tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:23 am

I heard a rumor that AF and KLM will be ending CDG a340 and AMS 747 service to SXM in favor of two daily AF 773s, routing dutch customers through CDG.

Does anyone have any information regarding this rumor?
 
elvis777
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:23 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:30 am

Hi,

That would be neat! Also, Sabena32 will be surprised and perhaps a bit crestfallen if this happens. You know the argument about 2 engines and the big mountains

peace


Elvis7777
Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9864
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:30 am

Loosing the KLM B744 will be disappointing for all SXM fans. Just need to look at B747 pics at SXM to know what I mean
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
Boeing744
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:27 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:34 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 2):
Loosing the KLM B744 will be disappointing for all SXM fans.

That is true, but in exchange they may get to see those enourmous GE90s!!!  biggrin 
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:37 am

Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 1):
That would be neat! Also, Sabena32 will be surprised and perhaps a bit crestfallen if this happens. You know the argument about 2 engines and the big mountains

peace


Elvis7777

two engines ain't the problem! the 757s and 737s make it out easy. it's the a340 that looks like it's going to crash every time!!!

the 747 takes off with a tiny fuel load and lands on another island with a longer runway before it heads to AMS, so it's never really struggled over the mountains.

fence riding might take more courage than any other jet...

although i almost got killed by a 757 once.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:05 pm

Isn't the AF 777-300 configured for higher yielding destinations? The A340 doesn't have first class and has fewer premium seats than the 777-300. I know SXM is a premier beach resort, but I still struggle to believe that a plane ideal for JFK would be good for flights to SXM.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
san747
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:10 pm

Could the 777-300 do SXM-CDG nonstop given the runway limitations of SXM?
Scotty doesn't know...
 
as739x
Posts: 5008
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:19 pm

Elvis777, you got to be kidding! There is no arguement. Have you ever seen the climb performance of the A340?

ASLAX
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
aircanada333
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:16 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:34 pm

Quoting AS739X (Reply 7):
Elvis777, you got to be kidding! There is no arguement. Have you ever seen the climb performance of the A340?

ASLAX

Yeah! the climb performance of the A343 just sucks because of its tiny engines but it is a great plane thought.

Benjamin  Smile
De-icing RULZ!!!
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:37 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Isn't the AF 777-300 configured for higher yielding destinations? The A340 doesn't have first class and has fewer premium seats than the 777-300. I know SXM is a premier beach resort, but I still struggle to believe that a plane ideal for JFK would be good for flights to SXM.

i must apologize. i meant 772. some of the older AF 772 would be on this flight.

i have heard this via a friend in SXM, but i want some official confirmation so that it's no longer just a rumor.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:49 pm

Quoting San747 (Reply 6):
Could the 777-300 do SXM-CDG nonstop given the runway limitations of SXM?

Doubtful, because a 777-300ER weighs almost as much as a 747. An AF 77W, as well as a 772, would be so weight restricted that it would probably have to fly to Guadeloupe for fuel. The question is also whether it would fit into the airport.

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
the 747 takes off with a tiny fuel load and lands on another island with a longer runway before it heads to AMS, so it's never really struggled over the mountains.

That other island in the case of KL would be CUR.
 
Watapana
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:59 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:56 pm

The Air France/KLM Group operate ten daily flights to SXM together. AF operates a daily A340-300 and KL 3x times weekly B747-400 via CUR. I doubt these ten flights per week would justify two daily B777-200/300 flights to SXM, they would have to do this in combination with another destination as it is not possible to operate direct flights back to Europe with a B777. Air Europe had charter flights from Italy in the past to SXM and they were rerouted bck to Italy via Santo Domingo for a fuel and pax stop.

Just my 2 cents
SkyCruise Airlines- Your going places and SO are We!
 
A388
Posts: 7194
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 3:48 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:29 pm

Sounds unlikely to see KL stop operating the SXM route, but who knows everything is possible. Only I know is that AF will be using their 777-300ER to Guadeloupe but I'm not sure when these flights will start. Their are talks of KL terminating their BON flights but this has been extensively been discussed in another thread.

