Page 2 of 3
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:05 pm
by RyanairGuru
clrd4t8koff wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:
NZ theoretically shouldn't have been able to support three US airlines flying there but look at it now. I'm sure if DL entered it would be less than daily and only seasonally.
Whoever enters WLG-LAX first will be smart. With a similar strategy as CHC and only 2-3x weekly seasonally they'd be sure to print money. Having been to both CHC and WLG there's so much more to see and and do around WLG than CHC after the earthquake, especially with the Marlborough wine region just across the Cook straight from WLG. WLG is an absolutely beautiful city and the 788 the perfect plane to fly there.
Is that the 788 with floaters?
What does that even mean?
You would need a 787 with floats attached to operate to WLG for when you inevitably go off the end of the runway and end up in the bay. It's this little thing called sarcasm.
The runway in WLG is only 6,800 feet, far too short to support non-stop long haul flights.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:15 pm
by IndianicWorld
Unless The current WLG airport gets a far longer runway, or moves to another location, it isn’t getting any long haul flights.
AKL and CHC will be the be the main gateways. Best of luck to AA with their new services, especially LAX-CHC. Hasn’t been served in quite some time and seasonal service with a 788 should be far better positioned than previous efforts by NZ.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:30 pm
by aerokiwi
clrd4t8koff wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:
NZ theoretically shouldn't have been able to support three US airlines flying there but look at it now. I'm sure if DL entered it would be less than daily and only seasonally.
Whoever enters WLG-LAX first will be smart. With a similar strategy as CHC and only 2-3x weekly seasonally they'd be sure to print money. Having been to both CHC and WLG there's so much more to see and and do around WLG than CHC after the earthquake, especially with the Marlborough wine region just across the Cook straight from WLG. WLG is an absolutely beautiful city and the 788 the perfect plane to fly there.
Does WLG have a long enough runway to handle transpacific flights?
That's a good question and one I admittedly hadn't thought of. Perhaps that's why they don't have any TPAC flights.
That's what the "floaters" comment means.
Wellington is a reasonably wealthy but tiny city, with very few corporate headquarters left. Throw in its geography - it's not at the end or the beginning of anyone's journey, really, like AKL and CHC are - and the super short runway, and you have your answer as to the likelihood of a WLG-anywhere service.
These are fantastic moves by AA. Totally stolen a march on NZ who I thought may have considered CHC-LAX for a few services a week as they lower frequency on AKL-LAX with all the non stops to other North American cities. Maybe it's a case of dominant carrier complacency, I dunno. Bit I hope it works out for Christchurch and AA.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:32 pm
by aerokiwi
clrd4t8koff wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:
NZ theoretically shouldn't have been able to support three US airlines flying there but look at it now. I'm sure if DL entered it would be less than daily and only seasonally.
Whoever enters WLG-LAX first will be smart. With a similar strategy as CHC and only 2-3x weekly seasonally they'd be sure to print money. Having been to both CHC and WLG there's so much more to see and and do around WLG than CHC after the earthquake, especially with the Marlborough wine region just across the Cook straight from WLG. WLG is an absolutely beautiful city and the 788 the perfect plane to fly there.
Does WLG have a long enough runway to handle transpacific flights?
That's a good question and one I admittedly hadn't thought of. Perhaps that's why they don't have any TPAC flights.
That's what the "floaters" comment means.
Wellington is a reasonably wealthy but tiny city, with very few corporate headquarters left. Throw in its geography - it's not at the end or the beginning of anyone's journey, really, like AKL and CHC are - and the super short runway, and you have your answer as to the likelihood of a WLG-anywhere service.
These are fantastic moves by AA. Totally stolen a march on NZ who I thought may have considered CHC-LAX for a few services a week as they lower frequency on AKL-LAX with all the non stops to other North American cities. Maybe it's a case of dominant carrier complacency, I dunno. Bit I hope it works out for Christchurch and AA.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:44 pm
by ZK-NBT
clrd4t8koff wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:
NZ theoretically shouldn't have been able to support three US airlines flying there but look at it now. I'm sure if DL entered it would be less than daily and only seasonally.
Whoever enters WLG-LAX first will be smart. With a similar strategy as CHC and only 2-3x weekly seasonally they'd be sure to print money. Having been to both CHC and WLG there's so much more to see and and do around WLG than CHC after the earthquake, especially with the Marlborough wine region just across the Cook straight from WLG. WLG is an absolutely beautiful city and the 788 the perfect plane to fly there.
Does WLG have a long enough runway to handle transpacific flights?
That's a good question and one I admittedly hadn't thought of. Perhaps that's why they don't have any TPAC flights.[/quote
That's exactly what I meant, runway at WLG just isn't that long at slightly less than 2000m.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:04 am
by DavidByrne
JonNYC wrote:Hard to believe anyone would seriously suggest that CHC isn't pretty radical/novel.
In fact, from the time I first posted the rumor, in August, not only did -I- not fully believe it (I even sat on it for a week as it made zero sense to me), but, have an inbox full of folks-- folks that actually know what they are talking about in the arena-- telling me they thought it was too far-fetched and I had been misled, etc., etc.
