Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777  
User currently offlinesanflyr From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 30 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12102 times:

Very happy to hear this news. I was a bit worried that the 787 grounding would keep this route down for awhile, but it seems JAL is preparing a 777 for the route until 787 service resumes.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/...3/nonstop-flight-SD-Japan-resumes/

Would there be any restrictions to the 777 from SAN? There will be an increase of 59 seat capacity.

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3049 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12072 times:

Great. Anyone know when ANA will resume NRT-SJC?

User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 789 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sanflyr (Thread starter):
Would there be any restrictions to the 777 from SAN? There will be an increase of 59 seat capacity.

From what I had read in another article, the JAL 777 will carry pax and cargo loads
equivalent to what the 787 was carrying.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlinesan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12027 times:

Good news! Hope to see the Dreamliner back in service again, but in the meantime, someone get a shot of the JL 777 in SAN while it lasts!


Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlinesan88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 112 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11733 times:

Another spotting event  


sit on the Captain side when you fly into SAN
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 951 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GREAT NEWS

That means the NRT-SAN route is here to stay....

Unfortunately I don't think they will be able to fill up a 777 on a daily basis though


User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1423 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11634 times:

This must be causing JAL a fortune!!!!


My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 789 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting g500 (Reply 5):
Unfortunately I don't think they will be able to fill up a 777 on a daily basis though
BA doesn't seem to have any problems filling up their 777s to LHR seven days a week.
Although with JAL, I still believe they will revert back to the Dreamliner as soon as the 787 ban
is lifted.

[Edited 2013-01-23 14:54:36]


PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 8326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11519 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The issue with San Diego has been its short runways for long haul use, the BA 777 is severly weight restricted. How much more restricted is JAL going to be with a longer flight to NRT ? The reason JAL waited to start San Diego flights is the shorter runway capabilities of the 787.

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11417 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
the BA 777 is severly weight restricted.

My understanding is that BA used a Increased Gross Weight (IGW) version of the 777 on the SAN route which improves short field performance and limits the restrictions. It appears JL will use a -200ER but I don't know if it is an IGW variant.

It sounds like it would have almost 60 seats blocked off due to weight restrictions. Hopefully this will be a short term fix.


User currently offlinesanflyr From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11396 times:

Quoting tonystan (Reply 6):
This must be causing JAL a fortune!!!!

Perhaps Boeing is making up the difference in compensation?


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sanflyr (Reply 10):

Quoting tonystan (Reply 6):
This must be causing JAL a fortune!!!!

Perhaps Boeing is making up the difference in compensation?

No. Aircraft sales contracts exclude that sort of compensation scheme.


User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3010 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11320 times:

IGW was the old name before they called it ER, it's the same plane with the same 656,000 lbs MTOW.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineAussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11264 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 11):
Quoting sanflyr (Reply 10):

Quoting tonystan (Reply 6):
This must be causing JAL a fortune!!!!

Perhaps Boeing is making up the difference in compensation?

No. Aircraft sales contracts exclude that sort of compensation scheme.

Even if the contract doesn't provide for it, nothing prohibits Boeing from doing so as a goodwill measure.



LHR - The Capital of the World
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11215 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AussieItaliano (Reply 13):
Even if the contract doesn't provide for it, nothing prohibits Boeing from doing so as a goodwill measure.

There is no way in hell that Boeing would set that precedent. IF they did it for JL that would open the floodgates and perhaps ensure Boeing never makes a profit on the 787. We are potentially talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue for these airlines depending on the length of the grounding plus you could add in the airlines who are being prevented from receiving their new a/c due to the FAA order.

Could Boeing perhaps give a little something something as part of a future order? Perhaps but they will not publicly do something as was suggested above.


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4094 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11198 times:

On a related note, JAL has been using 777-200s #704, #705, and #707 into Boston

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20500 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11125 times:

Quoting sanflyr (Reply 10):
Perhaps Boeing is making up the difference in compensation?

I would be very surprised if the airlines affected by the 787 groundings didn't have Loss of Use insurance as part of their corporate insurance package. Now that doesn't say that they could have been self-insured, but even in those cases, there's usually a reinsurer such as Swiss Re behind it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):
I would be very surprised if the airlines affected by the 787 groundings didn't have Loss of Use insurance as part of their corporate insurance package. Now that doesn't say that they could have been self-insured, but even in those cases, there's usually a reinsurer such as Swiss Re behind it.

This is exactly something an insurance policy could cover.

Also, the BA flight is slightly shorter than the JL NRT flight and won't use as much fuel given its a tail wind to LHR not a headwind to NRT. This should mean on most instances of this flight that the BA a/c should be able to load less fuel and more passengers/cargo than the JL flight assuming the field performance of the a/c are the same.


