Back to Squawk list
  • 23

Passengers forced to leave Qantas flight due to plane being 'too heavy'

A number of passengers have been forced off a Qantas flight from Sydney to Perth over concerns the plane was too heavy to fly. Passengers aboard the Boeing 737-800 flight due to arrive in Perth at 7.40pm told Radio 6PR yesterday they were asked to disembark the plane prior to take off, WA Today reports. A Qantas spokeswoman has confirmed to WA Today the request was made after plane load readings exceeded the norm. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ken young 6
So the radio traffic went something like this
Pilot in charge : "Quantas 363 too heavy'
Tower: Qantas 363 too heavy""
Pilot in charge: Qantas 363 too heavy request permission to return to gate"
Tower: Qantas 363 too neavy return to gate
Pilot in Charge: Returning to gate. Qantas 363 too heavy".
Bit of a play on words here.
Finding a bit of humor here
Balance is also an issue. I once missed out on a non-rev first class seat on a NRT-JFK flight even though first class was only half full, not because we were overweight, but because there were so few passengers on the flight that they needed more people to sit way in the back to be within CG limits.
Roger Jaffe 3
I was on a non-stop MDW-SAN Southwest flight that ended up being a one-stop in Kansas City due to weight and a dispatcher error. The gate announcement said that our non-stop wouldn't be a non-stop anymore, but she said that the "pilot will tell you why --- after you board." After getting tucked in our seats and closing the door, the captain explained that the since the 737-800 is heavier than the -700 normally flown on the route, when you board all the passengers for the full flight and fuel to SAN the MDW runway was too short for a safe takeoff. Rather than kick people off, they decided to land at MCI for fuel instead. We arrived in SAN only 40 minutes late but I wonder how much that mistake cost SWA and if the dispatcher still has a job...
katty wompus 1
That's really smart customer service.

