Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AC YYZ-NRT On A 763?  
User currently offlineAa767400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2401 posts, RR: 26
Posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3877 times:

I find it pretty unusual that AC operates the 763 on YYZ-NRT. Has this been this way for a while? I thought they had a 343 on the route.


"The low fares airline."
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAa767400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2401 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3861 times:

I found that it operates as a 343 now, but as of Nov 1st, it will be a 763. Is that pushing the range limits for this aircraft?


"The low fares airline."
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4809 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3818 times:

AC doesn't stuff their 763ERs with seats, but even then this route is really pushing the range capabilities of the aircraft and would surely have payload restrictions Westbound.

I seem to remember that CP also had a YYZ-NRT nonstop flight but on the DC-10-30ER in the mid-90s. That was also somewhat pushing the aircraft's range.


User currently offlineJaxs170 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

It is only 4660 SM (4050 NM) from Vancouver to Tokyo, so this is well within the range and capabilities of the 763.

I'll say I was suprised at the distance, guess Tokyo seems father away than it really is from the Pacific coast.



707, 717, 727, 732/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, 752, 762/3/4, 744, 772, MD-80/2/3/8, DC-9, F-100, A319/20/21, A333, DC-10, MD-11, ARJ,
User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3635 times:

Is it non stop from Toronto or is the flight routed through Vancouver with an equipment change there but the same flight number when it goes on to Narita? Many airlines do this. Same flight number, different equipment after a stop.

User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4638 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3623 times:

"It is only 4660 SM (4050 NM) from Vancouver to Tokyo, so this is well within the range and capabilities of the 763."

YYZ is Toronto, not Vancouver (YVR)



Word
User currently offlinePlanekrazy777 From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

dosen't the 767-300er have better range than 330 or am i mistaken.

User currently offlineAa767400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2401 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3522 times:

Indeed, YYZ is Toronto. And the flight is non-stop YYZ-NRT. I don't think it is horrible that it is a 763, but I just find it strange and pushing the limits of range. I know CP use to operate YYZ-HNL with their 763.


"The low fares airline."
User currently offlineNWA757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

I found that it operates as a 343 now, but as of Nov 1st, it will be a 763. If it were me, I would keep the Airbus A340-300 on the route.


Fly High!
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3511 times:

dosen't the 767-300er have better range than 330 or am i mistaken.
Depends. Most new 330s have a better range than most 767s, but a brand new 767-300ER has better range than an A330-300X.

The A330-200 has superior range to 90% of 767 models. A brand new 767-200ER equals it.

N


User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3340 times:

I can't see a 763 YYZ-NRT non-stop. Aside from being too narrow and the passengers feeling claustrophobic on a 14-hour flight, it would be critical that there be a YVR stopover.

No, the absolute minimum should be a 340 for a non-stop YYZ-NRT flight.

[Edited 2004-08-10 19:15:57]


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

I can't see a 763 YYZ-NRT non-stop.

Well, it's loaded in Amadeus as a daily 763 from Oct 31st. It's preferable to stopping the flight altogether which AC has done numerous times in the past.

Aside from being too narrow and the passengers feeling claustrophobic on a 14-hour flight

I see your point but it's still subjective. If someone is going to be claustrophobic on a 14-hr 763 flight, they will likely also be claustrophobic on a 14-hr 343 flight.









Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2682 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3266 times:

YYZ-NRT is 10324km long. Pretty thight considering the B763 of AC can go 10549km. Dont forget that the plane has to have a hell of a lot of extra fuel to do an approach at NRT, overshoot, hold for a bit if need be, go to its alternate, make an approach there as well and land.

Add a bit of headwind on the westbound flight, and you'll soon find the fuel tanks on the B763 go on empty well before the coast of Japan.