User currently offlinesanflyr From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11040 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 17):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):
I would be very surprised if the airlines affected by the 787 groundings didn't have Loss of Use insurance as part of their corporate insurance package. Now that doesn't say that they could have been self-insured, but even in those cases, there's usually a reinsurer such as Swiss Re behind it.

This is exactly something an insurance policy could cover.

I never thought of that. This is exactly what that type of insurance is for.


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2416 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10967 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 5):
That means the NRT-SAN route is here to stay....

Nothing in this world is here to stay !

JL need to get all these inconvenienced passengers to their destinations, that is all ! There is only so many people you can transfer to LAX.

JL can very well axe SAN if it is not pleased with the results in a few years time !

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlinehhslax2 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2012, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10766 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 17):
Also, the BA flight is slightly shorter than the JL NRT flight and won't use as much fuel given its a tail wind to LHR not a headwind to NRT.

You should stick to the distance portion for your argument, since to SAN the JL flight has a tailwind and the BA flight has a headwind.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 809 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10766 times:

Quoting sanflyr (Thread starter):
Very happy to hear this news. I was a bit worried that the 787 grounding would keep this route down for awhile, but it seems JAL is preparing a 777 for the route until 787 service resumes.

Does that mean they expect the grounding to last for a longer rather than shorter period of time?


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10713 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hhslax2 (Reply 20):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 17):
Also, the BA flight is slightly shorter than the JL NRT flight and won't use as much fuel given its a tail wind to LHR not a headwind to NRT.

You should stick to the distance portion for your argument, since to SAN the JL flight has a tailwind and the BA flight has a headwind.

I don't think you understand why I made the comment. The issue is the length of runway at SAN along with terrain. Because of those two factors, the 777 has issues with transcontiental flights. It means that in many cases, they will have weight restrictions. Because the flight to LHR has a tail wind, the plane doesn't need as much fuel and can carry more passengers/cargo than the westbound flight by JL to NRT.

This very issue is why the 787 is so much more economical for JL on the SAN route than a 777.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3433 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10680 times:

Quoting sanflyr (Reply 10):
Perhaps Boeing is making up the difference in compensation?

I would not be surprised, despite naysayers on here, if Boeing is working with effected airlines on something. This is a major blunder on a brand new aircraft that didn't have a launch customer until Asian carriers stepped up.

That said, insurance is also a likely scenario


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10623 times:

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 7):
BA doesn't seem to have any problems filling up their 777s to LHR seven days a week.

I thought the JL flight was still 4x weekly with the possibility of an increase later? Just to clarify, not saying you're wrong about any of it.


