Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AF A340 @ SXM  
User currently offlineBA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2179 posts, RR: 7
Posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2047 times:

Guys,

Now that AF are using the 340 on the CDG-SXM run, anyone gonna go out there and get us some pics of the 340 strutting it's stuff??

BA777

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1897 times:

Maybe this summer....(depending on work, and how much $$ I have)

User currently offlineBoeing 747-311 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Whatd id they operate before the a340?

thanks in advance

boeing 747-311



Come fly with US
User currently offlineBWIrwy4 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 940 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

They used a 747 before that.

User currently offlineBoeing 747-311 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

Why did the down grade to the a340? Where they not filling the 747? or what was the deal? Thanks!

boieng 747-311



Come fly with US
User currently offlineBoeing727 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 955 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

An A340 out of SXM!!! The aircraft must be basicly empty (only crew) to be able to manage the 7000 runway on its way back to Paris.
Any number of pax restrictions on this flight with the slowbus???

Boeing727


User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9903 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

Boeing727,
AOM used the A340 on the St. Maarten route in the past so I assume it is possible to operate the A340 to St. Maarten as these flights have high passenger load factors especially in the summer season. Operating the A340 on the St. Maarten route is not unusual. If fully loaded 747's and 767's can operate in and out of St. Maarten, the A340 can as well.


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

If fully loaded 747's and 767's can operate in and out of St. Maarten, the A340 can as well.

tell me you are not implying that the A340's take off performance rivals that of those two Boeings ? The A340 while a nice plane has a rather aknowledged poor take off stats.

Jeremy


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1800 times:

It would be very cool to see an A340 in these conditions:
Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Justin Cederholm - Orlando/Tampa Aviation Photography




"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineBA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2179 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1749 times:

Yeah  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I think it'd be hard too :-(

BA777


User currently offlineToo low From Switzerland, joined Oct 2001, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

Previously it was a B747 CDG-SXM-SDQ-CDG.
Then AF split SXM and SDQ in 2 separate flights. Still a B747 to SDQ (7/7 I think) and a A340 (5/7) to SXM. It means a better service and less delays for passengers !


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1711 times:

What most people don't seem to realise about SXM is that when you take off, you have a huge mountain in front of you, that you either have to clear, or turn to avoid. So the A340 will have a hard time both rotating in time and also clearing the mountain.

Obviously it can perform the function as they wouldnt schedule it if it couldnt, but I would be nervous with a full load

Jer


User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

CI can do great departures with their A343's !

 Insane  Wow!  Insane  Wow!  Insane  Wow!


User currently offlineF+ Rouge From France, joined May 2000, 210 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

It's just ridiculous to think an A340 could not do SXM-CDG with a full payload.

Regards,

F+ Rouge


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1660 times:

SXM-CDG is about 6700km. That is half the max range of an A343. The reduced amount of fuel should translate into the a/c being at about 78% of it's MTOW (in comparison, a PW/GE powered 747 can T/O from SXM with about 82% of it's MTOW in zero wind conditions) weight penalties should reduce that even further. Don't forget the CI 343 that T/O on less than 6500' of taxiway in ANC a while ago.  Smile That a/c was probably heavier than the AF 343's that are going to fly from SXM. As for the mountain, they can always T/O the other way, unless the wind is too strong.

In any case, I'm sure AF has thought of all that before they decided to fly A340's to SXM, don't you think?  Big grin

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineBWIrwy4 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 940 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1630 times:

Wait a minute. I think I heard somewhere (I'm not sure where) that the flight goes from St. Maarten to Paris, with a stop in Antigua. So they wouldn't need to be very heavy at all in terms of fuel when taking off.

User currently offlineAirsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1621 times:


Jeeze, the people at AF have certainly a little more insight into the question whether it´s feasible to operate a 340 into SXM or not, dontcha think? Stop making these ridiculous comments, if it wasn´t perfectly possible and safe to do it, they wouldn´t do it, full stop.

Daniel Smile


User currently offlineTrintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3240 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

SXM's runway is relatively short (7000 ft) with hills at the eastern end. Together, this means a sharp bank to right after take-off, which must itself necessarily be expedited due to the short runway. While the 747s fly into SXM they cannot take-off with full pax and fuel loads so the flights have to stop elsewhere to take on full fuel loads, in the most recent case SDQ (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic). AF dropped Antigua 2 years ago. In any case ANU is also restricted to some extent as its runway is only 8000ft long.

So, with the A340 AF can actually fly nonstop to CDG for the first time. Nonetheless the long, slow upward climb characteristic of the A340 could be challenging unless, of course, the plane took off east to west.

On another note, St. Maarten actually has 2 airports - there is a small facility (Grand Case) on the French side. That airport has been upgraded and recently reopened. This St. Martin airport is served by flights from Guadeloupe and other French islands but there are no international ops - those all go to SXM.

Trintocan.



Hop to it, fly for life!
User currently offlineAM From Mexico, joined Oct 1999, 590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1511 times:

As many of you have said, if Air France is flying to SXM with the 340, it's obvious it can take off out of there safely.

I'm just wondering how much of a weight restriction they have. I've read in many different sources that the A340 is known for its not-so-good take off and climb performances. So a 7000ft runway in an airport with warm temperatures for a flight to France (it's not too long, but the distance is considerable).

I bet they always take off with full TO/GA thrust (instead of a Flex Takeoff), using more flaps than usual as well (Flaps 2, if not Flaps 3). That should considerably reduce rotation speed.




