Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?  
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6587 times:

A number of airlines operate the 767-300ER on many trans-oceanic flights including DL's JFK-ATH, AC's YVR-SHA, YVR-PEK and YYZ-TLV, MS's CAI-JFK which appear to be the longest of them all. Of those flights that I mentioned, are any of them subjected to hefty payload restrictions? How bad are they and what do the airlines do to deal with this: ie no excess luggage, empty seats etc? What are the most payload restricted flights you know of (not only limited to 763s)?

Boeing's website shows range maps for this aircraft, and mentions full passenger payload: does this include a full cargo hold as well?

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7523 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6558 times:

AM has one 763ER in its fleet and it is very seldom used for the MEX-CDG and MEX-MAD flights. Those routes are flown most of the times with 762ER's. The reason, I understand, is weight restrictions; however, I think that these restrictions are not so much a result of the distance, but of the fact that MEX is very high above the sea level. Sorry that I cannot help more.


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6468 times:

Yeah, the restrictions on MEX-CDG and MEX-MAD would be because MEX is not only high, but hot in the summer.
The LAX-SYD flight was famously weight restricted even on the 747-400 (still is for UA) until QF got the 744ER. CO's EWR-HKG flight with the 772 is always restricted, same with the CX A346 HKG-JFK (they are talking about getting rid of the 346 at the end of their leases because of that and going to a 744). Many long flights that do not involve 757s at SNA are restricted (WN just recently started carrying cargo there, and not as much). That is one of the main reason you see so many 757s at SNA, because they have amazing runway performance.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2026 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6472 times:

ETStar,
Alitalia used to operate MXP-SFO with a 763ER configured for 205 seats. From SFO, we had to weight restrict due to one engine out limitations (too high obstacles off 28s to allow for westbound departures). Our choices were to either weight restrict and depart off 1R or go off 10L in the opposite direction of traffic.

Usually these weight restrictions were in the form of cargo offload. Using 10L usually meant a 30-45 min taxi delay (engines running) for a gap in the traffic so we could launch. Most of the time we went off 1R and just took off the cargo, so as not to take the delay.

At MXP, the problem was worse, because the one engine out procedures did not allow for the climbing 360 left turn used to get high enough to go over the Alps. During the summer, it was not uncommon to leave a can of non-transfer bags behind if there was not enough cargo to offload to get under the weight required to meet the OEO requirement.

Thankfully, this problem only presented itself in the summer. The rest of the year we could make the 1R departure, unless, of course, on those days in which 10L had to be used because of cross winds on the 1s.

BTW, the flight time winter averaged 11 hr eastbound, westbound 12 to 12.5hrs. Summer, as low as 10.25 eastbound and 11.5 westbound. Longest flight was 12:40 due to heavy weight and wide 360 turn over MXP to get enough altitude to transit the Alps plus very northerly track over Canada.

baw716 (ex aza625)



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineLX23 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 347 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6391 times:

I really don't have a lot of information on this, but maybe the MAD-EZE routes flown by Southern Winds and Air Europa? After all, it takes roughly 13 hours each way... Anyone maybe have any info on this?

User currently offlineDAirbus From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6298 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Most of Delta's routes with the 767-300ER have few weight restrictions during the year. The biggest variable usually is the amount of cargo booked for the flight and the fuel load which depends on that day's weather conditions (headwinds, destination wx, etc.).

There are seasonal embargos for flights to Latin American destinations which use primarily 737 and 757 equipment regarding excess baggage but this is usually due to space and not weight limitations. Currently, the worst flight for weight restrictions due to cargo is LIM-ATL operated by a 767-400. There is a large amount of perishable freight on this flight which is a high density and high value freight product. The freight booked for this flight is usually around 50,000 lbs with pallets of asparragus (yes, the vegetable) averaging 6-8,000 lbs each. Interestingly enough, the main weight limit for this flight is not takeoff or landing weight but zero fuel weight.

If there is a weight problem, non-rev passengers are denied boarding first and then freight is bumped to make room for paying passengers and their bags. If more weight is needed, then volunteers are solicited to take another flight. This is done exactly as if the flight was oversold.

Back when Delta operated a MD-11 ATL-NRT, this flight was severely weight restricted. Usually, only revenue passengers and bags could ride although passengers were occassionally denied boarding. There were some times when the temperature would go up two or three degrees from the time it left the gate until it taxied to the runway and they then had to return to offload some cargo in order to be under max takeoff weight. Since the 777's started flying this route, there have not been any more weight restrictions.