It had been strongly rumoured in NZ for months, so no real surprise in New Zealand that it happened.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:06 am
by DavidByrne
clrd4t8koff wrote:Whoever enters WLG-LAX first will be smart. With a similar strategy as CHC and only 2-3x weekly seasonally they'd be sure to print money. Having been to both CHC and WLG there's so much more to see and and do around WLG than CHC after the earthquake, especially with the Marlborough wine region just across the Cook straight from WLG. WLG is an absolutely beautiful city and the 788 the perfect plane to fly there.
Not going to happen off a 6,300 ft runway!
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:38 am
by JonNYC
DavidByrne wrote:JonNYC wrote:Hard to believe anyone would seriously suggest that CHC isn't pretty radical/novel.
In fact, from the time I first posted the rumor, in August, not only did -I- not fully believe it (I even sat on it for a week as it made zero sense to me), but, have an inbox full of folks-- folks that actually know what they are talking about in the arena-- telling me they thought it was too far-fetched and I had been misled, etc., etc.
It had been strongly rumoured in NZ for months, so no real surprise in New Zealand that it happened.
They must all read my Twitter feed then. Makes sense.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:16 am
by bhxdtw
Can someone with better knowledge provide an up to date list of all Australasian flying from the USA/canada? Like, routes and carriers
Im behind with some of the additions etc.
Thx
Jordan
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:22 am
by hic787
Is DFW - AKL on 787-8 or 787-9 equipment?
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:06 am
by ZK-NBT
hic787 wrote:Is DFW - AKL on 787-8 or 787-9 equipment?
789.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:20 am
by ZK-NBT
bhxdtw wrote:Can someone with better knowledge provide an up to date list of all Australasian flying from the USA/canada? Like, routes and carriers
Im behind with some of the additions etc.
Thx
Jordan
QF
LAX-MEL A380/789
LAX-SYD 380
LAX-BNE 789 (continues to JFK with a change of flight number)
SFO-SYD 744, 789 from DEC
SFO-MEL 789
DFW-SYD 380
SFO-BNE 789 (commences FEB 2020)
ORD-BNE 789 ( commences April 2020)
AA
LAX-SYD 789
LAX-AKL 789 (runs October-March)
LAX-CHC 788 ( commences OCT 2020 seasonal)
DFW-AKL 789 (commences OCT 2020 seasonal)
NZ
AKL-LAX 77W/772
AKL/SFO 77W/772
AKL-IAH 77W/772
AKL-ORD 789
AKL-EWR 789 ( commences OCT 2020)
AKL-YVR 789
UA
SFO-SYD 789(77W DEC-March)
LAX-SYD 789
IAH-SYD 789
SFO-MEL 789 ( new route commenced OCT 19)
LAX-MEL 789
SFO-AKL 77W/772 (78J from DEC 19, 772 usually in NS)
AC
YVR-SYD 77L
YVR-MEL 789
YVR-BNE 788
YVR-AKL 788 ( commences DEC seasonal through March)
VA
LAX-SYD 77W
LAX-BNE 77W
LAX-MEL 77W
DL
LAX-SYD 77L
Plenty of frequency variation particularly NZ/UA, didn’t include HNL. QF also serve SYD-SCL and NZ AKL-EZE.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:07 am
by hsuthe19
I must give credit to AA. They have been using DFW well. They have flights to East Asia, Australia, South America, Europe, soon to be Middle East, and one day, Africa.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:10 am
by a7ala
clrd4t8koff wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:
NZ theoretically shouldn't have been able to support three US airlines flying there but look at it now. I'm sure if DL entered it would be less than daily and only seasonally.
Whoever enters WLG-LAX first will be smart. With a similar strategy as CHC and only 2-3x weekly seasonally they'd be sure to print money. Having been to both CHC and WLG there's so much more to see and and do around WLG than CHC after the earthquake, especially with the Marlborough wine region just across the Cook straight from WLG. WLG is an absolutely beautiful city and the 788 the perfect plane to fly there.
Does WLG have a long enough runway to handle transpacific flights?
That's a good question and one I admittedly hadn't thought of. Perhaps that's why they don't have any TPAC flights.
Runway is actually long enough for a DL 77L wlg-lax no problem
And while it’s a small city its New Zealand’s second largest population, economy and out bound market to the US. And as someone said a gateway to the South Island in its own right.
Easily enough USA pax already for the 3pw aa have announced with ability to support year round (which chc will struggle with) and a sizeable business market.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:17 am
by Zkpilot
clrd4t8koff wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:
NZ theoretically shouldn't have been able to support three US airlines flying there but look at it now. I'm sure if DL entered it would be less than daily and only seasonally.
Whoever enters WLG-LAX first will be smart. With a similar strategy as CHC and only 2-3x weekly seasonally they'd be sure to print money. Having been to both CHC and WLG there's so much more to see and and do around WLG than CHC after the earthquake, especially with the Marlborough wine region just across the Cook straight from WLG. WLG is an absolutely beautiful city and the 788 the perfect plane to fly there.
Does WLG have a long enough runway to handle transpacific flights?
That's a good question and one I admittedly hadn't thought of. Perhaps that's why they don't have any TPAC flights.
You’d need to add at least 500m onto the WLG runway for trans Pac and even then that’s pushing it. 1000m more would be getting there.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:21 am
by LAX772LR
NZ321 wrote:DL had the opportunity and chose to pass on this one like they have on many trans-Pacific opportunities. They seem shy of ultra long haul flying. It's sad. I am not sure why?.
