With only 278 seats and F/C seats that recline manually rather than with heavy motors, I wonder how much extra range they have. Does anyone know what the new F/C SQ seats weigh? Or does anyone have a good idea of the OEW of an SQ 777-300ER? I imagine it might be close to Boeing's nominal OEW.

I'm specifically wondering how well an SQ 777-300ER would do on LAX-HKG. It would make a lot of sense for SQ to start SIN-HKG-LAX service, but I think they would want to start with a smaller aircraft than the 747-400. I know that roughly five or so times per year the SQ 747-400 has to make a tech stop along the SFO-HKG flight when winds are particular severe.

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter): With only 278 seats and F/C seats that recline manually rather than with heavy motors, I wonder how much extra range they have. Does anyone know what the new F/C SQ seats weigh? Or does anyone have a good idea of the OEW of an SQ 777-300ER? I imagine it might be close to Boeing's nominal OEW.

My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG.

There's so much computer hardware per seat etc; they're hugely heavy. And manual reclines? Since when?

Regards
MH

Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 2): And manual reclines? Since when?

Since SQ introduced the 777-300ER last December, to convert an F or C class seat to the sleeping position requires standing up, finding a steward or stewardess and having him or her manually fold the seat-back forward, bridging the gap between the seat and the footrest.

My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG.

Zeke - your posts. and your profile, have a pro-Airbus flavor to them, so how can it be that a plane with a range of 7,400NM have trouble flying a route that is 5,800NM.

Sounds like rubbish to me.

Widebodyphotog did a mission comparison analysis on nominal 8300nm and 6000nm SQ routes back in August 2005.
What is relevant to Zvezda's question is that Widebodyphotog used a figure of 20400lb as the difference between the generic OEW and the passenger ready OEW of a SQ -200ER . This was for a configuration of 30 F / 255 Y .
Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that the passenger ready OEW for SQ's 77W's in the configuration that Zvezda outlined, is in the vicinity of 391000 LB ( 370000 + 21000+-).
In the 278 seat configuration this would put the full passenger load ZFW at about 450000lb. The load/range chart would suggest that the still air range for this payload should be in the vicinity of 7700nm. Assuming -40k winds the westbound still air distance HKG-CDG is about 5700nm. Still air range for MZFW of 461000lb is shown as about 7500nm.
Perhaps I am missing something on why SQ's 77W is HKG-CDG payload restricted !

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 4): Zeke - your posts. and your profile, have a pro-Airbus flavor to them, so how can it be that a plane with a range of 7,400NM have trouble flying a route that is 5,800NM.

You assume

1) They are using the certified MTOW ( they decided not to on other 777s they have to save costs)
2) The SQ OEW is the same as the Boeing one (unlikely)
3) The composite floor accepted the F&J product without modification (unlikely)
4) They carry no cargo (unlikely)
5) The combined standard weight of passengers and checked and carry on baggage comes in at 210 lb per passenger (unlikely)
6) They carry minimum FAA reserves (normally carry more, 8-10t)
7) They don't feed their passengers (unlikely)
8) They provide no IFE (unlikely).
9) They don't sell any duty free (unlikely)
10) They don't have a crew rest (unlikely)
11) The provide no amenity kits, blankets, or pillows (unlikely)
12) They fly in nil wind conditions always at optimum altitudes and over great circle routes (unlikely)

I would assume their configuration would exceed the standard Boeing configuration conservatively by 5t (seats, galleys, false floor, overhead rest, toilets, lighting, IFE, emergency and survival equipment), a similar configuration on the 340 which has a narrower cabin, with seats that are not as wide as the SQ 777 the buyer furnished equipment comes in at at over 20t.

The max design payload at maximum fuel & max certified TOW is 42t, if they carry cargo 15t, and 30t for passengers and baggage, 3t for catering, they could conceivably be range limited. NB 15-25t is a normal amount SQ, CX and EK carry in terms of cargo on the 330 & 777 out of Asia.

If they had the range you suggest, they could fly the aircraft direct to the east coast of the USA from SIN, from what I hearing they will be routed via HKG and TPE, the westbound trip from the states would have next to zero cargo.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 4): Sounds like rubbish to me.

I did not like the tone of your post, I just posted what people who fly the aircraft told me.

