Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
factsonly
Topic Author
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 5:50 pm

The Jakarte Post reports GA may have to stop operating CGK-AMS non-stop.

It seems the Jakarta runway, after all the earlier discussions, is not strong enough for fully laden B773. Runway damage is being reported and GA may have to cancel CGK-AMS non-stop or introduce an intermediate stop to lower the B773's take-off weight.

So perhaps something fishy has been going on after all the earlier discussions about the CGK LCN factor. Initially GA could not operate non-stop to Europe according to the airport authority due to insufficient runway bearing strength and then suddenly they could operate non-stop to Europe as the runway was suddenly strong enough.

Question will GA succeed if they have to operate CGK-SIN-AMS-LGW, as even CGK-AUH-AMS-LGW may be out of the question.

Are A.netters surprised ?

http://m.thejakartapost.com/news/201...irect-jakarta-amsterdam-route.html
 
User avatar
CrimsonNL
Posts: 2125
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 5:56 pm

According to another source they will make a fuel stop in SIN now. I'm sure pax will love a 3 sector flight to LGW  http://thejakartaglobe.beritasatu.co...etour-amsterdam-flight-avoid-loss/

Martijn



[Edited 2015-05-26 10:57:50]
Always comparing your flown types list with mine
 
B747forever
Posts: 13851
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 6:08 pm

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter):
Question will GA succeed if they have to operate CGK-SIN-AMS-LGW, as even CGK-AUH-AMS-LGW may be out of the question

Only if they can fill it with A.nutters  
Work Hard, Fly Right
 
User avatar
IrishAyes
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:04 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 6:13 pm

I think it is time for GA to realize that its ambitions to serve Europe nonstop are unrealistic and that instead it should focus on regional and medium-haul services rather than try and save face over loss-making long-haul routes for glamour purposes. Understandably, GA has invested heavily in the European market with the introduction of 777-300ERs, new premium cabin products and launching AMS nonstop from CGK, but this no longer makes business sense.

GA is better off either maintaining a 1-stop service to AMS, while canning LGW altogether, or perhaps creating a scissor-style operation in the Middle East with service to both LGW and AMS, although currently, only JED is offered by GA and I don't believe that the KSA is an ideal transit point (would this even be allowed?)
 
migair54
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 6:16 pm

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter):
The Jakarte Post reports GA may have to stop operating CGK-AMS non-stop.

If the reason is the runway I guess KLM will have to do so, same plane, same distance, same route. What about other heavy planes that operate in CGK like EY, EK, QR, TK, shorter distances but quite heavy planes also.

If the route was doing very bad before I am sure this will be terrible for the yields, maybe it´s better if they directly cancel it.
 
LJ
Posts: 5350
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 6:22 pm

Quoting migair54 (Reply 4):

If the reason is the runway I guess KLM will have to do so, same plane, same distance, same route.

KLM doesn't fly nonstop to CGK, they fly via KUL.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 6:22 pm

wow how poor is their runway quality that it cannot support a 77W ?

GA should just partner with one of the ME3 and call it a day. There's Saudia within Skyteam but i can't imagine anyone wanting to deal with Saudia and their backwardness.
 
anstar
Posts: 3289
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 6:25 pm

Quoting migair54 (Reply 4):
If the reason is the runway I guess KLM will have to do so, same plane, same distance, same route

KL already do. The AMS-CGK flight has a stop in KUL.
 
factsonly
Topic Author
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 6:26 pm

Quoting migair54 (Reply 4):
If the reason is the runway I guess KLM will have to do so, same plane, same distance, same route.

Nope.

The issue is B773 departures at MTOW at CGK.

KLM operates CGK-KUL-AMS, LH does CGK-KUL-FRA with A340 so both are no-where-near MTOW.

While EK, QR and EY probably do not need MTOW for their flights either.
 
Rafabozzolla
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 1:27 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 7:19 pm

How crappy is the runway at CGK? Even much smaller airports in South America handle similarly heavy take offs.

SCL-CDG, AMS-EZE, FRA-EZE are all longer routes than CGK-AMS and none of them handle anywhere near the 59M pax that CGK does.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18197
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 7:23 pm

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter):
GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough  

Runway not strong enough/hemorrhaging money to-may-to to-mah-to
I don't take responsibility at all
 
goldorak
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:29 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 7:25 pm

It seems absolutely unbelievable that local airport authorities are not able to have a runway of sufficient quality to support take-off a of long-haul flight... This is telling a lot about competence of local authorities...
I remember also that AF delayed the re-launch of the SIN-CGK tag because of runway issue (and this is only a short flight here).
 
kaitak
Posts: 9930
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 7:36 pm

Is it feasible to resurface it, or does it need far more fundamental work - i.e. a complete rebuild.

