Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:07 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Organization: Loughborough University, UK. References: 1 2 3 4 5 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
On 18 Aug 97 02:22:15 , Antoin Daltun <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >Some possible reasons for MTOGW variations: > >Airport charges and air navigation charges are based on the filed MTOGW of >aircraft, so if an airline does not need the full weight available from the >type for its own operations, it may file reduced weights. Sometimes, a >manufacturer will give a price concession for an airline which takes a >reduced weight (on the basis that if the airline needs the higher weight >later it will pay for it), but only if it feels that it will not otherwise >sell the aircraft. This is quite often the reason. For example BA has some domestic 767-300ER's which do not require the payload range ability. There certificated MTOW is 158 tonnes versus 181 tonnes for other 767-300ER's in their fleet. This will reduce costs for landing and navigation fees which are rated against MTOW. Indeed, Airbus in a A3XX brochure has contested why airports charge on MTOW and not pax for landing/nav fees as this will adversly affect the cost for an A3XX type aircraft.