Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CX LAX-HKG 777-300ER Performance?  
User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6235 posts, RR: 11
Posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8325 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?

Regards,

Chepos


Fly the Flag!!!!
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8226 times:

I guess the same could be asked on CX JFK-HKG using 773ER as well.

BR flies EWR-TPE with a stop (In SEA I believe), I wonder if they just load their 77W with more cargo? Or they don't top off the fuel tank like CX's 77W?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7857 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.


User currently offlinemdavies06 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2009, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7604 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...

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7453 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7245 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.


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently onlinecx828 From Hong Kong, joined May 2007, 168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6736 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently onlinecx828 From Hong Kong, joined May 2007, 168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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??

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6652 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cx828 (Reply 7):
Also fuel and other factors should take account into that but i don;t have the data of certain litres per km.
zeke provided the following hourly fuel burn figures for CX:

747-400: 11,100kg per hour (9,000 to 13,000 across the flight)
777-300ER: 8,100kg per hour (6,500 to 10,500 across the flight)


User currently offlinecelestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 415 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6647 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.


User currently offlinejetlife2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 221 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5407 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:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec3.pdf

So for LAX to HK:

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.


User currently offlineACABlaker From Canada, joined Aug 2010, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4461 times:

Add in EvaAir 035 YYZ-TPE almost 16 hour flight that has some legs to it for a 77W. No Stops

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3514 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.


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...
CX LAX-HKG Payload Restriction posted Sun Apr 22 2007 17:35:18 by Don
Official CX Orders 16 777-300ER Plus 20 Options posted Thu Dec 1 2005 09:37:54 by CCA
ANA To Start NRT-LAX Using 777-300ER On OCT8 posted Thu Sep 15 2005 06:22:19 by SQ2
PPT-LAX On A 777-300ER? posted Thu Oct 23 2003 03:00:13 by AF Cabin Crew
JL Introduces 777-300ER On NRT-ORD And NRT-LAX posted Wed Oct 28 2009 02:36:17 by Tradewinds
LAX-HKG Load Factors On CX posted Wed Oct 25 2006 03:43:04 by Dallasnewark
CX Loads LAX-HKG Advisable To Try ZED This Week? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 21:39:12 by Iowa744fan
Finally, Air France 777-300ER To LAX posted Tue Jan 10 2006 06:52:26 by Kaitak744
Air France Boeing 777-300ER @ LAX? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 09:15:37 by SonicZoom87
777-300ER In-Service Performance posted Thu Mar 10 2005 16:42:27 by Ual747-600