HD to SYD?
 

I really hope I am reading/seeing this wrong but was looking at some AC flights from SYD in January and I see 77W rather the usual 77L, clicking on the 77W it states: The 777-300 ER (77W) aircraft with 458 seats.:eek:

Has anyone seen this or has it been announced else where? I have yet to fly on a 77W but have read the reports here and they are not good. This is my regular AC route and may be the last nail in my SE coffin.

SYD/YYZ

I see the 77W, but not the HD config so you should be fine.

In any case, when they start to refurbish the 777 fleet starting later in 2015 Y will move to 3-4-3.

Thanks yvr76 so this may not be so bad-as mentioned I did click on the 77W link and it did show the HD seat map however it also mentioned routes served and did not include YVR-SYD. To my knowledge this is the first time the 77W has come to SYD for AC.

Cheers

SYD/YYZ

I don't think the 77W HD can make it to SYD, only the 77L

We should be safe, for a while

Although I agree you should be safe from the 77W HD making it to SYD, there was a post from one of the Ben's in another thread that confirmed that the 77W (non-HD) have received a MTOW (Max Take Off Weight) upgrade, that will allow them to fly routes originally targeted for the 77L only.

The older 77Ws could have made YVR-SYD albeit with a payload restriction and they were used on the route when it first came in. Now that they've had the upgrade to their MTOW, they no longer would be restricted.

Are you sure? IIRC the MTOW increase was only about 5,000 lbs. That would not be enough to eliminate payload restrictions. 5,000 lbs. probably equates to 25-30 passengers.

I do know that the increased MTOW is going to allow the old 77W to operate YYZ-HKG with very little or no restriction (per other thread) whereas it used to have HUGE restrictions.

As yyz_atc_qq mentioned, we are now able to fly the 77Ws to SYD due to the enhanced MTOW. We don't have plans for the 77W HD to fly to SYD, it will remain the classic 'pod' configuration.

Does this mean AC may slowly phase out 77L (like most other carriers) since 77W can do the jobs most of the time

I think CX/EVA are flying 77W over polar routes (?) from HKG/TPE to JFK etc...

As long as AC33/34 doesn't become 777HD for YVR<->YYZ, I have no complaints

Good Morning Ben,

Just as a matter of curiosity, what does the MTOW increase do to the required runway length?

We've noticed that on our fully loaded AC1 flights departing YYZ it always needs 33R.

Are there going to be any Canadian locations where you could use the 77W at enhanced MTOW but are precluded by runway limitations either by length or by weather making the only suitable runway unavailable.

What do you mean by "restriction"?
CX operates 775K MTOW 77Ws on YYZHKG every day. The "restriction" they faced with them is the fact no cargo is getting on the flight when PAX load is full. PAX, Luggage, Fuel That's it. AC will face the same "restriction". However, unlike AC, CX has Cargo operations into YYZ (possibly B748-F?)
"HUGE" seems a little dramatic

I don't think it changes much, but I admit I don't know as this is not my area of expertise. I do know that the runway selection is often a matter of winds, not payload.

Well considering the B77L can operate with no restrictions to payload, the B77W used to be restricted both with passengers (to the B77L load) as well as cargo.

Considering that the B77L has a capacity of 270, and the non-HD B77W has a capacity of 349, a 69 passenger restriction (19.7%) plus cargo restriction is HUGE is my book.

The CX B77W that operates YYZ-HKG-YYZ has a passenger capacity of 340 (unless they sub an aircraft with F, and then it's down to 275). Either way it's less than the non-HD AC B77W.

Part of the runway thing is operators, and the GTAA. This is a HUGE source of frustration for me. In YYZ (and I can only speak for YYZ) the preferred runways for operation are the east/west ones. In an ideal staffing situation it would be Land/Depart 05, Land 06R, Depart 06L or the opposite end Land/Depart 23, Land 24L, Depart 24R. This configuration (barring construction or other runway closures) will continue until the crosswind component on the runway is 25 knots with no contamination (rain/snow) or 15 knots if the runway is contaminated. As soon as a 15/33 operation is started the runway capacity drops SIGNIFICANTLY.

The wind can be 330 at 24 knots, on a dry runway, and they won't go to the 33s because operators (and YES AC is one of the culprits here) don't want the restrictions.

Now going back to the runway choice comment/question... I don't know where I can find a runway performance calculator online for B77L/B77W but I do have my performance calculator for a Cessna 172.

If I was going to depart runway 05/23 with the winds at 90 degrees to the runway (330/24), I would end up with a tailwind component (rarely good) of 4.17 knots and a crosswind component of 23.64 knots. For every 2 knots of tailwind, I need to increase my takeoff distances by 10%. For safety all calculations are rounded towards the safer choice, so we're talking a 25% increase in takeoff distance. If taking off directly into the wind as specified above, the wind would be all headwind and no crosswind. For every 9 knots of headwind the distances decrease by 10% so I'd have a +20% decrease in runway requirements.

Could they take off 05/23 maybe... is it worth the added risk? IMHO NEVER. And I get frustrated seeing them use the east/west complex when the wind is clearly favouring 15/33 but because it's less than 25 knots they would rather have the increased capacity.

This is one reason I choose to stay where I am working satellite airports rather than try and transfer to YYZ arrivals/departures.

Exactly, if 5,000lbs is the number it isn't enough. When AC started nonstop YVRSYD with the 77W they load restricted it by 80 seats IIRC.

And 5,000 would be even fewer than 25 pax. Standard Transport Canada weights 165lbs summer/171 winter for females, and 200/206 for men. Plus all that carry-on and checked baggage weight .. I'd say maybe 20 extra pax.

And once all 77Ws get reconfigured up to 400 seats - what then? Back to 300 seat 77Ls?