SQ452 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1161 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7221 times:
Leaving Hong Kong on my Cathay Pacific Flight today, I noticed an A340 (A346???) near the HAECO hangar down near the end of the runway, it looked like it was in the livery of Hainan Airlines (new livery) or Shenzhen Airlines new livery but I couldn't get a good look at it...anyone help out? I could have sworn it was an A340 (and no, it wasn't an Oasis 747 floating around down there!)
I thought Hainan had ordered A340's for new service to the US so thats why I thought that...
SQ452 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6047 times:
thanks everyone, I thought it was for Hainan Airlines which explains why it was hanging out down by the HAECO hangar in HKG. It would be great if they started BOS service as its about...oooh, a few years overdue since they announced it!
On another note, quite sad to see all the Oasis aircraft scattered around the airport in HKG. someone will snatch them up shortly I imagine.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9824 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5774 times:
Quoting SQ452 (Thread starter): I noticed an A340 (A346???) near the HAECO hangar down near the end of the runway, it looked like it was in the livery of Hainan Airlines (new livery) or Shenzhen Airlines new livery but I couldn't get a good look at it...anyone help out?
"B-HQC has already been repainted down in MNL, it now is registered B-6510 with the Hainan Airlines paint scheme. Hainan should then be getting HQA in Oct, and HQB in Dec."
Since I posted that, it was ferried back to HKG for further work.
Quoting Calvin99 (Reply 7): Also, I don't think HQC is overweight, only QA and QB are. Both QA and QB will be leaving the fleets within this year.
They are all overweight compared to current build A340NG aircraft.
Quoting Kappel (Reply 9): What is the difference in weight between the two versions of the a346?
The aircraft CX leased were early production line aircraft, they were several tonnes over current build A340-600HGW aircraft, with lower payload and MTOW capability.
That being said, they still had a better payload lift ability than any CX 744 passenger aircraft, and burned about 2,000 kg less fuel an hour than a 744, and went a lot further. They had made us a lot of money, and opened up services that were not previously possible.
They are also the best payload performer in our fleet out of JNB.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Zeke and Cloudyapple ... please help me to figure this out, I'm by no means any kind of expert on aircraft, but somehow those numbers just don't work out for me. I'm going to use numbers for RR-powered 744s at the highest numbers quoted on the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7474sec2.pdf) -- numbers rounded off for ease of calculation.
Based on the figures above, on a typical 13-hour flight HKG - JNB (I originally come from JNB, so I fly this route most often), the A346 will burn approximately 26 tons of fuel less than a 744 -- that I can bend my mind around.
Going back to highschool algebra, and I know that's a dangerous thing to do, if that 26 tons of fuel is 20% of the total fuel burn of a 744 on that flight, then that means that the 744 burns 130 tons of fuel over the course of the flight, and the A346 burns 105 tons.
With all the reserve fuel requirements, I'm sure we're looking at a fuel upload in excess of 150t on the 744. OEW is 183t for the aircraft, and MTOW is 396t. OEW plus mission fuel comes to 333t, leaving us with a 63t payload.
300 pax at an estimated 100kg/pax (pax + baggage) gives us 30t ... leaving 33t for cargo ...
Do the OEW weights quoted by Boeing include airline-specific fittings (seats, galleys etc)? Or are they quoted for "green" aircraft?
I guess what I'm trying to say is I struggle to see how it's possible to make the flight work if the aircraft if burning in excess of 120t of fuel. Not just in terms of the cost of fuel, but also in terms of how restricted the flight must be in how much payload it can carry.
Of course, the return flight must be even worse, given the altitude and heat in JNB ...
Boy! I'm glad I'm not in load-planning at an airline!
I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!