777 Jnb ?
 

It looks like the 777 isn't doing JNB this winter, is this right?

Winter here means summer down there!!

Too hot for the ER to lift any decent payload without having to go via BKK.

It's ok up to about 22c then it gets interesting........

temp bases being offered for 744, so probably answers your question:ok:

Sorry, just can't help but asking, above 22C makes life "interesting" for something like a T7ER??? :confused:

Twins have lots of extra performance compared to quads, until one of the engines stops. :eek:

Hence at hot/high airports take off weight may have to be limited to leave sufficient performance on one engine.

Basically that means payload (and subload passengers) left behind, or less fuel carried and a tech stop (BKK) on the way home.

Jo's is 5500 feet above mean sea level, and with (southern hemisphere) summer temperatures it can become quite limiting for twin operations. From what I hear the 340-300 wasn't much better!

On the other hand 77W is replacing 744 on the second daily LAX flight for the winter.

Great, more LAX hotel.:rolleyes:

hopefully 777 starts something Europe as the planes roll in next year.

jonathon68

Thanks for that, 5500 amsl will certainly do it, was unaware JNB sat that high.

Cheers,

JW

Apparently 6 fewer 777s as the company is leasing them back to someone? I think I read that correctly on the news update about HAECO? Someone please tell me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. It was a sale and leaseback deal.:ok:

swire did get their HAECO shares below market value though.... but cx needed the cash. :}

my suggestion
Hong kong - JNB- CAPETOWN - stop in for some with my brewskis with my boets - AND THEN ON TO HKG ! then we can lift as much as we want to !
LOL , get me that job in planning :ok:

Line Ops and Airline Planning have crunched the numbers doing exactly that, it didn't make enough money to make it worthwhile I'm told.

"enough money" being the all-too common key point. Cathay don't seem to start any new route until they can make bucket loads.

Quote:
Jo's is 5500 feet above mean sea level, and with (southern hemisphere) summer temperatures it can become quite limiting for twin operations.
From what I hear the 340-300 wasn't much better!

Jon68, the 340-300 aircraft with hairdryers were so poor that during the J'burg summer B744 aircraft had to be used. The CFM56 things were frequently limited on EGT margin and hitting 950 - 960'C during t/off. Such that MC had all these engines on watch to keep the worst aircraft off this route until a core wash could be done to attempt to regain some margin. A battle never lost he said!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Airbus bashing again
 

The 340 did well on the JHB route operating in the hottest months. True Maintenance procedures suggested by CFMI were in place to assist the operation but that is what maintenance should be able to do

Cooda, shooda, wooda...kept the A340-600's to operate JNB all year round, with based Jaapies to operate them (who'll fly for food).

HKJunkie

Are you suggesting the A340 was operated all year round to JNB? I’ve been here a while now and on the bus the whole time and don’t recall it doing that.

404titan, your memory does not fail you.
The route was initially flown only by the -400 from about 1991.
Later in the 90's, the scarebus was put on during the 'cool' season.
The periods HK junkie may be refering to are possibly the month before or just after the changover. Indeed these months could be hot, and departures were often 'interesting'.
The extrapolation of quickly rising temperatures to guestimate RTOW coupled with the anticipated changes in wind for sched dep time, were things you didnt want to get wrong, as the TO was often at a realistic max weight.
Many crew often mused that the a/c frequently seemed above MTOW.
If one adds in the unknown factor of 200 big meat eating South Africans who's combined weight was an unknown, but a negative factor, it often combined to give an individual for whom it was his first Joberg departure, the widest eyes at V1, and the tighest sheepskin grabbing sphincter at Vr, only relieved, but incredulous at accel alt, that the aircraft didn't accelerate on profile.
Occasionaly a level accel had to be flown, and on one occasion(maybe 250 big meat eaters), I heard a 1-200'/min descent was needed for to accel past first flap retraction speed.
But of course the aircraft would still get airborne with an eng fail just after V1, ......wouldn't it??:sad:

How do V Oz then expect to fly direct to Melbourne which is actually further?