I know CGK is now a very busy, so presumably operating with one runway is not a possibility?

Are there other types they could use - e.g. a 787 - which would not require any runway strengthening?
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Tue May 26, 2015 7:43 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 12):
Is it feasible to resurface it, or does it need far more fundamental work - i.e. a complete rebuild.

If it's sitting on enough land, build a new one parallel to the old one  
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
GASQKL
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:54 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 4:51 am

LGW will not be terminated and it will continue to have 1 stop from CGK. Due to runway issue, GA has decided not to go 6x weekly non-stop CGK-AMS. AMS will still be served 6x weekly but with 3 out of 6 flights having a stopover in SIN on the way out. The following routing will happen as of the end of July: 3x weekly CGK - AMS - LGW - AMS - CGK and 3x weekly a triangular CGK - SIN - AMS -CGK flight. So, AMS - CGK will remain a non-stop flight.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 13):
If it's sitting on enough land, build a new one parallel to the old one

If you can believe what the airport authority has said in a local news which I read 2 days ago, clearing of the land to build a 3rd runway is to start soon to make land for a new runway to be fully operational in 2017.
 
AirbusA322
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:38 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 4:58 am

Fully operational by 2017? Sounds like one world class runway....
 
factsonly
Topic Author
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 5:59 am

And..... all this just as GA receives yet another B773 from Seattle:

http://paineairport.com/kpae11300.htm
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 6:23 am

Quoting factsonly (Reply 16):
And..... all this just as GA receives yet another B773 from Seattle:

The above aircraft will not have first class and will serve JED routes... all future 777's will be business/economy only.

GA has an exemption from CGK to damage the runway 3x/week... guessing too many seats need to be blocked to make it worthwhile.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 6:34 am

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter):
Are A.netters surprised ?

No. The PCN of the runway has been well known over the past 30 years, that is... 120RDWT... which means 777-300ERs are limited to 279 tons or so (if I remember correctly), 744s, 346s and 380s aren't affected AFAIK.

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter):
Initially GA could not operate non-stop to Europe according to the airport authority due to insufficient runway bearing strength and then suddenly they could operate non-stop to Europe as the runway was suddenly strong enough.

London direct was not feasible. Amsterdam direct GA claimed a while back could be done with the weight restriction, and/or a reduced restriction exemption (under the 10,000 movements per annum PCN classification, with the argument of less that that number of movement meaning they could fly with more, but you need some alternative means of approved analysis)... But then, many of us in the industry were laughing as even under the reduced weight, even AMS would not be feasible with realistic numbers/assumptions used by other airlines.

The problem here is really CGK's location being 1 hour further way from Singapore...
I would have preferred to see the 77W doing Europe from Medan (KNO) nonstop, with distributing passengers to KUL/SIN/DPS/SUB while the 77W continues to CGK, or DPS (and CGK gets a feed)...

Quoting migair54 (Reply 4):
What about other heavy planes that operate in CGK like EY, EK, QR, TK, shorter distances but quite heavy planes also.

All operators flying the 777-300ER into CGK have been reminded upon slot application or notice of equipment change into the 77W has been told of the PCN limitations and it's effects on the 777-300ER, and in some cases a written receipt of such notice had to be submitted. They all operate within the reduced TOW limit imposed by the PCN.

Garuda, however, decided to order the 777-300ER without checking the PCN. It was only after the airport told them, that the blame game started.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 6):
wow how poor is their runway quality that it cannot support a 77W ?

PCN 120RDWT. 77W limited. Other types, not so.

Quoting goldorak (Reply 11):
It seems absolutely unbelievable that local airport authorities are not able to have a runway of sufficient quality to support take-off a of long-haul flight.

