SANflyr
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:52 pm

SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:49 pm

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.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3944
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:55 pm

Great. Anyone know when ANA will resume NRT-SJC?
 
SANMAN66
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:37 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:01 pm

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!
 
san747
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:02 pm

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...
 
san88
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:30 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:37 pm

Another spotting event  
sit on the Captain side when you fly into SAN
 
G500
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:45 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:42 pm

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
 
tonystan
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:39 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:48 pm

This must be causing JAL a fortune!!!!
My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
 
SANMAN66
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:37 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:52 pm

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!
 
jfk777
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:07 pm

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.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1879
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:20 pm

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.
 
SANflyr
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:52 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:22 pm

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

Perhaps Boeing is making up the difference in compensation?
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1879
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:31 pm

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.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:33 pm

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.
 
AussieItaliano
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:41 pm

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.
Third Runway - LHR, Second Runway - LGW, Build Them Both!!!
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1879
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:51 pm

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 avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3375
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:52 pm

On a related note, JAL has been using 777-200s #704, #705, and #707 into Boston
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:06 am

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
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1879
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:13 am

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.
 
SANflyr
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:52 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:16 am

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.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2312
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:31 am

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 avatar
hhslax2
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:16 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:31 am

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.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1217
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:31 am

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?
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1879
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:40 am

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 avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4015
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:48 am

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
 
Newark727
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:59 am

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.
 
SANMAN66
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:37 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:11 am

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 24):
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.


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-LHR flight, which is daily.

[Edited 2013-01-23 18:16:13]
PSA Gives you a lift!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:28 am

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 23):
That said, insurance is also a likely scenario

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 losses stemming from the use of their products.They will provide warranties, yes, but would GM reimburse you for the loss of a workday of yours so you could bring your car in for a recall? No, of course not. They might cover the cost of a courtesy/rental car, but you're on your own for anything else, including your cost of gas to get to and from the dealership!
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
hhslax2
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:16 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:56 am

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 22):
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.

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 optimal. The terrain does not play a role in takeoffs on 27 (the normal takeoff/landing direction). The flight is 5557 mi according to gcmap (5485 to LHR). I sincerely doubt the runway is the problem. Demand is the culprit for why a 777 is not used for more transcontinental flights.
 
doug_or
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:22 am

Quoting hhslax2 (Reply 27):
The runway is 9401 ft (not sure if that includes the takeoff area that starts before the landing zone at SAN)

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 weights due to the engine out requirements for some aircraft.
When in doubt, one B pump off
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1879
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:22 am

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 engine.

You can't have a 777-200ER at max take off weight lose an engine on take off from SAN. It won't make it over the terrain.
 
sanscott744
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:43 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:38 am

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. Flying from SAN to LHR on the way too LHR the Jet Stream is carrying them vs. against them heading to NRT. They can fill the 777-200ER and fly it to LHR because they aren't dealing with strong head winds coupled with the shorter runway. It's the combination.
 
irelayer
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:41 am

Quoting doug_Or (Reply 28):
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 weights due to the engine out requirements for some aircraft.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 29):
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 engine.

You can't have a 777-200ER at max take off weight lose an engine on take off from SAN. It won't make it over the terrain.

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 to that, you can't turn in either direction in enough time without looking at a sizable terrain rise.

-IR
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:13 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
The issue with San Diego has been its short runways for long haul use, the BA 777 is severly weight restricted

No, the 777 is weight restricted, but not severely!

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
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

Yes, we use the RR Trent 895 powered -200ER (-236ER). This gives nearly 94,000lbs of thrust per engine and the performance is very good at near sea level.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 12):
it's the same plane with the same 656,000 lbs MTOW.

Correct, we use Kgs in the UK! The Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) is 297,557kgs, which is 656,000lbs.

I have flown the SAN route 6 times now at various times of the year. I have never had to leave payload behind and although the loads are variable, most of those occasions have been with or near a full load of passengers (275 in a 3 x class config)) and 10 metric tons (10,000kgs) of freight.

On every flight we calculate the Take-off Performance Limit (TOPL) for the relevant runway. On Rwy 27 at SAN it would be approx 270,000kgs at a temp of 28c (82f) with a 10kt headwind. Rwy 09 would be much more restricting because of terrain (Nett take off flight path considerations) and the need to allow for the loss of an engine at or beyond V1. At temp 28c and 10kt headwind, TOPL would be approx 245,000kgs.

