chornedsnorkackKeep in mind also, that pilots flying very long haul flights, with augmented/extra crew, don’t often get to log landings, because there are so few landings and extra pilots on to facilitate rest time. Being qualified on a smaller type allows them to get some actual practice (non simulator) between long haul legs on the widebody. So some of the pilots like this concept also.
Singapore Airways is said to fly their A340-500s between Singapore and Jakarta because otherwise the pilots would forget how to land.
chornedsnorkackI don’t have the data for the DC-10-10 right in front of me but it would seem that it would be rather easy to find on the internet.
I tried and could not. If you knew where to look, it´d be nice.
Having said that, since LGA flights are domestic, the fuel load is considerably less, hence the weight is less.
They are not required to be domestic, I think. There IS a perimetre rule – except for Denver, and Saturdays, and charters.
chornedsnorkackFYI
The empty weight of the 764 is about 226,000 lbs and the 772 is about 320,000 lbs.
I believe the airlines mentioned didn’t want a plane as large as the 772 and so Boeing built the 764 for them. The 764 is a dog…..it will fly 9-10 hours but will spend the first 3-4 hours at 28-30,000 feet due to high wing loading and low power loading. The 763 is much better balanced (lower wing loading/more power loading) for 9ish hour flights, giving flexibility to top weather and fly higher for turbulenc avoidance when necessary.
What is the wing area of DC-10-10? The wing areas are 368 sq m for DC-10-30, 329 sq m for Tristar 500, 321 sq m for Tristar 1, and mere 297 sq m for B767-400ER.
Also, how will 767-400ER handle with one engine out at Denver or La Guardia?
chornedsnorkackI’m really not sure of the status of the 764 these days ? I know however that sales were affected by customers choosing to go the extra mile and order the 772 instead. I suspect the 772 put an end to it.
I have heard that Boeing offered 777-100 instead of 767-400. Customers asked for 767.
chornedsnorkackAFAIK, the line is enjoying a stay of execution whilst the 787 languishes in delays. Apparently there is a plan by Boeing to offer new build 763’s to 787 customers as appeasement for delayed Dreamliners. There are some 763ER orders on the book as things stand.
[/I]
Why -300? Wouldn´t 767-400ER come closer to 787 capacity?
chornedsnorkackI do not see anything in that article to support your post.
Can you please explain.
The part is rather obvious:
Some of the services MOL described did not have a German translation – Ryan would need cabins similar to Singapore A380s R Class if those will be providedl
Not only is Singapore not in business of providing those services – Singapore first advertised their R class with suggestive pictures like this:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapore-Airlines/Airbus-A380-841/1289833/L/
what do you think those rose petals are supposed to imply?
and, after cashing in large sums of money from ticket buyers, announced that they were strictly forbidden from providing those and similar services to each other!
chornedsnorkackWhy? They won’t be serving the fiercely competitive markets Singapore does, so have no need for decadently furnished cabins dripping with polished wood and shiney metal.
We’re talking Trans Atlantic, not UK-Asia/Middle East.
For Trans Pond under the Ryanair brand, all they need for a business class is a reasonably quiet, comfortable cabin with a good price tag and service. People will get what they pay for.
Yes. This is all what Ryanair needs to offer. But it is not what they said they will offer.
chornedsnorkackSukhoi now complains of SaM-146 engine shortage, but hopes to fly the second frame in October.
chornedsnorkackQuite.
It would be interesting to know the other factors that work against very large aircraft in addition to landing fees…extra crew costs, insurance (since it carries more, I’d guess it costs more to cover), airframe financing, etc.No doubt the 380 would be very economical on some routes…but like the 747… it would be a killer unless you’re very nearly full most of the time.
Singapore operates A380, B747-400 and B777-300ER, on exact same routes. They should know best how the costs compare.
And they have spoken. A380-800 has 20 % lower fuel burn per seat compared to B747-400.
Seeing how SQ B747-400 has 375 seats and A380-800 471, it follows that the fuel burn per trip is 0,5 % higher on A380.
chornedsnorkackIt is not. The number of passenger seats in any given aeroplane is an objective fact. It is not a matter of opinion.