Back when the airport was made, there was no need for more than what it is today. By the time 77Ws came along, CGK was already busy, and the heaviest 77W operators were the ME3, and they agreed to the limitations as they knew what the PCN was. However, Garuda didn't do their homework, then demanded the PCN to be increased, but the airport says that would be impossible, they need the 3rd runway to be able to maintain the current traffic level for one of the old runway to be resurfaced. The other issue is the construction method of the runway and the type of soil it sits on, makes it extremely expensive to redo the runways to allow 77W at MTOW. They want to do the 3rd runway now so that it could cater for 350s and next gen 777s at MTOW... but if GA wants to do it today, GA should pay for it, and GA refused to answer that request AFAIK.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
jmchevallier
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:17 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 8:02 am

I was involved in the airport construction, back in the beginning of the 80s. On request of the Suharto government, a local construction method, called "cakar ayam", or chicken claw, was adapted to the construction of the runways.
At the time, the design aircraft was the B742, far less pavement demanding than the B777W.
The main issue with the B777 landing gear is the 6 Wheel gear, where the loads of the 3 wheels in a row are overlapping, generating higher stresses at deeper level in the foundation ground than 4 Wheel gears. And the foundation ground is extremely weak at CGK !
So until a third runway is built to the new 6 Wheel gear spécifications, GA and other carrier operating out of CGK should know better to operate 4 wheel gear aircraft only, excluding B777, A380 and A35J.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 8:35 am

I guess maybe it's too late to modify the aircraft somehow. If they have to accept these weight restrictions, they might as well make a fuel stop half-way along the route in somewhere like Muscat. To me it would be preferable on a 14 hour flight to be alble to stretch my legs half-way rather than have an annoying 1h30 delay just 30m before we would have arrived. Plus, the fuel would presumably be cheaper there.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 8:51 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 18):
even AMS would not be feasible with realistic numbers/assumptions used by other airlines.

Realistic numbers/assumptions... let's not remind ourselves about the DPS-BNE flawed feasibility study with a 738.
 
lutfi
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 9:03 am

Yep, not the airport's fault.

JMchevalier, that is very interesting. The CGK area is basically old swampland, so I guess the undelying soil is also fairly weak, and a long way down to bedrock
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 9:58 am

Ironically, the 77L can go all the way to MTOW...
Maybe GA should convert to this instead! *filler filler* :p

Quoting jmchevallier (Reply 19):
So until a third runway is built to the new 6 Wheel gear spécifications, GA and other carrier operating out of CGK should know better to operate 4 wheel gear aircraft only, excluding B777, A380 and A35J.

If I remember correctly, 120RDWT is no problem for the A380... it has lots more wheels per ton MTOW
575tons over 20 main wheels (excluding nose gear), vs 351 over 6 wheels... the 77W has over 2x the load per wheel than the 380... but yes, we're having problems with the 77W due to it's wheel configuration...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
jmchevallier
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:17 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 10:13 am

CGK was not exactly swampland, but irrigated rice fields, scatterred with small villages amidst banana trees : a fine landscape, but a silty clay soil with extremely deep bedrock !
A true swampland airport is Bangkok Suvarnanbhumi, of which the original name was Ngo Nu Hao, meaning Cobra Swamp. This airport is also having runway pavement issues.
 
Marvinhsv
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:55 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 10:35 am

Quoting GASQKL (Reply 14):
The following routing will happen as of the end of July: 3x weekly CGK - AMS - LGW - AMS - CGK and 3x weekly a triangular CGK - SIN - AMS -CGK flight.

So they are going to collect cargo for those 3-weekly-SIN flights while putting pax only on the 3-weekly nonstop flights?
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed May 27, 2015 5:26 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 18):
No. The PCN of the runway has been well known over the past 30 years, that is... 120RDWT... which means 777-300ERs are limited to 279 tons or so (if I remember correctly), 744s, 346s and 380s aren't affected AFAIK.

John Leahy, do you hear?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 18):
Garuda, however, decided to order the 777-300ER without checking the PCN. It was only after the airport told them, that the blame game started.

Unbelievable!
 
factsonly
Topic Author
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:22 pm

Mixed messages are being released about GA's new timetable to Europe.

- AMS will remain 6x/week: 3x non-stop CGK-AMS and 3x one-stop CGK-SIN-AMS.
- LGW will become 3x/week via CGK-SIN-AMS-LGW.

However the GDS reports:

- dep. CGK 20:50 - arr. SIN 23.30 - dep. SIN 01.30 - arr. AMS 08:30 GA088 B773 Wed, Thu, Sat
- return flight AMS-CGK non-stop

- dep. CGK 23:10 - arr. AMS 08:30 - dep. AMS 10.30 - arr. LGW 10.35 GA088 B773 Tue, Fri, Sun
- return flight remains LGW-AMS-CGK nonstop.

