Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
AWACSooner wrote:Two words: RUNWAY LENGTH
jubguy3 wrote:Burbank's runway is only 6900 feet. So no, its probably not physically feasible.
LAX772LR wrote:AWACSooner wrote:Two words: RUNWAY LENGTHjubguy3 wrote:Burbank's runway is only 6900 feet. So no, its probably not physically feasible.![]()
![]()
![]()
Runway length wouldn't be much of an issue at all.
BA routinely does MSY-LHR off 7000ft, and BY does BRS-CUN off of 6500ft-- these runways are both shorter than SXM's.
...yes these flights are about 500nm shorter than BUR-LHR would be, but keep in mind that the MSY flight still carries tons of cargo, and BRS flight uses a denser config, yet still does fine.
MSY is particularly noteworthy, because 10,100ft Rwy29 is available, but BA just doesn't bother with the long taxi. The 788 has phenomenal runway performance, especially for TATL.
VIDEO of MSY-LHR off 7000ft Rwy20 (cabin view)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmxW9V0g-vY
MSY-LHR off 7000ft Rwy02 (external view)
https://www.facebook.com/analogspeedbir ... 409241712/
Sometimes DE will do MSY-FRA off the shorter runway with the 763ER as well. So it's not even just a 787 thing.
******************************
Runway proximity to terminals, tight taxiway turns, and lack of sufficient FIS facilities, would be the issue at BUR. And there's no way in hell that the NIMBYs are going to allow any of the above to change, any time soon.
KLMatSJC wrote:To be fair, BUR is quite a bit further away from LHR compared to MSY. If there was a weight penalty, I could see the 788 do the flight, but there is no way that it would be able to taxi and that airport.
barney captain wrote:obstacle climb limits
barney captain wrote:or temp issues
barney captain wrote:How often is BA actually able to use 1/19 at MSY? Probably not that often.
Southbound is IINM the most common commercial departure from BUR, so how's that really a problem?
...New Orleans doesn't have temperature issues????:eek:
That's certainly a new one, lol.
But yeah, MSY's average highs May-October exceed BUR by up to 9 degrees.
barney captain wrote:Southbound is IINM the most common commercial departure from BUR, so how's that really a problem?
The Hollywood Hills are three miles off the departure end of 15 - it's a factor....New Orleans doesn't have temperature issues????:eek:
That's certainly a new one, lol.
But yeah, MSY's average highs May-October exceed BUR by up to 9 degrees.
BUR can regularly exceed 110F during the summer. MSY gets nowhere near that.
Regardless of your Youtube-Wikipedia research, you are mistaken in your understanding of the performance issues at BUR.
Androol wrote:I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.
theSFOspotter wrote:BUR doesn't even have an FIS facility, also no gate where they can park it within short walk of the terminal.
COSPN wrote:BUR has obstructions ..gas station that WN ran into once
cschleic wrote:Androol wrote:I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.
This plus the infrastructure issues seem to answer it. Would be fun, though, to board / deplane a 787 with old fashioned stairs from the ramp.
Androol wrote:cschleic wrote:Androol wrote:I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.
This plus the infrastructure issues seem to answer it. Would be fun, though, to board / deplane a 787 with old fashioned stairs from the ramp.
It is quite common in many parts of the world. I boarded and deplaned a United 747 via stairs several times in Frankfurt. Also boarded and deplaned an A330 in Chengdu, China several times. Boarded a 787 via stairs in Oslo too.
Androol wrote:I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.
LAXintl wrote:No, No, No.
Besides runway performance lets consider --
o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.
o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.
o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.
o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.
o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs
o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX
=
Enough said.
kaitak744 wrote:LAXintl wrote:No, No, No.
Besides runway performance lets consider --
o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.
o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.
o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.
o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.
o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs
o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX
=
Enough said.
No, that is not enough said.
o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.
This can be changed and upgraded. Are we talking about taxiway clearance? There are special exceptions made all the time for A380s, even at LAX.
o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.
