A320 weight restricted flight
Jul 19, 2022, 3:45 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hotlanta.
Programs: I've gone underground!
Posts: 4,590
A320 weight restricted flight
I’m on an A320 from pvd-atl this am and it’s weight restricted. Can anyone shed some insight?
The usual suspects (hot, high, short runway, short/long flights) don’t seem to be at play here.
The usual suspects (hot, high, short runway, short/long flights) don’t seem to be at play here.
Jul 19, 2022, 3:55 am
#2
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
Isn't it extremely hot in most of the USA (and also Europe) now?
Jul 19, 2022, 5:38 am
#4
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC, MSY
Programs: DL DM, 1.5MM, NEXUS, Sky Club Lifetime, Admirals Club Lifetime, LowValueCustomer everywhere
Posts: 6,447
Could be freight. Much more profitable and possibly perishables.
ATL is having some crappy WX this morning and more moving in so they could b loading extra fuel for holding or diversions.
ATL is having some crappy WX this morning and more moving in so they could b loading extra fuel for holding or diversions.
Jul 19, 2022, 6:59 am
#6
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: MA
Programs: DL DM/2MM Marriott Platinum, HH Diamond,
Posts: 8,906
What were the ramifications of being weight restricted? Leaving some luggage behind? Leaving some passengers behind?
The winds this AM are brisk out of the west, 270@10 kts, gusts to 18. This necessitates using the far shorter runway 34 at 6,000 feet as opposed to the longer runway 5-23 at 8,000 feet. While a fully loaded A320 can get off in 6,000 feet, there is a governing requirement called balanced field length, a somewhat complicated concept. But basically, the runway length is not sufficient to allow a safe takeoff if an engine is lost at certain points, nor long enough to accommodate a high speed aborted takeoff when the aircraft is at certain gross weights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_field_takeoff
The winds this AM are brisk out of the west, 270@10 kts, gusts to 18. This necessitates using the far shorter runway 34 at 6,000 feet as opposed to the longer runway 5-23 at 8,000 feet. While a fully loaded A320 can get off in 6,000 feet, there is a governing requirement called balanced field length, a somewhat complicated concept. But basically, the runway length is not sufficient to allow a safe takeoff if an engine is lost at certain points, nor long enough to accommodate a high speed aborted takeoff when the aircraft is at certain gross weights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_field_takeoff
Jul 19, 2022, 7:53 am
#7
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 223
I've seen this pop up on A320s more and more. I think a recent issue was the FAA increase of pax weights. That seems to have negatively affected the A320s the most. I would guess weather in ATL + the runway config that RobertS975 mentioned are the contributing factors.
Jul 19, 2022, 7:57 am
#8
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 12
It’s more than likely weight restricted not due to performance, but due to max landing weight. Even since the FAA raised the average passenger weights last year, the max landing weight for the Delta A320s have become an issue more frequently than before. This usually pops up when there has to be extra fuel added for an alternate, which is the case for today due to the weather in ATL.
Jul 19, 2022, 8:02 am
#9
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 12
What were the ramifications of being weight restricted? Leaving some luggage behind? Leaving some passengers behind?
The winds this AM are brisk out of the west, 270@10 kts, gusts to 18. This necessitates using the far shorter runway 34 at 6,000 feet as opposed to the longer runway 5-23 at 8,000 feet. While a fully loaded A320 can get off in 6,000 feet, there is a governing requirement called balanced field length, a somewhat complicated concept. But basically, the runway length is not sufficient to allow a safe takeoff if an engine is lost at certain points, nor long enough to accommodate a high speed aborted takeoff when the aircraft is at certain gross weights.
The winds this AM are brisk out of the west, 270@10 kts, gusts to 18. This necessitates using the far shorter runway 34 at 6,000 feet as opposed to the longer runway 5-23 at 8,000 feet. While a fully loaded A320 can get off in 6,000 feet, there is a governing requirement called balanced field length, a somewhat complicated concept. But basically, the runway length is not sufficient to allow a safe takeoff if an engine is lost at certain points, nor long enough to accommodate a high speed aborted takeoff when the aircraft is at certain gross weights.
Jul 19, 2022, 10:18 am
#10
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 413
What were the ramifications of being weight restricted? Leaving some luggage behind? Leaving some passengers behind?
The winds this AM are brisk out of the west, 270@10 kts, gusts to 18. This necessitates using the far shorter runway 34 at 6,000 feet as opposed to the longer runway 5-23 at 8,000 feet. While a fully loaded A320 can get off in 6,000 feet, there is a governing requirement called balanced field length, a somewhat complicated concept. But basically, the runway length is not sufficient to allow a safe takeoff if an engine is lost at certain points, nor long enough to accommodate a high speed aborted takeoff when the aircraft is at certain gross weights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_field_takeoff
The winds this AM are brisk out of the west, 270@10 kts, gusts to 18. This necessitates using the far shorter runway 34 at 6,000 feet as opposed to the longer runway 5-23 at 8,000 feet. While a fully loaded A320 can get off in 6,000 feet, there is a governing requirement called balanced field length, a somewhat complicated concept. But basically, the runway length is not sufficient to allow a safe takeoff if an engine is lost at certain points, nor long enough to accommodate a high speed aborted takeoff when the aircraft is at certain gross weights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_field_takeoff
Jul 19, 2022, 10:38 am
#12
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: DL DM+(segs)/MM, UA Ag, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum
Posts: 3,221
Common misconception. Cargo makes up less than 2% of airline revenues (pre-covid) and very little of that comes from narrow body domestic flights. The only reason I could think of they would bump pax for cargo would be AOG parts, or carrying human organs for transplant...and it would require a lottttt of kidneys to require bumping peeps. 
Both of those are highly unlikely. More likely is the ALT requirement if ATL is/was expecting WX or WX enroute. Bump the cargo (if it's causing a weight issue) to a later flight which is far more economical than bumping peeps.
Both of those are highly unlikely. More likely is the ALT requirement if ATL is/was expecting WX or WX enroute. Bump the cargo (if it's causing a weight issue) to a later flight which is far more economical than bumping peeps.
Jul 19, 2022, 4:14 pm
#14
Join Date: Mar 2003
Programs: former MD-88 jumpseat Medallion. DL FO, AA PLT PRO. Marriott LT Plat.
Posts: 752
after those A320s were modded to get to 157 seats, they were already landing-weight limited more often than not. The FAA increasing the pax / bag weights last year compounded the problem. The airplane is just too darn heavy when its full, and it's a structural landing limit as stated upthread. Long alternates or hold fuel will almost always result in bumping passengers.
Plus ATL had 7 wx diverts this morning, so whatever extra fuel they put on was probably warranted.
Plus ATL had 7 wx diverts this morning, so whatever extra fuel they put on was probably warranted.