Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Range Of SQ's 777-300ER  
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11400 times:

With only 278 seats and F/C seats that recline manually rather than with heavy motors, I wonder how much extra range they have. Does anyone know what the new F/C SQ seats weigh? Or does anyone have a good idea of the OEW of an SQ 777-300ER? I imagine it might be close to Boeing's nominal OEW.

I'm specifically wondering how well an SQ 777-300ER would do on LAX-HKG. It would make a lot of sense for SQ to start SIN-HKG-LAX service, but I think they would want to start with a smaller aircraft than the 747-400. I know that roughly five or so times per year the SQ 747-400 has to make a tech stop along the SFO-HKG flight when winds are particular severe.

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 11291 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):
With only 278 seats and F/C seats that recline manually rather than with heavy motors, I wonder how much extra range they have. Does anyone know what the new F/C SQ seats weigh? Or does anyone have a good idea of the OEW of an SQ 777-300ER? I imagine it might be close to Boeing's nominal OEW.

My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3203 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10947 times:

There's so much computer hardware per seat etc; they're hugely heavy. And manual reclines? Since when?

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10877 times:

Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 2):
And manual reclines? Since when?

Since SQ introduced the 777-300ER last December, to convert an F or C class seat to the sleeping position requires standing up, finding a steward or stewardess and having him or her manually fold the seat-back forward, bridging the gap between the seat and the footrest.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10850 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG.

Zeke - your posts. and your profile, have a pro-Airbus flavor to them, so how can it be that a plane with a range of 7,400NM have trouble flying a route that is 5,800NM.

Sounds like rubbish to me.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 10691 times:

Widebodyphotog did a mission comparison analysis on nominal 8300nm and 6000nm SQ routes back in August 2005.
What is relevant to Zvezda's question is that Widebodyphotog used a figure of 20400lb as the difference between the generic OEW and the passenger ready OEW of a SQ -200ER . This was for a configuration of 30 F / 255 Y .
Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that the passenger ready OEW for SQ's 77W's in the configuration that Zvezda outlined, is in the vicinity of 391000 LB ( 370000 + 21000+-).
In the 278 seat configuration this would put the full passenger load ZFW at about 450000lb. The load/range chart would suggest that the still air range for this payload should be in the vicinity of 7700nm. Assuming -40k winds the westbound still air distance HKG-CDG is about 5700nm. Still air range for MZFW of 461000lb is shown as about 7500nm.
Perhaps I am missing something on why SQ's 77W is HKG-CDG payload restricted !


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 10682 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 4):
Zeke - your posts. and your profile, have a pro-Airbus flavor to them, so how can it be that a plane with a range of 7,400NM have trouble flying a route that is 5,800NM.

You assume

1) They are using the certified MTOW ( they decided not to on other 777s they have to save costs)
2) The SQ OEW is the same as the Boeing one (unlikely)
3) The composite floor accepted the F&J product without modification (unlikely)
4) They carry no cargo (unlikely)
5) The combined standard weight of passengers and checked and carry on baggage comes in at 210 lb per passenger (unlikely)
6) They carry minimum FAA reserves (normally carry more, 8-10t)
7) They don't feed their passengers (unlikely)
8) They provide no IFE (unlikely).
9) They don't sell any duty free (unlikely)
10) They don't have a crew rest (unlikely)
11) The provide no amenity kits, blankets, or pillows (unlikely)
12) They fly in nil wind conditions always at optimum altitudes and over great circle routes (unlikely)

I would assume their configuration would exceed the standard Boeing configuration conservatively by 5t (seats, galleys, false floor, overhead rest, toilets, lighting, IFE, emergency and survival equipment), a similar configuration on the 340 which has a narrower cabin, with seats that are not as wide as the SQ 777 the buyer furnished equipment comes in at at over 20t.

The max design payload at maximum fuel & max certified TOW is 42t, if they carry cargo 15t, and 30t for passengers and baggage, 3t for catering, they could conceivably be range limited. NB 15-25t is a normal amount SQ, CX and EK carry in terms of cargo on the 330 & 777 out of Asia.

If they had the range you suggest, they could fly the aircraft direct to the east coast of the USA from SIN, from what I hearing they will be routed via HKG and TPE, the westbound trip from the states would have next to zero cargo.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 4):
Sounds like rubbish to me.

