Elvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9858 times:
Hi,
That would be neat! Also, Sabena32 will be surprised and perhaps a bit crestfallen if this happens. You know the argument about 2 engines and the big mountains
peace
Elvis7777
Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
Tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9833 times:
Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 1): That would be neat! Also, Sabena32 will be surprised and perhaps a bit crestfallen if this happens. You know the argument about 2 engines and the big mountains
peace
Elvis7777
two engines ain't the problem! the 757s and 737s make it out easy. it's the a340 that looks like it's going to crash every time!!!
the 747 takes off with a tiny fuel load and lands on another island with a longer runway before it heads to AMS, so it's never really struggled over the mountains.
fence riding might take more courage than any other jet...
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9709 times:
Isn't the AF 777-300 configured for higher yielding destinations? The A340 doesn't have first class and has fewer premium seats than the 777-300. I know SXM is a premier beach resort, but I still struggle to believe that a plane ideal for JFK would be good for flights to SXM.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9294 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5): Isn't the AF 777-300 configured for higher yielding destinations? The A340 doesn't have first class and has fewer premium seats than the 777-300. I know SXM is a premier beach resort, but I still struggle to believe that a plane ideal for JFK would be good for flights to SXM.
i must apologize. i meant 772. some of the older AF 772 would be on this flight.
i have heard this via a friend in SXM, but i want some official confirmation so that it's no longer just a rumor.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9271 times:
Quoting San747 (Reply 6): Could the 777-300 do SXM-CDG nonstop given the runway limitations of SXM?
Doubtful, because a 777-300ER weighs almost as much as a 747. An AF 77W, as well as a 772, would be so weight restricted that it would probably have to fly to Guadeloupe for fuel. The question is also whether it would fit into the airport.
Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4): the 747 takes off with a tiny fuel load and lands on another island with a longer runway before it heads to AMS, so it's never really struggled over the mountains.
Watapana From Netherlands Antilles, joined Oct 2004, 39 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 9173 times:
The Air France/KLM Group operate ten daily flights to SXM together. AF operates a daily A340-300 and KL 3x times weekly B747-400 via CUR. I doubt these ten flights per week would justify two daily B777-200/300 flights to SXM, they would have to do this in combination with another destination as it is not possible to operate direct flights back to Europe with a B777. Air Europe had charter flights from Italy in the past to SXM and they were rerouted bck to Italy via Santo Domingo for a fuel and pax stop.
Just my 2 cents
SkyCruise Airlines- Your going places and SO are We!
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9067 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 8966 times:
Sounds unlikely to see KL stop operating the SXM route, but who knows everything is possible. Only I know is that AF will be using their 777-300ER to Guadeloupe but I'm not sure when these flights will start. Their are talks of KL terminating their BON flights but this has been extensively been discussed in another thread.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 19 Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 8938 times:
Quoting Watapana (Reply 11): The Air France/KLM Group operate ten daily flights to SXM together
I suppose you mean 10 weekly?
But loosing 2 aircraft for one and also an airline must be disappointing to SXM spotters though. But it would be in line with other recent route decisions by AF/KL which they both flew. Some are now flown only by KL, other by AF.
Pelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2530 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 8921 times:
Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
two engines ain't the problem! the 757s and 737s make it out easy. it's the a340 that looks like it's going to crash every time!!!
Quoting AS739X (Reply 7): Elvis777, you got to be kidding! There is no arguement. Have you ever seen the climb performance of the A340?
ASLAX
The problem would be not the climb performance of the T7 but the one engine out climb performance. While the climb performance of a T7 is better than the climb performance of a 340 the one engine out perfomance is worse.
FlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7312 posts, RR: 61 Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 8913 times:
Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 9): i must apologize. i meant 772. some of the older AF 772 would be on this flight.
So, you can tell your friend he probably drank too much Rum ...
Quoting Watapana (Reply 11): The Air France/KLM Group operate ten daily flights to SXM together. AF operates a daily A340-300 and KL 3x times weekly B747-400 via CUR. I doubt these ten flights per week would justify two daily B777-200/300 flights to SXM,
Absolutely right.
The DAILY A343 operated by AF has a cabin version of 36J/236Y.
The "High Density" B773ER WILL have a cabin version of 14J/36S/422M and, anyway, will be based at ORY, not CDG.
NOTHING can justify a 2xDAILY AF B773ER to SXM. NO WAY. Even if KL would pull out from the line
And I am not talking about AF's B772ER, configured for high Business Traffic routes, completely unsuitable with the type of traffic to/from SXM.
ASMD11 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 8740 times:
Thanks for the photos FlySCC after reading the caption of the second one I remembered that I had seen those before, a beautiful sight indeed I would love to see an MD11 landing there in person one day.
FlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7312 posts, RR: 61 Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 8696 times:
Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 19): There was a thread months ago where it was already said that one carrier AF or KL will leave SXM for the other one. Maybe someone finds this thread.