DL has/will have several flights in the 14-16hr range (e.g. ATL-JNB, ATL-BOM, LAX-SYD, ATL-PVG), so how does that equate to "shy of ultra long haul flying"...?
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:29 am
by qf002
ZK-NBT wrote:QF
LAX-MEL A380/789
LAX-SYD 380
LAX-BNE 789 (continues to JFK with a change of flight number)
SFO-SYD 744, 789 from DEC
SFO-MEL 789
DFW-SYD 380
SFO-BNE 789 (commences FEB 2020)
ORD-BNE 789 ( commences April 2020)
And SYD-YVR 3wk 744 Dec-Jan/Jun-Jul
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:33 am
by readytotaxi
Wellingtons runway has hosted the NZ 747 back in the day.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zea ... on-airport
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:14 am
by eamondzhang
a7ala wrote:Runway is actually long enough for a DL 77L wlg-lax no problem
Only if you try and load with any meaningful payload.
Fully loaded 77L can easily use 2800-3000m runway from sea level. Going WLG-LAX non-stop is only possible if you have zero pax/cargo on your plane.
Michael
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:59 am
by a7ala
eamondzhang wrote:a7ala wrote:Runway is actually long enough for a DL 77L wlg-lax no problem
Only if you try and load with any meaningful payload.
Fully loaded 77L can easily use 2800-3000m runway from sea level. Going WLG-LAX non-stop is only possible if you have zero pax/cargo on your plane.
Michael
Nope. Easily full pax load takeoff existing plus pax+cargo on landing. Remember it’s a tailwind ex wlg and it doesn’t need to carry anywhere near full fuel given its only 11-12 hour sector rather than the 18 hours it can do. It’s a 200er sized aircraft with 300er engines so great short runway performance.
Unfortunately airlines use them for what they were developed for - ultra long haul - rather than long haul off short runways.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:04 am
by IndianicWorld
a7ala wrote:eamondzhang wrote:a7ala wrote:Runway is actually long enough for a DL 77L wlg-lax no problem
Only if you try and load with any meaningful payload.
Fully loaded 77L can easily use 2800-3000m runway from sea level. Going WLG-LAX non-stop is only possible if you have zero pax/cargo on your plane.
Michael
Nope. Easily full pax load takeoff existing plus pax+cargo on landing. Remember it’s a tailwind ex wlg and it doesn’t need to carry anywhere near full fuel given its only 11-12 hour sector rather than the 18 hours it can do. It’s a 200er sized aircraft with 300er engines so great short runway performance.
Unfortunately airlines use them for what they were developed for - ultra long haul - rather than long haul off short runways.
Sorry but it is not long enough for a fully loaded TPAC mission.
Love your optimism, but it’s been clear for a long time that WLG’s runway will not handle long haul with a viable payload and the airlines all seem to agree on that.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:43 am
by zkncj
readytotaxi wrote:
These were all short-distance ferry flights with 744/777s, the NZ 777s did passengers flights into Wellington after CHC earthquake to help get people out of CHC.
SQ runs an 77E, WLG-MEL-SIN a couple time an week the MEL stop is an fuel stop as they can’t take the required payload ex-WLG to reach SIN which is only an 8-9hr non-stop flight from New Zealand.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:51 am
by bevan7
readytotaxi wrote:
Nice find. I remember a United 747 diverted to Wellington once some time around the late 80s/early 90s. Can't seem to find the footage but they had to divert because Auckland, Christchurch and Ohakea were all closed. IIRC they took off all passengers/luggage etc when they took off back to Auckland
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:33 pm
by eamondzhang
a7ala wrote:eamondzhang wrote:a7ala wrote:Runway is actually long enough for a DL 77L wlg-lax no problem
Only if you try and load with any meaningful payload.
Fully loaded 77L can easily use 2800-3000m runway from sea level. Going WLG-LAX non-stop is only possible if you have zero pax/cargo on your plane.
Michael
Nope. Easily full pax load takeoff existing plus pax+cargo on landing. Remember it’s a tailwind ex wlg and it doesn’t need to carry anywhere near full fuel given its only 11-12 hour sector rather than the 18 hours it can do. It’s a 200er sized aircraft with 300er engines so great short runway performance.
Unfortunately airlines use them for what they were developed for - ultra long haul - rather than long haul off short runways.
Do you even bother checking the performance sheet before posting? Because your post clearly showing that you don't.
If you ever bother going to Google, type in 777 airport compatability chart, and actually read the payload range chart, you'll know your answer right away. The defence that 777 has superior performance that can go WLG-LAX is meaningless - you just can't beat the fact.
Since you don't bother, let me tell you the fact, straight out of the horse's mouth: taking off from a sea level 2000m runway on a perfect day condition, the plane is weight limited to 620,000lbs instead of the 766,000lbs MTOW. Now the plane itself weights 320,000lbs, with two GE90s consuming roughly 18,000lbs per hour of fuel, you need 234,000lbs plus at least 18,000lbs of reserve on a roughly 13hr WLG-LAX flight. That's 572,000lbs gone. Tell me how much you have left. And remind you this empty weight is real empty weight that does not include any kitchen, seats, toilets, etc. One set of business class seat can be some 880lbs, and you have 37 of that on DL, plus some 300 economy class seats. When you factor in roughly 300lbs per person plus luggage. Tell me that again?