With the above information I hope you can see how the numbers in http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777_2lr3er.pdf will differ in real life operations.

Zeke, you're confusing OEW and MEW again. OEW includes an allowance (unreallistically low for both Airbus and Boeing) for customer furnished equipment and crew above and beyond MEW.

Also, 238lbs per passenger including baggage might be plausible for Americans going to Europe on summer holiday, but it is not plausible between SIN and CDG. Your numbers are several tonnes outside of reasonable.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): I did not like the tone of your post

Pot meet kettle.

I think the huge assupmtion is on your part, Zeke.

I mean, seriously. Why would Boeing provide range numbers for a 777-300ER with no crew rest, not carrying any freight, no pillows or blankets (LOL you are really stretching with that one), and no IFE, and no food.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8): Why would Boeing provide range numbers for a 777-300ER with no crew rest, not carrying any freight, no pillows or blankets (LOL you are really stretching with that one), and no IFE, and no food.

Boeing don't do anything so bizzare and neither do Airbus. The weight without all that stuff is the MEW (Manufacturer's Empty Weight). The weight including all that stuff plus crew is the OEW (Operating Empty Weight). Zeke is just confused again.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7): Zeke, you're confusing OEW and MEW again.

Nope, did not mention it, I was making the point that the design payload, design OEW, and what you get in real life OEW bears little resemblance.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7): Also, 238lbs per passenger including baggage might be plausible for Americans going to Europe on summer holiday, but it is not plausible between SIN and CDG. Your numbers are several tonnes outside of reasonable.

You are correct, I overestimated their baggage allowances, I looked up the SQ baggage allowances on their web site, it should be 27.5t assuming 50/50 split male/female in all classes.

F 40 kg checked, 7 kg carry on
J 30 kg checked, 7 kg carry on
Y 20 kg checked, 7 kg carry on

Assumed 65kg female, 75 kg male.

8F/42J/228Y

So OEW is an average, I take it, since configurations are airline (and model within airline) specific?

Does anyone have MEW figures for the Boeing and Airbus families? Or are those "state secrets"? I notice Boeing's and Airbus' the Airport Compatibility Guides and website data uses OEW so I was hoping for something a bit more...concrete.

The 777-300ER’s MEW is
332,966lbs. This is with 22 first, 70
business and 273 economy seats. An
extra 4,905lbs is added for crew rest
bunks and customer options allowance.
This takes MEW to 337,871lbs.
The A340’s MEW is 349,521lbs,
which includes standard items.

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sto.../Flight%20Operations,%20Sample.pdf

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9): The weight including all that stuff plus crew is the OEW (Operating Empty Weight).

If you are saying that your definition of OEW is for a passenger ready aircraft fully catered etc. and equals 370000lb for the 77W, I am sure you are wrong in the case of SQ. Why in the example I quoted in reply 5 did Widebodyphotog use 324900lb when Boeings OEW shows 304500lb. ? As further corroboration, a NZ insider in another thread indicated the passenger ready weight of their -200ER's is in the 324K to 326K lbs range give or take.
I think that Zeke in his list of 12 items includes a number that are included in the passenger ready ZFW as Widebodyphotog defines it. . What figurre SQ uses as a weight per passenger incl. baggage is probably proprietary information . This raises the question of how relevant the oft quoted weight of 210lbs is.
My reading of Zekes other comments is that freight takes preference on flights out of Asia. Also that SQ might be operating the type at less than 775Klb TOW. No doubt depending on how all these numbers come together, weight restriction is perhaps possible.
I must apologise to the list for using the -200LR load/range chart in reply 5.    . Obviously the load/range detail I quoted is significantly in error.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11): So OEW is an average, I take it, since configurations are airline (and model within airline) specific?

No, OEW is airline specific. Airbus and Boeing publish nominal OEW specs, but they are unrealistically low. Every airline's OEW for a particular model is higher than the nominal Airbus or Boeing numbers -- sometimes much higher, but not as much as Zeke suggests above.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12): The 777-300ER's MEW is 332,966lbs. This is with 22 first, 70 business and 273 economy seats. An extra 4,905lbs is added for crew rest bunks and customer options allowance. This takes MEW to 337,871lbs.

I give up !! The whole topic seems to be a classic example of obfuscation.      

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 15): I give up !! The whole topic seems to be a classic example of obfuscation.