But other publications say, the new 3x/week stop in SIN permits a full B773 load pax and freight to be carried from CGK to AMS-LGW, while the 3x/week nonstop CGK-AMS flight will only carry passengers, thus permitting a B773 take-off from CGK for a non-stop to AMS.

Though this last report makes sense, it is not reflected in the above schedules.

Curious ?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13225
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:19 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 6):
wow how poor is their runway quality that it cannot support a 77W ?
Quoting Rafabozzolla (Reply 9):
How crappy is the runway at CGK? Even much smaller airports in South America handle similarly heavy take offs.

It's the airplane that has extreme gear loading. It's a bit like saying "how crappy is that airport that can't handle the A380 ?".

I don't know about other airports, but ORY had the same problem with the 77W, and a runway was rebuilt to handle it.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
jfk777
Posts: 7362
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:53 am

How can the main airport in a country as large as Indonesia not have a runway capable of a 777 take off at MTOW ? Seems very silly, in this day and age that Jakarta would not be built to compete with Changi. The Government of Indonesia should encourage all the European airline to fly nonstop to Jakarta.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26574
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:36 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 6):
wow how poor is their runway quality that it cannot support a 77W ?
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 29):
How can the main airport in a country as large as Indonesia not have a runway capable of a 777 take off at MTOW ?

Orly had the same problem. The 77W is a completely different animal when it comes to the weight stress it puts on a runway. 747s and A380s are significantly less demanding on runways than 77Ws.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:49 am

Quoting jmchevallier (Reply 24):
CGK was not exactly swampland, but irrigated rice fields, scatterred with small villages amidst banana trees : a fine landscape, but a silty clay soil with extremely deep bedrock !
A true swampland airport is Bangkok Suvarnanbhumi, of which the original name was Ngo Nu Hao, meaning Cobra Swamp. This airport is also having runway pavement issues.

Yes, but 137FDXT isn't an issue.. although the "D" is a long term concern?

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 29):
How can the main airport in a country as large as Indonesia not have a runway capable of a 777 take off at MTOW ? Seems very silly, in this day and age that Jakarta would not be built to compete with Changi. The Government of Indonesia should encourage all the European airline to fly nonstop to Jakarta.

You have no idea how dumb the government can become once we talk about airplanes and girls in uniforms (a.k.a. FAs).   
The other 777s except the -300ERs can take off at MTOW no problems.
The level of traffic, and the work that needs to be done for the existing runways to be able to take the 777-300ER at MTOW would make it an extremely expensive proposition, you literally have to rebuild the runway and not merely resurfacing... that would result in a runway having to be closed. With 1200 movements a day, that's nearly impossible. A new runway would have to built first before they can do this.
The fight and squabbles between the Central Government, the Jakarta capital region government and the Banten provincial government and Tangerang City government (where CGK airport actually is), isn't helping either, and has been a major hindrance in getting more roads to the airport and also the land clearing needed for the new runway. The land for the new runway is a combination of land already owned by the airport and not. Those already owned by the airport still need people on it to move out, and that's been prevented by the Banten and Tangerang governments. It doesn't help that Banten's provincial government was led by one of the most corrupt governors of all time in Indonesia (at least she's in prison, but her mafia is guarding the remaining key positions).

Simply put, it's a mess... a real mess...

Now even if the airport can handle the 77W at MTOW, you have to remember that CGK is effectively 1hr - 1.5hr further away from Europe than SIN, and a good 1.5-2hrs further than KUL. Doing a non-stop Europe to CGK would be a risky proposition for anyone... you'd be carrying not a lot of cargo coz you need the fuel... especially westbound in winter.

On the other hand, Garuda's 777 ops are losing money and it seems that no matter what they do, it'll still lose money, and they'll reduce the 777 fleet to 6 aircraft from the originally planed 10. 3 will be used for AMS/LGW, that probably leaves the rest to CGKNRT CGKHND and DPSNRT...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:48 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 18):
On the other hand, Garuda's 777 ops are losing money and it seems that no matter what they do, it'll still lose money, and they'll reduce the 777 fleet to 6 aircraft from the originally planed 10. 3 will be used for AMS/LGW, that probably leaves the rest to CGKNRT CGKHND and DPSNRT...

Don't forget JED and (new planned service) Medina which is where the Buisness/Economy only 773's are supposed to be designated.

Then of course there's the new planned service to CDG, Star Alliance fortress FRA ,and lousy catchment area Berlin (thought that one doesn't come up in conversation anymore)... my jaw dropped when I heard these plans... fix LGW first (maybe via SIN?).

