ETStar
Topic Author
Posts: 1850
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:25 am

Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:41 am

A number of airlines operate the 767-300ER on many trans-oceanic flights including DL's JFK-ATH, AC's YVR-SHA, YVR-PEK and YYZ-TLV, MS's CAI-JFK which appear to be the longest of them all. Of those flights that I mentioned, are any of them subjected to hefty payload restrictions? How bad are they and what do the airlines do to deal with this: ie no excess luggage, empty seats etc? What are the most payload restricted flights you know of (not only limited to 763s)?

Boeing's website shows range maps for this aircraft, and mentions full passenger payload: does this include a full cargo hold as well?
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6175
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:49 am

AM has one 763ER in its fleet and it is very seldom used for the MEX-CDG and MEX-MAD flights. Those routes are flown most of the times with 762ER's. The reason, I understand, is weight restrictions; however, I think that these restrictions are not so much a result of the distance, but of the fact that MEX is very high above the sea level. Sorry that I cannot help more.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:45 pm

Yeah, the restrictions on MEX-CDG and MEX-MAD would be because MEX is not only high, but hot in the summer.
The LAX-SYD flight was famously weight restricted even on the 747-400 (still is for UA) until QF got the 744ER. CO's EWR-HKG flight with the 772 is always restricted, same with the CX A346 HKG-JFK (they are talking about getting rid of the 346 at the end of their leases because of that and going to a 744). Many long flights that do not involve 757s at SNA are restricted (WN just recently started carrying cargo there, and not as much). That is one of the main reason you see so many 757s at SNA, because they have amazing runway performance.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
baw716
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:14 pm

ETStar,
Alitalia used to operate MXP-SFO with a 763ER configured for 205 seats. From SFO, we had to weight restrict due to one engine out limitations (too high obstacles off 28s to allow for westbound departures). Our choices were to either weight restrict and depart off 1R or go off 10L in the opposite direction of traffic.

Usually these weight restrictions were in the form of cargo offload. Using 10L usually meant a 30-45 min taxi delay (engines running) for a gap in the traffic so we could launch. Most of the time we went off 1R and just took off the cargo, so as not to take the delay.

At MXP, the problem was worse, because the one engine out procedures did not allow for the climbing 360 left turn used to get high enough to go over the Alps. During the summer, it was not uncommon to leave a can of non-transfer bags behind if there was not enough cargo to offload to get under the weight required to meet the OEO requirement.

Thankfully, this problem only presented itself in the summer. The rest of the year we could make the 1R departure, unless, of course, on those days in which 10L had to be used because of cross winds on the 1s.

BTW, the flight time winter averaged 11 hr eastbound, westbound 12 to 12.5hrs. Summer, as low as 10.25 eastbound and 11.5 westbound. Longest flight was 12:40 due to heavy weight and wide 360 turn over MXP to get enough altitude to transit the Alps plus very northerly track over Canada.

baw716 (ex aza625)
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
LX23
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:54 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:23 pm

I really don't have a lot of information on this, but maybe the MAD-EZE routes flown by Southern Winds and Air Europa? After all, it takes roughly 13 hours each way... Anyone maybe have any info on this?
 
dairbus
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:45 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:50 pm

Most of Delta's routes with the 767-300ER have few weight restrictions during the year. The biggest variable usually is the amount of cargo booked for the flight and the fuel load which depends on that day's weather conditions (headwinds, destination wx, etc.).

There are seasonal embargos for flights to Latin American destinations which use primarily 737 and 757 equipment regarding excess baggage but this is usually due to space and not weight limitations. Currently, the worst flight for weight restrictions due to cargo is LIM-ATL operated by a 767-400. There is a large amount of perishable freight on this flight which is a high density and high value freight product. The freight booked for this flight is usually around 50,000 lbs with pallets of asparragus (yes, the vegetable) averaging 6-8,000 lbs each. Interestingly enough, the main weight limit for this flight is not takeoff or landing weight but zero fuel weight.

If there is a weight problem, non-rev passengers are denied boarding first and then freight is bumped to make room for paying passengers and their bags. If more weight is needed, then volunteers are solicited to take another flight. This is done exactly as if the flight was oversold.

Back when Delta operated a MD-11 ATL-NRT, this flight was severely weight restricted. Usually, only revenue passengers and bags could ride although passengers were occassionally denied boarding. There were some times when the temperature would go up two or three degrees from the time it left the gate until it taxied to the runway and they then had to return to offload some cargo in order to be under max takeoff weight. Since the 777's started flying this route, there have not been any more weight restrictions.



