Widebody takeoff perfomance ex Dublin?

[akerosid]

I wonder if someone could help me with with takeoff perf. figures. Let me give you the background first ...

At the moment, DUB has a runway of 8,650' (10/28); although the airport authority has planned spending of up to EUR1b until 2015, this does not include an extension to the current runway, with the result that until the new runway opens (projected for 2012), we're stuck with the shortest runway of any major airport in Europe.

It is hoped (by Aer Lingus for one) that long haul flights from DUB will be introduced over the next few years; the runway is (I understand) already marginal for 332s, but for larger aircraft, it's a no go ... 777s or particularly A340s are out; the newer models, 787s or A350s are unlikely to be much different from current twins. The result is that poor planning at DUB will limit the prospects for new long haul flights. The govt is not particularly interested and despite its apparent plans for new long haul flights, Aer Lingus doesn't seem particularly annoyed (or perhaps cannot say so publicly).

Can anyone give me figures to back this up; comparing MAN and DUB, for example, how much higher would the MTOW be at MAN for a 777 or A340?

Any other comments or info would be welcome!

[targaman]

I don't have the Runway Analysis Manual for my last airline with me (Bummer). I am now retired so I won't be getting another set soon.

However anyone out there employed on a B744 fleet will have access to the data you want. It is a lot easier to use the RAM than working the figures out from the AFM.

Dont compare MAN & DUB directly as if my memory serves me they are quite different airport elevetions.

In light of the MK Airlines crash in Halifax see other forum, TSB CAnada discovered that the runway 24 published slope was in error.

So if you have access to a B744 AFM with runway length, slope , elevation, (OAT) temperature, engine type, and wind you can work out the max runway limited weight. Don't forget your second and third segment calculations too.

Chok Dee

[d2k73]

it's a no go ... 777s or particularly A340s are out

I think this picture would beg to differ!!!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=524045

[akerosid]

Sorry, I should clarify that ...

I know 777s and A340s can takeoff from DUB, but what I wanted to focus on was ultra long haul flights and for this, the length of 10/28 is a big problem.

I guess another question would be: what is the difference in MTOWs between DUB and (say) MAN. I appreciate what Targaman says about runway elevation, but I don't think they are very dissimilar, as I really just want to get a ballpark figure.

In other words, I'd like to be able to say that at 20 degrees C, the MTOW of a 777 from DUB is (x) kgs less than that from MAN.

(If anyone has figures for the A340, that would be great).

[1800-how'smyflying]

Virgin take-off empty, but what about Singapore's Cargo service, does this flight take-off anywhere near its MTOM?

http://images.airliners.net/open.file?id=690986

[freightmover]

SQ Cargo does CPH - DXB/SHJ - Home for its route from DUB.

normally worst bringing the aircraft into DUB that taking off.

If i remember correctly all a/c into DUB are normally abover 280t with freight and fuel.

out is no prob as its only fuel to cph

[Phil Squares]

I have operated into DUB many times on the 744F. As stated before, the biggest problem is getting in, especially if the runway is wet. It's not uncommon to be upwards of 290Tons and you really need to get the aircraft down.

The departure is to CPH so generally, your T/O weight is somewhere in the vicinity of 270 Tons, 30 tons of fuel and 80Tons of cargo. No problem getting out. I remember looking at the takeoff performance and at Full TO and a 18C day, you could make it up to about 370Tons.

[ElNino]

Wonder how EIN managed it the early 90's with their old 747-100's fully loaded to JFK

They didn't, I don't think they were able to go straight across from Dublin, they always needed to refuel in Shannon.
28 was deliberately built too short in order to maintain this situation and hence protect the stopover.

[WHBM]

Wonder how EIN managed it the early 90's with their old 747-100's fully loaded to JFKMe too. EI operated their old, poorer-performance -100s out of there for probably 25 years, from long before 10/28 was even built. 16/34 is only, what, 75% of the length. And I seem to remember seeing one in Tenerife on an IT charter from Dublin, so it wasn't just the Shannon hop that got out of there.

And what about the Aer Turas stretched cargo DC-8s ? They seemingly had no problems either.

One for the performance enginers of course but surely better-performing aircraft and a longer runway must give some benefit.

[MarkD]

I keep reading this stuff about 10/28 being "deliberately built too short" - is there documented evidence of this or did Aer Rianta merely build it below 9,000 feet because they couldn't justify spending the extra when no flight would be allowed direct at the time the runway was built?

[Irish Steve]

Delta fly a 777 between DUB-SHN-ATL during the summer but its not fully loaded at DUB,

It's not that far off, in the summer, it operates full of pax, and the lower deck is also full, bags and freight, so the only spare capacity will be fuel, I don't know what the max fuel endurance of the 777 is, but DUB ATL is not a short hop as such, about 9:30 or similar.

I do know that there are days when they can't use 16/34, so have to take the out of wind runway to get off. Same is also true on occasions for the EI 330's, and some of the other trans atlantic flights that are not stopping in SNN, they have to use 10/28.

Re the road, if they'd really wanted to, the road at the western end would not have been a massive problem to solve, there was another road that got diverted when 10/28 was built, and even now, putting the road into a short tunnel to allow the approach lights to be moved would be less expensive than some of the other options that have been suggested.

At the time 10/28 was built, the expectation was that the SNN stop was a permanent fixture, so there was no need for a long runway to cope with direct flights, at that time, SNN was a requirement in both directions, which was crazy. Even now, it's probably one of the reasons that EI have chopped the MCO service, it lands in SNN inbound, sits on the ground for 30 minutes to let the brakes cool, and then continues to DUB. If they're trying to compete with VS from LGW, an extra cycle per rotation is doing them no favours at all cost wise, especially if no one is joining or leaving the flight!!!