As for the SIN westbound stop this only makes sense if the service operates via SIN in both directions. Would a Medan refueling stop be more practical and cheaper (assume the new airport runway can handle it?)
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:49 am

They just need to get rid if the 77Ws, they never needed them, they just jumped on the bandwagon using the underpants gnomes business model;

1) buy 77W
2) ???
3) profit!
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:10 am

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 32):
Would a Medan refueling stop be more practical and cheaper (assume the new airport runway can handle it?)

Medan's Kualanamu airport can handle 77W at MTOW according to the published PCN.

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 32):
Don't forget JED and (new planned service) Medina which is where the Buisness/Economy only 773's are supposed to be designated.

Then of course there's the new planned service to CDG, Star Alliance fortress FRA ,and lousy catchment area Berlin (thought that one doesn't come up in conversation anymore)... my jaw dropped when I heard these plans... fix LGW first (maybe via SIN?).

With the 777 fleet going to be only 6, and then with newer 333s coming in and the 332s leases about to end, I think CDG and FRA won't happen anytime soon, and that JED will get the newer 333s instead.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:54 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 34):
With the 777 fleet going to be only 6

Is PK-GIH (777 number 7) not going to be delivered? When did this get cancelled or deferred?

I believe the CEO wanted to terminate 4 A330-200 leases early, but the board of directors didn't agree as these aircarft still need to have heavy maintenance performed before returning to the lessor. FYI one A330-300 has been changed to a high density almost all economy configuration and shows up on those stupid DPS-China charter flights where the fare is USD500 return max including tax... sigh.

Meanwhile the 2 744's continue to fly- they were supposed to be retired in January.
 
julio777
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:35 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:49 pm

I though Garuda will have new 3 777ER joining them this year and 1 more 777ER next year? No.?
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:16 pm

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 35):
Is PK-GIH (777 number 7) not going to be delivered? When did this get cancelled or deferred?

They'll get delivered as far as I know, but if the plan is to keep only 7, I suspect some will go "soon" or as soon as they can get an early lease termination. No official stuff yet on how many they want to keep in the end.

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 35):
I believe the CEO wanted to terminate 4 A330-200 leases early, but the board of directors didn't agree as these aircarft still need to have heavy maintenance performed before returning to the lessor.

Yeah, well, it's a simple comparison. Value of the mainenance vs value of the losses the planes can impose on the company.

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 35):
YI one A330-300 has been changed to a high density almost all economy configuration and shows up on those stupid DPS-China charter flights where the fare is USD500 return max including tax... sigh.

Is that one of the older ones or one of the newer 333s?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
factsonly
Topic Author
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:51 pm

GA celebrates 5 years in Europe with special fare:

This week GA celebrates the 5th Anniversary of the airline's return to Europe in 2010 (with the A332 CGK-DXB-AMS) with a special Euro 555 return fare AMS-CGK.

This fare is available until June 7, 2015.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7362
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:20 pm

If The runway at Jakarta can't do full MTOW take-off then why would Garuda buy 777, because they are the new 747-400 ? Does Garuda have an issue with this for 777 to Japan ? Seems the 748 would have been better for Garuda for Amsterdam flights.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:48 pm

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 32):
Would a Medan refueling stop be more practical and cheaper (assume the new airport runway can handle it?)

Good idea, and this way also GA would capture more of their Sumatra market rather than losing their Europe bound traffic to SQ and MH etc.
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Fri Jun 05, 2015 1:16 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 37):
Is that one of the older ones or one of the newer 333s?

One of the older 333's... can't remember which one.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 39):
If The runway at Jakarta can't do full MTOW take-off then why would Garuda buy 777, because they are the new 747-400 ? Does Garuda have an issue with this for 777 to Japan ?

Only the AMS flights are affected- they carry full fuel and that is extra weight. Problem is 773 is a long aircraft with the weight distribution falling in one place- 747 weight is more distributed so runway doesn't get damaged.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Fri Jun 05, 2015 2:46 am

Never knew the subgrade of both BKK and CGK were so weak.

At least BKK has a value of 137 instead of CGK's 120, so a MTOW B77W is not a problem there.

KUL is also pretty bad, both runways being 90RCWT, meaning a MTOW 77W will have issues there as well. I know KUL-AMS is shorter than CGK-AMS, but does KL have any restrictions on departure back to AMS? It's still a 10240 km sector, even longer factoring in the winds and ATC routings.

