Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2542 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.
Aa767400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2271 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2429 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.
Thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2173 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)
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
Sebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1658 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2154 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.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2121 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
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.
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2804 posts, RR: 41 Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2091 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.
Bmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2081 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1894 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.
JFKLGAflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 82 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1855 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
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1837 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.