A388
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:42 pm

Quoting Watapana (Reply 11):
The Air France/KLM Group operate ten daily flights to SXM together

I suppose you mean 10 weekly?
But loosing 2 aircraft for one and also an airline must be disappointing to SXM spotters though. But it would be in line with other recent route decisions by AF/KL which they both flew. Some are now flown only by KL, other by AF.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:53 pm

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):

two engines ain't the problem! the 757s and 737s make it out easy. it's the a340 that looks like it's going to crash every time!!!



Quoting AS739X (Reply 7):
Elvis777, you got to be kidding! There is no arguement. Have you ever seen the climb performance of the A340?

ASLAX

The problem would be not the climb performance of the T7 but the one engine out climb performance. While the climb performance of a T7 is better than the climb performance of a 340 the one engine out perfomance is worse.

pelican

[Edited 2006-02-18 12:02:09]
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5186
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:56 pm

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 9):
i must apologize. i meant 772. some of the older AF 772 would be on this flight.

So, you can tell your friend he probably drank too much Rum ...

Quoting Watapana (Reply 11):
The Air France/KLM Group operate ten daily flights to SXM together. AF operates a daily A340-300 and KL 3x times weekly B747-400 via CUR. I doubt these ten flights per week would justify two daily B777-200/300 flights to SXM,

Absolutely right.


The DAILY A343 operated by AF has a cabin version of 36J/236Y.
The "High Density" B773ER WILL have a cabin version of 14J/36S/422M and, anyway, will be based at ORY, not CDG.
NOTHING can justify a 2xDAILY AF B773ER to SXM. NO WAY. Even if KL would pull out from the line  sarcastic 

And I am not talking about AF's B772ER, configured for high Business Traffic routes, completely unsuitable with the type of traffic to/from SXM.
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:04 pm

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
it's the a340 that looks like it's going to crash every time!!!



Quoting Aircanada333 (Reply 8):
the climb performance of the A343 just sucks



Quoting AS739X (Reply 7):
Have you ever seen the climb performance of the A340?

I guess you guys didn't see these photo's


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Rodgers



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui

L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
User avatar
ASMD11
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:40 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:38 pm

Would KLM ever send the MD11 to SXM? Or have they in the past? That would be a sight to see. (But I'm not biased for the MD11 at all  Wink)
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5186
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Quoting ASMD11 (Reply 17):
Would KLM ever send the MD11 to SXM? Or have they in the past?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rodrigo Arrue Deiro
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jordi Grife - Iberian Spotters

 
jorge1812
Posts: 2911
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:11 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:51 pm

Judging from the previous posts it should be no problem, but can SXM handle the lenght of a B777-300?

There was a thread months ago where it was already said that one carrier AF or KL will leave SXM for the other one. Maybe someone finds this thread.

Georg
 
User avatar
ASMD11
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:40 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:33 pm

Thanks for the photos FlySCC after reading the caption of the second one I remembered that I had seen those before, a beautiful sight indeed I would love to see an MD11 landing there in person one day.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:46 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Isn't the AF 777-300 configured for higher yielding destinations?

They are getting high density ones as well, but those are for ORY flights to places like RUN

Quoting San747 (Reply 6):
Could the 777-300 do SXM-CDG nonstop given the runway limitations of SXM?

Yes

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 10):
Doubtful, because a 777-300ER weighs almost as much as a 747.

Almost? 100,000 pounds less is not almost, particularly when you have almost as much power per side

Quoting Pelican (Reply 14):
While the climb performance of a T7 is better than the climb performance of a 340 the one engine out perfomance is worse.