Everybody was inconvenienced a little so that a few passengers weren't totally screwed.
cj21278 3
Was on a flight getting ready to head to Trinidad when the flight attendants needed four people to give up their seats due to a weight issue. Reason was because they had so much cargo on the plane. Though the cargo could've gone on a later flight, it was probably easier to remove passengers instead. Fortunately, they offered a $1,000 voucher and a seat on the later flight that same day. I jumped up for the opportunity.
In AirTran's last few months, I took a flight from Atlanta to Tunica, MS on one of their 717s. I think there were about 10-15 people on the entire flight, I had originally reserved a seat closer to the back of the airplane so I could be relatively undisturbed on my flight home. When I got on, a FA told me I'd have to move to a seat ahead of the wing for W&B. I still ended up having the whole row to myself. So yeah, it happens.
Agree, I wonder if this is more common that you'd think? I was on a flight from San Diego to Chicago in November where the airline asked for 30 volunteers not to board. Apparently the plane was too heavy to take off heading east, because due to a heat wave, it wouldn't get the proper lift. If taking off to the west, it wouldn't have enough fuel to make it to Chicago.
But not enough volunteered, so the airline sought and received permission for an unscheduled stop in Vegas to add fuel.
jbermo 2
"the plane was too heavy to take off heading east, because due to a heat wave, it wouldn't get the proper lift". Perhaps true, but note - if any factor does not pencil out with regards to
the required paperwork calculations, it's an illegal flight. . . . regardless whether the airplane can actually do the job or not.
Highflyer1950 2
San Diego is one of those airports where climb gradient comes into effect when using the eastern departure path, but unless the available runway for take off is reduced or tailwind component is too great for a westerly takeoff there should not have been an issue.
Highflyer1950 1
Also, depends on aircraft type.
second segment climb..
Erik Bruner 2
They get more for freight (per kg) than they do for people
Highflyer1950 1
Because of a fuel pump! Or due to loading too much fuel for 4 hour flight and would be over their max landing weight?
Highflyer1950 2
Another possiblity might have been the cargo carried may have caused the ac to be overweightbfor landing as well!
Terry Boocock 1
The pump may have been needed to shift fuel during the flight to maintain W/B - No pump due to U/S meant maybe - passengers had to be off loaded. Alternative maybe no flight.
Highflyer1950 2
Would have been on the MEL.
Ken McIntyre 1
You'd think so!
Ken McIntyre 1
Another thing that could have happened. The jet was scheduled to do something else and was assigned to this flight after the fact. For instance...Qantas may have scheduled crew training for the aircraft and put on extra fuel for touch and gos at a distant airfield that didn't have a fueling contract. Then, because of a mechanical, the aircraft was re-assigned for a passenger flight. Or...The aircraft was scheduled for a flight with few passengers and was re-assigned to a flight that was full.
This article could have ALSO been written by someone who was a bit confused. The "fuel pump" that had a problem could be on the ground based fueling system at Sydney.
the smaller "regional" carriers are extremely strict on weights and balances,carry ons and amount of fuel a general rule,the captain has the final say as to how much fuel is put on the flight (defueling is a pain!)and he or she is advised in advance of how many passengers are booked,how many have checked in.and how many carry on pieces of luggage there are,and its up to the agent working the flight to advise the passengers if there is a problem,or to tell the flight attendant on board who will move people into different seats..on the large aircraft,such as a 737,it is all computerized,but the captain still has the final say on fuel after speaking with the dispatch center who initially allocates the amount,which is generally the weight issue, rather than passengers or cargo..i worked in the airline industry for many years, and although computers have pretty much taken over all of the functions(we did written weights and balances on the smaller aircraft by hand with a chart), the captain still makes the final decision with regard to the numbers he has, and also the weather,temperature and length of the runway factors..
cb calvin 2
I was asked to move 3 rows forward on a 737 a number of years ago. The flight attendant said I could move back when the seatbelt light went off. The flight was very lightly loaded. Lots of empty seats (remember those days?) I suspected at the time that it made her weight and balance numbers work better.
Em Fairley 1
You blather on about smaller carriers, but the article is about Australia's NATIONAL airline. Did you even read it, or are just trolling?
golfbum971 -3
Why is this even news?
bryan..considering this site is basically for those interested in aviation and the airline industry, it might be of interest to read it,as did I, didn't you? nowadays when passengers are "disembarked", for the most part its a security issue or a problem with a passenger, rather than weights and balances..have a good day sir...
golfbum971 0
Yeah I read it and I still don't understand why something like this is "news" worthy. I'm talking about the actual news source reporting on this not the fact that it's been posted on flightaware. Airplanes are weight restricted everyday. Last month I was trying to jump on a United 777 from HNL to ORD and they blocked out 20 seats for weight and balance.
jcsjcs 3
I found it interesting. First time I hear of so many people being offloaded. Normally I know that they cram you into the back of an almost empty plane for weight balance reasons.

Ken McIntyre 2
It happens. Many many years ago, perhaps in the 1960's or 70's, Some airline bought out another airline my friend was working for. That friend was working Vegas at the time, and it was a hot summer day. The new airline flew in a jet that was more for lower altitudes and cooler temperatures. The jet was SO weight restricted, he had to bump off 30 of the through passengers and couldn't put on one of the boarding passengers in Vegas. And that was just to get it off the ground and back into service. Last time that aircraft type saw Vegas in the summer. I can't remember what aircraft that was. He told me that story in 1980. Would suspect a DC-8 10, but that's been a while. Hadn't thought about that story for 30 years.
My thoughts exactly
alfio baldini -1
They should have taken out luggage and send it with the next plane, why take our passengers? Pretty stupid
terry gersdorf -3
There are going to be a lot of planes taking off from the Southwest region of the USA today with Temps averaging 110 degrees. And each flight will most likely leave people behind Its common Geez slow news day or are these news people just stupid?????
Charles Adams 5
Why are people calling people stupid. Why would you do that? Do you think that a 'news person' is going to read your post and go back to school or something? I am just trying to figure out the upside is because as far as I can tell there is none. Maybe you feel better for picking on others but so what? How does that change anything?
David Fenner 0
Easy, Big Fellow...


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.