Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5689899/

Topic: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2013-02-13 18:22:29 and read 6902 times.

http://airlineroute.net/2013/02/13/un-dme-s13/

For 3 weeks beginning in April, UN will schedule the 773 (non ER) into LAX. To my knowledge, this will be the longest scheduled flight for a non ER 777-300. 9800km +

This will be right up there in terms of capabilities for a 773. Probably explaining why the 744 is back on the route as of 22 april. Could it be one of the 744's is due for heavy maintenance?

btw, for anyone who is interested, current record holder for the 773 distance wise is TG from BKK to OSL. 8600 km.

Thenoflyzone

Topic: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-02-13 18:28:09 and read 6855 times.

Korean did non-ER 773 to LAX for a couple years before its 77W fleet - some 5900miles.

Topic: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-02-13 18:32:00 and read 6835 times.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 1):
Korean did non-ER 773 to LAX for a couple years before its 77W fleet - some 5900miles.

DME-LAX is 110 nm further than ICN-LAX.

DME-LAX 5319 nm
ICN-LAX 5209 nm

Topic: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: MEL
Posted 2013-02-13 19:29:44 and read 6553 times.

FYI, Korean flew the non-ER 773 on ICN-NRT-LAX not ICN-LAX.

Topic: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: The777Man
Posted 2013-02-13 20:21:51 and read 6340 times.

Hi !

UN has had the 773 at LAX several times since they started service so not too surprising.

Still, perhaps they take a weight restriction?

Always nice to see another 777 carrier here at LAX!

The777Man

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2013-02-14 04:56:42 and read 5781 times.

Quoting The777Man (Reply 4):
Still, perhaps they take a weight restriction?

Well let's see. UN has RR engines on its 773. Meaning on the link below

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec3.pdf

We need to look at the payload vs range chart with 90K rated engines. (not much difference anyways ref. the 98K chart)

DME-LAX is 5319 nm great circle, but in reality you're looking at 5700-5800 nm....if not more.

At that distance, a 773 can carry 75,000 lbs of payload. With 371 seats, and a heavy 4 class cabin, you can bet top dollar that there are weight restrictions on this flight, as 75000 lbs doesnt even cover all the passengers and baggage.

The return leg should have no problems, with the tailwind and all.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2013-02-14 05:03:40]

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: Pacific
Posted 2013-02-14 05:08:35 and read 5731 times.

Pretty amazing - it's as believable as flying an A330-300 DME-LAX! While 75,000lbs would cover pax + luggage at 200lb standard weight (on the high, but realistic side), there's the crew, the seats and the catering to add, then factor the winter headwinds. As the OP speculated, perhaps just a stop-gap due to performance limitations.

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: Flying Belgian
Posted 2013-02-14 05:40:14 and read 5637 times.

There must some serious weight restrictions on the outbound leg.

Don't forget GCM always mentions a certain mileage considering you take a straight route, which isn't obviously the case in real life ops.

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: san747
Posted 2013-02-14 15:30:36 and read 3765 times.

Quoting Pacific (Reply 6):
Pretty amazing - it's as believable as flying an A330-300 DME-LAX!

And SU has done SVO-LAX on the A330-300 actually. Always amazing to see it when it comes in.

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: captainstefan
Posted 2013-02-14 18:22:51 and read 2790 times.

Quoting san747 (Reply 8):
Always amazing to see it when it comes in.

If there's any time an airplane is figuratively gasping for breath, I assume it's that A330 on final to LAX.

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-02-14 18:29:10 and read 2757 times.

A new A330-300 has a fair bit more reach than a standard 777-300.

NS

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: Newark727
Posted 2013-02-14 18:30:42 and read 2755 times.

Why wouldn't they use the 777-200ER like they have in the past? Have they already done advance bookings or committed the fleet elsewhere or something? I know they've subbed in a 777-300 once in a while before but it does seem on the long side for it.

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-02-14 18:32:51 and read 2744 times.

Yeah TBH, a 777-200ER would be able to heft the same payload on the route.

NS

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2013-02-14 19:53:03 and read 2646 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):

A new A330-300 has a fair bit more reach than a standard 777-300.

Not quite. At least not before 2015.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...engeraircraft/a330family/a330-300/

Current highest MTOW on offer for the A333 is 235 tonnes. max range being around 5500nm.

The 773 has a 6005 nm range full loaded.

The 240 ton and 242 ton A333's dont come online until mid-2015, only then will the range of the A333 exceed that of the 773, and by only 100nm, so no, not a fair bit more.....

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...ability-to-extend-market-coverage/

Anyways, all of this is academic. The A333 and 773 do not compete directly. The A333's direct competitor is the 77E.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2013-02-14 19:59:47]

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: B747forever
Posted 2013-02-14 20:23:19 and read 2574 times.

Quoting captainstefan (Reply 9):
Quoting san747 (Reply 8):Always amazing to see it when it comes in.
If there's any time an airplane is figuratively gasping for breath, I assume it's that A330 on final to LAX.

Is that the longest scheduled A330-300 flight?

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: cedarjet
Posted 2013-02-15 02:45:53 and read 2370 times.

If it's such a stretch (pardon the pun) for the 777-300 non-ER, perhaps they do actually tech stop it somewhere? Would only add an hour to the journey and they could go with full cabins and lots of cargo. Then again some posters say they've done LAX with the 773 before so obviously it can do it somehow without bankrupting UN.

As an aside, man are there a lot of Russians in LA.

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2013-02-15 07:13:45 and read 2175 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 14):
Is that the longest scheduled A330-300 flight?

No, since the aircraft in the schedules is an A332 i believe. They sub an A333 on occasion.

Longest scheduled A333 is SS from RUN to ORY, 9337 km, 5042 nm.

Thenoflyzone

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2013-02-15 09:56:15 and read 2055 times.

correction: even SS has the A332 scheduled. They just got 2 brand new A333's a few months ago, and they sub them occasionally to RUN.

So the next longest A333 flight is TK from SIN to IST. 4682 nm.

Thenoflyzone

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-02-15 16:34:22 and read 1846 times.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 17):
So the next longest A333 flight is TK from SIN to IST. 4682 nm.

LH begins A333 seasonal service YVR-MUC in May, 4517 nm, not much shorter.

Topic: RE: Transaero To Send 773 (non ER) To LAX
Username: B747forever
Posted 2013-02-15 19:37:52 and read 1733 times.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 16):
No, since the aircraft in the schedules is an A332 i believe. They sub an A333 on occasion.

Didnt know that SU had the A332.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/