AMS doesn't fair any better either. 06/24, 18C/36C and 18L/36R are all 082RCXT, even worse than KUL.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Orly had the same problem.

At least 06/24 is 140RCWT, which means a fully loaded B77W is no problem. But yes, the other two runways are shit!

[Edited 2015-06-04 20:00:07]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:14 am

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 42):
Never knew the subgrade of both BKK and CGK were so weak.

At least BKK has a value of 137 instead of CGK's 120, so a MTOW B77W is not a problem there.

KUL is also pretty bad, both runways being 90RCWT, meaning a MTOW 77W will have issues there as well. I know KUL-AMS is shorter than CGK-AMS, but does KL have any restrictions on departure back to AMS? It's still a 10240 km sector, even longer factoring in the winds and ATC routings.

AMS doesn't fair any better either. 06/24, 18C/36C and 18L/36R are all 082RCXT, even worse than KUL.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Orly had the same problem.

At least 06/24 is 140RCWT, which means a fully loaded B77W is no problem. But yes, the other two runways are shit!

[Edited 2015-06-04 20:00:07]

Could you put the RCXT and RCWT plus numbers into plane English please? I understand the runway references but would like to know the specifics of the acronyms. Thanks in advance. MH
come visit the south pacific
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:38 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 43):
Could you put the RCXT and RCWT plus numbers into plane English please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavement_classification_number
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:20 am

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 42):
KUL is also pretty bad, both runways being 90RCWT, meaning a MTOW 77W will have issues there as well.

KUL is a mess of PCNs...
For 14/32 L/Rs, first 241 meters are 90RCWT and the rest are 100 FCWT
15/33 are 1st 500m of 15 and 1st 321m or 33 is 90RCWT and the rest are 100 FCWT
Since the lengths are 4019m, 4000m, and 3960m, they can just juse the 100FCWT portions if one has a problem with 90RCWT.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 42):
AMS doesn't fair any better either. 06/24, 18C/36C and 18L/36R are all 082RCXT, even worse than KUL.

I have them here as 90FCWT

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 42):
At least 06/24 is 140RCWT, which means a fully loaded B77W is no problem. But yes, the other two runways are shit!

06/24 is 140RWCT, 08/26 is 85RWBU, 02/20 is.... 70RCWU

With CGK at 120RDWT, let's translate this into 777-300ER maximum weights by using the Boeing ACAPs documents
CGK 120RDWT = 334 Tons

BKK 137FDXT = No Restrictions

KUL 100FCWT = No Restrictions
KUL 90RCWT = 315 Tons (but see above, you still have 3500m of the 100FCWT portions)

AMS 90FCWT = No Restrictions

ORY 140RCWT = No Restrictions
ORY 85RBWU = No Restrictions
ORY 70RCWU = 265 Tons

This explains why we don't hear about BKK, KUL (as there are ways to mitigate this), AMS or ORY having problems with the 777, despite their PCNs...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
TC957
Posts: 3839
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:16 am

So - could one answer be for GA to dispose of all their 77W's and get the ex-TG A346's instead for their long-hauls ?
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:44 am

Quoting TC957 (Reply 46):
So - could one answer be for GA to dispose of all their 77W's and get the ex-TG A346's instead for their long-hauls ?

LOL! ex TG A346s? You have got to be kidding me on that one!   
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
jfk777
Posts: 7362
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:58 am

The Government of Indonesia should create a huge public works project, a new 3500 meter runway for Jakarta's airport capable of a fully loaded A380 all the way to Amsterdam. I am not suggesting Garuda buy A380 just the runway be capable of handing them.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: GA May Halt CGK-AMS-LGW, Runway Not Strong Enough

Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:28 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 42):

It's not just bkk and cgk, all the airports in Asia built on reclaimed land are showing signs of damage from 777s. The damages is easy to see as the depressions align perfectly with wheels. Singapore is forever doing taxiway and runway works as well.

The issue has at cgk has been well known for a long time, a lot of carriers were stopping via sin.

It is not only the weight being the issue, to keep the brakes cool the 777 alternates brakes on each brake application. The effect is that instead of 6 wheels a side stopping, you only have 2, the Tarmac actually slips causing depressions in line with the 777 tyres near corners of taxiways where brakes are applied.

ICAO is looking at other ways to measure pavement strength and damage as some of the assumptions in the ACN PCN model do not work with high pressure tyres on flexible subgrades.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos