easyJet to Tenerife
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DUNGEON
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TFS ON THE -200
I think in the dim and distant past Orion/BY used to do
MAN-TFS n the old scud.. I rememeber that shower of s££t Leisure doing it as well - used MAN full length runway but we did it....
MAN-TFS n the old scud.. I rememeber that shower of s££t Leisure doing it as well - used MAN full length runway but we did it....
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZY 737-700s are 60,300kg MTOW aren't they? Compared to say Astraeus 70,000kg....
A fully loaded 73G will have a ZFW of about 52,000kg - so that only leaves just over 8,000kg fuel at t/o. I don't think that's enough for LGW-TFS in a 73G?
Am I way out on the figures here or is it really as tight as it looks?
A fully loaded 73G will have a ZFW of about 52,000kg - so that only leaves just over 8,000kg fuel at t/o. I don't think that's enough for LGW-TFS in a 73G?
Am I way out on the figures here or is it really as tight as it looks?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZY 737-700s are 60,300kg MTOW aren't they?
321's burn around 12/13T to canaries from NCL.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-EZJT (for example) has an MTOW of 60,328kg (according to the G-INFO database at caa.co.uk).
So if trip fuel to the Canaries from LON on a 73G is, let's say, 9,000kg then the block fuel has to be at least 11,000kg, maybe 12,000kg, which makes the MZFW for the trip about 49,000kg.
That sounds to me like they will have to do without at least 20 passengers or so compared with a full load.... any 73G drivers care to confirm my figures aren't way out here?
So if trip fuel to the Canaries from LON on a 73G is, let's say, 9,000kg then the block fuel has to be at least 11,000kg, maybe 12,000kg, which makes the MZFW for the trip about 49,000kg.
That sounds to me like they will have to do without at least 20 passengers or so compared with a full load.... any 73G drivers care to confirm my figures aren't way out here?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: LUTON, UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking a bit deeper at G-INFO, some of the 737-73Vs such as GEZJM have a MTOW of 62595, and others such as GEZKD have a MTOW of 64863. Using the figures given by Loc Green, both of these heavier weight aeroplanes should provide for his unhappy 20 passengers.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, on closer inspection of the database the fleet of 30 73Gs in service have different MTOWs:
11 are 60,328kg MTOW
11 are 62,595kg MTOW
8 are 64,863kg MTOW
I wonder why EZY decided to have differing MTOWs on their production aircraft? Perhaps it was with potential routes to the Canaries in mind after all?
Or Scotland to AGP / FAO, those routes might stretch the 60.3t birds a bit (if they chose to introduce them)...
Whilst we are on the topic does anyone know what the advantages of having an aircraft delivered with a lower MTOW are? If Astraeus can have 73Gs with a 70t MTOW then presumably so can EZY...
Is it to do with enroute handling and airport landing / parking fees?
11 are 60,328kg MTOW
11 are 62,595kg MTOW
8 are 64,863kg MTOW
I wonder why EZY decided to have differing MTOWs on their production aircraft? Perhaps it was with potential routes to the Canaries in mind after all?
Or Scotland to AGP / FAO, those routes might stretch the 60.3t birds a bit (if they chose to introduce them)...
Whilst we are on the topic does anyone know what the advantages of having an aircraft delivered with a lower MTOW are? If Astraeus can have 73Gs with a 70t MTOW then presumably so can EZY...
Is it to do with enroute handling and airport landing / parking fees?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be well off the mark here, so don’t shoot me down in flames.
EasyJets B737NG may all be the 70t MTOW version.
Many airlines register their aircraft at lower MTOW, economic reasons.
If an airline has no plans to use the aircraft at high weights it will save them money.
I believe that you pay for airport Landing, Take-off fees at what your aircraft is registered at, in its C of A and not by its actual weight.
I have know at least one well know airline to register some aircraft like this.
EasyJets B737NG may all be the 70t MTOW version.
Many airlines register their aircraft at lower MTOW, economic reasons.
If an airline has no plans to use the aircraft at high weights it will save them money.
I believe that you pay for airport Landing, Take-off fees at what your aircraft is registered at, in its C of A and not by its actual weight.
I have know at least one well know airline to register some aircraft like this.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're quite right Mr @ Spotty M
EastJet could if they wished, with little notice, recertify their -700s to a structural MTOW close to 70 tonnes. I can't see it happening though and with 20K engines they'd still be limited on the day on most occasions to a figure well below that value. The balance of yield/flight time would I imagine preclude them from considering this route.
FBN
EastJet could if they wished, with little notice, recertify their -700s to a structural MTOW close to 70 tonnes. I can't see it happening though and with 20K engines they'd still be limited on the day on most occasions to a figure well below that value. The balance of yield/flight time would I imagine preclude them from considering this route.
FBN
Moderator
Join Date: May 1998
Location: .