Not really. It's just that we don't have the correct variables and it is unlikely SQ is going to provide them to us so we can plug them into our models and run them.

Do not strike BI out yet. With the arrival of the new 772, now they have the capability of operating BWN-LHR nonstop. This gives them a fighting chance at the Kangaroo route and should the government wise up, they would see this as a chance to spruce BWN up as a transit hub and who know FRA might come back online?

BI could also start building its reputation as a 6th freedom carrier too by offering Asia - Europe connections because frankly, the present state of the airline is too small and unprofitable. But never say never because look how did UAE start out? Laden with oil money, Dubai only started off with Emirates in 1985. Who would have thought that Dubai would turn into what it is today?

Brunei as a country only has oil to prop it up and nothing else. Now the Sultan is trying very hard to make the country a more economically viable one instead of their present heavy reliance on the black gold. Not easy when you have the locals leading a very, very comfortable tax-free life and when public amenities are free (most of it). Trying to inculcate a mindset of self-reliance in an environment like this is quite challenging.

I am sorry, please disregard my last post. I don't know how it got there.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): 5) The combined standard weight of passengers and checked and carry on baggage comes in at 210 lb per passenger (unlikely)

Are the calcs not done on the standard pax weight basis? I.e., if you have 100 passengers, you calulate at 21,000 pounds.

Steve

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1): My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG.

Doubtful, as they still fly pax 747's which are much heavier....Actually SQ's ships are lighter than some and heavier than others among in service 777-300ER's. I know the ship weights among many operators.

Limited going to CDG???! Nonsense, another operator, I'll not name names, has operated the type on that route for some years now achieving some of the highest in service payloads on a regular basis.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 5): Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that the passenger ready OEW for SQ's 77W's in the configuration that Zvezda outlined, is in the vicinity of 391000 LB ( 370000 + 21000+-).

Somewhat less than that...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): I would assume their configuration would exceed the standard Boeing configuration conservatively by 5t (seats, galleys, false floor, overhead rest, toilets, lighting, IFE, emergency and survival equipment), a similar configuration on the 340 which has a narrower cabin, with seats that are not as wide as the SQ 777 the buyer furnished equipment comes in at at over 20t.

A "false floor". Where is that? Underneath the Prop Wash??? Been up close and personal with 45 different 777-300ER's in many configurations, some with the heaviest premium seats anyone can buy...Never seen a "false floor" on any of them...

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12): The 777-300ER’s MEW is 332,966lbs. This is with 22 first, 70 business and 273 economy seats. An extra 4,905lbs is added for crew rest bunks and customer options allowance. This takes MEW to 337,871lbs. The A340’s MEW is 349,521lbs, which includes standard items.

Nice report, though a bit outdated. "MEW" is now a bit less on ships that are being delivered today, and the most popular MTOW is now 769,000Lbs with a higher option of 775,000Lbs and lower option of 759,600Lbs. SQ has not selected the lowest one...In service OEW or DOW ranges between 378,000lbs at the lowest to 389,000 at the highest...SQ's aircraft are somewhere in between that.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7): Zeke, you're confusing OEW and MEW again. OEW includes an allowance (unreallistically low for both Airbus and Boeing) for customer furnished equipment and crew above and beyond MEW.

Actually not so unrealistically low, depends on the operator. Especially US domestic operators who's comfigs tend to be very close to the manufactures generic OEW, among Boeing operators at least. It's when you get into the premium international operators with their massive seats IFE and all that when the weight stacks up. You'd be amazed to find out the weight differences between what could be called standard seats and premium business and first class seats in use today!



-widebodyphotog

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20): You'd be amazed to find out the weight differences between what could be called standard seats and premium business and first class seats in use today!

Not really, but on the positive side, one F class seat Vs a bank of 3 Y class seats can't be that far off when you put butts in the seats and luggage underfloor.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1): My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG

False!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): If they had the range you suggest, they could fly the aircraft direct to the east coast of the USA from SIN, from what I hearing they will be routed via HKG and TPE, the westbound trip from the states would have next to zero cargo.

It's really immaterial because the aircraft were never bought with the intention of doing those routes non-stop. SQ2/1 stops in HKG because of yields and preimum traffic. To by pass HKG makes no sense at all.