And this is a perfect day ops. WLG is known for shitty weather like wild winds and rains. Try taking off or landing on that.
Michael
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:29 pm
by Brandon757
Will DFW-AKL become AA's longest flight from DFW?
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:50 pm
by Detroit313
Brandon757 wrote:Will DFW-AKL become AA's longest flight from DFW?
How long is Hong Kong?
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:17 pm
by Ishrion
Detroit313 wrote:Brandon757 wrote:Will DFW-AKL become AA's longest flight from DFW?
How long is Hong Kong?
Hong Kong is longer by about 700 miles.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:14 pm
by notconcerned
Brandon757 wrote:Will DFW-AKL become AA's longest flight from DFW?
DFW-HKG is 8,123mi
DFW-AKL is 7,440mi
DFW-PVG is 7,351mi
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:43 pm
by dfw88
notconcerned wrote:Brandon757 wrote:Will DFW-AKL become AA's longest flight from DFW?
DFW-HKG is 8,123mi
DFW-AKL is 7,440mi
DFW-PVG is 7,351mi
Also, LAX-SYD is 7,488mi, so while DFW-AKL is the 2nd longest from DFW, it ends up at 3rd longest in the network by only 48 miles.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:33 pm
by kriskim
zkncj wrote:readytotaxi wrote:
These were all short-distance ferry flights with 744/777s, the NZ 777s did passengers flights into Wellington after CHC earthquake to help get people out of CHC.
SQ runs an 77E, WLG-MEL-SIN a couple time an week the MEL stop is an fuel stop as they can’t take the required payload ex-WLG to reach SIN which is only an 8-9hr non-stop flight from New Zealand.
I’m sorry, but who told you that MEL was only a “fuel stop” it definitely is not, without having MEL’s pax contribute to the flight, WLG won’t even have a service. SQ247/248 was originally a 3 weekly dedicated MEL service.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:41 pm
by a7ala
eamondzhang wrote:Do you even bother checking the performance sheet before posting? Because your post clearly showing that you don't.
If you ever bother going to Google, type in 777 airport compatability chart, and actually read the payload range chart, you'll know your answer right away. The defence that 777 has superior performance that can go WLG-LAX is meaningless - you just can't beat the fact.
Since you don't bother, let me tell you the fact, straight out of the horse's mouth: taking off from a sea level 2000m runway on a perfect day condition, the plane is weight limited to 620,000lbs instead of the 766,000lbs MTOW. Now the plane itself weights 320,000lbs, with two GE90s consuming roughly 18,000lbs per hour of fuel, you need 234,000lbs plus at least 18,000lbs of reserve on a roughly 13hr WLG-LAX flight. That's 572,000lbs gone. Tell me how much you have left. And remind you this empty weight is real empty weight that does not include any kitchen, seats, toilets, etc. One set of business class seat can be some 880lbs, and you have 37 of that on DL, plus some 300 economy class seats. When you factor in roughly 300lbs per person plus luggage. Tell me that again?
And this is a perfect day ops. WLG is known for shitty weather like wild winds and rains. Try taking off or landing on that.
Michael
Yes, actually I use the manuals quite regularly (for what they are worth). I prefer to use Kgs rather than Lbs but my take on it:
- OEW aircraft 200LR 145,150kg (from boeing doc)
- RLTW for 2000m runway at sealevel (which is what it performs like when taking balanced field length with clearways) is 295,000kg (from boeing doc table 3.3.5 - higher thrust)
- WLG-LAX GC distance is 5800Nm but add an additional 3-4% for tracking gives around 6000Nm
- 6000Nm mission with 295,000kg implies a non-fuel weight of 195,000kg (boeing doc table 3.2.1)
- Subtracting from 195,000kg the OEW 145,150kg gives a payload of 49,850kg
- DL's 200LR's have 288 seats according to wiki - so around 32,000kg assuming 110kg pax+bag for max pax, leaving another 18,000kg for cargo
So as I said can easily get to LAX with max pax (and significant cargo). And on landing in WLG a max payload is achievable with grooved runway credit.
Conservationism:
- WLG is a windy airport with constant headwind on takeoff - 85% of the time its greater than 5knots and an airline can bank on having this - according to a 200LR flight training manual I have a 5knot headwind could easily provide another 5,000 kg of take-off weight
- WLG-LAX would have around a 10knot tail wind (85% likely winds) on average so EASD might be less than 6000Nm
Optimism:
- OEW of aircraft will likely be higher but only by a few tonnes
- Additional reserve Etops fuel may be required on the pacific run
- You mentioned weather - doesnt affect takeoff much apart from increasing payload on windy headwind days, and wet has little impact on wet/grooved runway
I'll await your apology....
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:19 pm
by eamondzhang
a7ala wrote:eamondzhang wrote:Do you even bother checking the performance sheet before posting? Because your post clearly showing that you don't.
If you ever bother going to Google, type in 777 airport compatability chart, and actually read the payload range chart, you'll know your answer right away. The defence that 777 has superior performance that can go WLG-LAX is meaningless - you just can't beat the fact.
