V Australia to fly to South Africa, Thailand
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From watoday.com.au today:
"Virgin has previously talked of flying to Hong Kong and Tokyo but Mr Godfrey said it was more likely V Australia would increase flights between Melbourne and South Africa (via Perth) and across the Pacific before expanding its international network further."
Notice the via Perth
link: Virgin Blue cautious on recovery
"Virgin has previously talked of flying to Hong Kong and Tokyo but Mr Godfrey said it was more likely V Australia would increase flights between Melbourne and South Africa (via Perth) and across the Pacific before expanding its international network further."
Notice the via Perth
link: Virgin Blue cautious on recovery
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
direct vs non stop
Direct means...same flight number regardless of number of stops.EG QF1 to LHR goes via BKK, but is still QF1 'direct' to LHR.
Non stop means no stopping anywhere on route to destination.
Confused? yes, me too, but that is how it is.
Not commenting on what VA may be doing, just on the clarification of direct and non stop.
Non stop means no stopping anywhere on route to destination.
Confused? yes, me too, but that is how it is.
Not commenting on what VA may be doing, just on the clarification of direct and non stop.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banner on the V Australia website quotes "Non-Stop Melbourne to Johannesburg", although it wouldn't be the first time their marketing and commercial teams haven't been communicating with each other...
Capt. Fathom
I woudn't be gloating too much.
When the EDTO fire suppression limits are applied to all aircraft , in the near future, the 744 will be equally stuffed.
Maui
I woudn't be gloating too much.
When the EDTO fire suppression limits are applied to all aircraft , in the near future, the 744 will be equally stuffed.
Maui
Who's gloating?
Merely pointing out the article. I'm sure there is still much negotiation going on in the backgroud.
The article bravely states how much safer B747's are! I know which one I'd rather travel on!
Merely pointing out the article. I'm sure there is still much negotiation going on in the backgroud.
The article bravely states how much safer B747's are! I know which one I'd rather travel on!
Yet another aviation article where the author really has no idea what's going on.......
Yeah at sea level........that has nothing to do with the high level jetstream and the 100kt head winds the 777 is pushing into.
No it has nothing to do with reliability it has to do with redundancy. 4 engines = four sources of electrical power and thrust etc etc. You could lose two engines........highly unlikely and still be ok. If that happened in a 777 then you are swimming.
And hence the regulation over fire suppression......it is about redundancy.
Well that didn't help the United crew who shut one down just past the PNR in the middle of the night over the Pacific!!! They then flew for 192 minutes on one engine!!! 
Why is it in a age where so much information is accessible to so many people a journalist cannot write an accurate article about aviation in a newspaper??
In latitudes near the South Pole, the prevailing winds, often called the "Roaring Forties" because of the latitude and the wind strength, generally come from the west at a minimum of 40 knots (74 kilometres an hour) but can be 100 knots-plus.
The 747 is considered so reliable it faces few restrictions on where it is allowed to fly.
And hence the regulation over fire suppression......it is about redundancy.
In its certification program, Boeing flew the 777-300ER as far as 5½ hours from the nearest airport and it performed flawlessly.
Why is it in a age where so much information is accessible to so many people a journalist cannot write an accurate article about aviation in a newspaper??
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought there was also an issue with their CC's duty limits re: JNB (??) with the airline wanting to push it out further -
- seem to recall reading somewhere a few weeks ago that their union had gone to the commission on the matter.
Any details? - just curious.
AT
- seem to recall reading somewhere a few weeks ago that their union had gone to the commission on the matter.
Any details? - just curious.
AT
The word is the 777 is T/O weight limited due second segment out of Johannesburg
No problem JNB-DXB, but MEL would be a stretch!
Wizofoz
With an average minimum temperature during the hottest time of the year of 14°C, you could expect the temperature to be around 20°C by the Vaus departure time of 8:30pm. A quick look at an RTOW for one of our 777-300ER’s out of JNB reveals a max ATOW of 320.3T for RWY 21R (up hill), 20°C, 1013, 0 Wind, F15, Packs Off or APU to Packs, Alt CG ≥ 31.2% and TO Bump. The max structural TOW for our ER’s is 351.53T so there is still quite a weight penalty (31.23T) to be suffered at this time of the day. If you compare this to one of our 400’s with the same conditions the weight penalty is about 22T’s.
