Originally Posted by
skywatch
Not disagreeing, but I also know of one midwestern airline that did an "unofficial" survey following the RDU accident and found that the actual weights might be HEAVIER than the average weights suggested in the circular
. You take your chances when you do the research, because once you do an "official" weight and balance survey, you have to live with the results for a while...
To the best of my knowledge no ERJs here at XJT have been bent, broken or otherwise fallen out of the sky due to our W&B program. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.
Originally Posted by
STR8NLVL
Your point also shows your lack of information on this subject, as CHQ's weights are established from their own actual averages, as measured by the FAA in accordance with the average weight program.
It has nothing to do with money spent. CHQ just had a higher average than XJT at the time each did their measurements. It shows a fundamental flaw in the program when two carriers with the same airplane out of the same airport are limited to different figures for w&b. Its ridiculous.
Guess you guys at CHQ need to do a better job finding the skinny people then. They probably asked the pilots to pick which pax to weigh.
I'm still confused though, are they your weights or the FAA's?
You're right though, it IS rediculous. It's ridiculous that CHQ can fly a 145LR from IAH-STL and only carry 45 pax and 30 bags but the XJT flight later that same day, also a 145LR, can carry 50 pax, a jumpseater (who would have had a seat if the earlier CHQ flight hadn't been restricted) and 60 bags (15 of which were bumped from the earlier CHQ flight). And its costing Momma CAL tens of thousands of dollars per month and a lot of passenger loyalty. Rediculous.
