chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6310 posts, RR: 10 Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8533 times:
I recall reading on this board a couple of years ago that the 747-400 at times would struggle and take some penalties on the LAX-HKG route. This route is now operated by the 777-300ER, can this aircraft now make the route without payload restrictions or does it still suffer some restrictions with strong winds?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 27514 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8065 times:
Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 1): I guess the same could be asked on CX JFK-HKG using 773ER as well.
Very different situation. JFK to HKG flights usually use the Polar route, almost overflying the North Pole. It doesn't even cross the Pacific, unlike the LAX-HKG route where winds are often very strong. In the other direction, HKG to JFK, flights normally use the Transpacific route near Japan and Alaska, to benefit from the tailwinds, although it's a few hundred miles further than the Polar route.
mdavies06 From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2009, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7812 times:
The route under 77W still has payload restrictions under strong headwind conditions. CX has stated consistently that they are (and will be) very interested in any aircraft which can do that and be economically suitable for this route year round. They have stated that the A380 cannot do it year round. A345 and 77R can, but I guess they are too small and cost is too expensive per passenger. 77W is the best they have got right now...
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32931 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7661 times:
According to an article I once read, CX was one of the initial "interested parties" in the 747-400ER because the greater range would eliminate the occasional tech stops at TPE, but they evidently felt the extra cost of the airframe and associated fees from the higher MTOW didn't pencil out.
cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2456 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7453 times:
The trick here might be to make the aircraft more premium - more F and J - which the route can support, and less Y, effectively creating a sub fleet of about 7 B77Ws. This will help both the bottom line and payload/range but will decimate operational flexibility because no other could use such a premium aircraft.
cx828 From Hong Kong, joined May 2007, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6944 times:
A 744 can carry 9F, 46J and 324Y, 77W can 6F, 57J and 238Y, although 77w carry 3 less first class, but 11 more J and carry almost hundred less Y, in which some part of the weight use to compensate the payload restriction, other use to carry more cargo to generate more profit than passenger.
cx828 From Hong Kong, joined May 2007, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6881 times:
11 more J, 6 use to compensate 3F less, and the remaining 5J can compensate 20Y, which 86Y-20Y=66Y. Assume 10000 HK dollars perY ticket , then 660,000 dollars revenue lost. But handle 78 people less weight, assume Asian people 180 ibs average plus 2*50checked in baggage + 15 for cabin = 295ibs, so is 66 people +2 crews less = 68 people *295 lbs = 20060 ibs. Also fuel and other factors should take account into that but i don;t have the data of certain litres per km. Just using simple ideas 20060lbs versus 660000 dollars, is the cargo charge more than 33 dollars per ib??
celestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 480 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6855 times:
EVA AIR (BR) flies from Newark to Taipei via a stop at Anchorage, not at Seattle.
I travel quite regularly all year around between LAX to TPE on BR and 90% was on a 777-300ER. I have rarely heard or experienced a tech stop over because of strong wind westbound towards Asia. I am curious because CX has to go to HK, which is only 500 miles of air-route, does that really put them in difficult situation where a tech stop was occasionally needed? BTW, I once flew from LAX to HK and then to TPE. Having a tech stop at TPE but was unable to get off the plane is kind of really funny and wierd experience for me.
jetlife2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 221 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5615 times:
You can answer many of these questions yourself using the published payload-range charts. These are for typical mission rules but zero wind. You will not get the exact result because of the simplifications but you will be able to see the first order answers:
First check the MTOW for the runway length with the appropriate chart (773 with -115B rating). Shows you are able to use MGTOW of 775k lb (assuming 11k feet at SL is usable - simplified). Then use the payload-range chart for the required range (6309nm GC - simplified). Shows that you are over the range at which you have full payload available. Therefore you will always be payload restricted to a greater or lesser extent, depending on specific winds, weather, actual route distance (not a GC), airline flight planning rules, etc etc.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3722 times:
Quoting ACABlaker (Reply 13): Add in EvaAir 035 YYZ-TPE almost 16 hour flight that has some legs to it for a 77W. No Stops
Yes. Based on FlightAware data February flight times are within a few minutes of the scheduled time. Airways distance ~ 6524nm which gives a 7537nm ESAD. Good for full 316 seat passenger load plus ~ 8t of cargo or at 80% passenger load add ~ 6t of cargo. BR is another operator who could use a 5 to 10t trimmed down 77W to advantage.