Southern Air 77F's
 

I am currently sat in HKG and I received a message earlier that due in later is N774SA in DHL colours instead of Thai colours. Have both triples ended the contract with Thai? Just curious..

Saw it on the ramp in HKG last night!

Edit:
I cannot recall the tail number, but it did have the yellow DHL tail and "Southern Air" in black down the side.

Defo a SOO B777F working for DHL, if not 2

Southern B777 in Lej with DHL tail paintings on 12th on the DHL apron.

Southern indeed. It's operating CVG-BAH-HKG-CVG, alternating with a Polar 744F. Rumours has it the 777F offers double the payload, burning 40% less fuel, on the 15+ hour HKG-CVG sector.

What are the loads the 777 has carried? I find it hard to believe it's carrying 90 Tonnes...

.... kinda even harder to believe there is freight demand from Hong Kong to Cincinnati. And from Cinncinnati to Bahrain? Who'd a thunk it?

K

CVG is the DHL hub in the US. Virtually all international traffic goes through the sort there. HKG is obviously a good hub for SE Asia; maybe BAH is cheaper than DXB for the Middle East...

B777F ---

DOW 142000 KGS( approx. varies subject config/crew/etc. )
MZFW 248115 KGS
MTOW 347451 KGS
MLW 260815 KGS

Burn off is in the neighbourhood of 8500 kgs / hr ...

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

Yes, I see all those raw numbers, but it still doesn't give us the REAL payload on a REAL 15+ hour flight with REAL reserves...

re:
 

payload on 14h20 flight should be 84-86 tons, and 11000ft runway ( including safety distance )
ken

Someone else has already provided you with the numbers you were looking for, trust that settles any doubts you had on the payload/range capability of the aircraft.

As for the above, it sounds as if the information you have does not reflect the actual world. Some of DHL's international traffic does indeed go through CVG, but instead of being "virtually all" it's rather "a pretty small part". As for choosing BAH over DXB it could of course have to do with cost. It could also be because BAH is where DHL have their Middle East freight ce ntre, just like HKG is where they have their main Asian ditto.

This is where a sanity check would have been appropriate.

In context, I was referring to international traffic to and from the US. I don't know if you just didn't [want to] understand the context, or if you know there are other international DHL hubs in the US...

Intruder I did not intentionally misunderstand you. As for other intl. DHL hubs in the US, I suppose MIA and JFK would also qualify.

KBPsen I'll see if I can have one my contacts dig up real-life numbers for comparison.

CVG-BAH-HKG-CVG (generally) has been a basic Polar DHL run for a few years now. Strong rumor has it that most all Polar B-744’s will also soon be painted in DHL’s colors.

Interesting on how the DHL/Polar side of AAWW has not hired in many years, yet the expanding Southern Air camel’s nose now appears to be under their tent.

After all these claims, I find it interesting that as of last night (according to one of the Southern 777 Capts in CVG) Southern had not yet flown the direct CVG-BAH segment. They had just completed their trans-Atlantic qual CVG-LEJ, and were anticipating the start of the CVG-BAH direct flight.

Also, his HKG-CVG load was 117,000 lb, or 53 Tonnes, which is marginally higher than the typical 744 load of 45-47 T...

Intruder

SOO had to operate back and forth over the pond for ETOPS qualification. I'm still waiting to be fed allowed payload on a typical HKG-CVG flight, will get back to you on that. It is, however, interesting to note it loaded 53 tons on your mates flight, which is "marginally better" to order of around 10 tons ......



burning 40% less fuel ...

I haven't argued the fuel burn at all. However, a 13% load increase is a LOT less than the "double" claimed earlier.

I'm not concerned with book figures or "could have" figures. I'm concerned with reality of the operation...

And, indeed, ETOPS qualification is a REAL concern. While the costs of the qualification will be recovered in the long run, they are significant at the start.

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.

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!

"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

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!

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...

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.

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 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.

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.

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? :confused:

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.

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?

Last Number I heard was MTOW 766,000 lbs