"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." - Charles Shultz
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:59 am

FYI, AC will operate YYZ-NRT with 763s next winter. The planned flying time westbound is 13h45 so restrictions will apply on this flight for sure.

The distance is 6414 mi. Probably the longest regular route ever for this aircraft.
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
baw716
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:24 am

YUL332LX,
WOW! A 763 on YYZ-NRT? There will be some serious ETOPS limitatons on that route. I suspect also some weight restrictions, because going up over Alaska (which will be necessary due to the 138 min ETOPS) will go right up against the winds making it a little harder to get there with a full payload.

That said, ACs 763s are not densely configured, so passengers should find it reasonably comfortable to fly; especially in J class.

I wish them all the best.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
757MDE
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:45 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:48 am

AV has seldom sent 763s to MAD on it's BOG - MAD route, now they never do because it takes off pretty much limited from BOG, both on luggage and pax.

They sometimes have sent it full, but it has had to make a "technical stop" at CTG.

BOG - MAD is all 762.
Quisiera volveraamartevolveraquerertevolveratenertecerrrrcaademígirl! Mis ojos lloran porrr ti...
 
Arcano
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:34 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:20 am

Actually, one of the most important issues for LAN to purchase the 340-300 was the payload restriction of the 763 all the way to MAD.

The 763 could have done SCL-MAD non stop, but under serious load restrictions, and since cargo is a very important business for LAN, they had to spend money and get the 340s.

Regards )( Arcano
in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773, 380, 73G, 788, 789, 346
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:28 am

CO's EWR-HKG flight with the 772 is always restricted

hmm... ya think so?




A 763 on YYZ-NRT? There will be some serious ETOPS limitatons on that route

What are you talking about? That flight's completely within ETOPS180  Nuts




one of the most important issues for LAN to purchase the 340-300 was the payload restriction of the 763 all the way to MAD.

FWIW, LA also was interested in launching the PW4098-powered 772ER. Though, we see how well that worked out.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:32 am

Yes Fred, I think so, I just wanted to point it out because he asked. It looks like you and me for this weeks most posts prize  Big thumbs up
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:38 am

Yes Fred, I think so

Then you think wrong.  Laugh out loud
(and yes, I'm aware that Alain's article blah blah blahs about payload restrictions on the westbound etc)



Anywho, surprisingly enough: when the airline is required to restrict seats on this flight, it's usually on the eastbound... due to cargo being carried.

NOT the westbound; which is often, and was initially with this flight as well, restricted on most longhauls as a result of headwinds.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:42 am

Still, with any restrictions, CO non-revs have told me it is easier to get back from HNL to LAX by flying GUM-HKG-EWR-LAX because of how full the HNL-LAX flight normally is
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6058
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:47 am

Other "popular" long-haul 763 routes includes SAS' CPH-HKG route, which I understand was constantly weight-restricted along with the odd fuel stop ex-HKG.

Btw, SAS tried CPH-GRU (I think) and CPH-SIN (non-stop), but I can't remember if they did it with their B762's or B763's.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:52 am

Other "popular" long-haul 763 routes includes SAS' CPH-HKG route, which I understand was constantly weight-restricted along with the odd fuel stop ex-HKG.

Yeah, they used to request/utilize Kai Tak's Rwy13 even when everyone else was usin' 31. Bet ATC just loveeed that  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
NWA757
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 8:53 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:53 am

In order for the Boeing 767-300 to fly ultra-long routes, payload restrictions are needed.
Fly High!
 
airxliban
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:20 am

on another note SV flies 763s into LAX from SVO, wonder how that goes for payload restrictions if it even needs any at all.

are russian jets banned in the US? there are pix in the database of IL-96s at LAX as well as pix of IL-86 which couldn't possibly make it from SVO nonstop...could they?

[Edited 2004-10-11 01:25:33]
PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:25 am

Russian jets are not banned here, I just think that SU wants a 2 person crew and thinks that a US aircraft might appeal more than a russian one (too bad, that IL-96 is world class and sexy). They fly polar into LAX, so weight should not be too much of an issue
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:31 am

they are talking about getting rid of the 346 at the end of their leases because of that and going to a 744.

That would be stupid, as the 346 features significantly greater uplift on this route than a 744.

United's short-lived 744 JFK-HKG regularly went out with over 100 seats blocked.

