Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rumor: Air France 773ER To SXM  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7651 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

A friend of mine who's sister used to babysit for an Air France pilot ( Big grin ) just told me AF will be announcing 777-300ER's into SXM, along with other Caribean destinations the end of this month.

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21092 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7510 times:

I'd be very surprised about that - I thought that the 777 didn't have enough power to meet SXMs climbout requirements.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7414 times:

On a 3700nm route? I would assume it has plenty of lift.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineThe777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6403 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7410 times:

AF will soon start flying 777s to their overseas territories but mainly to FDF and PTP. Their next four 777s will be in high density configuration specifcally for this purpose and will be based at ORY. From what I have read in other posts, AF would not use the 77W to SXM., they would still use the 343 or perhaps even 744. But things change.

The777Man



Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly...T5, CI, MU, LX and LH 777s
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7361 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
On a 3700nm route? I would assume it has plenty of lift.

The problem is climb performance with one engine out and possibly also ETOPS restrictions. 767s don't seem to have any problems flying out of SXM, but a 77W at SXM would be majorly weight restricted, much like the 747 was and still is. SXM's runway is at 7708 ft one of the shortest runways used for transatlantic service to Europe and a fully loaded 77W with enough fuel to fly back to CDG would require more than the available runway length.

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
AF will be announcing 777-300ER's into SXM, along with other Caribean destinations the end of this month.

If that was to be true, which I definitely doubt, then there is still the issue on whether SXM would continue to be operated out of CDG or if they shift operations to ORY. In the end, the A343 is the perfect aircraft for this flight, because it can make it nonstop back to Europe with a decent load.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7356 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
I'd be very surprised about that - I thought that the 777 didn't have enough power to meet SXMs climbout requirements.

The 772ER doesn't but the 77W may

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
On a 3700nm route? I would assume it has plenty of lift.

As it is, both the 744 and 772ER have to stop on the way back to Europe on the route, which is why the A343 is used. The reason for the 772ER's inability to do it is engine out performance.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 6):
SXM's runway is at 7708 ft one of the shortest runways used for transatlantic service to Europe and a fully loaded 77W with enough fuel to fly back to CDG would require more than the available runway length.

Aren't they lengthening the runway?



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7282 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
Aren't they lengthening the runway?

I believe so, but I reckon it might still not be long enough to support nonstop transatlantic 747 and/or 777 flights.


User currently offlineKa From Switzerland, joined Apr 2000, 655 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7231 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
Aren't they lengthening the runway?

No, they are extending the overrun area to meet ICAO standards. TORA will remain the same.

KA.



Keep smiling - you might be on Radar!
User currently offlineFlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7218 times:

This subject was already discussed 10 000 times in the past 6 months

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2682529


User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1337 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 6):
The problem is climb performance with one engine out and possibly also ETOPS restrictions. 767s don't seem to have any problems flying out of SXM, but a 77W at SXM would be majorly weight restricted, much like the 747 was and still is. SXM's runway is at 7708 ft one of the shortest runways used for transatlantic service to Europe and a fully loaded 77W with enough fuel to fly back to CDG would require more than the available runway length.

What exactly do you mean by ETOPS restrictions? I'd imagine AF has 180 ETOPS time for the 777 fleet (although I don't know this for a fact).

Is ETOPS 180 insufficient for this route or are other factors at work?



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7176 times:

Using Boeing's current numbers from their planning documents, the high temperature charts at sea level altitude and field length at SXM:

the 772ER (current offering) can carry 95k lbs of payload ex-fuel needed for the route (and carry 145k lbs of fuel for the route)

the 773ER can carry 130k lbs of payload (and carry 150k lbs of fuel for the route)

the 744 can carry 115k lbs of payload (and carry 210k lbs of fuel for the route)

Of course, that's for typical design weights of the aircraft (OEW typical, not specific to AF) but it still shows that the payload limitations on the 773ER are not high for the route (85%, 8-10% better than the other planes), it carries more payload than the 744 or the 772ER, and uses nearly the same amount of fuel as the 772ER to carry 35% greater payload the same distance for this type of route.

while due to the mountain and the engine out it still might be restricted further (I was conservative in my calcs to begin with), you can see from those figures why the 773ER sold amazingly well last year and why it's taking over for the 744 on many routes.

I can't find the same info on the airbus site, but it would be impossible for the 343 to carry more payload than the 773ER on this route even if it could go with no restrictions, engine out performance looks to be the same as the 343 due to the massive power from the GE90-115B (unlike the 772ER), and fuel burn per pound of payload is higher.

