I was genuinely surprised
when the FA's announced that everyone must remain in their originally assigned seats.

nismo240ssx

Same thing Saturday on PHL/ORD. A first for me, about 55 pax including 16 in FC and the first 8brows of coach were moved past row 11. A321

IADCAflyer

Yes, I've seen it - once. And, yes. it was an A321.

mvoight

So, pax A couldn't switch seats with pax B, so they could sit next to a family member?
That's a bit much

mnhusker

This is from a Flyer Talk Feb 2016 Thread:

"How to get downgrade compensation after I've boardedOk, so this is a first for me. I cleared on an AA flight from CLT to LAX almost exactly at the 100 hour mark (LUS321). I had about five seats to choose from, leading me to believe that at least others upgraded after me.

I board the flight, and about five minutes before the departure, the GA boards and tells me he needs to talk with me. While still in my seat, he informs me that due to "weight and balance" issues, he needs me to move to coach, and that the plane won't leave until I comply.

Where it gets weird is that he has me move exactly one row back, from the last row in first to the bulkhead in coach. Surely me moving one row isn't going to solve any kind of balance issues on this plane, right?

Anyway, this has never happened to me, and I don't recall ever seeing it happen to someone after boarding. Would I be able to claim downgrade compensation? I looked through existing threads but couldn't find anything that was totally analogous to my situation.

Thank you in advance."

Apparently, there is something we don't know about the A321 flight envelope at longer ranges. It also maybe in part due to large cargo loads combined with maximum fuel loads at those ranges too.

A short Google search did not reveal an obvious answer but it did suggest that this condition has also been observed on the A319.

sdix

AA2688 Saturday MIA-SFO (a 738) We'd pushed back then the Captain came on the PA saying we needed 5 people to get off. Apparently this was announced at the gate as a possibility so 5 got off quickly and we were on our way. Their comp was $700 ea

writerguyfl

Maybe I'm missing something, but how would that scenario every happen on a flight that's only 60% full?

autdi

Same here, AUS->DFW. Completely empties MCE out, and pushed us back into middles at the back. What a miserable way to start a 5AM flight.

perseus11

Maybe, High Value, Critical Cargo that cannot be off loaded

Finsup72

This happened to me last year on an A321 redeye SFO-PHL. Business class went out half full and they were not processing upgrades. No one was allowed to sit in rows 8-10 and interestingly the flight attendants put the tray tables down in all the unoccupied seats. The entire flight had maybe 30 people max.

JDiver

Bingo.

All aircraft are subject to weight and balance / center of gravity limitations. Pilots calculate these using fuel load and distribution, cargo weight and it’s distribution, and passenger (using published calculated data as opposed to actual individual passengers’ weights). There may be other factors (density altitude, runway length, wind velocity and direction, etc.) but each aircraft type has published requirements and limits and pilots are obliged to keep the aircraft they’re flying “within the envelope”.

It’s easier to move passengers than fuel, cargo or cargo containers. We’re the sacrificial goats.

writerguyfl

I wasn't questioning the need to keep passengers in their assigned seats due to weight and balance concerns. Rather, it was a scenario where two passengers swap seats so that a one of the swappers could be seated next to a travel companion. With only 60% of seats taken, the likelihood that a party of two would be split up when they were assigned seats seems about zero.

USFlyerUS

I've seen this several times, especially on lightly loaded PHL-SEA flights. However, after take off, passengers could move back to their original seats. I've never seen this remain in effect for the whole flight.

mnhusker

This is from Airliners.net five years ago:

"A stretch too far.
Weight & balance issues: A321.
Takes forever to get rolling whlist pax play musical chairs.
Spoke with both AF and BA cabin crew and they give it the thumbs down.
Not sure about A346."

In that thread they also mentioned the concept that a "full" plane could have weight issues but would be unlikely to have balance issues, a thought which seems obvious but explains what has been reported in this thread.

Second incident comes from Australia from Spinaker website:

"The second more serious safety incident occurred ten days later on the 29th October 2015. This incident involved an Airbus A321 flying from Melbourne to Perth. During take-off the pilot noticed that the aircraft was nose heavy during rotation. Once airborne the flight crew requested that the cabin crew confirm the passenger numbers and seating arrangements. The flight crew re-entered the passenger data into the flight management system. The aircraft was found to be outside its permitted loading limits for take-off and landing. Some passengers were moved in the cabin to ensure that the aircraft landed within its permitted limits."

It would certainly appear that:
1. A321 has a more narrow tolerance to weight and balance than most commercial airliners.
2. If the flight attendants ask you to move, you should move, your life may depended on it