I did not like the tone of your post, I just posted what people who fly the aircraft told me.

With the above information I hope you can see how the numbers in http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777_2lr3er.pdf will differ in real life operations.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10524 times:

Zeke, you're confusing OEW and MEW again. OEW includes an allowance (unreallistically low for both Airbus and Boeing) for customer furnished equipment and crew above and beyond MEW.

Also, 238lbs per passenger including baggage might be plausible for Americans going to Europe on summer holiday, but it is not plausible between SIN and CDG. Your numbers are several tonnes outside of reasonable.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
I did not like the tone of your post

Pot meet kettle.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10478 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I think the huge assupmtion is on your part, Zeke.

I mean, seriously. Why would Boeing provide range numbers for a 777-300ER with no crew rest, not carrying any freight, no pillows or blankets (LOL you are really stretching with that one), and no IFE, and no food.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10447 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
Why would Boeing provide range numbers for a 777-300ER with no crew rest, not carrying any freight, no pillows or blankets (LOL you are really stretching with that one), and no IFE, and no food.

Boeing don't do anything so bizzare and neither do Airbus. The weight without all that stuff is the MEW (Manufacturer's Empty Weight). The weight including all that stuff plus crew is the OEW (Operating Empty Weight). Zeke is just confused again.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10409 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
Zeke, you're confusing OEW and MEW again.

Nope, did not mention it, I was making the point that the design payload, design OEW, and what you get in real life OEW bears little resemblance.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):

Also, 238lbs per passenger including baggage might be plausible for Americans going to Europe on summer holiday, but it is not plausible between SIN and CDG. Your numbers are several tonnes outside of reasonable.

You are correct, I overestimated their baggage allowances, I looked up the SQ baggage allowances on their web site, it should be 27.5t assuming 50/50 split male/female in all classes.

F 40 kg checked, 7 kg carry on
J 30 kg checked, 7 kg carry on
Y 20 kg checked, 7 kg carry on

Assumed 65kg female, 75 kg male.

8F/42J/228Y



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So OEW is an average, I take it, since configurations are airline (and model within airline) specific?

Does anyone have MEW figures for the Boeing and Airbus families? Or are those "state secrets"? I notice Boeing's and Airbus' the Airport Compatibility Guides and website data uses OEW so I was hoping for something a bit more...concrete.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10362 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

The 777-300ER’s MEW is
332,966lbs. This is with 22 first, 70
business and 273 economy seats. An
extra 4,905lbs is added for crew rest
bunks and customer options allowance.
This takes MEW to 337,871lbs.
The A340’s MEW is 349,521lbs,
which includes standard items.


http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sto.../Flight%20Operations,%20Sample.pdf


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10265 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9):
The weight including all that stuff plus crew is the OEW (Operating Empty Weight).

If you are saying that your definition of OEW is for a passenger ready aircraft fully catered etc. and equals 370000lb for the 77W, I am sure you are wrong in the case of SQ. Why in the example I quoted in reply 5 did Widebodyphotog use 324900lb when Boeings OEW shows 304500lb. ? As further corroboration, a NZ insider in another thread indicated the passenger ready weight of their -200ER's is in the 324K to 326K lbs range give or take.
I think that Zeke in his list of 12 items includes a number that are included in the passenger ready ZFW as Widebodyphotog defines it. . What figurre SQ uses as a weight per passenger incl. baggage is probably proprietary information . This raises the question of how relevant the oft quoted weight of 210lbs is.
My reading of Zekes other comments is that freight takes preference on flights out of Asia. Also that SQ might be operating the type at less than 775Klb TOW. No doubt depending on how all these numbers come together, weight restriction is perhaps possible.
I must apologise to the list for using the -200LR load/range chart in reply 5.  embarrassed  . Obviously the load/range detail I quoted is significantly in error.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10247 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
So OEW is an average, I take it, since configurations are airline (and model within airline) specific?

No, OEW is airline specific. Airbus and Boeing publish nominal OEW specs, but they are unrealistically low. Every airline's OEW for a particular model is higher than the nominal Airbus or Boeing numbers -- sometimes much higher, but not as much as Zeke suggests above.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10194 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12):
The 777-300ER's MEW is
332,966lbs. This is with 22 first, 70
business and 273 economy seats. An
extra 4,905lbs is added for crew rest
bunks and customer options allowance.
This takes MEW to 337,871lbs.