"... for there you have been and there you will long to return."
User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

Are you kidding me? That flight operates NON-STOP now SXM-CDG? Are you SURE it doesn't make a tech stop and perhaps it isn't published in the schedule? I would think that would HAVE to be the case. I'm sorry, but I just find it a little hard to believe that thing takes off on that 7,056ft runway with a full load of psgrs, cargo and fuel NON-STOP to CDG! BTW, how many times a week does that flight operate? Do you have the flight number? I'm gonna do some research on this.

User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2600 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1476 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For an SXM-CDG flight, and A340 will by flying with far less than a full load of fuel for an 8 hour flight by an aircraft that has an maximum endurance of around 14 hours.

While the A340 does have a reputation for having a slow rate of climb this relates more to time taken to reach initial cruise altitude, rather than initial climb performance on departure. The A340 may often take quite a long time to reach cruising altitude, but on departure it must meet the same obstacle clearance limits as other aircraft.

In fact, in determining takeoff performance the A340 will have a distinct advantage over twin-engine types.

For a 2-engine aircraft, maximum weight out of a particular runway is invariably limited by takeoff distance required in the event of an engine failiure at V1, from which point the aircarft must accelerate to VR and climb away on only half the available engines.

On the other hand 4-engine aircraft is much less likely to be limited by this, but by the normal all-engines takeoff distance required multiplied by a safety factor of 1.15 (1.15 is the JAR figure - the FAA may use a different one, just covering myself Smile)

In summary, a 4-engined aircraft is likely to be allowed to takeoff at a weight which reflects it's performance on the day, a 2-engined aircraft will have it's max allowable takeoffweight reduced from what it could thoretically handle on all engines to allow for the much more severe effect of an engine failiure on the twin.

As for the mountainous terrain, its again likely that the 4-engined aircraft has the advantage in obstacle clearance, whatever the normal situation, an A340 on 3 engines will outclimb a 777 on 1 engine, and this again affects the conditions under which the aircraft can operate.

Let's not also forget that St Maarten is also at sea-level which will also help with performance.

I hope this little explanation has given some insight into why the A340 operations out of St Maarten aren't really that big a deal...


User currently offlineSpaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

They switched to the A340 because the 747-200 they were using cannot takeoff in a fully loaded condition and had to stop at another island as mentioned above before they continue to Paris. With the A340 it can take off with a full load and does not need to stop on another island, and actually carrying more passenger than the 747 can. It makes alot of improvement for AF to switch to the A340.

User currently offlineNjintern From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1425 times:

Here's the AF CDG-SXM schedule. Aircraft arrives SXM at 1330 and departs at 1600.


11JULSXMCDG‡AF«
01JUL MON SXM/AST CDG/‡6
AF3661 SXMCDG 400P 615A‡1 343 MB 0 XTQ

01JUL MON CDG/Z‡2 SXM/AST-6
AF3668 CDGSXM 1050A 130P 343 MS 0 XTQ


User currently offlineDan330 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 439 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1403 times:

Heres the return flight from the oag website:

Flight AF 3661 - Air France Aircraft 343
Depart St Maarten, St Maarten Dep. Time 04:00pm Jul 01
Arrive Paris, Paris Charles de Gaulle Apt Arr. Time 06:15am Jul 02
Travel Time 8 hours 15 mins Total Stops None

Looks like it is definately non-stop!


User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1387 times:

AMAZING, that's all I can say. When they switch to the shorter runway here at PBI, which by the way, is 6930ft, a fully loaded 737-300 to PHL, for instance, might incur a weight restriction, but yet I've seen Delta's 767-300s take off on it, no problem. So I guess a loaded AF A340 could probably operate NON-STOP PBI-CDG off runway 13/31, if it had to. Case and point, I'd be willing to bet that AF WILL take weight penalties, more times than not, operating that flight out of SXM. That's probably a given.

25 LY744 : "full load of psgrs, cargo and fuel NON-STOP to CDG!" Well, like I said before, they will only need roughly half of the max fuel capacity because SXM-
26 TransSwede : The performance of the A340 is repeatedly underrated by the majority of "experts" on this forum. This thread just further illustrates that. Need I rem
27 Sxmarbury33 : Speaking of the ANC a340. Do you think that the crew might have overboosted the engiens. I only think this because looking at the transcript it seems
28 LY744 : Where can one find the transcripts for the ANC CI A340? LY744.
29 Lparky : I am going in September and I will take pictures and video of the damn thing taking off so you doubters can witness the event you say is impossible. I
30 Post contains links and images Chepos : Here is a pic of the A340 at SXM Click for large versionPhoto © Del Laughery Chepos
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 A340 @ SXM posted Sat Apr 6 2002 00:13:33 by BA777
How AF A340 Can Fly Non Stop SXM-CDG? posted Fri Dec 26 2003 18:31:59 by AirGabon
Question Re: AF A340 Seating posted Fri Jun 2 2006 17:14:38 by Cgnnrw
AF A340 Diverts To YYT With Engine Trouble posted Fri Apr 28 2006 22:36:11 by BMIFlyer
SFO- AF A340 Rough Landing Video posted Thu Mar 23 2006 05:00:41 by SJC-Alien
People Afraid Of Flying AF A340? posted Sat Feb 25 2006 20:29:17 by LY777
AF A340 In TYS Last Tuesday 08/18 posted Sun Aug 21 2005 07:20:02 by Pilotntrng
AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators posted Sun Aug 7 2005 21:25:22 by Backfire
Any Signs Of Heavy Brakeing On The AF A340? posted Thu Aug 4 2005 20:13:00 by CV990
AF A340-300, How Many Seats? posted Wed Aug 3 2005 23:00:09 by KC135TopBoom