Fortunately, with prevailing conditions at SAN, the use of Rwy 09 is rare. We depart in the evening (21:10) when the temp is rarely above 28c/82f (even in August average max temp is 26c/77f)

Average fuel load for SAN to LHR is approx 75,000kg, which would leave a Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) capability of 195,000kg, which is very close to maximum!

So, although I've seen it often said on this forum that BA are payload restricted out of SAN, the reality, as you can see, is that we very rarely have a problem and we consistently operate with a full cabin and a significant freight load.

I can't answer for JAL, but I would think that their situation is broadly similar from a payload perspective.

Cheers
 

[Edited 2013-01-24 02:02:32]
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
jfk777
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:34 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
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.

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 777-200( non ER). The BA 777-236 ER with Rolls engines are more capable then their earlier deilvered cousins 777-236ER with GE engines.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1879
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:45 pm

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 encouraging. It also explains why BA hasn't mentioned SAN as receiving 787 service once those a/c are delivered.

I don't know if the JL a/c have the 94,000 pound/thrust engines or not but I'd expect they can't carry quite as much given the headwinds for which they must account. If their engines aren't as capable, that would detract further from their performance.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1879
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:49 pm

Quoting irelayer (Reply 31):
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 to that, you can't turn in either direction in enough time without looking at a sizable terrain rise.

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. That must account for terrain at Pt. Loma/Ocean Beach. Its all noted in the performance charts for the a/c and are settled by the load planners and trip managers for the airline before service starts at a given location.

That BA flight will indeed make it over Pt. Loma on one engine if needed.
 
flyinryan99
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 6:54 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:00 pm

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.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26):
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 23):
That said, insurance is also a likely scenario

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 losses stemming from the use of their products.They will provide warranties, yes, but would GM reimburse you for the loss of a workday of yours so you could bring your car in for a recall? No, of course not. They might cover the cost of a courtesy/rental car, but you're on your own for anything else, including your cost of gas to get to and from the dealership!

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 far as I can tell, there hasn't been an occurrence as there hasn't been an bodily injury where our product policy would respond. They (airlines) have business interruption coverage that may kick in if they have purchased it but I don't think Boeing's insurer would be responsible at this point. Then again, I don't know how their products policy is written (or the other components in question for that matter) as it's written through a different company. One other consideration is the purchase agreement. How is that written?
 
skipness1E
Posts: 3396
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:08 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
It appears JL will use a -200ER but I don't know if it is an IGW variant.

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 the B777-200IGW.

That didn't last.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:43 pm

Quoting tonystan (Reply 6):
This must be causing JAL a fortune!!!!
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):

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.

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 component is that ends up being the cause of the problems and making them pay for the grounding and if not, Boeing certainly has a great case for a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the component that ends up being the cause of the problem.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:51 pm

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 15):
On a related note, JAL has been using 777-200s #704, #705, and #707 into Boston

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?
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1555
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:56 pm

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.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
It sounds like it would have almost 60 seats blocked off due to weight restrictions. Hopefully this will be a short term fix.

And another silver lining for the economy passengers at least! Must be a very comfortable flight in back with so many empty seats!
 
Boeing717200
Posts: 1790
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:58 pm

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 32):
Correct, we use Kgs in the UK! The Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) is 297,557kgs, which is 656,000lbs.

I have flown the SAN route 6 times now at various times of the year. I have never had to leave payload behind and although the loads are variable, most of those occasions have been with or near a full load of passengers (275 in a 3 x class config)) and 10 metric tons (10,000kgs) of freight.

On every flight we calculate the Take-off Performance Limit (TOPL) for the relevant runway. On Rwy 27 at SAN it would be approx 270,000kgs at a temp of 28c (82f) with a 10kt headwind. Rwy 09 would be much more restricting because of terrain (Nett take off flight path considerations) and the need to allow for the loss of an engine at or beyond V1. At temp 28c and 10kt headwind, TOPL would be approx 245,000kgs.

Fortunately, with prevailing conditions at SAN, the use of Rwy 09 is rare. We depart in the evening (21:10) when the temp is rarely above 28c/82f (even in August average max temp is 26c/77f)

Average fuel load for SAN to LHR is approx 75,000kg, which would leave a Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) capability of 195,000kg, which is very close to maximum!

So, although I've seen it often said on this forum that BA are payload restricted out of SAN, the reality, as you can see, is that we very rarely have a problem and we consistently operate with a full cabin and a significant freight load.

I can't answer for JAL, but I would think that their situation is broadly similar from a payload perspective.

Cheers


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 distance of 5,700-nm from an 11,000-foot runway that has a standard single engine climb of 200-feet per nautical mile. It is absurd to claim that such an aircraft does not have a weight limitation when operating from a runway that is 9,401-feet long that has a 250-foot hill of the end of it within one nautical mile.

You indicate that you carry a full pax load of 275 (roughly 62,000 lbs) plus about 10 metric tonnes (another 22,000 pounds) of cargo from SAN for a net payload of roughly 84,000 pounds. They can probably get that on the other side of 85K on a cold day. What you're leaving out is that over the same distance from an 11,000-foot runway, the plane is able to carry 131,000-pounds of payload. Thats a payload penalty of over 40,000 pounds and close to 50k on a typical day.

You aren't leaving any cargo behind because the load planners have ensured that the cargo sent for the flight is not in excess of the allowable load.

As for JAL, if you consider their takeoff weights are similar to BA, you also have to factor what the nearly 10-15% increase in fuel consumption for the trip due to winds will do to the cargo capability. They have fewer seats than BA which gives them some leeway, but that kind of fuel burn increase is the difference between profit and loss.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 34):
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 encouraging. It also explains why BA hasn't mentioned SAN as receiving 787 service once those a/c are delivered.

It has probably operated with full passengers on multiple occassions, but it has most certainly not ever operated "full" in terms of it's actual payload capability. It isn't physically possible to do so. The while capable of 131K, the optimum load for a 777 is 100k and it can't even do that from SAN.

[Edited 2013-01-24 08:13:34]
 
airbazar
Posts: 6940
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:08 pm

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 less money than the 787.
 
by738
Posts: 2443
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 7:59 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:20 pm

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
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:42 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 42):

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 less money than the 787

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 seats, but with BOS having longer runways and no terrain constraints like SAN, I'd venture to guess that JAL still is turning a profit with the BOS ops. Again, it's just a guess.....anyone know for sure?
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1879
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:55 pm

Quoting clrd4t8koff (Reply 44):

Quoting airbazar (Reply 42):

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 less money than the 787

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 seats, but with BOS having longer runways and no terrain constraints like SAN, I'd venture to guess that JAL still is turning a profit with the BOS ops. Again, it's just a guess.....anyone know for sure?

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 the route;
2. Yields;
3. The difference in the fuel cost of the trip between the aircraft.
 
MesaFlyGuy
Posts: 3820
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:36 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:59 pm

Quoting by738 (Reply 43):
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

I believe it does, yes
The views I express are my own and do not reflect the views and opinions of my company.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6079
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:12 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 41):

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
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2603
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:39 am

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 34):
I don't know if the JL a/c have the 94,000 pound/thrust engines or not but I'd expect they can't carry quite as much given the headwinds for which they must account.

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 headwinds.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
Boeing717200
Posts: 1790
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: SAN To NRT To Resume Jan 30 With 777

Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:53 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 47):
Is that you Boeing7E7? Please don't take offense, I just remember that person having excellent knowledge of SAN and it limits and requirements.

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 more an issue of semantics over what constitutes a penalty. To say it doesn't take a penalty isn't true because of what the plane is capable of doing from a full length runway and no terrain vs a 9400 foot runway with obstacles. It's all in what a person considers a penalty. If it hurst the economics, then it's a penalty. If it limits range or payload then it is also a penalty. The truth is likely a balance of the two. The airline then needs to decide if its a fit for them. If it was a right fit before, then they wouldn't have left in the first place. I'm guessing its a better than marginal route today than it was or they wouldn't have started up service again. I'd also bet they'd be more than happy to carry another 20 or 30k in cargo.

[Edited 2013-01-24 19:07:22]