[akerosid]

The initial nonstops from DUB to the US, back in 1994, were by the old 747-100s, which presumably had to use max reserve power.

It's very convenient that they can blame the lack of direct flights (which was as a result of an artificial, govt imposed regulation, still partially in effect today) for the runway length being as it is. Back in 1989, it must surely have been known that this wouldn't last forever. I feel sure that an active decision was taken on this, but it will probably never be revealed.

However, let's focus on the "now". EI's new CEO, Dermot Mannion, has already spoken of the possibility of flights to Asia; there are rumours that EI is looking for something larger than A330-200s and 787s ... Now, without getting into that argument, how is a 777, or even a 332 going to cope with a nonstop to SIN, KUL or HKG on a Summer's day, at 20 degrees? Even if they have a late night departure, it's still going to have to be at full welly (to use the technical term!). As we all know, operating engines at full power on all takeoffs can't be good for economics or engine wear. But it looks like we're stuck with 10/28 at its current length until 2012.

Let's face it, t/a flights are OK ex-DUB, but not ideal. Going longer haul, there will be problems. What I'd like to know, as an example is, if you compare the MTOWs from a runway of DUB's length with (say) MAN, how much of a difference is there, even at a low temperature?

More siginificantly, however, as a matter of policy, will EI's growth plans be affected (let alone the prospects of other long haul flights) by the DAA's lack of vision and the govt's lack of oversight. As naive as it must sound, we really need a bit of vision on this, but I'm not hopeful.

[mutt]

The takeoff weights for a B777-200 @ 20C will be:

Rwy 10=272300 kgs
Rwy 28=267900 kgs

MTOW is 286000 kgs.

267900-OEW 146000 = 121900.

Using 10,000 kgs for reserves and 7,000 per hour, you could operate a 12 hr flt with 94,000 kgs fuel leaving 27,900 kgs for payload.....

Now please explain to me what is "max reserve power"?

Mutt.

[NWSRG]

Would the 772LR or A345 help over the 772ER / A330?

[akerosid]

Thanks very much indeed, Mutt!

I was thinking about DUB to HKG nonstop; HKG is one of three Asian routes being looked at by EI; SIN/KUL are clearly out.

Using HKG and working on an estimate of about 12h (i.e. the figures you provided), the payload is effectively around 280 pax (and bags), but no freight ... not great for a huge cargo market. 5t less freight from 28, but to all intents and purposes, you have to plan for 28, being the most frequently used runway?

Incidentally, why is the 28 MTOW lower? Slope? Obstacles (none that I can think of!)?

I understood max reserve power to mean "full welly"; I came across this term some time back; is it no longer used. Apologies if it's not correct!

[mutt]

Slope is different, -0.47 versus 0.47.

I cant see EI starting any Asian routes. They are an unknown commodity in Asia and having removed themselves from One World and major airline reservation systems they will have lost the trust of the business traveling community.

The WW plan appears to be turning them into FR mark 2! Not sure if Mannion will be capable of reversing the decline.

Mutt.

[akerosid]

Thanks for that info, Mutt.

Actually, Mr. Mannion has already mentioned that possiblity even before joining the airline. Even last week, the minister mentioned this possibility too, so the interest is there ... up to a point. Bear in mind this is the same minister who is quite happy to let the DAA leave the runway length at the current 8,650'.

Even for HK, that poses problems. I estimate that HK is about 13 hrs from DUB (based on c.12h30 from LHR); adding the reserves, you're talking about 100,000kgs of fuel, leaving only about 21,900kgs for payload.

Given that the MTOW of the 772ER is 297,000kgs, the use of 28 effectively knocks a good 25-30t off the MTOW; just what you need for a new route.

I agree completely that EI needs to work on other issues as well before it goes into the Asian market; crew morale, service product and interline issues (particularly with CX) would have to be looked at.

One final question if I may: how much of a difference does a degree +/- make to the figures you have given?

Regards.

[Liffy 1M]

Quote -

"There is a motorway, the M1 Dublin to Belfast which was bulit long before 28 at the threshold and then a smaller road at the threshold of 10 so thats probably the reason why it couldnt go past 8,800ft."



There must surely be enough room for a runway extension to the west if not also to the east, with the current airfield boundary. In both cases there is a sizeable sterile area between the current runway thresholds and the public roads.

[akerosid]

There's plenty of room to add another 1500' or so, enough to take the runway up to 10,000', which would address most capacity limitations.

I'm trying to source other performance information for various widebody types and when I do, I will be preparing a submission. There is something seriously wrong, when a government can, on the one hand ...
- produce a document like the Asia Strategy Report, with very laudable and ambitious aims for growth,
- speak of an integrated air transport policy
- encourage Aer Lingus to expand to Asia, and
- recognise Dublin Airport as part of the state's critical infrastructure, but ...

on the other hand, do absolutely nothing while the DAA limits this growth. Don't forget that the DAA has spending plans of up to EUR1b over the next decade, yet there is no provision for a runway extension (they're content to keep the runway length as it is until 2012). The govt is content to say "your airport, you do as you please". It's even more irresponsible, given that - at some stage over the next seven years, there's likely to be an economic slowdown. This makes it all the more important, now, to ensure that there is nothing within our aviation policies which restricts growth. The current runway length is something which, quite clearly, will obstruct growth. It needs to be challenged, head on.