Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 At SXM  
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11037 times:

I heard a rumor that AF and KLM will be ending CDG a340 and AMS 747 service to SXM in favor of two daily AF 773s, routing dutch customers through CDG.

Does anyone have any information regarding this rumor?

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineElvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11014 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
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12343 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11014 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Loosing the KLM B744 will be disappointing for all SXM fans. Just need to look at B747 pics at SXM to know what I mean

User currently offlineBoeing744 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1846 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 11003 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 2):
Loosing the KLM B744 will be disappointing for all SXM fans.

That is true, but in exchange they may get to see those enourmous GE90s!!!  biggrin 


User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 10989 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...

although i almost got killed by a 757 once.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9838 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 10865 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!
User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4967 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 10842 times:

Could the 777-300 do SXM-CDG nonstop given the runway limitations of SXM?


Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6200 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 10804 times:

Elvis777, you got to be kidding! There is no arguement. Have you ever seen the climb performance of the A340?

ASLAX



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineAircanada333 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10554 times:

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

Yeah! the climb performance of the A343 just sucks because of its tiny engines but it is a great plane thought.

Benjamin  Smile



De-icing RULZ!!!
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10450 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.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10427 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.

That other island in the case of KL would be CUR.


User currently offlineWatapana From Netherlands Antilles, joined Oct 2004, 39 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10329 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!
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 10010 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10122 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.

A388


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10094 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.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10077 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.

pelican

[Edited 2006-02-18 12:02:09]

User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7428 posts, RR: 57
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10069 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  sarcastic 

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.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10041 times:

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
it's the a340 that looks like it's going to crash every time!!!



Quoting Aircanada333 (Reply 8):
the climb performance of the A343 just sucks



Quoting AS739X (Reply 7):
Have you ever seen the climb performance of the A340?

I guess you guys didn't see these photo's


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Rodgers



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineASMD11 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9982 times:

Would KLM ever send the MD11 to SXM? Or have they in the past? That would be a sight to see. (But I'm not biased for the MD11 at all  Wink)

User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7428 posts, RR: 57
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9965 times:

Quoting ASMD11 (Reply 17):
Would KLM ever send the MD11 to SXM? Or have they in the past?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rodrigo Arrue Deiro
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jordi Grife - Iberian Spotters



User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9957 times:

Judging from the previous posts it should be no problem, but can SXM handle the lenght of a B777-300?

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.

Georg


User currently offlineASMD11 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9896 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.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9863 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Isn't the AF 777-300 configured for higher yielding destinations?

They are getting high density ones as well, but those are for ORY flights to places like RUN

Quoting San747 (Reply 6):
Could the 777-300 do SXM-CDG nonstop given the runway limitations of SXM?

Yes

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 10):
Doubtful, because a 777-300ER weighs almost as much as a 747.

Almost? 100,000 pounds less is not almost, particularly when you have almost as much power per side

Quoting Pelican (Reply 14):
While the climb performance of a T7 is better than the climb performance of a 340 the one engine out perfomance is worse.

The T7 only has 2000 pounds less thrust with one engine out than the A343 does with one engine out.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7428 posts, RR: 57
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9852 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.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2176240

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  sarcastic 


User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9782 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?

pelican


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4728 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9648 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... Yeah sure



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.
27 Post contains links and images Morvious : View Large View MediumPhoto © Joe Pries - ATR Team Offcourse there are, Otherwise they couldn't park her back in 2001 Lets just hope KLM won't s
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 Post contains images 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?????
38 FlySSC : Rnw 09/27 itself : 2180m X 45m
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
44 LTU932 : No problem man. - Richie
45 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
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...
United: Why 777 At ANC Today? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 23:10:45 by AA737-823
AA 777 At DEN On 21 October posted Fri Nov 3 2006 06:39:06 by Longhornmaniac
Delta 777 At Kafw This Afternoon posted Mon Oct 23 2006 08:30:15 by N839mh
Korean Airlines 777 At LAS? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 06:35:20 by Sperl19
Vietnam 777 At YVR Wed. Sept 13. posted Wed Sep 13 2006 20:22:19 by Boeing764
AA 777 At IAH posted Tue Sep 12 2006 04:09:35 by IAHcsr
AA RDU-LGW Back To 777 At The End Of October posted Sun Sep 3 2006 23:13:12 by Dank
Triple Sevens At SXM posted Wed Aug 30 2006 22:49:51 by Tony Lu
UA 777's At SEA posted Tue Aug 29 2006 07:46:47 by Bartond
"Het KLM Hek Clipper" At SXM On Video posted Sun Aug 6 2006 16:33:45 by JHSfan