The T7 only has 2000 pounds less thrust with one engine out than the A343 does with one engine out.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5186
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:51 pm

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 19):
There was a thread months ago where it was already said that one carrier AF or KL will leave SXM for the other one. Maybe someone finds this thread.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2176240

But that was actually a wrong information, as often ...
The truth is that all the commercial/marketing/ticketing services, station managers etc... are now under the reponsibility of AF for both AF & KLM.
Then came inevitably the boring eternal ritual questions about B777 or A343, slow climb permormance of the 340, bla bla bla  sarcastic 
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:36 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
The T7 only has 2000 pounds less thrust with one engine out than the A343 does with one engine out.

I could be wrong but as far as I know the A343X has 4 CFM56-5C4s which generate 34,000 pounds thrust each. This leads to a thrust of 102,000 pounds of thrust with 3 engines.
The T72ER which AF uses has 2 GE 90-94Bs with 93,700 pounds thrust each.
So you're going to say that the difference between 102,000 lb and 93,700 lb is 2,000 lb?

pelican
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:03 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
The T7 only has 2000 pounds less thrust with one engine out than the A343 does with one engine out.

Believe it or not, the A343 is actually lighter than the 772ER.

Also, Pelican´s reply 23 is valid.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Quoting San747 (Reply 6):
Could the 777-300 do SXM-CDG nonstop given the runway limitations of SXM?

Yes

Yeah, why should we care about safety regulations and/or payload... Yeah sure
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:37 am

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
two engines ain't the problem! the 757s and 737s make it out easy. it's the a340 that looks like it's going to crash every time!!!

the 747 takes off with a tiny fuel load and lands on another island with a longer runway before it heads to AMS, so it's never really struggled over the mountains.

The climb performance of the A343 is better than the one that the 744 can deliver (up to 10000ft). Also is the A343 capable of flying non-stop from SXM to Europe and the 744 is not.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:04 am

SXM already has 777 markings on the apron so its only a matter of time.
 
Morvious
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:36 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:15 am

Quoting Jumbojet (Reply 26):
SXM already has 777 markings on the apron so its only a matter of time.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Pries - ATR Team



Offcourse there are, Otherwise they couldn't park her back in 2001  duck 

Lets just hope KLM won't stop the SXM service. The B747 must be a welcome visitor over the rest heavies landing there, and I like the photos in the database!!

Stefan van Hierden
have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
 
Boeing744
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:27 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:38 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
The T7 only has 2000 pounds less thrust with one engine out than the A343 does with one engine out



Quoting Pelican (Reply 23):
I could be wrong but as far as I know the A343X has 4 CFM56-5C4s which generate 34,000 pounds thrust each. This leads to a thrust of 102,000 pounds of thrust with 3 engines.
The T72ER which AF uses has 2 GE 90-94Bs with 93,700 pounds thrust each.

Pelican, you are right about the 772ER, but if we are talking about the 773ER, it actually has more thrust with one engine out than the 343 with one out. The A334X has 102,000lbs of thrust with 3(as you said), but the 777-300ER has 115,000lbs of thrust in one engine.
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:54 am

Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 28):

Pelican, you are right about the 772ER, but if we are talking about the 773ER, it actually has more thrust with one engine out than the 343 with one out. The A334X has 102,000lbs of thrust with 3(as you said), but the 777-300ER has 115,000lbs of thrust in one engine.

Of course; the 773ER is not in the same category than the A343 - it's a much bigger and also heavier aircraft and therefore needs more thrust.

pelican
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:13 am

Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 28):
Pelican, you are right about the 772ER, but if we are talking about the 773ER, it actually has more thrust with one engine out than the 343 with one out. The A334X has 102,000lbs of thrust with 3(as you said), but the 777-300ER has 115,000lbs of thrust in one engine.

The 343 is still more powerful with an engine out. With the 77W's MTOW of 752,000lbs, each pound of thrust of the GE90 has to push 6.54 pounds of airplane. In the 343 (MTOW 597,450lbs), each pound of thrust is only pushing 5.86 pounds of airplane.* So, the 340 is going to be a better climber with one engine out - simple as that. Sure, you could put a 340's passenger load on a 77W and have no problems with the climb, but then why not just use a 340?