Since you don't bother, let me tell you the fact, straight out of the horse's mouth: taking off from a sea level 2000m runway on a perfect day condition, the plane is weight limited to 620,000lbs instead of the 766,000lbs MTOW. Now the plane itself weights 320,000lbs, with two GE90s consuming roughly 18,000lbs per hour of fuel, you need 234,000lbs plus at least 18,000lbs of reserve on a roughly 13hr WLG-LAX flight. That's 572,000lbs gone. Tell me how much you have left. And remind you this empty weight is real empty weight that does not include any kitchen, seats, toilets, etc. One set of business class seat can be some 880lbs, and you have 37 of that on DL, plus some 300 economy class seats. When you factor in roughly 300lbs per person plus luggage. Tell me that again?
And this is a perfect day ops. WLG is known for shitty weather like wild winds and rains. Try taking off or landing on that.
Michael
Yes, actually I use the manuals quite regularly (for what they are worth). I prefer to use Kgs rather than Lbs but my take on it:
- OEW aircraft 200LR 145,150kg (from boeing doc)
- RLTW for 2000m runway at sealevel (which is what it performs like when taking balanced field length with clearways) is 295,000kg (from boeing doc table 3.3.5 - higher thrust)
- WLG-LAX GC distance is 5800Nm but add an additional 3-4% for tracking gives around 6000Nm
- 6000Nm mission with 295,000kg implies a non-fuel weight of 195,000kg (boeing doc table 3.2.1)
- Subtracting from 195,000kg the OEW 145,150kg gives a payload of 49,850kg
- DL's 200LR's have 288 seats according to wiki - so around 32,000kg assuming 110kg pax+bag for max pax, leaving another 18,000kg for cargo
So as I said can easily get to LAX with max pax (and significant cargo). And on landing in WLG a max payload is achievable with grooved runway credit.
Conservationism:
- WLG is a windy airport with constant headwind on takeoff - 85% of the time its greater than 5knots and an airline can bank on having this - according to a 200LR flight training manual I have a 5knot headwind could easily provide another 5,000 kg of take-off weight
- WLG-LAX would have around a 10knot tail wind (85% likely winds) on average so EASD might be less than 6000Nm
Optimism:
- OEW of aircraft will likely be higher but only by a few tonnes
- Additional reserve Etops fuel may be required on the pacific run
- You mentioned weather - doesnt affect takeoff much apart from increasing payload on windy headwind days, and wet has little impact on wet/grooved runway
I'll await your apology....
- Wind and wet runway has a significant impact on take-off performance
- You have never factored in RTO break performance, unless you want to feed the fish. If you ever run into a RTO scenario with that load you'll gonna likely end up int the bay.
- Furnishing weights far more than a few tonnes, easily occupying 15-30 tons and you never recognise that. In fact if the seat weights 400kg for Business Class, you're already 15 tons into your take off weight, and this does not factor in anything else.
- WLG-LAX is not going to cut it with 100 ton of fuel, and you never recognise 772LR's fuel burn. And you have never factored in reserve fuel which can easily be another 10-15 ton on top of it (45min legal minimum, plus the diversion fuel to nearest alternative let's say SFO, and you need another hour's fuel on top of it).
Michael
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:58 pm
by a7ala
eamondzhang wrote:a7ala wrote:eamondzhang wrote:Do you even bother checking the performance sheet before posting? Because your post clearly showing that you don't.
If you ever bother going to Google, type in 777 airport compatability chart, and actually read the payload range chart, you'll know your answer right away. The defence that 777 has superior performance that can go WLG-LAX is meaningless - you just can't beat the fact.
Since you don't bother, let me tell you the fact, straight out of the horse's mouth: taking off from a sea level 2000m runway on a perfect day condition, the plane is weight limited to 620,000lbs instead of the 766,000lbs MTOW. Now the plane itself weights 320,000lbs, with two GE90s consuming roughly 18,000lbs per hour of fuel, you need 234,000lbs plus at least 18,000lbs of reserve on a roughly 13hr WLG-LAX flight. That's 572,000lbs gone. Tell me how much you have left. And remind you this empty weight is real empty weight that does not include any kitchen, seats, toilets, etc. One set of business class seat can be some 880lbs, and you have 37 of that on DL, plus some 300 economy class seats. When you factor in roughly 300lbs per person plus luggage. Tell me that again?
And this is a perfect day ops. WLG is known for shitty weather like wild winds and rains. Try taking off or landing on that.
Michael
Yes, actually I use the manuals quite regularly (for what they are worth). I prefer to use Kgs rather than Lbs but my take on it:
- OEW aircraft 200LR 145,150kg (from boeing doc)
- RLTW for 2000m runway at sealevel (which is what it performs like when taking balanced field length with clearways) is 295,000kg (from boeing doc table 3.3.5 - higher thrust)
- WLG-LAX GC distance is 5800Nm but add an additional 3-4% for tracking gives around 6000Nm
- 6000Nm mission with 295,000kg implies a non-fuel weight of 195,000kg (boeing doc table 3.2.1)
- Subtracting from 195,000kg the OEW 145,150kg gives a payload of 49,850kg
- DL's 200LR's have 288 seats according to wiki - so around 32,000kg assuming 110kg pax+bag for max pax, leaving another 18,000kg for cargo
So as I said can easily get to LAX with max pax (and significant cargo). And on landing in WLG a max payload is achievable with grooved runway credit.
