FlightCostairline route economicsRUENDE
FlightCost › Research

Heat and altitude: how many passengers an aircraft cannot carry

FlightCostApp research, October 2026 · how airfield temperature and elevation change the cost of a flight

◷ Queued for the calculatorThe calculator does not yet reduce payload for heat and altitude — a correction is proposed.
Below the threshold — nothingthe engine holds its thrust up to the “kink point”; for an A320 on a long sea-level runway the weight becomes limited from about 40 °C1
Beyond it, 0.4–0.6 % of weight per degreeabout 4 A320 passengers for every degree; on a short runway — up to 1.4 %2
Delhi in May: −9 passengerscost per passenger +5.3 % — but only on a flight loaded up to the weight limit3
Manufacturer charts confirm it737-800: 0.26 % of weight per degree up to ISA+25 and about 0.5 % beyond; the A320 loses almost nothing up to ISA+15; elevation — 1.2–2.1 % per 1,000 ft4,5

Today the calculator assumes that an aircraft can take off fully loaded on any day. In heat and at altitude this is not so: the allowable (performance-limited) take-off weight drops, and on a long sector with a full cabin some passengers or cargo have to be offloaded. The same flight costs are then split over fewer passengers. Below: when this happens and by how much.

Why heat and altitude cost passengers

Hot or highthe air is less dense: the aircraft behaves as if it were higher up
Higher lift-off speedthe same indicated airspeed, but a higher true airspeed — a longer take-off run
Less thrustthe engine “breathes in” less air — slower acceleration
Lower allowable weightrunway or climb performance runs short — cargo is offloaded first, then passengers

Density decides everything. Wing lift and drag are directly proportional to air density, and density depends on pressure, temperature and humidity6. That is why pilots work not from the airfield elevation but from “density altitude” — the altitude at which the standard atmosphere would have the same air7. To an aircraft, a hot day at sea level is the same as a cool one in the mountains: it behaves as if it were taking off from its density altitude7.

Two blows to the take-off. Thin air has two effects at once: a higher lift-off speed is needed and thrust is lower, so acceleration is weaker7. The aircraft lifts off at the same indicated airspeed, but its true airspeed is higher — the take-off run is longer7. The opposite lever is weight: +10 % weight lengthens the take-off by at least 21 %7. So when the runway is not long enough, weight comes off.

Flat rating. A jet engine is set up to hold take-off thrust constant up to a certain temperature — the “kink” (corner) point: usually 30 °C at sea level1, up to 45 °C for A320 engines, up to 30 °C for the A3218, up to 37.4 °C for the Dash 8-4009. Below the kink, heat hardly matters; above it, thrust falls together with the allowable weight. Hence the threshold in the calculation.

The limit is not just the runway. Certification rules require take-off performance to be determined for every weight, altitude and temperature10. The take-off must fit on the runway even with an engine failure10, and after lift-off a twin-engine aircraft on one engine must still climb at a gradient of at least 2.4 %10. The allowable weight is the lowest of all limits: runway, climb, obstacles, tyre speed, brakes11. Denver's runway is 4.9 km long, yet the 737-800 runs into its tyre speed limit2.

Which temperature to use. US airports are designed for the mean daily maximum of the hottest month11 — we take the same temperature for the flight calculation.

How many passengers are offloaded

An A320 at maximum take-off weight: how many passengers (100 kg each with baggage) would have to be offloaded. Dot — estimated correction, line — spread of the slope; orange — where the basis is weaker (high altitude, short runway).

0255075100Delhi, May — 40.7 °C9Ahmedabad, May — 42.2 °C10Delhi, heatwave 45 °C26Denver, July — 32.2 °C50Short runway at sea level, 35 °C89

Denver — with the ISA+12 threshold for high airfields; in reality the weight is limited there even on a cool day (tyre speed), so the estimate is, if anything, too low.

How the limit grows with temperature

0 %2 %5 %7 %9 %30313337384753New York LaGuardiaDenverPhoenixtake-off weight reduction, % MTOW

Reduction of the 737-800 allowable take-off weight, % of maximum (79 t). Dots — Coffel & Horton (2015), table 22, from Boeing charts; straight lines between the dots.