I give up !! The whole topic seems to be a classic example of obfuscation.  scratchchin   banghead 


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 15):
I give up !! The whole topic seems to be a classic example of obfuscation.  scratchchin   banghead 

Not really. It's just that we don't have the correct variables and it is unlikely SQ is going to provide them to us so we can plug them into our models and run them.


User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9875 times:

Do not strike BI out yet. With the arrival of the new 772, now they have the capability of operating BWN-LHR nonstop. This gives them a fighting chance at the Kangaroo route and should the government wise up, they would see this as a chance to spruce BWN up as a transit hub and who know FRA might come back online?

BI could also start building its reputation as a 6th freedom carrier too by offering Asia - Europe connections because frankly, the present state of the airline is too small and unprofitable. But never say never because look how did UAE start out? Laden with oil money, Dubai only started off with Emirates in 1985. Who would have thought that Dubai would turn into what it is today?

Brunei as a country only has oil to prop it up and nothing else. Now the Sultan is trying very hard to make the country a more economically viable one instead of their present heavy reliance on the black gold. Not easy when you have the locals leading a very, very comfortable tax-free life and when public amenities are free (most of it). Trying to inculcate a mindset of self-reliance in an environment like this is quite challenging.



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9873 times:

I am sorry, please disregard my last post. I don't know how it got there.


Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9840 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
5) The combined standard weight of passengers and checked and carry on baggage comes in at 210 lb per passenger (unlikely)

Are the calcs not done on the standard pax weight basis? I.e., if you have 100 passengers, you calulate at 21,000 pounds.

Steve


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9387 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG.

Doubtful, as they still fly pax 747's which are much heavier....Actually SQ's ships are lighter than some and heavier than others among in service 777-300ER's. I know the ship weights among many operators.

Limited going to CDG???! Nonsense, another operator, I'll not name names, has operated the type on that route for some years now achieving some of the highest in service payloads on a regular basis.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 5):
Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that the passenger ready OEW for SQ's 77W's in the configuration that Zvezda outlined, is in the vicinity of 391000 LB ( 370000 + 21000+-).

Somewhat less than that...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
I would assume their configuration would exceed the standard Boeing configuration conservatively by 5t (seats, galleys, false floor, overhead rest, toilets, lighting, IFE, emergency and survival equipment), a similar configuration on the 340 which has a narrower cabin, with seats that are not as wide as the SQ 777 the buyer furnished equipment comes in at at over 20t.

A "false floor". Where is that? Underneath the Prop Wash??? Been up close and personal with 45 different 777-300ER's in many configurations, some with the heaviest premium seats anyone can buy...Never seen a "false floor" on any of them...

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12):
The 777-300ER’s MEW is
332,966lbs. This is with 22 first, 70
business and 273 economy seats. An
extra 4,905lbs is added for crew rest
bunks and customer options allowance.
This takes MEW to 337,871lbs.
The A340’s MEW is 349,521lbs,
which includes standard items.

Nice report, though a bit outdated. "MEW" is now a bit less on ships that are being delivered today, and the most popular MTOW is now 769,000Lbs with a higher option of 775,000Lbs and lower option of 759,600Lbs. SQ has not selected the lowest one...In service OEW or DOW ranges between 378,000lbs at the lowest to 389,000 at the highest...SQ's aircraft are somewhere in between that.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
Zeke, you're confusing OEW and MEW again. OEW includes an allowance (unreallistically low for both Airbus and Boeing) for customer furnished equipment and crew above and beyond MEW.

Actually not so unrealistically low, depends on the operator. Especially US domestic operators who's comfigs tend to be very close to the manufactures generic OEW, among Boeing operators at least. It's when you get into the premium international operators with their massive seats IFE and all that when the weight stacks up. You'd be amazed to find out the weight differences between what could be called standard seats and premium business and first class seats in use today!



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9277 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20):
You'd be amazed to find out the weight differences between what could be called standard seats and premium business and first class seats in use today!

Not really, but on the positive side, one F class seat Vs a bank of 3 Y class seats can't be that far off when you put butts in the seats and luggage underfloor.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8869 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG

False!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
If they had the range you suggest, they could fly the aircraft direct to the east coast of the USA from SIN, from what I hearing they will be routed via HKG and TPE, the westbound trip from the states would have next to zero cargo.