But that was actually a wrong information, as often ...
The truth is that all the commercial/marketing/ticketing services, station managers etc... are now under the reponsibility of AF for both AF & KLM.
Then came inevitably the boring eternal ritual questions about B777 or A343, slow climb permormance of the 340, bla bla bla
Pelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2530 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 8626 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 21): The T7 only has 2000 pounds less thrust with one engine out than the A343 does with one engine out.
I could be wrong but as far as I know the A343X has 4 CFM56-5C4s which generate 34,000 pounds thrust each. This leads to a thrust of 102,000 pounds of thrust with 3 engines.
The T72ER which AF uses has 2 GE 90-94Bs with 93,700 pounds thrust each.
So you're going to say that the difference between 102,000 lb and 93,700 lb is 2,000 lb?
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 17 hours ago) and read 8492 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 21): The T7 only has 2000 pounds less thrust with one engine out than the A343 does with one engine out.
Believe it or not, the A343 is actually lighter than the 772ER.
Also, Pelican´s reply 23 is valid.
Quoting N1120A (Reply 21): Quoting San747 (Reply 6):
Could the 777-300 do SXM-CDG nonstop given the runway limitations of SXM?
Yes
Yeah, why should we care about safety regulations and/or payload...
Exceptions confirm the rule.
25 Adria: The climb performance of the A343 is better than the one that the 744 can deliver (up to 10000ft). Also is the A343 capable of flying non-stop from S
26 Jumbojet: SXM already has 777 markings on the apron so its only a matter of time.
28 Boeing744: Pelican, you are right about the 772ER, but if we are talking about the 773ER, it actually has more thrust with one engine out than the 343 with one
29 Pelican: Of course; the 773ER is not in the same category than the A343 - it's a much bigger and also heavier aircraft and therefore needs more thrust. pelica
30 Mir: The 343 is still more powerful with an engine out. With the 77W's MTOW of 752,000lbs, each pound of thrust of the GE90 has to push 6.54 pounds of air
31 777ER: Back when BA landed a B772 at WLG in 2001, WLG didn't have any B777 markings on its tarmac and it still used an International gate a few times during
32 Morvious: You really thought my response was in any way serious???
33 United_Fan: AF used to fly n/s with a 742 , correct?
34 FlySSC: When AF was using a B72 or B743, the flight was routing CDG-SXM-SDQ-CDG.
35 LTU932: Point taken, though we can still say it's somewhat close to the 747. Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that a twinjet will lose 50% power with on
36 SA7700: Is that a fact? Please come to JNB and compare the climb performance of the A343E over the B744. Also, according to the Great Circle Mapper, SXM-CDG
37 DTWAGENT: Question.... How long is the runway at SXM? And there has to be weight restrictions on these larger aircraft?????
39 LTU932: It's simple: a 744 at SXM is heavily weight restricted due to the short runway, so it has to go to CUR, SDQ or some other nearby airports with suitab
40 SA7700: So all B747's go to nearby airports, before actually heading for Europe? Rgds SA7700
41 LTU932: In the case of SXM, that is correct, all because of weight restrictions due to the short runway. Other airports like AUA, SDQ and CUR for example hav
42 Molykote: They are definitely nice photos but the perspective offered by a given lens and vantage point is not as informative as certified performance data. Th
43 SA7700: Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Rgds SA7700
45 Kappel: Yes, if all engines are running the 772ER is most certainly a better climber, (no I'm not on glue!!! ) but the problem as discussed is the engine-out
46 KDTWFlyer: How did that happen, jet blast? BTW, standing behind a GE-90-115B at takeoff thrust would be insane.
47 Tockeyhockey: have you ever spotted at sxm? trust me, the a340 struggles in a comparitive sense. it gets over just fine, but it does so at a much lower trajectory.
48 Airbazar: Correct, but that has absolutely no relevance. Safety and making money do play an important role in running an airline, not just the color of its pai
49 Tockeyhockey: i stood behind an AA 757 that had its brakes set for departure and spooled up the engines. rather than stand right at the fence (which is actually a
50 Molykote: I think we are both correct here.... My comment about the 777 and A340 power/performance was in response to the nice A340 climb photos included above
51 Watapana: Just to clarify something about Sint Maarten, it does not have any mountains-----ONLY HILLS!!! My 2 cents
52 Aircanada333: Yes I Have seen those shots before. But to T/O as early as that, the engines must be at 100% with lots of flaps and also, the trim must be up a lot.
53 Tu144d: You, know I'm a bit suspicious of the fact that a a 747 cannot make it to Europe non-stop from SXM, even though the runway is pretty short. I remember
54 Tockeyhockey: it's not an issue of whether it has the range to make it back to AMS, it's an issue of whether or not it can take off on SXM's very short runway with
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 932 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11306 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1769 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined Oct 2004, 39 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, 
From France, joined Aug 2003, 7312 posts, 
)
Printer friendly format 