N
 
jmc1975
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 10:57 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:47 am

In January of last year, I flew on a South African Airways 744 from ATL to CPT. Even on a cold 30-degree Georgia morning, that bird was pax restricted to 271Y. Seating capacity was 285Y. Luckily, there were only 215 booked and we still used nearly every inch of that runway.
.......
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:59 am

as the 346 features significantly greater uplift on this route than a 744.


Perhaps they meant that 747Adv junk instead of 744  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
av757
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:49 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:02 am

At AV, our case here at BOG at 8360 feet above sea level; our B767-383 with PW4060 engines is severely restricted.

At BOG, Flaps 5, Improved Climb and 14° C at 23:45Z, MTOW 340,000 lbs due to the altitude and the obstacle limitations in case of an engine failure after V1 (second segment climb limited).

Normal Limitations:
MTW 409,000 lbs
MTOW 408,000 lbs
MLW 320,000 lbs
MZFW 288,000 lbs

The aircraft with a full passenger load of 210 and their luggage is capable of a 6:00 hour flight from BOG. For example EZE, SCL or JFK which are less than 6:00 hours from BOG.

For any flight of more than 6:00 hours to carry a full passenger load and their luggage, a fueling stop is mandatory at an airport without the altitude limitations of BOG; or a reduction of passengers and luggage is required.

In the case of the MAD flight from BOG, for the fuel stop it can be CTG, BAQ or MIQ which all are at sea level where the maximum take-off weight can be used.

Regards:
AV757
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:11 am

How long's BOG's best runway?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
av757
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:49 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:17 am

There are 2 runways at BOG, 13L/31R and 13R/31L;
both have 12,467 Ft in length.

AV757
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:24 am

...any plans for a DEN-like megarunway? If any place were to need it.....
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
timz
Posts: 6085
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:30 am

"(too high obstacles off [SFO] 28s to allow for westbound departures)."

Any recall how tall the obstacles, and how far from the runway?

"...pix in the database of IL-96s at LAX as well as pix of IL-86"

Yeah, they flew Il 96s to SFO too. Il-86's to JFK fuelled in SNN and/or Gander? I think somebody said they also flewIl-86's to SEA, but I wonder about that.
 
av757
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:49 am

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:41 am

The problem will not be solved by increasing runway lenght to 14,000 or 15,000ft; the problem is the maximum performance left with an engine out due to the density altitude which decreases engine produced thrust and wing lifting capability to comply with the minimum mandatory and regulatory climb gradient performance required in this configuration.

The only way to overcome this hurdle is to have more powerful engines to compensate airframe lift performance due to the reduced density of air at high altitude high temperature airports.

AV757
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:13 pm

SU also flew IL-62s to SEA. The mega runway at DEN is for 772ERs to be able to fly DEN-Asia unrestricted on hot summer days in the mile-high city. Longer range plane doing a mission that is not normally on the edge of its range from a lower, cooler (generally) city
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
baw716
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:26 pm

TimZ,
The principal obstacle was Mt. San Bruno. However, as you probably know, the 28 departure profile takes you out over the ocean before you make a turn.

Alitalia's minimum requirement for one engine out operation was 1500AGL. The height of the hills between the airport and the ocean are about 800 feet. This means that they would have to climb to 2300 feet with one engine out with max payload. Since we had to carry more fuel for the route than United 767 to Paris (MXP one hour further than CDG), our restrictions were likely stiffer than theirs.

As I said earlier, 90% of the time we could launch off 1R with no problems. Sometimes we used every inch of real estate, but it was well within the operating limits of the aircraft.

Hope that helps.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
baw716
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Boeing 767-300 - Payload Restrictions?

Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:32 pm

ConcordeBoy,
The route might be within ETOPS 180, but is AC allowed to operate their 763s with ETOPS 180? ETOPS requirements are aircraft type and operator specific, so while one airline may have 180 min ETOPS, some do not. I do not know if AC does have 180min ETOPS for the 763. AZ at the time I was there did not have 180min ETOPS for their 763; max was 138min. My post was making an assumption that AC did not have a ETOPS 180min authorization for their 763s.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4everRC, 787fan8, 817Dreamliiner, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], BlueSky1976, CCA, Google Adsense [Bot], INFINITI329, JAmie2k9, jbmitt, KLMatSJC, legacyins, LightningAce, Miami, MIflyer12, mk2, S75752, StTim, texl1649, thijs025, topbanana, Tvilum, Yahoo [Bot], Yflyer and 294 guests