Conservationism:
- WLG is a windy airport with constant headwind on takeoff - 85% of the time its greater than 5knots and an airline can bank on having this - according to a 200LR flight training manual I have a 5knot headwind could easily provide another 5,000 kg of take-off weight
- WLG-LAX would have around a 10knot tail wind (85% likely winds) on average so EASD might be less than 6000Nm
Optimism:
- OEW of aircraft will likely be higher but only by a few tonnes
- Additional reserve Etops fuel may be required on the pacific run
- You mentioned weather - doesnt affect takeoff much apart from increasing payload on windy headwind days, and wet has little impact on wet/grooved runway
I'll await your apology....
- Wind and wet runway has a significant impact on take-off performance
- You have never factored in RTO break performance, unless you want to feed the fish. If you ever run into a RTO scenario with that load you'll gonna likely end up int the bay.
- Furnishing weights far more than a few tonnes, easily occupying 15-30 tons and you never recognise that. In fact if the seat weights 400kg for Business Class, you're already 15 tons into your take off weight, and this does not factor in anything else.
- WLG-LAX is not going to cut it with 100 ton of fuel, and you never recognise 772LR's fuel burn. And you have never factored in reserve fuel which can easily be another 10-15 ton on top of it (45min legal minimum, plus the diversion fuel to nearest alternative let's say SFO, and you need another hour's fuel on top of it).
Michael
Michael, im just using the datasets/information you referred me to:
- Wind/Wet - As I said wind is a positive at WLG, wet runway of course a negative how much who knows as its not in the boeing airport stuff. How often is WLG's runway wet? Maybe 10-15% of the time.
- RTO break performance - shouldnt that be included in the takeoff performance charts?
- Furnishing weights - I dont have a feel for how large that would be, but 15-30 tonnes sounds extreme
- WLG-LAX the payload range chart for the 200LR I used from your suggested source has got the fuel burn included in it, plus has an assumption regarding diversion distance and holding fuel as I understand (not 100% accurate but good enough I would have thought)
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:09 am
by eamondzhang
a7ala wrote:[Michael, im just using the datasets/information you referred me to:
- Wind/Wet - As I said wind is a positive at WLG, wet runway of course a negative how much who knows as its not in the boeing airport stuff. How often is WLG's runway wet? Maybe 10-15% of the time.
- RTO break performance - shouldnt that be included in the takeoff performance charts?
- Furnishing weights - I dont have a feel for how large that would be, but 15-30 tonnes sounds extreme
- WLG-LAX the payload range chart for the 200LR I used from your suggested source has got the fuel burn included in it, plus has an assumption regarding diversion distance and holding fuel as I understand (not 100% accurate but good enough I would have thought)
- On average WLG rains 1/3 of the year at least, with only 1/5 of the year that have any sort of sunshine.
- Payload range chart never includes fuel load
- RTO break performance - no, you always have to calculate that based on the weight of the aircraft, length of runway and break performance.
- Furnishing weights are very heavy - to be all honest to you I was a bit shocked as well when I first knew them. But that's precisely why they can impact aircraft range - CI's JFK-TPE apparently has to be weight restricted on a 77W due to the weight of their furnishing.
Michael
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:39 am
by a7ala
eamondzhang wrote:a7ala wrote:[Michael, im just using the datasets/information you referred me to:
- Wind/Wet - As I said wind is a positive at WLG, wet runway of course a negative how much who knows as its not in the boeing airport stuff. How often is WLG's runway wet? Maybe 10-15% of the time.
- RTO break performance - shouldnt that be included in the takeoff performance charts?
- Furnishing weights - I dont have a feel for how large that would be, but 15-30 tonnes sounds extreme
- WLG-LAX the payload range chart for the 200LR I used from your suggested source has got the fuel burn included in it, plus has an assumption regarding diversion distance and holding fuel as I understand (not 100% accurate but good enough I would have thought)
- On average WLG rains 1/3 of the year at least, with only 1/5 of the year that have any sort of sunshine.
- Payload range chart never includes fuel load
- RTO break performance - no, you always have to calculate that based on the weight of the aircraft, length of runway and break performance.
- Furnishing weights are very heavy - to be all honest to you I was a bit shocked as well when I first knew them. But that's precisely why they can impact aircraft range - CI's JFK-TPE apparently has to be weight restricted on a 77W due to the weight of their furnishing.
Michael
- WLG rains 1/3 of the year? You have to be joking. Where do you get that info from? The runway at WLG is classed as "wet" 10-15% of the time.
- RTO - thats exactly what the takeoff chart accounts for....
- Im concerned you say payload/range doesnt include fuel. Have a look at
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 2lr3er.pdf table 3.2.1. It shows that if an aircraft can take off with 295T of weight it can fly 6000Nm with 195T OEW+Payload. The different is the fuel used/carried. To read the chart, start at the bottom at 6000Nm, go directly up until you hit the diagonal line 650 (295) and then go straight across to 195T. In fact on the right hand of the chart they talk about maximum fuel capacity.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:51 am
by hereandthere41
a7ala wrote:eamondzhang wrote:a7ala wrote:[Michael, im just using the datasets/information you referred me to:
- Wind/Wet - As I said wind is a positive at WLG, wet runway of course a negative how much who knows as its not in the boeing airport stuff. How often is WLG's runway wet? Maybe 10-15% of the time.
