Question about fitting planes into gates!

Except for their long haul services with 200LR’s from LAX.

Again my bad, Wikipedia said that LAX was not a hub or focus city so I thought the DL 777s would all be tied up between ATL and JFK and perhaps even CVG though airliners.net records seem to suggest DL 777s are not frequent visitors to the latter!

Neither do DL but they would have no need to come into LAX anyhow!

Except for their long haul services with 200LR’s from LAX.

I think you will find that there are IATA (and ICAO) technical specifications which have to be followed when operating specific types of aircraft into terminal facilities and that it is absolutely not left to chance and a tape measure

Such incidents that have occurred in the past at terminals have been due to these specifications being ignored by the airport or the aircraft operator

Although aircraft stands typically are designed to fit certain codes of aircraft, i.e. aircraft like the B737 are Code C for the purposes of airport design. However, it is not essential for aircraft stands to be an absolute size, so long as the airport specify the variation within their stand charts. I know a number of airports with non standard sized gates, at Dublin for example, there are some very marginal stands which can take some variations of the same aircraft families, but not others, despite standard wingspans etc. I also know of some airports where the wing span allowance of some stands is non standard.

BA Don’t…

Yet

BA Don’t…

My apologies I read Wikipedia far too quickly there they have 6 300s on order!! My mistake!

It is strange seeing as BA, Air NZ, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, PIA, Air Canada, Air India and Air France all operate 200s and 300, why are they so unpopular in their home market?

BA Don’t…

There must have been another reason for the flight. The gates have been surveyed and the dimensions must be known and/or available, as well as the airplane’s dimensions. But it makes for an interesting conversation:D

Just had a thought! Do V Australia have to operate their aircraft into that particulate gate at LAX? Can they not use another gate that is regularly used by 773s or even A340s if there was a question about how it would fit? they could have even operated the inaugural flight into a bigger gate and then since it was there, they could have towed/taxied her into the other gate! Save what I would guess to be thousands of dollars on an additional flight! What I am surprised at is not that they didn’t measure the space with a tape measure because many things work in theory but not in practice, but that a plane was flown from Australia to LAX (12 hours maybe?) just to fit it into a gate! Must be wrong info! I mean the tape measure answer would not show up any difficulty for a flight deck crew to be able to taxi the plane into the gate if there were airport vehicles servicing other aircraft round about!

I think you will find that there are IATA (and ICAO) technical specifications which have to be followed when operating specific types of aircraft into terminal facilities and that it is absolutely not left to chance and a tape measure

Such incidents that have occurred in the past at terminals have been due to these specifications being ignored by the airport or the aircraft operator

Aren’t all measurements (like surveying) made with lasers these days?:confused:

In all honesty, I don’t think an airline will send a plane halfway across the world to see if it fits in a gate. That photographer had wrong or missing information. Nice picture, though.:D

Yes, but they use imperial measurements in the USA. Australia went metric in 1970, and since this is an Australian plane the two don’t mix. :diablo:

The 777 was built using Imperial measurments.

Well thanks for your reply! I didn’t realise that neither UA or AA operated the 300 variant of the T7! Neither do DL but they would have no need to come into LAX anyhow! It is strange seeing as BA, Air NZ, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, PIA, Air Canada, Air India and Air France all operate 200s and 300, why are they so unpopular in their home market?

I was going to suggest the tape measure idea before 27vet got there before me. I am sure that the most authoritative website in the world Wikipedia would give you the wingspan of a 777-300ER in metres and feet and inches. In fact it does! Wingspan of 212ft 7in or 64.8m! Might need more than one tape measure then! I can’t believe that the 777-300ER is only 5 feet shorter than my beloved A340-600, nothing is allowed to come close to the A340-600 is length terms!!:eek::eek:;)

LOL:D

Don’t they have tape measures there?

Yes, but they use imperial measurements in the USA. Australia went metric in 1970, and since this is an Australian plane the two don’t mix. :diablo:

Don’t they have tape measures there?

I was browsing the fantastic Airliners.net database last night when I came across this photo of the tail of a V Australia 777 at LAX: http://www.airliners.net/photo/V-Australia/Boeing-777-3ZG-ER/1535241/&sid=eaf7b6a2255da84abeeda0ae0d3440d6

In the description the author states that, “It was here to make sure that it could fit into the very tight gate at T3.” Now perhaps I am just naive about such things, but would it not have been quicker, easier and cheaper to steal an AA or UA 777 whilst the crew weren’t looking and plug it into that gate and see if it fits or not? I was under the impression a 777-300 was a 777-300 whether it was in V Australia, United, BA or American Airlines livery!

Regards,

AJ

Probably because AA and UA only have 772s, not 773s. The length of the 773 is quite a bit longer. Also, the raked wingtips make the wingspan a bit larger then those used by AA, UA.