Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4405 times:
I am not sure if this is the correct forum or whether it would be better in Civil Aviation, but my question is related to the advantages of particular aircraft operating at (relatively) high altitude take off.
Madrid is the highest capital city in Europe. When EK commenced operations on 1st August, they started by using the A332 but very soon after switched to the A343 and that's what I flew in when I went to Spain in August.
Would that have been due to any intrinsic advantages in performance over the A332 or would it simply have been that initial demand needed a greater seating capacity sooner?
boeing767er From Netherlands, joined Oct 2010, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4394 times:
Quokka,
It might be a combination of the two.
I think EK expected less pax on the flights, therefore operating an A332 well below MTOW to make it out of MAD. Since MAD can be very hot and humid in the summer and with an elevation of 2000ft (which on its own is really nothing spectacular) they might have had to structurally leave some payload behind to make safely out of MAD.
For a fact I know that KL sometimes had to leave some suitcases behind to make it to AMS in very hot and humid conditions.
If they switch the flight back to an A332 in the winter, it will most likely be a performance issue. If they continue the flight with an A343, it would most likely have been a capacity issue.
SchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 442 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
Twinjet aircraft require longer runways. Not because they lift-off later, but because the one engine out scenario is more demanding. That's why some airlines continue to like their A340s.
boeing767er From Netherlands, joined Oct 2010, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4086 times:
Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 3): Twinjet aircraft require longer runways. Not because they lift-off later, but because the one engine out scenario is more demanding. That's why some airlines continue to like their A340s.
Although partly true (especially in even higher surroundings and airports with direct obstacles like TNCM), there must be a reason why EK initiated the route with an A332.
Quoting andz (Reply 2): And at 1,998ft it isn't "high altitude" (or, correctly, elevation) by any stretch of the imagination.
My home airport, JNB, is 5,512 AMSL and SA use 343s out of here with ease.
Compared to other large international airports in Europe and probably Australia it actually is a relatively high altitude airport. True, the topic title is a bit misleading, but relatively speaking for Europe, it is..
Also, the fact that an A343 makes it out "easily" out of FAJS may have something to do with that 4420m runway, and the fact that an A343 at 5500ft is not limited by MTOW, but by brake energy limit which actually reduces MTOW significantly.
nicoeddf From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1051 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4025 times:
Quoting boeing767er (Reply 4): Although partly true (especially in even higher surroundings and airports with direct obstacles like TNCM), there must be a reason why EK initiated the route with an A332.
Sounds crazy, but...because the A332 is smaller and their demand projection called for smaller equipment?
Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3974 times:
Thanks for the replies and my apologies for mixing up altitude with elevation. I had a brief mental block
I suspect that the actual demand was greater than initial demand projection. I am now scheduled to fly that route again in December and the equipment listed on the e-ticket/ itinerary is the A343.
SevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1126 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3956 times:
Bear in mind also that MAD-DXB is (at a guess) about 5.5 hours (?) - a small hop for an A343 and one that would only require a fuel uplift of around 45t-50t.
Therefore, even at MZFW, the aircraft should be well under MTOW.
As mentioned before, numerous airlines do JNB - Northern Europe which is usually not a major issue, although weight restrictions on lower powered A343 in the summer are common.
eisenbach From Austria, joined Mar 2001, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3540 times:
I always wonder how a 343 could make Quito - Madrid with full passengers and baggage. Maybe someone can show some calculations? I guess there is no "space" for extra cargo?
boeing767er From Netherlands, joined Oct 2010, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3470 times:
Quoting eisenbach (Reply 10): I always wonder how a 343 could make Quito - Madrid with full passengers and baggage. Maybe someone can show some calculations? I guess there is no "space" for extra cargo?
cheers
It can't be done in a profitable way. I just checked the Iberia website which shows a non-stop flight between MAD and UIO, and on the return flight a stop at Guayaquil.
Some quick math:
At that kind of elevation the flight would be limited to about 215.000kgs TOW in ISA conditions.
Empty weight: +/- 130.000kgs
Fuel capacity: +/- 117.000kgs
Great circle route SEQU-LEMD: 4750nm
A343 Range: 7400nm
Including reserves you would probably need about two thirds of the total fuel capacity which equals about 80.000kgs. Which leaves about 5000 to 10.000kgs for payload..
boeing767er From Netherlands, joined Oct 2010, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3171 times:
Quoting eisenbach (Reply 12): thanks Luc - so I was in an error thinking that Iberia is flying Quito - Madrid direct with 343s in the past an 346s nowadays.
No problem I checked Iberia's website, and they still operate the A343 on MAD-UIO-GYE-MAD. Probably depends on capacity. According to flightaware.com the flight was operated by A343s this whole month up til now.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2010, 28 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8298 posts, 
From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 442 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1126 posts, 
From Austria, joined Mar 2001, 100 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 852 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