*Figures taken from International Directory of Civil Aircraft - not a foolproof source but one I consider to be pretty reliable.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9864
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:59 am

Quoting Morvious (Reply 27):
Offcourse there are, Otherwise they couldn't park her back in 2001

Back when BA landed a B772 at WLG in 2001, WLG didn't have any B777 markings on its tarmac and it still used an International gate a few times during its 4 day stay
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
Morvious
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:36 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:24 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 31):
Back when BA landed a B772 at WLG in 2001, WLG didn't have any B777 markings on its tarmac and it still used an International gate a few times during its 4 day stay

You really thought my response was in any way serious???
have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6374
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:32 am

AF used to fly n/s with a 742 , correct?
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5186
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:36 am

Quoting United_Fan (Reply 33):
AF used to fly n/s with a 742 , correct?

 no 

When AF was using a B72 or B743, the flight was routing CDG-SXM-SDQ-CDG.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:51 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Almost? 100,000 pounds less is not almost, particularly when you have almost as much power per side

Point taken, though we can still say it's somewhat close to the 747.

Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 28):
Pelican, you are right about the 772ER, but if we are talking about the 773ER, it actually has more thrust with one engine out than the 343 with one out. The A334X has 102,000lbs of thrust with 3(as you said), but the 777-300ER has 115,000lbs of thrust in one engine.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that a twinjet will lose 50% power with one engine out, while a quad only loses 25% and a trijet some 33%. That's a difference of between 17 to 25% for a twin compared to a trijet and a quad respectively. It will make a difference, especially since trijets and quads are not bound to ETOPS, which can also be a critical factor for such flights.

Quoting ASMD11 (Reply 17):
Would KLM ever send the MD11 to SXM? Or have they in the past? That would be a sight to see. (But I'm not biased for the MD11 at all)

I believe the previous service KL had with the MD-11 was a separate service, not the same as the regular three times weekly 744, but it only lasted for a short time. But taking into consideration that KL wants to use the MD-11s more as the leisure aircraft of their fleet, replacing the three times weekly 744 with a daily MD-11 (thus bumping combined AF-KL flights to SXM to twice daily) could, but only could, make sense.
 
SA7700
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:38 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:25 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 25):
The climb performance of the A343 is better than the one that the 744 can deliver (up to 10000ft). Also is the A343 capable of flying non-stop from SXM to Europe and the 744 is not.

Is that a fact? Please come to JNB and compare the climb performance of the A343E over the B744. Also, according to the Great Circle Mapper, SXM-CDG = 6745km and SXM-AMS = 6939km. An A343 can make it but a B744 not? Could you please explain this to me?


Rgds

SA7700
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:59 am

Question.... How long is the runway at SXM? And there has to be weight restrictions on these larger aircraft?????
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5186
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:21 am

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 37):
How long is the runway at SXM?

Rnw 09/27 itself : 2180m X 45m
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:19 am

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 36):
Could you please explain this to me?

It's simple: a 744 at SXM is heavily weight restricted due to the short runway, so it has to go to CUR, SDQ or some other nearby airports with suitable runways for refuelling before going on the way. The A340, though probably also a bit weight restricted, can make the distance because it can carry enough fuel for the trip and can depart with that fuel on that short runway.
 
SA7700
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:38 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:15 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 39):
It's simple: a 744 at SXM is heavily weight restricted due to the short runway, so it has to go to CUR, SDQ or some other nearby airports with suitable runways for refuelling before going on the way. The A340, though probably also a bit weight restricted, can make the distance because it can carry enough fuel for the trip and can depart with that fuel on that short runway.

So all B747's go to nearby airports, before actually heading for Europe?


Rgds

SA7700
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:29 pm

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 40):
So all B747's go to nearby airports, before actually heading for Europe?

In the case of SXM, that is correct, all because of weight restrictions due to the short runway. Other airports like AUA, SDQ and CUR for example have runways long enough to accomodate 747s that are bound for Europe.
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:43 pm

Quoting Kappel (Reply 16):
I guess you guys didn't see these photo's

They are definitely nice photos but the perspective offered by a given lens and vantage point is not as informative as certified performance data.

