Southern Air 77F's

[CAO]

SMTmember,

I operated HKG to CVG on 09Aug11, one of Atlas' B744F aircraft...

Here are the real numbers...

WEIGHT ACTUAL
BOW 160768
SWA 000000
PYLD 047500
ZFW 208268
TOGW 366451
LDGW 218370

That said, the 15hr11min flight had a burn of 148,081 kgs of fuel, and we blocked out with a fuel load of 159,500 kgs.

All that is fine for what it is...but it does leave 30T of weight (fuel and additional cargo) that we COULD have carried. Our B744Fs have a MTOGW of 396,893 kgs, and therefore the 30T that we could have carried in fuel and more cargo.

Not having the real numbers for a B777F makes the comparison virtually impossible...but 40% seems to be too good to be true.

[Intruder]

That's the danger in relying on "COULD have" figures...

You loaded max fuel available at that density and landed with near minimum for the conditions. If you loaded more freight you would have had a higher fuel burn, so you could NOT have loaded anything more in either fuel OR freight!

[ElectricWhale]

"You loaded max fuel available at that density and landed with near minimum for the conditions. If you loaded more freight you would have had a higher fuel burn, so you could NOT have loaded anything more in either fuel OR freight!"


Intruder,

So let me get this straight ... The maximum that the 744 can operate is always 30 tonnes below the MGTOW? I think you may be mistaken.

Nowhere did it say that max fuel was loaded. None of the figures quoted above are maximum weights except for the MGTOW of 396,893. They were actual weights for that flight.

Certainly the burn will be somewhat higher with additional payload, but the point is that that flight could have carried 30t more fuel and freight - no matter how that combination would have been divided up it is still unused capacity.

EW

[Intruder]

You didn't read the full post, or you don't know the 744...

The 159T of block fuel is the most that airplane can take in HKG. While you might ASSume the max fuel available is 161 or so, that is only at standard density, NOT in the hot tropical summer...

Also, there is MINIMUM landing fuel to consider, which varies with destination, weather, alternate, reserve requirements, and a bunch of other factors. You cannot load more freight, just to run out of fuel!

The customer obviously chose to trade range for payload. You should understand that concept...

I will repeat: I do not rely on book figures or "could have" figures, but REAL figures!

[CAO]

Good catch, Intruder. You are absolutely right...I've been on vacation after that trip finished. And anyway, it has been too many days since then. Seems ages ago now...

[gtf]

Forget about payload

Payload isn't that important for DHL (or FedEx, TNT, etc...). Volume is what matters. With lots of envelopes and small parcels, max volume comes before max payload.

[Intruder]

You are correct for "standard" routes, or trips where the fuel load is such that there is no effective payload limit. However, the 744 reaches the max payload well before the main deck is full on these max-fuel trips.

FedEx and UPS and DHL are apparently trying to one-up each other with these long-range nonstop routes. FedEx even has a video published that compares their 777 to a UPS 744 on the PVG-MEM/SDF run:

The Competitive Advantage of a 777 - YouTube

[742]

The issue here is not so much the airplanes as the market that they were designed too. The 744F is setup to maximize Pacific payloads via an ANC tech stop, which has been the traditional approach.

CAO's HKG-CVG example would look very different if the 744F in question had it's horizontal stab tanks activated, which would increase both the fuel load and payload. And I suspect that if these non-stop Asia to North America freight flights become significant we will start to see 744Fs so configured. Or perhaps 744BCFs, since their lower MZFW and lack of a nose door better fit the market.

[CAO]

Or use the B747-8F...after we start getting them later this year.

[742]

Or use the B747-8F...after we start getting them later this year.

The performance manual should be out soon, which will make interesting reading. Well, for a few people. But at this point we know that the -8F carries less fuel than the -8i, so it appears to me that the -8F (like the -400F) is optimized for payload rather than range. But I might be wrong, in which case my wife will no doubt add this to the list.

[gtf]

FedEx even has a video published that compares their 777 to a UPS 744 on the PVG-MEM/SDF run

Saw that video, also saw the big deal FedEx made when they started flying MEM-DXB non-stop. In the end, UPS still picks up until end of business day in Asia and DHL still gets packages delivered earlier in the Gulf.

More non-stops is great for FedEx's pocketbook, not a big deal for sales. Customers only care when they need parts yesterday and it's between 1800 and 2000 in Shenzhen. Any other time and UPS does early delivery to more of the US. So who's really ahead?

[3pointlanding]

The 777 has been a much better performing aircraft than FDX imagined when they bought it. It can carry a max payload with range (which the 744 or 748 cannot) and most imprtantly, it can be done at a lower fuel burn, much lower. The jumbo, of which I have many years of loving memory, is a different animal with a different mission. FDX looked at the jumbo and decided the 777 better fit the business model, and they were right.
FDX does nothing that will not maiximize the bottom line.

[TowerDog]

So, with wee bit short of 106 tons payload you still can fly a looong way.

106 tons on the 777..That would be 233,200 lbs?
Just a wee bit short of the 747-200 payload of 240,000+..?

Just curious, never laid hands on a 777, but if the above numbers are close to reality, pretty impressive.

What is the max T/O..734,000 lbs or so?

[slatch]

Last Number I heard was MTOW 766,000 lbs