ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 2004 posts, RR: 6 Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2365 times:
Hello all! Looking at AC 's winter schedule I see they have the 77W on HKG from YVR. First off its to bad to see the 343 taken off that route as I have flown there 3 time in recent years, and I really do prefer AC's old J class seats then the new coffins (its a personal choice I am 6'5 and the beds are too short).
On that note, when AC first had the 77W on the SYD they restricted the pax load to that of the 77L because the 77W did not quite have the legs to do that while full. Will they be having any difficulty serving HKG (which is around an hour or so shorter) with a full load?
Again to bad to see the 343 leave that flight, it will be missed. I know a lot of people prefer the 77W and 77L because of looks, or performance but I prefer the 343 because its nice and quite and more comfortable.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 5546 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1973 times:
Quoting ZBBYLW (Thread starter): On that note, when AC first had the 77W on the SYD they restricted the pax load to that of the 77L because the 77W did not quite have the legs to do that while full.
Assuming a passenger ready weight of about 383K lb. the 77W is good for about 82K lb westbound, YVR-SYD which is slightly over the max
passenger load of 369 bums the way AC has it configured. The 77L configuration of 270 bums would have allowed for a freight load of about 21K lb. I would guess that they struck a balance between passenger yield and freight yield.
YVR-HKG westbound is about 700nm (ESAD) less distance than YVR-SYD westbound. The load/range table suggests a payload of about 105K lbs which is max passenger load plus about 25K lb of freight.
Eastbound the type would haul pretty close to max payload.!