this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
34 points (69.8% liked)
World News
32355 readers
244 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, this is a thing that can happen. When temperatures are high the air density means that planes need to achieve a higher speed to take off. Same for increased weight. Same for high altitude airports. Same when there's less headwind to take off into.
If enough of these factors are bad enough, you have to change what you can. Can't change the airport elevation or the weather, so that leaves you with the weight.
Proper planning prevents piss poor performance.
You realize localized weather is not always predictable far enough in advance to do much? Moreover, airlines don't require passengers specify their weight when they purchase a ticket, so they can't really plan ahead for going over a specific weight that is itself tied to local weather conditions. Mind you, this could be avoided by building in more wiggle-room, but that is not going to be accepted as a solution because it results in waste much of the time if, for example, you have empty seats because you wanted to be sure that you wouldn't run in to the issue of going over weight.
...right. But, of all airlines this could happen to, it did happen to the one known to cheap out in about every other metric. So, I'd say, shitty planning is also in the mix. Moreover, no more airlines flying that same day/time were affected, otherwise the headline would have been different.
The headline would only be different if someone had told the paper. Most people probably wouldn't bother and just claim the money or compensation.
Poor capitalists trying to squeeze every cent of margin they can't possibly plan for things that's too hard
I get what you're saying, but it's not just monetary efficiency that I meant there. It's fuel/emissions efficiency that would suffer as well. And that should be of concern to everyone.
If that's the concern use a fucking train
You're right, the transatlantic train should be good enough for anyone. Who needs planes when a train gets you across the ocean with much less pollution!
No need to be aggressive mate. Your replies are rather antagonistic.
Aggressive would be shooting down jets until everybody stops flying on fossil fuels, which would be good to do by the way
isnt hot air less dense than cold air ?
Yes, less air means less lift. Same issue with altitude.
It also means less air, as in density, so the fans and compressors are able to pull in less air to burn with. The fadecs compensate for this automatically but it means the output is derated till you get far enough off the ground to get speed.
i see. that makes sense now. thanks.