[Edited 2007-05-05 07:03:45]

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1): My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG.

It is possible it is heavier, without fuel, than their 744s, but that is only going to be due to fittings, not the plane itself.

As for being limited, one would assume the 744 is also limited then, as they have nearly the same range at MZFW, which is also very close to the distance to CDG. Since they have to fight the wind, they do have to fly at lower than MZFW, as would the 744.

So I'm not sure what the point of this comment is.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20): Doubtful, as they still fly pax 747's which are much heavier....Actually SQ's ships are lighter than some and heavier than others among in service 777-300ER's. I know the ship weights among many operators.

The point of the comments were to do with the 777, my friends who fly their 772/772ER/773/773ER say it is the heaviest aircraft they have, i.e. heaviest 777, those guys don't touch any other fleet at SQ.

AFAIK the 744 is not lifting as much cargo, in SYD for example I think we lift 5-10t more cargo than the SQ 744 in the 333.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20): Limited going to CDG???! Nonsense, another operator, I'll not name names, has operated the type on that route for some years now achieving some of the highest in service payloads on a regular basis.

Are they taking as much cargo ? and the point being, if they are also taking "highest in service payloads on a regular basis", that would be an indication they are up at the limit as well, the nil wind route from SIN-CDG is 5880 nm along the designated airways, which takes the 773ER about 300 nm past the range where it is MZFW limited range (about 5550 nm) into the MTOW limit.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20): A "false floor". Where is that?

What do you call the floor between the seats and standard floor to attach the wider F & J products to ?

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 22): False!

It is what they told me, and looking at the Boeing ACAPS documents the 773ER would be al least 10t heavier than the 773, the conversation I was having with my friends, like this thread was about the 777 payload range, not the 744, 345, 380.

We did touch on other fleets, but only in terms of the pay deal for the 380, and the 744 FOs who do not have their sectors for command that refused to go onto the 777 because they would get paid less.

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter): I'm specifically wondering how well an SQ 777-300ER would do on LAX-HKG.

I believe that CX bought the 773ER for use on the LAX-HGK route as well as the JFK-HGK route. This being the case, I suspect SQ 773ER's will also work for LAX-HKG as the lower passenger count of the SQ 773ER would offset its higher weight First and Business class seats relative to the CX 773ER passenger count and interior fittings.

Note that for LAX-HGK, (west bound against the wind), neither CX or SQ would be intending to fill the cargo hold to hit the MZFW. Full pax with some cargo would be a typical payload.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24): We did touch on other fleets, but only in terms of the pay deal for the 380, and the 744 FOs who do not have their sectors for command that refused to go onto the 777 because they would get paid less

Zeke, if they are put on the 777 they get 744 pay! So, I don't know who you were talking to but it's just not true. Granted the 773ER is heavier than the 773 but it has more payload available and they are NOT payload limited going to CDG.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 25): I suspect SQ 773ER's will also work for LAX-HKG as the lower passenger count of the SQ 773ER would offset its higher weight First and Business class seats relative to the CX 773ER passenger count and interior fittings.

The problem with that is the 744 is normally full in F/J class at very high fares so the yield is extremely good. Putting the 77W on there is a a profit negative solution.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24): AFAIK the 744 is not lifting as much cargo, in SYD for example I think we lift 5-10t more cargo than the SQ 744 in the 333.

The 744 is not setup to take pallets only containers. As a result it will have less cargo due to the make up of the freight. There was a plan at one time to change the locks in the fwd and aft cargo bins to allow the carriage of pallets.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24): The point of the comments were to do with the 777, my friends who fly their 772/772ER/773/773ER say it is the heaviest aircraft they have, i.e. heaviest 777, those guys don't touch any other fleet at SQ.

That's impressive backpedalling. It's not at all what you wrote earlier:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1): My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG.

It's perfectly obvious to everyone else that the heaviest aircraft SQ have is the 747-400.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24): What do you call the floor between the seats and standard floor to attach the wider F & J products to ?

Now what are you on about? The F and J seats attach to the floor, which attaches to the floor beams, just like any other seats in any other airliner. There is no false floor.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 25): I believe that CX bought the 773ER for use on the LAX-HGK route as well as the JFK-HGK route.