It's really immaterial because the aircraft were never bought with the intention of doing those routes non-stop. SQ2/1 stops in HKG because of yields and preimum traffic. To by pass HKG makes no sense at all.

[Edited 2007-05-05 07:03:45]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21526 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8274 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG.

It is possible it is heavier, without fuel, than their 744s, but that is only going to be due to fittings, not the plane itself.

As for being limited, one would assume the 744 is also limited then, as they have nearly the same range at MZFW, which is also very close to the distance to CDG. Since they have to fight the wind, they do have to fly at lower than MZFW, as would the 744.

So I'm not sure what the point of this comment is.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7716 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20):
Doubtful, as they still fly pax 747's which are much heavier....Actually SQ's ships are lighter than some and heavier than others among in service 777-300ER's. I know the ship weights among many operators.

The point of the comments were to do with the 777, my friends who fly their 772/772ER/773/773ER say it is the heaviest aircraft they have, i.e. heaviest 777, those guys don't touch any other fleet at SQ.

AFAIK the 744 is not lifting as much cargo, in SYD for example I think we lift 5-10t more cargo than the SQ 744 in the 333.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20):
Limited going to CDG???! Nonsense, another operator, I'll not name names, has operated the type on that route for some years now achieving some of the highest in service payloads on a regular basis.

Are they taking as much cargo ? and the point being, if they are also taking "highest in service payloads on a regular basis", that would be an indication they are up at the limit as well, the nil wind route from SIN-CDG is 5880 nm along the designated airways, which takes the 773ER about 300 nm past the range where it is MZFW limited range (about 5550 nm) into the MTOW limit.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20):
A "false floor". Where is that?

What do you call the floor between the seats and standard floor to attach the wider F & J products to ?

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 22):
False!

It is what they told me, and looking at the Boeing ACAPS documents the 773ER would be al least 10t heavier than the 773, the conversation I was having with my friends, like this thread was about the 777 payload range, not the 744, 345, 380.