And yes, the B763 has a better range than the A333 (10549km vs. 9067km)

TheNoFlyZone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

For starters, it is offseason, so loads will lower so it won't be hard to impose a payload penalty. If AC averages 150 passengers on the flight, and doesn't carry any cargo, it can obviously extend the range on those days on which the winds permit. On the days that it doesn't, a fuel stop in Anchorage is still preferable to either not operating the flight or routing it through Vancouver, which already has a daily Tokyo flight. AC also pushes the limit of the 767 on Toronto-TLV, and on occasion a fuel stop in Newfoundland is necessary on the westbound, but that's still preferable than making a connection in Europe. I'm sure that in AC's thinking, it is better to offer the service, even with the odd fuel stop, than to either discontinue the route or to fly it with a half-full A340. That A340 can be put onto routes where it can deliver larger loads.




User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4809 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3214 times:


I see your point but it's still subjective. If someone is going to be claustrophobic on a 14-hr 763 flight, they will likely also be claustrophobic on a 14-hr 343 flight.


If anything I would prefer one less seat per row on a long flight like that...I wonder if people who complain about the 767 on flights over 8 hrs have actually flown it compared to other aircraft. I'll take 7 seats per row over 6, 8, 9, or 10 any day. Less chance of an ogre in your row  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

It will be interesting to see how many times (and where) the aircraft has to make a fuel stop...probably ANC I guess. Now, what kind of loads AC is expecting on this route in the winter - and if the are low would the 762ER not be a better choice? I am assuming that all the cargo will be routed through YVR to meet the payload restrictions.



User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3064 posts, RR: 36
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3184 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

AC's 762ERs are all older ones without as much range as the new model ones (aka the ones they sold CO). The PW powered 763ERs have the most range of any in the AC fleet, and with a load restriction should be legal no problem.
I have a funny feeling this will be NRT-YYZ-YVR-NRT... no problem eastbound but stopping westbound.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2987 times:

The 763 input may also be a misprint by AC. Don't forget, AC under brankruptcy protection and still losing millions daily has had to slash staff drastically so their computer operations are probably short-staffed. If you ask anyone at AC, they'll probably say that they're staying with the 340 for YYZ-NRT.

[Edited 2004-08-11 19:34:42]


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineJFKLGAflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

AC was flying the 763 between YYZ and NGO (Nagoya) for a while there... Not sure if it was an ER or not, but it was definitely a 763. Either way, a transpacific flight like that can't be pushing the limits of the 763 too much, right?


"Life's a journey, not a destination..." --Aerosmith
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4809 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2930 times:

Either way, a transpacific flight like that can't be pushing the limits of the 763 too much, right?

From YVR, no. AC has several flights to East Asia from YVR with the 763ER. For YYZ, the published maximum range for the 763ER and the Great Circle distance between YYZ and NRT are almost identical...so it would really, really be pushing it if this aircraft substitution is indeed true.


User currently offlineJFKLGAflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

You know what... I goofed. I meant to say YVR-NGO was AC's 763 route.
You're right CPDC10-30... sorry.



"Life's a journey, not a destination..." --Aerosmith
User currently offlineMd11dude From Canada, joined May 2004, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

I see no problem with the 763 operating this route. great plane!...But ill really miss the DC-10s from CP......times are a changin....


CP979
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Sked Confusion On AC YYZ CCS POS posted Sun Nov 26 2006 22:55:36 by CayMan
AC's J Class YYZ-HKG On A345 posted Thu Jun 2 2005 01:05:57 by Yegbey01
Is AC Making Profits On YYZ To HKG Direct Flight? posted Sat Jan 22 2005 17:12:16 by KHKAIR
AC YYZ To NRT Weight Restrictions? posted Tue Dec 7 2004 07:17:22 by CDNpax
CLT-YYZ-YAM On AC? posted Mon Dec 6 2004 00:48:23 by B764
YYZ-ICN On AC In Executive First posted Sat Jun 5 2004 04:09:13 by Alespesl
Can AC Be Successful On The YYZ-DEL-YYZ Route? posted Sun Oct 5 2003 14:26:47 by Vimanav
AC Introducing Direct YUL-NRT/YYZ-NRT posted Sat Aug 23 2003 07:26:16 by FLYYUL
YYZ - HKG On AC Dec 1st posted Mon Jul 21 2003 20:15:32 by Cessnapimp
AC Overbooked 70 On YVR-YYZ posted Mon Mar 18 2002 04:31:50 by Jiml1126