It may very well be able to run SXM-PAR profitably and safely with good payload with a 773ER. We'll just have to see.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7118 times:

All your "technical" theories about engines, climb rates, thrust, ETOPS, bla bla bla are very interesting, but there is a much more simple explanation why you will not see an AF B773ER at SXM :

Druring the highest season, AF operates a DAILY A343 to SXM. Capacity : 36J/236M which represents an offer of 1904 seats weekly.

A DAILY B773ER (capacity : 14J/36S/422M) would represent an offer of 3304 seats Weekly, that is to say an increased offer by 73,5 % !!!

Even if KLM would stop its fights to SXM (which is not likely to happen), nothing would justify such a change for the moment.

Moreover, those B773ER will be based at ORY. Flights to/from SXM are operated from/to CDG. They will operates ALL the flights to/from PTP, FDF (after the full retirement of the last 4 B743 used on those lines) and then RUN (starting Feb.2007).


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21092 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6914 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 6):
767s don't seem to have any problems flying out of SXM,

Who flies the 767 from SXM to Europe? I know that North American carriers use the 767 to SXM sometimes, but they don't have nearly as far to go. I'd be really shocked if the 767 could make it back to Europe without a fuel stop.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6858 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 11):
Is ETOPS 180 insufficient for this route or are other factors at work?

No, it's fine, and the 773ER can do 207 if AF is qualified. There are suitable alternates in between PAR and the caribbean in the Azores.

As FlySSC rudely points out, 343 is lower capacity than a 773, but since AF has flown 747s there before, I'm not sure even his rudeness indicates a lack of suitability for the route if CASM improvements can provide for lower fares.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAmy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6842 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
I'd be very surprised about that - I thought that the 777 didn't have enough power to meet SXMs climbout requirements.

-Mir

GE-90-115B? Are you kidding?



A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1280 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6765 times:

Quoting Amy (Reply 17):
GE-90-115B? Are you kidding?

Exactly! The 777-300ER at MTOW on a standard temperature day of 20 degrees Celcius at Sea Level, requires about 3300 Meters of Runway, this means that with a TO thrust mode and CLB climb mode the full thrust and a flight almost half of the aicrafts Max range will easily take off a 2550 Meter runway, the only problem is that if you take a 777 and it has a engine loss on TO it has 50% thrust remaining against 75% of an A340-300 so the 777-300ER wont ever fly from SXM although its technically possible and no problem for the AC.

Dont forget Air Europe used their 777-200ER they once had, for a couple of non stops from Europe to SXM, withought any problems.

BTW flying from DUS-DXB on EK on a 777-300ER i talked to the Captain after arrival in DXB, and he told me that being a ex. Air France Co-Pilot on the 777-200ER, he stated that the company has a policy of not using the 777`s on runways under the length of 8000 Feet, not for technical reasons but just as a company policy.



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineFlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6756 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
Who flies the 767 from SXM to Europe?

Maybe some airlines are using B767 ou pf SXM but AF is the ONLY airline to fly NONSTOP to Europe

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
but since AF has flown 747s there before, I'm not sure even his rudeness indicates a lack of suitability for the route if CASM improvements can provide for lower fares.

When AF was flying a B747, the flight was not Daily and was serving also SDQ as it was routing CDG-SXM-SDQ-CDG.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6611 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
Who flies the 767 from SXM to Europe?

Lauda Air Italy and Air Holland (or at least used to).

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Statz
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jordi Grife - Iberian Spotters



User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3292 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

According to AirlinerWorld, Air France will move the SXM flights to ORY and will use 773's non-stop. Though I don't remember when the flights will start. The frequency may also diminish and may no longer be daily, even at peak season because of the increase in capacity.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineFlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6510 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 21):
According to AirlinerWorld, Air France will move the SXM flights to ORY and will use 773's non-stop

Flights to SXM are used by a lot of European Tourists and there is NO possibility of connection at Orly as all AF's European network is operated from CDG (except a few flights to North Africa).
Flights to/from PTP/FDF/RUN/CAY are operated from ORY because 95% of the PAX of those flights who have a connection at Paris are connecting to the French province.


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3292 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That might be the case but I'm just repeating what I read in Airliner World. And I'm pretty darned sure because it's right in front of me.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineDALOCCDtyDrctr From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5956 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
I'd be very surprised about that - I thought that the 777 didn't have enough power to meet SXMs climbout requirements.