"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." - Charles Shultz
User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6248 times:

FYI, AC will operate YYZ-NRT with 763s next winter. The planned flying time westbound is 13h45 so restrictions will apply on this flight for sure.

The distance is 6414 mi. Probably the longest regular route ever for this aircraft.



E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlineBaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2026 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

YUL332LX,
WOW! A 763 on YYZ-NRT? There will be some serious ETOPS limitatons on that route. I suspect also some weight restrictions, because going up over Alaska (which will be necessary due to the 138 min ETOPS) will go right up against the winds making it a little harder to get there with a full payload.

That said, ACs 763s are not densely configured, so passengers should find it reasonably comfortable to fly; especially in J class.

I wish them all the best.



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offline757MDE From Colombia, joined Sep 2004, 1753 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6140 times:

AV has seldom sent 763s to MAD on it's BOG - MAD route, now they never do because it takes off pretty much limited from BOG, both on luggage and pax.

They sometimes have sent it full, but it has had to make a "technical stop" at CTG.

BOG - MAD is all 762.



I gladly accept donations to pay for flight hours! This thing draws man...
User currently offlineArcano From Chile, joined Mar 2004, 2402 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6075 times:

Actually, one of the most important issues for LAN to purchase the 340-300 was the payload restriction of the 763 all the way to MAD.

The 763 could have done SCL-MAD non stop, but under serious load restrictions, and since cargo is a very important business for LAN, they had to spend money and get the 340s.

Regards )( Arcano



in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773 and 380
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6066 times:

CO's EWR-HKG flight with the 772 is always restricted

hmm... ya think so?




A 763 on YYZ-NRT? There will be some serious ETOPS limitatons on that route

What are you talking about? That flight's completely within ETOPS180  Nuts




one of the most important issues for LAN to purchase the 340-300 was the payload restriction of the 763 all the way to MAD.

FWIW, LA also was interested in launching the PW4098-powered 772ER. Though, we see how well that worked out.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6056 times:

Yes Fred, I think so, I just wanted to point it out because he asked. It looks like you and me for this weeks most posts prize  Big thumbs up


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6050 times:

Yes Fred, I think so

Then you think wrong.  Laugh out loud
(and yes, I'm aware that Alain's article blah blah blahs about payload restrictions on the westbound etc)



Anywho, surprisingly enough: when the airline is required to restrict seats on this flight, it's usually on the eastbound... due to cargo being carried.

NOT the westbound; which is often, and was initially with this flight as well, restricted on most longhauls as a result of headwinds.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6041 times:

Still, with any restrictions, CO non-revs have told me it is easier to get back from HNL to LAX by flying GUM-HKG-EWR-LAX because of how full the HNL-LAX flight normally is


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5910 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6037 times:

Other "popular" long-haul 763 routes includes SAS' CPH-HKG route, which I understand was constantly weight-restricted along with the odd fuel stop ex-HKG.

Btw, SAS tried CPH-GRU (I think) and CPH-SIN (non-stop), but I can't remember if they did it with their B762's or B763's.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6035 times:

Other "popular" long-haul 763 routes includes SAS' CPH-HKG route, which I understand was constantly weight-restricted along with the odd fuel stop ex-HKG.

Yeah, they used to request/utilize Kai Tak's Rwy13 even when everyone else was usin' 31. Bet ATC just loveeed that  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineNWA757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6022 times:

In order for the Boeing 767-300 to fly ultra-long routes, payload restrictions are needed.


Fly High!
User currently onlineAirxliban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4504 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5970 times:

on another note SV flies 763s into LAX from SVO, wonder how that goes for payload restrictions if it even needs any at all.

are russian jets banned in the US? there are pix in the database of IL-96s at LAX as well as pix of IL-86 which couldn't possibly make it from SVO nonstop...could they?

[Edited 2004-10-11 01:25:33]


PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

Russian jets are not banned here, I just think that SU wants a 2 person crew and thinks that a US aircraft might appeal more than a russian one (too bad, that IL-96 is world class and sexy). They fly polar into LAX, so weight should not be too much of an issue


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5935 times:

they are talking about getting rid of the 346 at the end of their leases because of that and going to a 744.

That would be stupid, as the 346 features significantly greater uplift on this route than a 744.

United's short-lived 744 JFK-HKG regularly went out with over 100 seats blocked.

N


User currently offlineJmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3242 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5883 times:

In January of last year, I flew on a South African Airways 744 from ATL to CPT. Even on a cold 30-degree Georgia morning, that bird was pax restricted to 271Y. Seating capacity was 285Y. Luckily, there were only 215 booked and we still used nearly every inch of that runway.