We did touch on other fleets, but only in terms of the pay deal for the 380, and the 744 FOs who do not have their sectors for command that refused to go onto the 777 because they would get paid less.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
25 OldAeroGuy : I believe that CX bought the 773ER for use on the LAX-HGK route as well as the JFK-HGK route. This being the case, I suspect SQ 773ER's will also wor
26 PhilSquares : Zeke, if they are put on the 777 they get 744 pay! So, I don't know who you were talking to but it's just not true. Granted the 773ER is heavier than
27 Zvezda : That's impressive backpedalling. It's not at all what you wrote earlier: It's perfectly obvious to everyone else that the heaviest aircraft SQ have i
28 Jfk777 : Why is it so hard to believe the SQ 773ER can't do what every other 773ER can do ? If the First and Business seats are extra heavy due to the IFE syst
29 Zvezda : The IFE system on SQ's 777-300ERs is probably on the rough order of 5 lbs in Y, 10 lbs in C, and 20 lbs in F. I expect the new SQ F seat weighs less
30 Stitch : With respect, it would have been helpful to note that in your original post. Like others, I read your comment as saying the 773ER was the heaviest pl
31 SunriseValley : A passing comment, it would appear that there is a real need to accelerate the development of wireless IFE sytems.
32 PhilSquares : I agree. I do some consulting work on the side and had to go SIN-TLS for a meeting on the 26th. I couldn't get any SQ flights in C or F to Europe. I
33 Post contains links Zeke : Clause 47 if the SQ passenger contract, "A pilot who is required by the Company to operate on a fleet with a lower hourly rate shall continue to be p
34 Stitch : So it is to me, it follows then it should have also been obvious that when I was talking to a pilot who flies "them", the "them" referred to a 773ER
35 Zeke : Fair enough, I will take that onboard. The way it was described to me is that it is attached directly ontop with no space, more like a plate ontop wi
36 PhilSquares : Zeke, I don't want to get into specifics, but the clause (47 Page 31) you refer to is not for FOs. It's for Captains who are downgraded. A FO who is
37 Zeke : The agreement I have has Clause "47. Pilots productivity allowance ", applying to all pilots, where captain rates are specified it says "Captain", an
38 Zvezda : If you write what you mean, people will come to believe that you mean what you write. That certainly seems to be the case. I note that SQ's fleet hov
39 PhilSquares : I don't think you do. However, the base salary is different for a FO on the 744 vs. the 777. The hourly rate is the same. A FO who is forced down to
40 Widebodyphotog : Commercial payloads in the range of 105-122,000lbs. Cargo loads carried in the range of 20-31t...If you want to call that limited. I've only ever see
41 Post contains links and images Zeke : To do "6,230nm Eastbound" means the MZFW would be limited by about 12000 lb, otherwise MTOW would be exceeded. To be "within 5,000lbs", means they ar
42 Widebodyphotog : It's not another floor...It's additional and wider placed seat tracks in order to support heavier loads without going over the floor loading limit wi
43 Post contains images Ikramerica : Additionally, show any plane besides the 345 and 77L that isn't "limited" above westbound SIN-CDG? A 772ER is, as is a 744, and as were 743s and 742s
44 SunriseValley : The westbound SIN-CDG ESAD ( Equiv. still air distance) is about 6250nm. The A340-600 load/range chart for this distance shows a payload of about 55t
45 Post contains links and images Brendows : You'll find it here: http://www.content.airbusworld.com/
46 Keesje : True nobody said limited means unprofitable. However the issue was folks attacking Zeke because he said 773ER´s "are limited going to CDG" They prov
47 Ikramerica : No the issue is his implication that this was somehow unique to this long range aircraft. He said it was "the heaviest" and that MADE it limited. Or
48 Post contains images Ikramerica : Thanks. I tried to go in the front door, but it wouldn't let me sign up. And i tried the back door by changing the end from the A380 document, but I
49 Widebodyphotog : Sorry again, but this is nonsense. "Limited" means what? You can't use MZFW? What an incredible non sequitur! Explain exactly why it is necessary to
50 Zeke : When I got the timber clip lock floor done at home, they called that a false floor because it was laid ontop of the concrete floor. The modification
51 Pygmalion : Again you selectively read and don't try to understand. As WBP stated, the floor modifications are all to the underlying structure adding new seat tr
52 2wingtips : Ahhh, you play the arrogant and superior "I am a pilot" card....................again. It is one of your favourites. It's all about credibility and o
53 Post contains images Iwok : This is really and adaptor kit. The bolt pattern for the wider F&J seats does not match up to the existing pattern, and it is expensive to put a new
54 Post contains links Keesje : About the false floor Brittax Rumbold told me they were forced to introduce a false floor for the Club World seats. FAA approval Reynard false floor
55 Post contains links Pieinthesky : CDG is already down for additional flights from Northern Winter according to this : http://www.sqtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1132
56 Zeke : Thats you opinion, and your welcome to it, I can respect that. The only opinion's I care about is that of the passengers I carry. BTW you said "about
57 Widebodyphotog : The possibility is very low...In theory 747-400 can carry higher payload but in practice it's not the case. Most 747-400's in service have operationa
58 Pygmalion : Again, you quoted Keesje who linked a VS 747-400 document... How is that applicable to the 773ER at SQ we were discussing??? I never said that false
59 Ikramerica : Context is not just based on what is written but based on past statements. This is why people "read more" into what Zeke wrote than he was "intending
60 Srbmod : Since this thread has gone way off the flight path of the original topic, it is now being locked.
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...
Success Of The 777-300ER posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:36:44 by NYC777
SQ 777-300ER Slightly More Offical posted Thu Aug 26 2004 00:30:31 by DfwRevolution
MAS Taking Delivery Of Boeing 777-300ER? posted Wed May 8 2002 00:14:30 by OdiE
SQ Will Sent 777-300ER To CDG posted Wed Nov 29 2006 18:22:48 by Lufthansi
SIA Take Delivery Of 2 777-300er's Tuesday 11-28 posted Sat Nov 25 2006 12:48:45 by UAL747-600
Pics Of Air France 777-300ER At IAD Yet? posted Sun Nov 13 2005 18:28:20 by BG777300ER
Have SQ Ordered A 19th 777-300ER posted Thu Mar 17 2005 21:20:37 by PANAM_DC10
Boeing Has Completed 90% Of 777-300ER Design posted Tue Jun 11 2002 16:44:59 by Singapore_Air
About The Range Of B747-400 And 767-300ER posted Sun Dec 24 2000 14:01:16 by VH-ANA
Range Of 767-300er posted Sat Sep 18 1999 15:33:39 by AA777