The engine out scenario is well understood, but anyone who actually believes that an A340 outperforms a 777 under normal operational conditions or that an A340 is relatively powerful is probably on glue. The A340 is a known performance dog by pilots and engineers.

The A340 is a nice aircraft. I am a fan of the Airbus widebody 2-4-2 or 2-2-2 cabin configuration and the A340 in particular is a nice quiet ride in cruise. Where the A342/A343 fall short is in power and operational economics.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
SA7700
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:38 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:38 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 41):
In the case of SXM, that is correct, all because of weight restrictions due to the short runway. Other airports like AUA, SDQ and CUR for example have runways long enough to accomodate 747s that are bound for Europe.

Thanks for that, I appreciate it.


Rgds

SA7700
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 777 At SXM

Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:21 am

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 43):
Thanks for that, I appreciate it.

No problem man.

- Richie
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:29 am

Quoting Molykote (Reply 42):
The engine out scenario is well understood, but anyone who actually believes that an A340 outperforms a 777 under normal operational conditions or that an A340 is relatively powerful is probably on glue. The A340 is a known performance dog by pilots and engineers.

Yes, if all engines are running the 772ER is most certainly a better climber, (no I'm not on glue!!!  Wink ) but the problem as discussed is the engine-out scenario. The a343 is lighter and has more thrust available with one engine out than the 772ER. I really don't know if that's a problem at SXM, but fact is that those mountains have to be avoided.

Quoting Molykote (Reply 42):
Where the A342/A343 fall short is in power and operational economics.

In power, I don't know if it's that important, but it's certainly obvious that it falls short in economics. A shame really, I like it, just as you. I think the a345/a346 are some of the best-looking aircraft ever produced (with the MD-11), but unfortunately compared to the 773ER, they use way too much fuel.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
KDTWflyer
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:51 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:28 am

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
although i almost got killed by a 757 once

How did that happen, jet blast?

BTW, standing behind a GE-90-115B at takeoff thrust would be insane.
NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:45 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 16):
Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
it's the a340 that looks like it's going to crash every time!!!



Quoting Aircanada333 (Reply 8):
the climb performance of the A343 just sucks



Quoting AS739X (Reply 7):
Have you ever seen the climb performance of the A340?

I guess you guys didn't see these photo's

have you ever spotted at sxm? trust me, the a340 struggles in a comparitive sense. it gets over just fine, but it does so at a much lower trajectory.

the only thing that compared to the a340 was a 727 "vomit comet" we saw take off and land a few times last summer.

that being said, the a340 might be the perfect jet for sxm. the 747 is too big, and the 777 might be a bit too big as well.

the 747 does just fine, but it is extremely weight restricted.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6954
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:52 am

Quoting Molykote (Reply 42):
The engine out scenario is well understood, but anyone who actually believes that an A340 outperforms a 777 under normal operational conditions or that an A340 is relatively powerful is probably on glue. The A340 is a known performance dog by pilots and engineers

Correct, but that has absolutely no relevance. Safety and making money do play an important role in running an airline, not just the color of its paint scheme  Smile For SXM-Europe, whether people like it or not, a T7 or 747 are just not as good as an A340.
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: 777 At SXM

Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:57 am

Quoting KDTWFlyer (Reply 46):
Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
although i almost got killed by a 757 once

How did that happen, jet blast?

BTW, standing behind a GE-90-115B at takeoff thrust would be insane.

i stood behind an AA 757 that had its brakes set for departure and spooled up the engines. rather than stand right at the fence (which is actually a better place to be), i stood on the beach, where i got hit with all sorts of flying projectiles and absolutely sand-blasted. i turned my back to the jet blast and ran for the water as fast as i could, not realizing that there are large rocks just below the water line.

anyway, i learned my lesson. stand AT the fence -- the area between the runway and the fence is pretty much blown clean of all debris. it's the area between the fence and the beach that fills up with stuff that can hurt you and, of course, the sand isn't that pleasant.