.......
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5844 times:

as the 346 features significantly greater uplift on this route than a 744.


Perhaps they meant that 747Adv junk instead of 744  Big grin


User currently offlineAV757 From Colombia, joined Apr 2004, 658 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5774 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

At AV, our case here at BOG at 8360 feet above sea level; our B767-383 with PW4060 engines is severely restricted.

At BOG, Flaps 5, Improved Climb and 14° C at 23:45Z, MTOW 340,000 lbs due to the altitude and the obstacle limitations in case of an engine failure after V1 (second segment climb limited).

Normal Limitations:
MTW 409,000 lbs
MTOW 408,000 lbs
MLW 320,000 lbs
MZFW 288,000 lbs

The aircraft with a full passenger load of 210 and their luggage is capable of a 6:00 hour flight from BOG. For example EZE, SCL or JFK which are less than 6:00 hours from BOG.

For any flight of more than 6:00 hours to carry a full passenger load and their luggage, a fueling stop is mandatory at an airport without the altitude limitations of BOG; or a reduction of passengers and luggage is required.

In the case of the MAD flight from BOG, for the fuel stop it can be CTG, BAQ or MIQ which all are at sea level where the maximum take-off weight can be used.

Regards:
AV757


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5671 times:

How long's BOG's best runway?

User currently offlineAV757 From Colombia, joined Apr 2004, 658 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5656 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There are 2 runways at BOG, 13L/31R and 13R/31L;
both have 12,467 Ft in length.

AV757


25 ConcordeBoy : ...any plans for a DEN-like megarunway? If any place were to need it.....
26 Timz : "(too high obstacles off [SFO] 28s to allow for westbound departures)." Any recall how tall the obstacles, and how far from the runway? "...pix in the
27 AV757 : The problem will not be solved by increasing runway lenght to 14,000 or 15,000ft; the problem is the maximum performance left with an engine out due t
28 N1120A : SU also flew IL-62s to SEA. The mega runway at DEN is for 772ERs to be able to fly DEN-Asia unrestricted on hot summer days in the mile-high city. Lon
29 Baw716 : TimZ, The principal obstacle was Mt. San Bruno. However, as you probably know, the 28 departure profile takes you out over the ocean before you make a
30 Baw716 : ConcordeBoy, The route might be within ETOPS 180, but is AC allowed to operate their 763s with ETOPS 180? ETOPS requirements are aircraft type and ope
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...
Cathay Pacific Airways Boeing 767-300? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 17:23:54 by BrightCedars
LAN Orders 3 Boeing 767-300 posted Wed Mar 29 2006 22:21:22 by Flyfirst
AF Boeing 767-300 posted Tue Nov 29 2005 18:24:37 by LY777
Boeing 767-300: 4 Or 6 Doors? posted Fri Jul 8 2005 23:46:48 by KLMcedric
Song 2055: A Boeing 767-300? posted Mon Jun 6 2005 15:17:08 by DLX737200
Boeing 767-300 N798AW@ MEX Today! posted Fri Mar 18 2005 18:17:51 by LeoDF
SAS Boeing 767-300 posted Tue Jan 18 2005 22:45:13 by Dirkou
Boeing 767-300 @ Kmdw posted Wed Jun 16 2004 19:51:52 by B757capt
Special Visitor In Brussels: Boeing 767-300 A6-SUL posted Sun Aug 24 2003 12:30:25 by A330DAT
Delta Boeing 767-300 Diverted To YUL posted Sun Jun 8 2003 04:22:26 by Quebecair727
Boeing 767-300 Winglets List (Updated Weekly) posted Tue Nov 24 2009 23:55:18 by Tomascubero
VRG Linhas Aereas Boeing 767-300 posted Sun Dec 16 2007 04:13:09 by RAFVC10
Cathay Pacific Airways Boeing 767-300? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 17:23:54 by BrightCedars
LAN Orders 3 Boeing 767-300 posted Wed Mar 29 2006 22:21:22 by Flyfirst
AF Boeing 767-300 posted Tue Nov 29 2005 18:24:37 by LY777
Boeing 767-300: 4 Or 6 Doors? posted Fri Jul 8 2005 23:46:48 by KLMcedric
Song 2055: A Boeing 767-300? posted Mon Jun 6 2005 15:17:08 by DLX737200
Boeing 767-300 N798AW@ MEX Today! posted Fri Mar 18 2005 18:17:51 by LeoDF
SAS Boeing 767-300 posted Tue Jan 18 2005 22:45:13 by Dirkou