Warren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1209 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4062 times:
I traveled about 2 weeks ago from PVG-JNB via HKG on CX . I was expecting to see a T7 and hoping not the A346 at the boarding gate. After resting at the lounge and finally at a gate. What a surprise to see the B744 there waiting and with the new Biz class never the less. It was a wonderful flight but not so much on the way back as we got an older B744 with the old interior.
Does any one know is the B744 is the scheduled aircraft on this sector for all of 2009 as well?
Airbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1567 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4002 times:
You can also expect to see the new cabins on the A340 when they fly their in the winter sometimes, as they are progressively being fitted with the new product as we speak, with one in service already. Don't expect to see the A340-600's again though, and as Zeke said, the 777 is performance restricted out of JNB (hot & high).
People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
CX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6784 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3503 times:
Quoting Warren747sp (Reply 5): But the seat of the pants feel the T7 have far superior take off performance than A343. Perhaps they worry about engine failure on take off?
Yes takeoff performance is always calculated to cater for an engine failure on takeoff. The loss of one engine on a 4 engined jet represents a much smaller loss of thrust than losing one on a twin....hence when a twin takesoff with two engines running, they are so much more powerful. Any twin will always be overpowered assuming there are no engine failures.
That does not mean they are not performance limited, every aircraft is, just the quads are less so. For example the 346 on a hot day would have its MTOW reduced by about 4,000 kg, but for that aircraft it can still lift maximum structural payload, and fuel for JNB-HKG and reserves, it does not need full fuel for that sector.
The main problem for twins out of JNB is what is know as second segment climb gradient, to meet that requirement they keep the aircraft accelerating along the runway as the thrust loss after one engine out is too great to climb at normal rotation speeds. However you reach another limit, the maximum tyre speed (keep in mind that is a ground speed, not indicated speed, the indicted speed is less at that density altitude).
CX have opted for the extra thrust bump on the 77W engines, even with that, the amount of revenue payload the 77W can lift out of JNB is almost identical to the 340-300. The 77W MTOW is reduced by about 50,000 kg on a hot day when the density height is up around 9,000 ft, also the 77W burns more fuel than the 343 so it needs to lift more total payload (i.e. inc fuel) to take the same amount of revenue payload (pax/cargo).
Also the flight from SIN-HKG is another 3 plus hours.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 4235 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3246 times:
Quoting Warren747sp (Reply 8): It makes you wonder how CO makes money on their EWR-HKG route during the hot summer months and soon EWR-PVG with their B772.
I believe the 772 (non-LR) is limited on that long sector, but in this thread your point is irrelevant since it's takeoff performance is not limited at either these airports the way it would be in JNB.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...