Also true.
And this says some B747s have more seats than any A380s.
However, how many seats an airplane of a given model should have is a matter of subjective opinion of the airline.
chornedsnorkackI don’t have data in front of me but I believe the A380 has the lowest fuel burn per seat by a considerable margin (approx. 15-20%). This is because it has the most seats.
No, it does not. Seat number is a highly subjective matter. No A380 in service has over 489 seats (the Emirates frame). There is a 747 in service with 587 seats (Corsair).
chornedsnorkackWell, if it is not flying, there are no airspace costs.
Maybe I expressed myself poorly. Where does airspace begin? The fin of a 747 is 60 foot high. The screen height of an airplane is sometimes 50 feet, sometimes 35, sometimes as little as 15.
But the debts accrued by the aircraft can definately outweigh the value of the hull. That’s why you can see loads of old aircraft laid up and rotting around the place, since the cost of removing them outweighs the value of the hulk. If the aircraft is worth $10,000 as razor blades, the airport is owed $15,000 in landing and parking, and the removal cost is $5,000 – why wouldn’t you leave it there??
What is the relevant parking cost here? The landing and parking costs estimated and accrued by past operations? Or, the costs of losing the plot of land permanently for all future times? If the aircraft is worth $10 000 as razor blades and the removal cost is $5000, how are the debts relevant and why not remove it? The airport can never get the debts paid for, and unless they remove the plane whether as scrap or flying frame, they have lost a valuable piece of land.
chornedsnorkackIn the general case – when an airline fails, there will be a number of companies, and individuals, who will be owed money. This will typically include fuel companies, staff, airports, leasing companies and Eurocontrol.
And ticketed passengers?
What the receivers must ensure is that all available funds are distributed according to strict rules – that means, in effect, that there is a pecking order for creditors, and if this is not observed, then the legal ramifications can be long and unpleasant – and very expensive.
The first stage will be the receivers trying to establish exactly what the company has – in terms of cash, outstanding debtors, assets etc – and then paying out whatever it can raise, according to the debtors schedule, from this. It may amount to just a few pence in the pound.
The reasons airports stop airliners, physically in some cases, is that there can be a grey area about where the airline’s assets and debts are. In the case of a leased aircraft, the lessor will want their aircraft back asap – since it has to earn its keep, and the lease agreement with the failed airline means that if the airline defaults (as, by definition a failed airline has), then the aircraft reverts to the lessor. However, in the early stages of a liquidation, the airport can take the view that the aircraft is still a chattel of the airline which owes it money; until the whole situation is clarified, the airport makes efforts to stop the aircraft being removed – to force the issue.
The reason some aircraft are left to rot is rather simpler. If Airline ABC owns a 727, for example, which lands somewhere and is impounded by the airport for non-payment of bills, then the airport will prevent the aircraft from leaving. If the airline can’t pay, then the bills mount up – parking etc – until the outstanding bill becomes larger than the aircraft is worth. Tends to happen with older, less desirable aircraft (eg the 727) than with newer equipment (which has a far higher value). So, do all flyable aircraft have a positive value? No, some will have debts that outstrip any potential resale price.
But then there is the scrap value of the airframe, and the value of airport land and airspace taken up by the plane…
If the plane cannot be moved and sold while still flyable rather than derelict (for legal reasons), it would be difficult, for the same legal reasons, to scrap the plane once it is derelict. Which means that a valuable part of airport land and airspace is lost for good, and not paid for.
After all, when a company goes bankrupt and its planes are sold, the debts do not stay fixed at its planes. The planes are sold for what their market value is, the creditors get their proportional share of the proceeds and lose everything else owed to them, and the buyers of the planes get the planes for their market value unburdened by the debts lost by the creditors of previous owner… Where does this thing go wrong?
chornedsnorkackIts a cruel world, but as one who ended up being owed GBP20,000 by one Airline Client, I wish I had been able to seize assets equivalent to that amount, instead I got 4 pence in the pound.
Do all flyable/parked planes have a positive value?
There is a 727 left in Hanoi by a bankrupt Cambodian airline. What is it doing?
chornedsnorkackHas the second test frame taken off?
Sign In
