SJC-SLC A220 weight limited?

Posted by Matir@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 15 comments

Had a friend who flew SJC-SLC in an A220 and was told the flight was "weight limited", which surprised me quite a bit. It's a relatively short flight, so I figured that you could load the cargo holds and passengers pretty full, but maybe I'm wrong. It's only 500nmi against the aircraft's 3000nmi range. At the time, the density altitude in SLC was ~6800 feet, which I wouldn't think would be a big deal with an A220 and the runways at SLC (10-12k feet). I know it's all speculation, but I'm really curious what other factors could be at play. What situations am I not thinking of?

Reply to Post

15 Comments

[-]

SG7-YT@reddit

On short flights they are usually limited by ZFW, which can restrict the amount of payload you can take. That remains a limiting factor until you take enough extra fuel that makes LW limiting instead

[-]

cpt_konius@reddit

Maybe it was payload optimized?

[-]

ThatLooksRight@reddit

Delta A220 landing weight is a big issue. Ask me how many times I’ve tried to jumpseat and been “payload optimized” off the flight. I’ve seen them leave 13 revenue passengers behind because of it.

[-]

JasonThree@reddit

Usually the issue is MLW when there's an alternate on RJs, which the 220 is basically the largest version of one. But since it's delta they usually like to load those up with cargo.

[-]

x4457@reddit

I mean, the 220 is a 6 hour airplane. It’s not *reaaaaly* an RJ.

[-]

JasonThree@reddit

Without scope weight limits, the 175 could fly 5 hours too. They reallllly stretched the term "regional jet"

[-]

ExeterUnion@reddit

Lol I wouldn’t call a 3300NM range, “regional.”

[-]

hobbesmaster@reddit

By that logic 737s are regional airliners too!

[-]

ExeterUnion@reddit

He’s probably referencing payload optimization. And on the A220 it’s usually because the MLW is certified at a pretty conservative number. I think the actual structural limit is significantly higher, but Bombardier didn’t want to add certification costs by continuing to push it, so they agreed to a very low number. It could also be to comply with the performance requirements out of SJC.

[-]

adiabaticgas@reddit

Is your friend very, very fat?

[-]

loose_as_a_moose@reddit

Usually not MTOW but some other factors that I've run into: * Single engine climb performance - obstacle or terrain on departure (or sometimes go around) could restrict weight. * Balance - Usually not enough baggage and the thing gets ass / tits heavy. * WX - weird density altitudes and wind can really screw up your performance calcs. * All of those with an engine on restricted power, an INOP APU or other equipment will ruin your day (not sure how this affects the 220). * Short flights but you're tankering fuel for the next sector because the operators of that poxy little airfield wanna charge 200% the price of fuel elsewhere. * Other engineering defects that limit your ability to stop such as INOP reversers. Not sure how the FAA would treat INOP reversers / flaps on ATO's? US ATP might want to clarify if thats even something that can happen. * Flight planning - the only suitable alternate is tiny and by god we're not paying to put an extra 2 tonnes of fuel on that. Min fuel and chuck 10 pax on the next flight.

[-]

SJC-SLC A220 weight limited?

Reply to Post

15 Comments

SG7-YT@reddit

cpt_konius@reddit

ThatLooksRight@reddit

JasonThree@reddit

x4457@reddit

JasonThree@reddit

ExeterUnion@reddit

hobbesmaster@reddit

ExeterUnion@reddit

adiabaticgas@reddit

loose_as_a_moose@reddit

B1G_D11CK_R111CK_69@reddit

Machaltstars@reddit

WanderinPilot@reddit

tornado875@reddit