Thank you. This answers my original question.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 26): The problem with that is the 744 is normally full in F/J class at very high fares so the yield is extremely good. Putting the 77W on there is a a profit negative solution.

However, SQ don't currently fly HKG-LAX. SQ want to add capacity to SIN-LAX. I'm thinking the addition of a new SIN-HKG-LAX service might be a good way to do that. The C cabins are so full that a few weeks ago, I couldn't get a C seat on either the LAX-SIN nonstop or the LAX-TPE-SIN service with a full F ticket. I was offered a Y seat via TPE. I waited until the next day and flew F via NRT. In my experience, this is typical. I think a fourth daily SIN-LAX service (via HKG) would work well for SQ using the 777-300ER -- unless payload/range performance would be insufficient.

Why is it so hard to believe the SQ 773ER can't do what every other 773ER can do ? If the First and Business seats are extra heavy due to the IFE system then the total weight must equal out since SQ has fewer seats then other airlines in F/J. For example typical UA 777-200ER has more seats then the SQ 773ER.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 28): If the First and Business seats are extra heavy due to the IFE system then the total weight must equal out since SQ has fewer seats then other airlines in F/J.

The IFE system on SQ's 777-300ERs is probably on the rough order of 5 lbs in Y, 10 lbs in C, and 20 lbs in F. I expect the new SQ F seat weighs less than UA's F class Genesis Bed -- mainly due to not having so many electric motors.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24): The point of the comments were to do with the 777, my friends who fly their 772/772ER/773/773ER say it is the heaviest aircraft they have, i.e. heaviest 777, those guys don't touch any other fleet at SQ.

With respect, it would have been helpful to note that in your original post. Like others, I read your comment as saying the 773ER was the heaviest plane in SQ's entire fleet.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24): What do you call the floor between the seats and standard floor to attach the wider F & J products to ?

Is there a noticeable (more then a few inches) physical gap between the two? Or is it just additional plating mounted directly below the main deck to help strengthen and distribute the load?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 29): The IFE system on SQ's 777-300ERs is probably on the rough order of 5 lbs in Y, 10 lbs in C, and 20 lbs in F.

A passing comment, it would appear that there is a real need to accelerate the development of wireless IFE sytems.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 27): However, SQ don't currently fly HKG-LAX. SQ want to add capacity to SIN-LAX. I'm thinking the addition of a new SIN-HKG-LAX service might be a good way to do that. The C cabins are so full that a few weeks ago, I couldn't get a C seat on either the LAX-SIN nonstop or the LAX-TPE-SIN service with a full F ticket. I was offered a Y seat via TPE. I waited until the next day and flew F via NRT. In my experience, this is typical. I think a fourth daily SIN-LAX service (via HKG) would work well for SQ using the 777-300ER -- unless payload/range performance would be insufficient.

I agree. I do some consulting work on the side and had to go SIN-TLS for a meeting on the 26th. I couldn't get any SQ flights in C or F to Europe. I had to take CX SIN-HKG-CDG-TLS and the same routing back on Friday. SQ's problem or their approach to expansion now is one of caution. They are really focusing on yields and trying to maximize revenue in the short term.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 26): if they are put on the 777 they get 744 pay!

Clause 47 if the SQ passenger contract, "A pilot who is required by the Company to operate on a fleet with a lower hourly rate shall continue to be paid the hourly rate of his previous fleet.". The hourly rate is the same on all the passenger fleets, someone going from the 744 to the 777 misses out of the base wage difference, the base pay is in accordance with clause 38, the 340/777 get the same, 744 get higher.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 26): So, I don't know who you were talking to but it's just not true.

We were talking about how SQ wanted the fleet pay on the 380 to be the same as the 777/340 (below the 744), this was reported in a way in the Straits Times, http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/s...b549f12110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD and elsewhere

Then the conversation got onto a similar scenario of how FOs required x number of P1 U/S at SQ to be eligible for command, and a number of them had not accumulated them by the time their class mates on the 777 were getting their commands, the company were exploring options to get them sectors, but they were not willing to take the lower base wage on the 777.

We have a common fleet pay, I was telling them it would solve the FO problem, and make it easier for people to transfer to the 380/340/777.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 27): It's perfectly obvious to everyone else that the heaviest aircraft SQ have is the 747-400.

