Gents,
Comparing a 345 to a 300ulr is like comparing a 200LR to a 346.

However For your info.

10th of April

300-ULR DXB-JFK flt time 13.30 / trip 109.1 / zfw 225t (max 237t) Pax 264

200-LR GRU-DXB flt time 13.45 / trip 101.8 / zfw 202.6 (Max 209) Pax 231

345 DXB-SYD flt time 13.16 / trip 112.5 / zfw 219 (Max 229) Pax 196

(Cargo unknown!)

So the 300ULR carries more pax for less burn than a 345 and 200LR flies longer for less burn. I'm sure the 345 is a good airplane (4 eng's and all that) but the B777 makes more fuel (money) sense!

I think it's argreed by all that Ek push the limit's on FTL's and ULR layover times.

Now I must get out more!

Ta

Billy

A345 versus 772LR DXBLAX the facts
 

See below. 772LR is 20mins faster, burns 17 tons less and can carry MZFW (with some margin for ADFU) while 345 takes a 9t payload hit. The problem is that the empty 345 is 20tons heavier than the 772LR and on top of that is betrayed by those antiquated 1967 RR RB211 (sorry marketing now calls them 'Trent') three spoolers.


A345

TRIP KLAX 138615 1547
CONT 20MINS 2929 0020
ALTN KLAS 6366 0044
FINL 3405 0030
T/O FUEL 151315
TAXI 912 0019
MIN FUEL 152.3 17:21
EZFW 220685 MZFW 229000 AZFW
ETOW 372000 MTOW 372000 RTOW
ELWT 233385 MLWT 243000 RLWT

772LR

TRIP KLAX 121517 1529
CONT CONTMAX 2600 0020
ALTN KLAS 5622
FINL 2839 0030
T/O FUEL 132578
TAXI 506 0016
MIN FUEL 133.1 17:03

EZFW 209106 MZFW 209106 AZFW
ETOW 341684 MTOW 343369 ATOW
ELWT 220167 MLWT 223167 ALWT

Ed man, chill out

... interestin' to me that this prune post is time coded 02:19 but the EK bulletin post is coded 3:39 pm. This 'd indicate thet the pprune poster... well, let's see how the dots connect... :eek:

Polar Flight
 

It seems to me that SFO or LAX is a polar flight. Are there no restrictions for us due to cosmic radiation? :eek:

Seems to me that the heart of the problem is this somewhat unique situation found in the Emirates where the airline owner is also the Regulator . . . and the maintenance organization and the airport handlers. The analogy of the fox guarding the hen house comes to mind. Sure, in many countries airlines have working relationships that are a little too close for comfort with the Regulator (airline mousepad at the Inspector's computer, stuff like that . . . and that is just the beginning), however, there is a degree of separation simply lacking in the UAE.

The future will be interesting.

Puff, make that 18 to 20 in the hotel, once the immigration folks start pulling all the habibis aside for interview:E

Flying croc, do you really believe EK would factor "cosmic radiation" in their plans?
They probably don't even know what that means. Some of them would think that it is a name of a new Indian dish:E

Look at the copy of the O.M. part A that was given last year.
Chapter 6 section 2.
Assessment of cosmic radiation,Working schedules and Records keeping...
Hope it helps..

Just dipping back to the discussion regarding A345/B772LR ZFW, etc, payload is surely going to be a relationship between DOW and ZFW, and then whether the payload available can be lifted of the available runway and remain under MTOW? Just considering ZFW alone is nugatory.

I see the DOW range on the A345 is 180-187T. The bottom end of that range is greater than the top end of the 300ER range. i,e, the A345 is heavier than the 773ER. At MZFW, the 345 can load about 142T fuel, to MTOW, though the 300ER is only about 112T fuel for MTOW at MZFW.

Clearly not the ideal comparison -no 200LR figures to hand. Anyone got them handy?

There are no restrictions on the 200LR on the Houston route. I have done 2 of these trips and left at max ZFW on all 4 legs with around a 42 degree reduced thrust, packs on.

I know but it does not help
 

Flying polar route gives you a significant more radiation. This is a serious problem, and yes I kon EK does not not care or might not even know about it. I think it is scary and reason to avoid that bid :eek:

I understand that major carriers will limit their crew to one polar route flight a month. Any one can confirm, comment?

just calculated cosmic radiation from OMDB-KLAX = 130μSv each way !!!
If you do just one North US per months = 2.6-2.8 mSv/annum
(6mSv is not to be exceeded).
:\

So Brabazon - why the helpful warning from KP regarding staff travel difficulties out of IAH if no payload restriction:ugh::ugh: Guess you had good wind on your trip - so to speak!!

onglide,

What numbers you used for your calculation (alt, trop, ...), with your results within limits, why Continental limits their crew to one polar flight a month?
Just curious.

Nuuk

http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/epc..._fluginput.php

we need to watch out ...
... one polar trip per month will get you half the annual dose of rays.
But if you get a couple per month, you will exceed.

And whilst EK gave us some 'lovely' anti-DVT socks and blue pyjamas (so far only used for a pyjama party a couple of years back) I doubt we'll get lead-lined underpants for polar flying!!!!!!

White Knight,

My understanding of the Payload limit message for IAH, was that although the pax loads may look light on the trip predictor that the cargo would push the flight to be payload limited.
So don't plan your travel though IAH if you see 50 spare seats because you probably won't get on. Maxed out on zfw.

I Probably miss read it though.

It does seem as though Emirates is running a freighter operation on this route. Only adding passengers when there is not enough cargo to get up to max ZFW.