- RTO break performance - shouldnt that be included in the takeoff performance charts?
- Furnishing weights - I dont have a feel for how large that would be, but 15-30 tonnes sounds extreme
- WLG-LAX the payload range chart for the 200LR I used from your suggested source has got the fuel burn included in it, plus has an assumption regarding diversion distance and holding fuel as I understand (not 100% accurate but good enough I would have thought)
- On average WLG rains 1/3 of the year at least, with only 1/5 of the year that have any sort of sunshine.
- Payload range chart never includes fuel load
- RTO break performance - no, you always have to calculate that based on the weight of the aircraft, length of runway and break performance.
- Furnishing weights are very heavy - to be all honest to you I was a bit shocked as well when I first knew them. But that's precisely why they can impact aircraft range - CI's JFK-TPE apparently has to be weight restricted on a 77W due to the weight of their furnishing.
Michael
- WLG rains 1/3 of the year? You have to be joking. Where do you get that info from? The runway at WLG is classed as "wet" 10-15% of the time.
- RTO - thats exactly what the takeoff chart accounts for....
- Im concerned you say payload/range doesnt include fuel. Have a look at
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 2lr3er.pdf table 3.2.1. It shows that if an aircraft can take off with 295T of weight it can fly 6000Nm with 195T OEW+Payload. The different is the fuel used/carried. To read the chart, start at the bottom at 6000Nm, go directly up until you hit the diagonal line 650 (295) and then go straight across to 195T. In fact on the right hand of the chart they talk about maximum fuel capacity.
Wow. Why don't the two of you go offline and compare the size of your joysticks?
Give it a rest. Lol
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:08 am
by lessredtape
wenders825 wrote:CHC is massive. wow. definitely rumored that this was required for the JV to get approved
really surprised LAX-AKL can't sustain year round
CHC/LAX might be hard to fill with just CHC locals. Feel that maybe QF/JQ might have really good connections from Australia to CHC to continue onto LAX.
Anyway, 2 more ways to get between OZ & USA will be good for fares, even if have to go via NZ.
EK(QF codeshare) operates an A380 SYD/CHC daily 0845/1400 in Jan. That's one hell of a lot of seats to fill SYD/CHC, so can imagine pax on a QF ticket flying EK metal SYD/CHC, then AA metal CHC/LAX.
...
Coming home, the A380 doesn't depart CHC for SYD until 1845, so maybe if AA departs CHC at 1600 or 1700, which means it might arrive ...
arh., just looked at time of LAX/CHC/LAX. Anyway am sure some Australians will use the CHC/LAX/CHC even if they have to overnight in CHC.
Another possibility is flying one way via Fiji.
AA codeshare on Fiji Airways NAN/SFO & NAN/LAX & they also fly CHC/FIJI about 3 days a week. A Fiji stopover is a very easy sell.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:22 am
by chepos
lessredtape wrote:wenders825 wrote:CHC is massive. wow. definitely rumored that this was required for the JV to get approved
really surprised LAX-AKL can't sustain year round
CHC/LAX might be hard to fill with just CHC locals. Feel that maybe QF/JQ might have really good connections from Australia to CHC to continue onto LAX.
Anyway, 2 more ways to get between OZ & USA will be good for fares, even if have to go via NZ.
EK(QF codeshare) operates an A380 SYD/CHC daily 0845/1400 in Jan. That's one hell of a lot of seats to fill SYD/CHC, so can imagine pax on a QF ticket flying EK metal SYD/CHC, then AA metal CHC/LAX.
Coming home, the A380 doesn't depart CHC for SYD until 1845, so maybe if AA departs CHC at 1600 or 1700, which means it might arrive
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say capturing connections from SYD on EK is not the target audience for this flight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:50 pm
by washingtonflyer
a7ala wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:
Does WLG have a long enough runway to handle transpacific flights?
That's a good question and one I admittedly hadn't thought of. Perhaps that's why they don't have any TPAC flights.
Runway is actually long enough for a DL 77L wlg-lax no problem
And while it’s a small city its New Zealand’s second largest population, economy and out bound market to the US. And as someone said a gateway to the South Island in its own right.
Easily enough USA pax already for the 3pw aa have announced with ability to support year round (which chc will struggle with) and a sizeable business market.
Are you saying WLG is a gateway to South Island or CHC? Id say Christchurch - yes. WLG? No way. That Cook Strait thing is an annoying barrier. Significant ferry service, but nobody things of WLG as a way to get to the South Island. CHC puts you smack in the middle of South Island and all the camper vans you could ever want to find.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:38 pm
by NZ516
A Christchurch to LAX 788 at 3 per week won't be too hard to fill as the city is well connected to 15 cities in New Zealand to help with feed and the single terminal transfer experience is a breeze compared to the Auckland terminal change. Regarding the idea of a 777 flying WLG to LAX non stop with 300 passengers and 18 tonnes of cargo on top. If it was possible why is an airline not doing it today? So they must know its not possible...just saying it.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:54 pm
by a7ala
NZ516 wrote:A Christchurch to LAX 788 at 3 per week won't be too hard to fill as the city is well connected to 15 cities in New Zealand to help with feed and the single terminal transfer experience is a breeze compared to the Auckland terminal change. Regarding the idea of a 777 flying WLG to LAX non stop with 300 passengers and 18 tonnes of cargo on top. If it was possible why is an airline not doing it today? So they must know its not possible...just saying it.