Each line starts at the threshold and then rises almost linearly. The shorter the runway, the steeper: at LaGuardia (2.1 km) the limit grows from 4.5 to 6.8 t between 31 and 33 °C. The slopes and thresholds were derived by the researcher from the paper's three points — the paper itself does not give them. The authors convert the same 4.5 t into 52 passengers — they assume 86 kg per passenger with carry-on2; the calculator uses 100 kg with checked baggage, so we get fewer passengers. In practice cargo is offloaded first2.

What the Airbus and Boeing charts show

For airport planning, manufacturers publish charts showing what weight the aircraft can lift from a runway of a given length at a given elevation, at standard temperature and in the heat. We read the figures off them for the 737-800 (standard, +15, +25 and +35 °C above standard)4 and for the A320ceo and A320neo (standard and +15 °C)5. The chart below is the 737-800 on a 2.9 km runway: at sea level the weight starts to fall only beyond +25 °C above standard, i.e. around 40 °C; at 4,000 ft already beyond +15 °C, and past +25 °C the drop speeds up; at 8,000 ft the weight is limited even on a standard day.

63677276800152535sea level4,000 ft8,000 ftallowable take-off weight, t
Separately: temperature only and elevation only 67707477810152535A320ceo CFM, 3.0 kmA320neo LEAP, 2.4 km737-800, 2.9 km runwaytake-off weight, t — elevation 6,000 ft

Horizontal axis — degrees above standard; one airfield elevation — 6,000 ft. For the A320, Airbus charts exist only for standard and +15 °C.

59657177830246810A320ceo CFM, standard, 2.4 km737-800, +25 °C737-800, standard +35 °Ctake-off weight, t

Horizontal axis — airfield elevation, thousand ft; the temperature relative to standard is constant. 737-800 — 2.9 km runway; at +25 °C and low elevation the weight exceeds the maximum take-off weight, so the line starts at 4,000 ft.

Horizontal axis — degrees above the standard atmosphere. 737-800, CFM56-7B27, 9,500 ft (2.9 km) dry runway; weight capped at the maximum take-off weight (79 t).

These charts give the slopes for the calculation. For the 737-800 the loss of allowable weight is 0.26 % per degree from standard to +25 °C and 0.53 % (0.32–0.67) from +25 to +35 °C; every 1,000 ft of elevation takes about 2.1 %4. The second figure matches the slope the researcher derived from Coffel and Horton for Phoenix — 0.48–0.57 %: two independent bases agree. For the A320 the weight barely changes up to +15 °C above standard — 0.05–0.15 % per degree, because its engines hold thrust up to 45 °C; elevation takes 1.2–1.4 % per 1,000 ft5. Airbus has no charts above +15 °C, so for heat beyond the kink point we use the 737-800 slope for the A320 — an assumption.

Table for the calculation

CaseThreshold Weight loss per °C A320, pax per °C Basis and spread
long runway (≥3.5 km), airfield <2,000 ft (Delhi, Gulf)ISA+250.5 %4.00.48–0.57
high altitude ~5,000 ft, long runway (Denver, Nairobi, Johannesburg — extrapolation)ISA+120.4 %3.20.41; plus ≥0.6 % at any temperature (tyres)
short runway (~2.1 km) at sea levelISA+121.4 %11.11.43
7,000–8,400 ft (Addis Ababa, Bogotá, Mexico City), La Paz, Cusco———no data; extrapolating from DEN understates

Threshold — how many degrees the hot month is warmer than the standard atmosphere (ISA: 15 °C at sea level, 2 °C less for every 300 m of elevation) before the limit starts.