Looking at the Vaus web site they have scheduled the MEL → JNB sector in 16 hours which is doable for the -300ER and JNB → MEL in 13 hours. The distance is 5572.5 nm which looks like they are doing both sectors non-stop.
With an average minimum temperature during the hottest time of the year of 14°C, you could expect the temperature to be around 20°C by the Vaus departure time of 8:30pm. A quick look at an RTOW for one of our 777-300ER’s out of JNB reveals a max ATOW of 320.3T for RWY 21R (up hill), 20°C, 1013, 0 Wind, F15, Packs Off or APU to Packs, Alt CG ≥ 31.2% and TO Bump. The max structural TOW for our ER’s is 351.53T so there is still quite a weight penalty (31.23T) to be suffered at this time of the day. If you compare this to one of our 400’s with the same conditions the weight penalty is about 22T’s.
Looking at the Vaus web site they have scheduled the MEL → JNB sector in 16 hours which is doable for the -300ER and JNB → MEL in 13 hours. The distance is 5572.5 nm which looks like they are doing both sectors non-stop.
Minimum fuel for a 13hr sector is in the region of 120T, so with a MZFW of 237T, they will definatley be payload limited to the tune of 37 Tonnes!!
DOWs are usually around 175, so that leaves them with the the princely sum of around 25T payload.
Our 15 hr SFO flights in a 300ER are restricted to about 220T ZFW
Sorry, something does not compute.
DOWs are usually around 175, so that leaves them with the the princely sum of around 25T payload.
Our 15 hr SFO flights in a 300ER are restricted to about 220T ZFW
Sorry, something does not compute.
Wizofoz
We (CX) operate the ER,s to JNB in the winter with similar flight times of 13 hours return. We do it nonstop but I will concede that the payload is very limited. It isn’t the ideal aircraft for the sector. By far the best aircraft we operated there was the A340-600 but they are now history.
Just for interest we operate the ER’s nonstop to JFK from HKG with a similar sector length to you DXB to SFO. These flights too are limited to a ZFW of about 220T because they are at MTOW. That unfortunately is the nature of ULH ops though.
So do I think Vaus can operate the -300ER’s nonstop to and from JNB from MEL? Yes. Are they making money? Questionable, especially with the sector time to JNB.
We (CX) operate the ER,s to JNB in the winter with similar flight times of 13 hours return. We do it nonstop but I will concede that the payload is very limited. It isn’t the ideal aircraft for the sector. By far the best aircraft we operated there was the A340-600 but they are now history.
Just for interest we operate the ER’s nonstop to JFK from HKG with a similar sector length to you DXB to SFO. These flights too are limited to a ZFW of about 220T because they are at MTOW. That unfortunately is the nature of ULH ops though.
So do I think Vaus can operate the -300ER’s nonstop to and from JNB from MEL? Yes. Are they making money? Questionable, especially with the sector time to JNB.
DirectAnywhere
As Capt Fathom has said, that is Statute Miles not Nautical Miles. Unfortunately that is a very common mistake when one uses an American aviation web site.
As Capt Fathom has said, that is Statute Miles not Nautical Miles. Unfortunately that is a very common mistake when one uses an American aviation web site.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stralya
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great Circle Mapper, quite correctly shows the distance from Melbourne to Johannesburg to be 5582NM. The EDTO rules applied by VOZ, hasthe aircraft remaining within 1340NM of a useable airport. Coasting out over Geraldton, you can route straight for Mauritius, followed by a slight dog-leg towards destination. Not as inefficient as it seems, as you are staying away from the roaring forties more often than not. Of greater consequense is that the return flight from JNB-MEL doesn't get to take advantage of favourable tailwinds to the extent one would desire. Some payload restriction out of JNB for ultra long haul is a fact of life, regardless of type. The economics of the 300ER is still VERY hard to beat!
At a guess I would say this would be close to what they are doing.
As you can see it is a long way off the great circle and straight into the headwinds. Might see some record low ground speeds over the winter!!
Great Circle Mapper
As you can see it is a long way off the great circle and straight into the headwinds. Might see some record low ground speeds over the winter!!
Great Circle Mapper
Last edited by neville_nobody; 27th Mar 2010 at 11:11.