The 772ER doesn't but the 77W may


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Pries - ATR Team



Hmmmmm.........?



 scratchchin 



N102DA
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 48
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 1):
Alitalia will soon announce 787-8/9 orders.

REALLY!!!!???? Big grin



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5417 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Here is a picture of the plane they will use


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King



User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9564 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5223 times:

Nice photo Clickhappy  Smile

A bit off-topic but there was another thread about KL possibly leasing some 773ERs from ILFC to replace their full pax 744 aircraft to start with. I immediately thaught of CUR as KL mainly flies their full pax 744s to CUR. Does the inability of the 773ER flying to SXM have to do with the runway length, airport height/altitude and the mountains being so close to the runway? Here in CUR we have a runway length of 3410m long and is 60m wide with no mountains anywhere near. The airport surrounding is just flat. The transition altitude is 2500 ft. Would this make AMS-CUR economical for KL to use the 773ER (nonstop)?

Which economical, operational and technical (other) factors determine twin engine operations on longhaul flights and why? The temperature also has an influence on engine performance (hot & high) but why is this? I never really knew the reason behind this being a factor (?)

A388


25 Flpuck6 : Hi everyone, For what it's worth, Clickhappy's and FlySSC's informations have merit. There will be 4 77W "high denisity" versions based in ORY for Car
26 Mir : Ok, let me clarify. I have no doubt that a 772 (or a 77W) can make it off of SXM and meet single-engine climb requirements. I doubt that it can do th
27 N766UA : Oh my God... I've GOT to stand behind that beast!!
28 LTU932 : Plus CUR has a 11188 ft runway, which is long enough for any widebody flying there.
29 FlySSC : 4 aircraft this summer, 7 next year. They will operate the 2 x Daily PTP, 2 x Daily FDF, then 10 x Weekly RUN. Once again, they are not planned to be
30 A388 : Aren't the PTP/FDF flights the same flight? I remember AF operating these flights as one flight with a stop in either PTP or FDF in the same way KL f
31 Ahlfors : PTP and FDF are definitely operated separately. They both get at least a daily flight each on AF from ORY (more in winter), as well as a daily TX fro
32 Post contains images A388 : Okay, thanks A388
33 FlySSC : Actually, FDF & PTP are both served by 2 x DAILY flight (all from ORY) during the (European) summer season, not winter. FDF = AF652/653 & 656/657 PTP
34 NW727251ADV : I hope I don't get flammed for this because I know how technical everyone on this site is... This is kinda off topic but, I realize this is only a PC
35 Qantas744ER : Since PMDG or LDS dont have a 773 your 773 is wrong, i fly FS aswell, and the only Flight sim. Add-On makers you could compare to real life are PMDG
36 Mir : It isn't, but you still should be able to make it out of SXM under certain conditions. First thing you want to do is check that you're not taking off
37 NW727251ADV : I actually have a really good 773 add-on that is far superior to the crappy default 773 that comes with FS2002. My 773 looks realistic as hell and pe
38 Post contains images FlySSC : Try again the same simulation but cut one engine 5 knots before V1, and in another attempt, cut 1 engine right between V1 and VR ...
39 N1120A : ETOPS 207 has only ever been granted over the North Pacific, and only on a case by case basis for ETOPS 180 certified carriers. There is no indicatio
40 Post contains images Mir : I've tried it, and the results were smashing! In that into-a-hill sort of sense.... -Mir
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...
Air France Flights To CCS: Filling Up A B744? posted Tue Jul 25 2006 17:31:23 by Poh2
Air France-KLM To Merge With Alitalia - Rumours posted Thu Jul 13 2006 09:58:19 by Chiad
Air France 773's To Houston posted Sat Jan 7 2006 06:10:12 by FlyDreamliner
New Air France 773ER posted Sun Nov 20 2005 01:24:07 by LePousson
Air France Flights To The USA posted Thu Oct 13 2005 11:52:08 by DID747
Air France-KLM To Raise Fuel Surcharge Again posted Thu Sep 29 2005 12:34:14 by JetMaster
Air France Flights To The USA posted Tue Sep 13 2005 17:43:30 by DID747
Air France Coming To DTW! posted Wed Jun 1 2005 01:39:26 by Dr.DTW
Air France Coming To DTW This Summer posted Fri Mar 11 2005 04:25:31 by JAFA
Air Canada Service To SXM posted Tue Dec 14 2004 00:01:06 by NorthwestEWR