So it is to me, it follows then it should have also been obvious that when I was talking to a pilot who flies "them", the "them" referred to a 773ER as nobody flies the all three fleets, and that I was talking about "they have", it referred to their fleet.

Your comment goes to show people were just having a go at me to be difficult.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 27): Now what are you on about? The F and J seats attach to the floor, which attaches to the floor beams, just like any other seats in any other airliner. There is no false floor.

Floor and seat track modifications are common for wider F & J seats, we have just had a 744 modified in China for our new product. AFAIK the 773ER has a composite floor structure, I am told it is easier to place another floor ontop of that for seats with wider attachments points and/or different cabin layouts.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33): Quoting Zvezda,reply=27: It's perfectly obvious to everyone else that the heaviest aircraft SQ have is the 747-400. So it is to me, it follows then it should have also been obvious that when I was talking to a pilot who flies "them", the "them" referred to a 773ER as nobody flies the all three fleets, and that I was talking about "they have", it referred to their fleet. Your comment goes to show people were just having a go at me to be difficult.

Some of us were just honestly taking your statement at what we assumed at the time was it's face value.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30): With respect, it would have been helpful to note that in your original post.

Fair enough, I will take that onboard.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30): Is there a noticeable (more then a few inches) physical gap between the two? Or is it just additional plating mounted directly below the main deck to help strengthen and distribute the load?

The way it was described to me is that it is attached directly ontop with no space, more like a plate ontop with new seat tracks at the correct spacing for the new seats, and distributed across the cabin as desired. I would imagine it could look like a QC seat-pallet but attached and wired in place permanently.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33): Clause 47 if the SQ passenger contract, "A pilot who is required by the Company to operate on a fleet with a lower hourly rate shall continue to be paid the hourly rate of his previous fleet.". The hourly rate is the same on all the passenger fleets, someone going from the 744 to the 777 misses out of the base wage difference, the base pay is in accordance with clause 38, the 340/777 get the same, 744 get higher.

Zeke, I don't want to get into specifics, but the clause (47 Page 31) you refer to is not for FOs. It's for Captains who are downgraded. A FO who is sent from the 744 to the 777 to get his sectors receives the 744 salary, not the 777 salary. The PPA is the same for all fleets. So, in essence there is no loss of money. One may argue there is a loss of meal allowance due to the shorter trips on the 777, but since there's more flying it's arguable if it's really true.

With respect to the 380 pay, I never mentioned that and ALPAS has made their position clear. Sadly, ALPAS has no real power here so it's really up to the IAC. As for CX and common fleet pay, I will reserve my comments since there are so many pay scales there it's impossible to even discuss tht problem. I have friends who were hired in 85, through cargo debacle in the mid 90's and various other times.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 36): Zeke, I don't want to get into specifics, but the clause (47 Page 31) you refer to is not for FOs.

The agreement I have has Clause "47. Pilots productivity allowance ", applying to all pilots, where captain rates are specified it says "Captain", and like wise "First Officer" or "Co-Pilot"and 47 (9)(c) is on page 61 in the one I have here is for both Capt and FO.

Maybe I don't have the latest, if clause 47 is now on page 31, they have culled a lot out.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33): So it is to me, it follows then it should have also been obvious that when I was talking to a pilot who flies "them", the "them" referred to a 773ER as nobody flies the all three fleets, and that I was talking about "they have", it referred to their fleet.

If you write what you mean, people will come to believe that you mean what you write.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 32): SQ's problem or their approach to expansion now is one of caution. They are really focusing on yields and trying to maximize revenue in the short term.

That certainly seems to be the case. I note that SQ's fleet hovered at about 90 aircraft for about two years, even dropping in numbers after 9V-SYL entered service in May 2005 as 747-400s were retired without replacements. Since December, the fleet has risen from 89 to 94 if I'm counting correctly. 10 more 777-300ERs and a handful of WhaleJets are due within the next year or so. I'm sure we'll see more 747-400s retired during that time, but probably fewer than 10. CDG and LAX seem like the most obvious candidates for long-haul expansion.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 37): The agreement I have has Clause "47. Pilots productivity allowance ", applying to all pilots, where captain rates are specified it says "Captain", and like wise "First Officer" or "Co-Pilot"and 47 (9)(c) is on page 61 in the one I have here is for both Capt and FO. Maybe I don't have the latest, if clause 47 is now on page 31, they have culled a lot out.

