Longhaul planes

Guilty as charged….:p

Yes it can, by definition!

That’s a little bit selective and generalised! LOL

As I’m sure you understand, at some airports in the world, under certain conditions, aircraft are unable to take off at their MTOW….as illustrated here…you can’t just quote and reply to the bits that suit you :dev2:

However, my guess is you were being clever rather than accurate:rolleyes:

So, 777-200ER cannot take off at MTOW

Yes it can, by definition!

Winds affect both equally. As for the rest, 777 as a twin is more restricted.

Enroute winds do not affect both equally since, generally, the twin can climb higher earlier in the flight.

Politial situations/constraints and depressurization scenarios (critical terrain) also do not affect the twin more than the quad.

Friend of a friend gave me some ballpark info for DL 777.

777ER, 50/218 seats, 656,000lb MTOW, BOM-JFK, great circle dist. 6800 NM, usually performance (runway allowable) limited.

Interesting. So, 777-200ER cannot take off at MTOW. Does this happen in JFK or BOM? (Neither is high, both are hot and humid in summer, but Bom is slightly hotter).

It is a challenge to get all the people and bags on, this route is about the “real” limit of this plane.

777LR, 43/233 seats, 766,000lb MTOW makes the above route with full pax, bags, some cargo and still has 20-30,000lbs of performance margin to spare.

Let´s see what remains of the margin in May-June in Bombay. I think DL did not yet have 777-200LR last summer?

In general, winds, performance (hot/high), and routing issues (politics, suitability of enroute alternates, mountainous terrain/critical terrain, etc.) all greatly reduce the “book” range claims of Boeing and Airbus for their products.

Winds affect both equally. As for the rest, 777 as a twin is more restricted.

For example, the MTOW-s of twins are calculated so that they can climb out at 2,4 % if one engine fails on takeoff. Quads are required to climb at 3,0 %. When you take off from a runway that actually has obstacles ahead at 2,9 %, the MTOW of a quad is unchanged while a twin has to take TOW restrictions.

PS WRT how come no 777LR operator flies longer routes than SQ and TG with A340-500, I would say the manufacturer is secondary. The reality is this ULR market is very limited, many in the industry question how many pax want to be on an airplane 16-20 hours (counting boarding/de-boarding, taxi times, etc.).

Singapore decided that few pax want to fly executive economy and therefore they rip it out and go all business.

The other ULR operators do not seem to be following suit. Thai is happy with their premium economy and ordinary economy which has 36 inch pitch. Even less pitch on other A340-500 operators.

On BOM-JFK, you have two airlines on exact same route, with exact same plane. Delta and Air India.

Delta has no first class, 43 business and 233 coach. Air India has 8 First Class, 35 business (total 43 flat beds), 195 coach (a minimum of 34 inches pitch).

Which is better to spend 16+ hours in?

Friend of a friend gave me some ballpark info for DL 777.

777ER, 50/218 seats, 656,000lb MTOW, BOM-JFK, great circle dist. 6800 NM, usually performance (runway allowable) limited. It is a challenge to get all the people and bags on, this route is about the “real” limit of this plane.

777LR, 43/233 seats, 766,000lb MTOW makes the above route with full pax, bags, some cargo and still has 20-30,000lbs of performance margin to spare.

In general, winds, performance (hot/high), and routing issues (politics, suitability of enroute alternates, mountainous terrain/critical terrain, etc.) all greatly reduce the “book” range claims of Boeing and Airbus for their products.

I would be surprised (though pleased) if you get a lot of detailed responses for this thread due to mistaken perception that some of those with real operational experience have that they are revealing some secret competitive data. The reality is the air carriers all know what the others can do with their planes, it is not unlike a western democracy hiding classified aircraft from it’s own citizens (those who paid for it) when the adversary already knows all about said classified aircraft through other means.

PS WRT how come no 777LR operator flies longer routes than SQ and TG with A340-500, I would say the manufacturer is secondary. The reality is this ULR market is very limited, many in the industry question how many pax want to be on an airplane 16-20 hours (counting boarding/de-boarding, taxi times, etc.). It is so limited that Boeing only offered one engine option on the LR, they didn’t think they would see enough frames to recover the certification costs.