The 2 end gates at Terminal A will fit a 787-8.
o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.
This can be changed and upgraded.
o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.
Why do they need to "rescreen" if they are already cleared at SNN?
o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs
What does that mean? None of the Burbank runways go over any bridges. The 787 per-wheel weight is not much higher than current aircraft serving the airport, so the actual pavement should not be an issue.
o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX
If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX. If you are in downtown for example, traveling from your office to the aircraft gate will take A LOT less time at Burbank than at LAX.
Besides runway performance lets consider --
kaitak744 wrote:o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.
This can be changed and upgraded. Are we talking about taxiway clearance? There are special exceptions made all the time for A380s, even at LAX.
kaitak744 wrote:o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs
What does that mean? None of the Burbank runways go over any bridges. The 787 per-wheel weight is not much higher than current aircraft serving the airport, so the actual pavement should not be an issue.
kaitak744 wrote:o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX
If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX. If you are in downtown for example, traveling from your office to the aircraft gate will take A LOT less time at Burbank than at LAX.
kaitak744 wrote:
o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.
Why do they need to "rescreen" if they are already cleared at SNN?
barney captain wrote:kaitak744 wrote:LAXintl wrote:No, No, No.
Besides runway performance lets consider --
o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.
o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.
o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.
o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.
o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs
o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX
=
Enough said.
No, that is not enough said.
o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.
This can be changed and upgraded. Are we talking about taxiway clearance? There are special exceptions made all the time for A380s, even at LAX.
o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.
The 2 end gates at Terminal A will fit a 787-8.
o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.
This can be changed and upgraded.
o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.
Why do they need to "rescreen" if they are already cleared at SNN?
o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs
What does that mean? None of the Burbank runways go over any bridges. The 787 per-wheel weight is not much higher than current aircraft serving the airport, so the actual pavement should not be an issue.
o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX
If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX. If you are in downtown for example, traveling from your office to the aircraft gate will take A LOT less time at Burbank than at LAX.
You conveniently omitted the first and most important line in the quote -Besides runway performance lets consider --
Anet has officially jumped the shark with this thread.
kaitak744 wrote:6,886ft. A 787-8 cannot take off with a reasonable payload to LHR on that runway? The Boeing airport planning documents, which have the takeoff - weight charts seem to show that it can do so, perhaps with a small penalty.
6,886ft. A 787-8 cannot take off with a reasonable payload to LHR on that runway? The Boeing airport planning documents, which have the takeoff - weight charts seem to show that it can do so, perhaps with a small penalty.
Androol wrote:
I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.
kaitak744 wrote:No, that is not enough said.
kaitak744 wrote:This can be changed and upgraded.
kaitak744 wrote:If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX.
johns624 wrote:How many business people go to the airport directly from work vs from their home?
winginit wrote:kaitak744 wrote:If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX.
Quantify that for us please - otherwise your statement is meaningless.
zakuivcustom wrote:johns624 wrote:How many business people go to the airport directly from work vs from their home?
Well, if you're on a business trip, it would be Airport -> Office/"Workplace" -> Airport. Hence all the talk about "Being close to business center".winginit wrote:kaitak744 wrote:If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX.
Quantify that for us please - otherwise your statement is meaningless.
Another point I would add is that if all those business in LA really favor BUR that much, why is there only 1 single flight to JFK (and it's a red-eye on B6, not even a legacy carrier), and no flight to, let say, ORD? And even the DAL flight is 1/day vs. 7/day (4x WN, 3x VX/AS) from LAX. That tells you where the demand lies.
barney captain wrote:LAX772LR wrote:But yeah, MSY's average highs May-October exceed BUR by up to 9 degrees.
BUR can regularly exceed 110F during the summer.
winginit wrote:kaitak744 wrote:If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX.
Quantify that for us please - otherwise your statement is meaningless.
Indeed, for a high it can... but that doesn't actually address what I just said, which BTW isn't from wiki, so no appeal-to-authority (as if you were someone important) automatically refutes that.