I don't think you do. However, the base salary is different for a FO on the 744 vs. the 777. The hourly rate is the same. A FO who is forced down to get his sectors will not lose money. He will receive the B744 basic salary and the same hourly rate. See section 38 for FO pay and the breakdown for 744 vs. 777/340.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24): Are they taking as much cargo ? and the point being, if they are also taking "highest in service payloads on a regular basis", that would be an indication they are up at the limit as well, the nil wind route from SIN-CDG is 5880 nm along the designated airways, which takes the 773ER about 300 nm past the range where it is MZFW limited range (about 5550 nm) into the MTOW limit.

Commercial payloads in the range of 105-122,000lbs. Cargo loads carried in the range of 20-31t...If you want to call that limited. I've only ever seen a handful of 777-300ER's loaded up to very near MZFW (within 5,000lbs), which by the way would be a payload of over 135,000lbs, and on that 6,230nm Eastbound track one ship managed 43t of cargo. Of course we planned the missions for MZFW but the actual loads were a bit less. Point is to get high commercial payloads you don't need to be near MZFW.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33): Floor and seat track modifications are common for wider F & J seats, we have just had a 744 modified in China for our new product. AFAIK the 773ER has a composite floor structure, I am told it is easier to place another floor ontop of that for seats with wider attachments points and/or different cabin layouts.

Indeed seat track modifications are common and I've seen them for both 777-200ER and 777-300ER alike, but it's a long way from a "false floor". It may be semantics to you but your terminology is not accurate to describe what is being done. The modifications are functional structural strengthening to the floor and seat tracks, very simple. No need for such dramatic terms that conjure up strange images, at least to me.



-widebodyphotog

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 40): I've only ever seen a handful of 777-300ER's loaded up to very near MZFW (within 5,000lbs), which by the way would be a payload of over 135,000lbs, and on that 6,230nm Eastbound track one ship managed 43t of cargo.

To do "6,230nm Eastbound" means the MZFW would be limited by about 12000 lb, otherwise MTOW would be exceeded. To be "within 5,000lbs", means they are "within" 7000 lb over MTOW.

The figures are impressive, but does not detract from the fact that in excess of approx 5500 nm, payload is limited by MTOW.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 40): but it's a long way from a "false floor"

You have gone from "Never seen a "false floor" on any of them..." to "functional structural strengthening to the floor and seat tracks"

Which is sounding more like the way it was described to me, "place another floor ontop of that for seats with wider attachments points and/or different cabin layouts"

In the "45 different 777-300ER's in many configurations", approximately how many of them use the standard floor and seat tracks without modification in F & J ?

Can you confirm that the 300ER uses a composite floor and floor beams making more difficult to modify ?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41): Which is sounding more like the way it was described to me, "place another floor ontop of that for seats with wider attachments points and/or different cabin layouts"

It's not another floor...It's additional and wider placed seat tracks in order to support heavier loads without going over the floor loading limit with heavier seats. Sorry, but I don't like your terms and would not describe it as a "false" floor. The "floor" of the aircraft to my mind is the structural beams on which the cabin furnishings are attached to. The additional tracks attach basically in the same fashion as the others and there is no difference in the level of the floor or anything. Take up the carpet and only an engineer would be able to tell that the floor had been modified in any significant way. The modifications to the floor when necessary are not a "false" structure, and the only outward difference is that there are two or four additional seat tracks.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41): Can you confirm that the 300ER uses a composite floor and floor beams making more difficult to modify ?

The only difficulty as it were when adding the additional tracking and grid strengtheners is working around the raceways for wiring molded into the tops of the beams. Some of them can't be used as originally devised after the modifications. It's not a big deal at all though. The beams being made out of composite material does not in itself create difficulty. And I'm told the most difficult thing is working with the Ti seat tracks as special tools and handling are needed in order to avoid corrosion.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41): approximately how many of them use the standard floor and seat tracks without modification in F & J ?

Actually I have had the chance to look at 9 of the most extensively upgraded ships over the course of the last three years. The upgraded structure extends from doors 1 to three frames behind doors 3. The modifications were done before the aircraft entered revenue service. Except for two of them they are at least 2,000lbs lighter than the heaviest 777-300ER's in service.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41): To do "6,230nm Eastbound" means the MZFW would be limited by about 12000 lb, otherwise MTOW would be exceeded. To be "within 5,000lbs", means they are "within" 7000 lb over MTOW.