Other types — what is known
TypeWhat is known FigureConditions
A320 (ceo)take-off distance, not weightTODR +4.2 m/K (min. load), −1.2 m/hPa; at max. load ≈7.4 m/K and 2.2 m/hPa (paraphrase)12force-balance model on OpenAP data, ISA
A320 (ceo)MTOM on a 1,511 m runway (Chios)−133 kg/year (climate trend in temperature and wind); 3,900 kg ≈ 38 passengers since 198813runway-limited airfield
A320/A321neoTOW vs runway length charts (ISA and ISA+15) are in the Airbus AC; figures not extracted—14AC A320 06/2024 §3-3
737 MAX 8BFL at 92 t8,300 ft (JFK) → 11,500 ft (Denver), standard day (+39 %)15Leeham model example
ATR 72-600take-off distance at the same weight (300 nm, max. passengers)1,156 m (SL, ISA) → 1,383 m (3,000 ft, ISA+10), +20 %16ATR factsheet
Dash 8-400flat rating 37.4 °C at SL—9DHC spec sheet 2025
E190/E195not found—17only the E195-E2 TOFL of 1,840 m is available (MTOW, ISA, SL)
What happened in practice
CaseFigures
Aeroméxico: weight restrictions on some flights out of MEX due to heat, April 2024 (34.2 °C — the highest since 1998)18seats/kg not published
IndiGo: Delhi–Bagdogra delays >3 h, 'high ground temperatures', June 202419none
Leh: IndiGo and SpiceJet cancelled ~12 daytime flights over ~3 days, July 2024, 36 °C20~12 flights
Delhi: airport operations disrupted for ~3 h by heat (Palam 44.9 °C); 'load carrying capacity falls'213 h
Aeroméxico MEX–NRT: from 2024-07-10, 5 of 7 flights via MTY, non-stop on the way back (787)225/7 a week
Air France restricted A340 loads on take-off from Bogotá (2,548 m)23none
Coffel et al. 2017 projection: 10–30 % of flights in the hottest hours will need restrictions, on average 0.5–4 % of payload+fuel; 4 % ≈ 12–13 passengers out of 16024,25see text

Airlines describe the restrictions in words — nobody publishes how many seats were blocked.

What we change in the calculator

ΔISA = Thot month − (15 − 1.98 · h)
Mallow = min( MTOW ; Mrwy(L) · [1 − ah·h − k1·min(ΔISA, D) − k2·max(0, ΔISA − D)] )
offload = max(0, Mplan − Mallow); passengers = offload ÷ 100 kg
cost per passenger = flight cost ÷ (N − passengers)

TermWhat it is 737-800A320ceo/neo
hairfield elevation, thousand ft——
Mrwy(L)weight a runway of length L allows at sea level on a standard day (manufacturer chart) ≈ 90 t at 2.9 km (extrapolated: the curves are cut off above MTOW)84 t at 3.0 km
ahloss per 1,000 ft of elevation 2,1 %1,2–1,4 %
k1loss per degree up to the thrust kink 0,26 %0,05–0,15 %
Dkink: how many degrees above standard thrust holds+25 °C≈ +30 °C (45 °C at sea level)
k2loss per degree beyond the kink 0,53 % (0,32–0,67)as 737-800 — assumption
Mplan, Nplanned take-off weight of the flight and number of seats — already in the calculator——

Coefficients from the Airbus and Boeing charts4,5; if the runway length is unknown, the simplified table above applies: one slope k from the threshold.

  1. ◷ Queued for the calculatorOnly when the flight is weight-limited. The calculator already knows the planned take-off weight; if it is below the corrected allowable weight, nothing changes. So heat does not touch short flights.
  2. ◷ Queued for the calculatorThe table row is chosen by the runway and elevation of the airfield (both are in the reference data); the temperature is the mean maximum of the flight's month.
  3. ◷ Queued for the calculatorOffloaded passengers reduce revenue; the flight costs stay the same — cost per passenger rises. Delhi in May: −9 passengers, at 45 °C — about 26.
  4. ◷ Queued for the calculatorEverything carries the orange “estimate” flag. For turboprops, E-Jets and airfields above 2,100 m we do not compute a correction but show a warning.
  5. ⚑ Mind when entering dataUntil the correction is in — at a hot or high airfield on a long sector, reduce the load by hand using the table above.

How it was checked

The log has 176 steps: the researcher's search (trace/h1.jsonl) and the theory from the owner's documents (trace/h2.jsonl). Quotes were checked (verify/): found verbatim 74, partly 2, not found 0. A separate agent reproduced the calculation of the thresholds, the slopes and the Delhi example; table 2 of the journal version of Coffel & Horton matched the conference version in every figure.