25 SANMAN66 : Yes, you're correct. The JL flight is four times a week (with plans to go daily in March.) The flight I was referring to is the British Airways SAN-L
26 AeroWesty : Someone's product liability insurance may also kick in in some respects, but large businesses aren't in the business of covering their customer's los
27 hhslax2 : The runway is 9401 ft (not sure if that includes the takeoff area that starts before the landing zone at SAN). The weather and altitude are pretty op
28 doug_Or : It does. The landing distance available is about 7500'. I can't speak for the 777, but the terrain to the west of 27 absolutely affects takeoff weigh
29 SonomaFlyer : Hhslax2: you have to account for the 777 losing an engine on takeoff. It's a required factor when looking at runway length and climb rate with one eng
30 sanscott744 : The factor that faces the flights to NRT using a 777-200ER vs the 787 is 787 lighter and capable of handling the headwinds with it's fuel efficiency.
31 irelayer : I've watched the BA 777 take off a bunch of times (from Liberty Station) and it's not going to make it over the Point/OB on one engine. In addition t
32 Post contains images BA777ER236 : No, the 777 is weight restricted, but not severely! Yes, we use the RR Trent 895 powered -200ER (-236ER). This gives nearly 94,000lbs of thrust per e
33 jfk777 : All 777-200ER are IGW, Increased Gross Weight. This was a distinction made by Boeing when the planes first started flying since the first planes were
34 SonomaFlyer : I very much appreciate seeing the information provided from the BA perspective. The fact BA has operated this flight full on a number of occasions is
35 SonomaFlyer : That statement is not correct. The a/c would not be allowed to operate at a given load without being able to make the initial climb out on one engine
36 flyinryan99 : The question comes - was there an occurrence or event as defined in the policy to trigger insurance? I don't know how their product policy is, but as
37 skipness1E : Anyone remember when G-VIIA first flew there was no way in Hell Boeing were going to call it the B777-200ER. It was the B model and referred to as th
38 brilondon : I would be surprised if there wasn't anyone picking up the tab for the 787 problem. Boeing, I assume, would be on the supplier of what ever the compo
39 clrd4t8koff : Not to deviate too much off the original topic, but any idea how the loads have been into BOS on the 777's? Any chance they'll continue with the 777?
40 JAAlbert : See? There's a silver lining to every storm cloud - at least for us SAN residents! No complaints about an additional 777 flight into our fair city. An
41 Boeing717200 : The 777-200ER aboslutely has a weight penalty from SAN. At maximum takeoff weght, the 777-200ER is designed to carry 131,000 pounds of payload a dist
42 airbazar : The other thing to consider is that even if the 772 can make it with limited or no restrictions (that goes for both SAN and BOS), it's still making JL
43 by738 : Doesnt the 777 need a follow me car on taxiing also ? Seem to remember seeing it in use when I was last on the BA flight
44 clrd4t8koff : I don't know any stats for the SAN flights, but from everything I've heard about BOS, the route runs at 90%+ load factor. Granted the 777 has more se
45 SonomaFlyer : The 777 has more seats but is not as fuel efficient but carries more cargo. So we'd need to know: 1. If JL was able to line up more cargo to run on t
46 mesaflyguy : I believe it does, yes
47 Post contains images tugger : Is that you Boeing7E7? Please don't take offense, I just remember that person having excellent knowledge of SAN and it limits and requirements. Tugg
48 CXB77L : Yes, JL's 777-200ERs are equipped with 94,000lb rated GE90-94Bs. I suspect that they probably can't carrry as much as BA does though, due to headwind
49 Boeing717200 : No, and none taken. I work for Jepp and we have a 777-200ER profile in our system for SAN as well as a 787. They both have penalties. I think it's mo
50 Post contains links SANFan : While the debate rages on about T7s and Lindbergh Field (and it appears there are people here much more knowledgeable than I about a/c performance and
51 SonomaFlyer : If this drags on, it's likely we will see a suspension of the SAN NRT route. We will need to see if the flight is available for booking out into the s
52 SANFan : I'm sure youi're correct since the route didn't exist until the 787 arrived -- and neither did BOS-NRT nor SJC-NRT (in recent history at least.) I'm
53 timz : It does. Almost.
54 SANMAN66 : Also remember United plans to introduce DEN-NRT with the 787 in March. Hopefully, this 787 mess will be sorted out by then.[Edited 2013-01-25 12:34:5
55 Post contains images BA777ER236 : I actually fly these aircraft as a Captain on this route! I have given you the figures. The Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW) for our 777-236ERs is 195
56 Post contains images SANFan : Such a cute little (661 acre) airport.... too bad it just happens to be located in the bottom of a pie pan! bb
57 Post contains images SonomaFlyer : Now THAT is what I call a reply! For the record, the number of days where it is at or above 28 degrees C is fairly low (I grew up there). Most days,
58 Boeing717200 : I can only go by what our obstacle analysis says which gives US carriers a MTOW equivalent of 266,000 kg against a climb of 294 feet/nm. I simply don'
59 ChrisNH : I don't think so. In fact, they might not even be filling the 777 beyond what a 787 might carry (for performance reasons). Interestingly, JAL has had
60 Post contains images BA777ER236 : As you know, the TOPL varies with the conditions on the day. In my original post the figures that I used were for 28c with a 10kt headwind (& a Q
61 Post contains links SANFan : I just realized that there hasn't been an update on this thread in several days regarding its actual topic! Here's the link to JAL's website regarding
62 Post contains links SANFan : Just an update on the substitutions on SAN-NRT and BOS-NRT routes. Here's the link: http://www.ar.jal.com/arl/cms/contents/en/special_news_003178.html
63 PHX787 : This coincides with the reports released by the Transport ministry that their own grounding is through Feb.
64 san747 : Very happy to see they are committed to these two new routes by continuing service with the 777-200 aircraft until the 787 comes back online!
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...
AF To Mumbai With 777-300ER posted Fri Sep 19 2008 16:00:10 by CDG
TAM To Begin GRU-FRA Eff. Nov 30 With A345 posted Sat Aug 18 2007 04:47:54 by LipeGIG
TAM To Fly GRU-MXP Effective March 30 With A332 posted Fri Dec 8 2006 03:06:54 by LipeGIG
Etihad To Start Tehran With 777 posted Fri Oct 20 2006 13:51:26 by 777way
Why Is OS Flying With 777 To KBP? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 02:37:45 by OS763
TG To Start BKK-JNB With 777 posted Thu May 4 2006 08:11:01 by The777Man
SIA To Start DXB-DME With 777? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 12:33:16 by Airlittoralguy
AI To Operate Flights 3111 And 3112 With 777 posted Sat Nov 6 2004 13:49:19 by Airish
Jet Airways To London With 777? posted Tue Oct 12 2004 07:10:15 by BOEING787
New PIA Uniforms To Debut This Month With 777 posted Wed Jan 7 2004 20:37:32 by Airmale