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked for Go, and am also presently happily employed at Astraeus, wherein I have regularly operated from London to TFS, using just about every variant of B737-300/700 and combination of engine-power & nominated take-off weights.
In the short period which Go operated STN-TFS-STN, I flew that route using B737-300’s, that typically had reduced nominated MTOW's and with engines that had been derated to 20K thrust and yes, when full (148 pax), it could be a challenge to get back to STN - though usually involving no more than a sharp pencil with the performance calculation and optimum flap[1] / improved climb.
That said, the low cost model - as some have already pointed out above - works best on flights that are short, e.g. averaging about 1:43 ( from my memory of Go’s routes ).
It's all to do with a balancing act of aircraft lease costs, sector fuel burn, aircraft maintenance accruals, crew utilisation, airport & route costs, pax demand, versus what you can realistically expect to charge the passengers for the seat on that sector – and on longer sectors the LoCo model tends to fall apart.
Localiser Green – you are indeed a bit out on the figures, i.e. with a full passenger load ( 148 pax @ charter weights ), averaged against a/c type and assuming no runway / climb performance restrictions, an Astraeus:
737-300 can lift 15.5T of fuel ( tank capacity is 16.1T )
737-700 can lift 18.8T of fuel.( tank capacity is 20.9T )
Incidentally, when operating our weekly B737-700 schedule between LGW-Malabo ( Equatorial Guinea ) the flight time is in the region of 7+ hours – albeit that the aircraft is not full of passengers but is, typically, full to the brim with fuel.
bacardi walla – the B747 might well indeed have more total power than a B737 but the latter has a considerably higher power-to-weight ratio – indeed this is true of almost any modern twin-jet aircraft.
The reasoning is that, if you have an engine failure on a 747-400 you’ve lost 25% of your available power, but wherein the regulations require that your a/c still achieves a certain level of performance even with an engine failed ( e.g. the screen height, etc ).
With an engine failure in a twin-jet, you've lost 50% of your available power (
) and yet your aircraft must still comply with the performance regulations ( i.e. those applicable to aircraft that have more than two engines ); or putting it another way, with the loss of an engine on a twin-jet you can expect your aircraft to achieve all of the performance limits set down for an aircraft with more than two engines.
Of course / on the flipside, when all the engines on a twin-jet are working, one then has bags and bags of excess thrust, which equates to bags and bags of performance in-hand, and which is part of what makes twin-jets such a pleasure to fly, e.g. outrageous climb rates are possible even at high weights.
In the short period which Go operated STN-TFS-STN, I flew that route using B737-300’s, that typically had reduced nominated MTOW's and with engines that had been derated to 20K thrust and yes, when full (148 pax), it could be a challenge to get back to STN - though usually involving no more than a sharp pencil with the performance calculation and optimum flap[1] / improved climb.
That said, the low cost model - as some have already pointed out above - works best on flights that are short, e.g. averaging about 1:43 ( from my memory of Go’s routes ).
It's all to do with a balancing act of aircraft lease costs, sector fuel burn, aircraft maintenance accruals, crew utilisation, airport & route costs, pax demand, versus what you can realistically expect to charge the passengers for the seat on that sector – and on longer sectors the LoCo model tends to fall apart.
Localiser Green – you are indeed a bit out on the figures, i.e. with a full passenger load ( 148 pax @ charter weights ), averaged against a/c type and assuming no runway / climb performance restrictions, an Astraeus:
737-300 can lift 15.5T of fuel ( tank capacity is 16.1T )
737-700 can lift 18.8T of fuel.( tank capacity is 20.9T )
Incidentally, when operating our weekly B737-700 schedule between LGW-Malabo ( Equatorial Guinea ) the flight time is in the region of 7+ hours – albeit that the aircraft is not full of passengers but is, typically, full to the brim with fuel.
bacardi walla – the B747 might well indeed have more total power than a B737 but the latter has a considerably higher power-to-weight ratio – indeed this is true of almost any modern twin-jet aircraft.
The reasoning is that, if you have an engine failure on a 747-400 you’ve lost 25% of your available power, but wherein the regulations require that your a/c still achieves a certain level of performance even with an engine failed ( e.g. the screen height, etc ).
With an engine failure in a twin-jet, you've lost 50% of your available power (
) and yet your aircraft must still comply with the performance regulations ( i.e. those applicable to aircraft that have more than two engines ); or putting it another way, with the loss of an engine on a twin-jet you can expect your aircraft to achieve all of the performance limits set down for an aircraft with more than two engines.Of course / on the flipside, when all the engines on a twin-jet are working, one then has bags and bags of excess thrust, which equates to bags and bags of performance in-hand, and which is part of what makes twin-jets such a pleasure to fly, e.g. outrageous climb rates are possible even at high weights.
!
Still, 7 hours on a B737...
Now that's some task for a 737 (entirely across ocean too).