What is missing and what is in doubt
  • Figures from the TOW vs runway vs temperature charts in the Airbus AC (A320/A321neo) and Boeing ACAPS (737) not extracted — the charts are images and cannot be rasterised in the shell without network access (h1-010)
  • E190/E195, ATR 72, Dash 8-400: no published Δ weight per °C or per 1,000 ft (h1-105)
  • No figures found from IndiGo, Air India, Ethiopian or Aeroméxico on seats/tonnes offloaded (h1-124)
  • Climate normals from the primary source not extracted for BOM, ADD, BOG, MEX, LPB, CUZ, NBO, JNB, THR, DXB, KWI; source — NCEI accession 0253808 (WMO 1991–2020), the xlsx needs to be downloaded (h1-092)
  • Full text of Coffel et al. 2017 (5 types, 19 airports) not available — abstract only (h1-053)
  • Elevations of ADD/MEX/LPB/CUZ/NBO/JNB/THR were not extracted — take them from the model's reference data
  • The Coffel & Horton data cover one 737-800 variant and one Boeing chart; a 737-800 with other engines/MTOW will differ
  • Ahmedabad: 2010–2019 observatory average, not the airfield's 30-year normal
  • The MEX–NRT stop in Monterrey and Air India's technical stops cannot be attributed to heat without a statement from the airline
  • The limit removes payload only when the planned TOW is close to MTOW: on short sectors TOW < RTOW and nothing is lost
  • A321/A321neo (corner point 30 °C for the CFM56-5B1/2/3) is more sensitive than the A320 (45 °C for the -5B4) — different D0, figures not extracted
  • Turboprops (ATR 72, Dash 8-400): no quantitative basis; the Q400 is flat-rated to 37.4 °C — D0≈+22 as a guide
  • Not included: obstacles, wet runway (+15 % length), wind, pressure (A320: −1.2…−2.2 m TODR per hPa)
  • D0 depends on the runway margin; the model knows the runway length, so the table row can be chosen by the ratio of runway length to required distance
Documents
  • Type figures were read off the Airbus (A320ceo/neo, ISA and ISA+15) and Boeing (737-800, standard to +35 °C) charts — documents provided by the owner on 2026-10-31, log trace/h3.jsonl; digitised values in out/*_digitized.json. There are no charts yet for the A321, E-Jets and turboprops.
  • The theory is closed (FAA PHAK ch. 5 and 11, CS-25 Subpart B, the journal version of Coffel & Horton — provided on 2026-10-30, log trace/h2.jsonl).
Sources (25)
  1. Bjorn's Corner 2017
  2. Coffel & Horton (2015) Climate Change and the Impact of Extreme Temperatures on Aviation. Weather, Climate, and Society 7(1)
  3. IMD Palam 1991-2020
  4. Boeing D6-58325-7, 737NG Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning, Rev C (October 2025), §3.3
  5. Airbus, A320 Aircraft Characteristics — Airport and Maintenance Planning (Jun 01/24), §3-3
  6. FAA Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25B), ch. 5 Aerodynamics of Flight
  7. FAA Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25B), ch. 11 Aircraft Performance
  8. Aircraft Commerce CFM56-5B
  9. DHC Dash 8-400 Spec Sheet
  10. EASA Easy Access Rules for Large Aeroplanes (CS-25), Amendment 27, Subpart B
  11. FAA AC 150/5325-4B
  12. Williams et al. 2025 Aerospace
  13. Gratton, Padhra, Rapsomanikis, Williams (2020) The impacts of climate change on Greek airports, Climatic Change 160:219–231
  14. Airbus AC A320 06/2024
  15. Leeham Part 3
  16. ATR 72-600 Factsheet
  17. Embraer E195-E2 spec
  18. Expansión 2024-04-18: Aeroméxico restringe peso en vuelos por altas temperaturas
  19. Business Today 2024-06-18
  20. ETV Bharat
  21. Zee Business
  22. Japan Aviation Hub: Aeromexico to add Monterrey stop to Mexico City–Tokyo from mid-July 2024
  23. Portafolio
  24. Columbia 2017
  25. Coffel et al. 2017