Negative, that is a track distance. The effective distance was around 5,400nm. We had a 70-100kt tail wind with us most of the way...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41): The figures are impressive, but does not detract from the fact that in excess of approx 5500 nm, payload is limited by MTOW.

Gotta give that one a "so what". Show me an operator that needs 130,000lb+ revenue payloads on a 777-300ER, on a regular basis. Given average passenger load factors and cargo densities 6,500-6,700nm would be the crossover point at which lowered ACL impacts on revenue loads and by that I mean when payloads above 100,000lbs can not be sustained. Even so that is only over an effective distance or flight time.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 42): Gotta give that one a "so what". Show me an operator that needs 130,000lb+ revenue payloads on a 777-300ER, on a regular basis.

Additionally, show any plane besides the 345 and 77L that isn't "limited" above westbound SIN-CDG? A 772ER is, as is a 744, and as were 743s and 742s and 747SPs and MD11s. The 343 is, as is the 342. Can't find a chart for the 346, but it is not going to be flying at MZFW on this route either.

So the "dig" is just a red herring. Limited obviously doesn't mean unprofitable, otherwise SQ would never fly this route at all...  

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43): Can't find a chart for the 346, but it is not going to be flying at MZFW on this route either.

The westbound SIN-CDG ESAD ( Equiv. still air distance) is about 6250nm. The A340-600 load/range chart for this distance shows a payload of about 55t which is something less than the about 66t max. structural payload.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43): Can't find a chart for the 346,

You'll find it here:
http://www.content.airbusworld.com/   

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43): So the "dig" is just a red herring. Limited obviously doesn't mean unprofitable, otherwise SQ would never fly this route at all...

True nobody said limited means unprofitable.

However the issue was folks attacking Zeke because he said 773ER´s "are limited going to CDG"

They proved wrong but obviously can´t admit that..

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 4): My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG. Zeke - your posts. and your profile, have a pro-Airbus flavor to them, so how can it be that a plane with a range of 7,400NM have trouble flying a route that is 5,800NM. Sounds like rubbish to me

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7): Zeke, you're confusing OEW and MEW again.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20): Limited going to CDG???! Nonsense, another operator

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 20): A "false floor". Where is that? Underneath the Prop Wash???

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 22): Quoting Zeke (Reply 1): My friends flying them said they are the heaviest aircraft they have, and are limited going to CDG False!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 27): That's impressive backpedalling. It's not at all what you wrote earlier:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46): However the issue was folks attacking Zeke because he said 773ER´s "are limited going to CDG"

No the issue is his implication that this was somehow unique to this long range aircraft. He said it was "the heaviest" and that MADE it limited. Or that was his implication. Otherwise, why make the comment?

Basically he made a derogatory comment about something without bothering to explain that ALL aircraft are "limited" on this route except for two: the A345 and 772LR.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 45): You'll find it here:

Thanks. I tried to go in the front door, but it wouldn't let me sign up. And i tried the back door by changing the end from the A380 document, but I couldn't guess that it was 340-500-600...  

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46): However the issue was folks attacking Zeke because he said 773ER´s "are limited going to CDG"

Sorry again, but this is nonsense. "Limited" means what? You can't use MZFW? What an incredible non sequitur! Explain exactly why it is necessary to be able to realize 60t payloads SIN-CDG on a passenger airplane? Fact is that only two airplanes in the world can use MZFW over that distance. Fact is the only aircraft carrying more payload over the route than 777-300ER are freighters...and they have to stop for fuel somewhere...and nobody is complaining...

BTW Typical max commercial ACL on the SIN-CDG segment for 777-300ER is ~52t for a 351.5t MTOW airplane and ~50t for a 349t MTOW airplane This would be fall/winter. The other way round MZFW is typically available from CDG up to 34-35 Deg C with winds reducing the effective air distance. I'd say that's limited but there is no other airplane flying that can do that burning less fuel...

I don't know if there is a language problem or a failure to define terms but the comments as posed from false floors, to heaviest airplane, to limited going to CDG, were not factual within the context of operating the airplane.



-widebodyphotog