Wlg-lax Requires a 200lr variant which are rare and typically used on ultra-long haul routes not to overcome short runway issues.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:56 pm
by a7ala
washingtonflyer wrote:a7ala wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:
That's a good question and one I admittedly hadn't thought of. Perhaps that's why they don't have any TPAC flights.
Runway is actually long enough for a DL 77L wlg-lax no problem
And while it’s a small city its New Zealand’s second largest population, economy and out bound market to the US. And as someone said a gateway to the South Island in its own right.
Easily enough USA pax already for the 3pw aa have announced with ability to support year round (which chc will struggle with) and a sizeable business market.
Are you saying WLG is a gateway to South Island or CHC? Id say Christchurch - yes. WLG? No way. That Cook Strait thing is an annoying barrier. Significant ferry service, but nobody things of WLG as a way to get to the South Island. CHC puts you smack in the middle of South Island and all the camper vans you could ever want to find.
The ferry is actually very popular with tourists and especially North Americans. Yes agree chc is the main gateway but wlg provides another option and better links to top of the South Island.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:58 pm
by chepos
I think it is safe to assume nobody is going to be starting WLG-US nonstop anytime soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:46 pm
by clrd4t8koff
chepos wrote:I think it is safe to assume nobody is going to be starting WLG-US nonstop anytime soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty sure that same comment was being made about CHC-US nonstop not too long ago and now look. NZ or AA could do LAX-WLG non-stop and then do WLG-AKL-LAX or WLG-CHC-LAX on the return 2-3x week seasonally.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:40 pm
by FriscoHeavy
a7ala,
1. Please use commas to bring up your sentences. We're adults.
2. There is no bigger fan of the 777 than me, but no, it cannot do WLG-LAX (Capital Letters) with any meaningful payload.
I'm sorry, but that just isn't correct. I wish it were, but it's not.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:46 pm
by ZK-NBT
NZ516 wrote:A Christchurch to LAX 788 at 3 per week won't be too hard to fill as the city is well connected to 15 cities in New Zealand to help with feed and the single terminal transfer experience is a breeze compared to the Auckland terminal change. Regarding the idea of a 777 flying WLG to LAX non stop with 300 passengers and 18 tonnes of cargo on top. If it was possible why is an airline not doing it today? So they must know its not possible...just saying it.
If WLG-LAX were possible today, I don’t necessarily think it would have happened, same reason as CHC-LAX, who would do it? Small market etc.
While WLG-LAX might be technically possible the reality is that there are so many other factors at play, runway overruns, viable payload etc.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:53 pm
by a7ala
FriscoHeavy wrote:a7ala,
1. Please use commas to bring up your sentences. We're adults.
2. There is no bigger fan of the 777 than me, but no, it cannot do WLG-LAX (Capital Letters) with any meaningful payload.
I'm sorry, but that just isn't correct. I wish it were, but it's not.
Thanks for the advice. Boeing's Airport Planning manual for the B777-200LR suggests it is possible (see my previous post #81). Where has my analysis gone wrong? Any advice would be appreciated.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:02 pm
by RyanairGuru
It rains in Wellington 44 days out of 100, and you are assuming a headwind for takeoff whereas (very strong) crosswinds are fairly common in Wellington.
I have my doubts that the aircraft could even do it on paper in perfect conditions (I would be interested in seeing some actual data either way) but the conditions in Wellington are rarely, if ever, perfect.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:17 pm
by a7ala
RyanairGuru wrote:It rains in Wellington 44 days out of 100, and you are assuming a headwind for takeoff whereas (very strong) crosswinds are fairly common in Wellington.
I have my doubts that the aircraft could even do it on paper in perfect conditions (I would be interested in seeing some actual data either way) but the conditions in Wellington are rarely, if ever, perfect.
Agree on the 44 days out of 100, although that doesn't mean the runway is wet 44% of the time. I note the Astral work (
https://www.connectwellington.co.nz/sta ... rt%201.pdf Page 19) for the proposed runway extension quoted 9% of the time the runway was classified as wet. I didn't assume any credit for headwind on takeoff, and I dont agree about the crosswinds. WLG has strong steady winds aligned pretty much straight up and down the runway. What it does have is a windshear issue when landing on RWY34.
Re: American to start DFW-AKL, LAX-CHC October 2020
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:20 am
by NZ516
ZK-NBT wrote:NZ516 wrote:A Christchurch to LAX 788 at 3 per week won't be too hard to fill as the city is well connected to 15 cities in New Zealand to help with feed and the single terminal transfer experience is a breeze compared to the Auckland terminal change. Regarding the idea of a 777 flying WLG to LAX non stop with 300 passengers and 18 tonnes of cargo on top. If it was possible why is an airline not doing it today? So they must know its not possible...just saying it.
If WLG-LAX were possible today, I don’t necessarily think it would have happened, same reason as CHC-LAX, who would do it? Small market etc.
While WLG-LAX might be technically possible the reality is that there are so many other factors at play, runway overruns, viable payload etc.
The key thing not talked about on here is that it was American's choice of choosing CHC over WLG or anywhere else. Their point was for the US tourists to have a new direct route to the South Island of New Zealand from their press release. Their main point of sale for this flight will be USA based customers..