fuel contingency on longest flight?
Nov 21, 2016, 6:12 pm
#16
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: 1 thousand
Posts: 2,112
Several "reasons." It makes them feel like they are contributing positively to global society. It gives their airport security personnel something to do. If something does happen on the subsequent flight segment they can claim not their fault. They probably can charge an exorbitant amount for dear leader's pockets. Probably a few other things...
Nov 21, 2016, 8:59 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 27,042
Actually since that accident it is. They may not give full emergency, get everyone out of the way clearance. However since AV52 they'll get the plane in without delay. No going into holding, no doing 360's for other aircraft, etc. Basically ATC isn't going to delay getting the plane on the ground.
Nov 22, 2016, 5:36 am
#18
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 863
Actually since that accident it is. They may not give full emergency, get everyone out of the way clearance. However since AV52 they'll get the plane in without delay. No going into holding, no doing 360's for other aircraft, etc. Basically ATC isn't going to delay getting the plane on the ground.
The emergency fuel call is what gets you priority and allows the PIC to dictate his plan for getting the aircraft on the ground if he does not like the priority he is receiving. "DeltaXXXX is emergency fuel proceeding direct to ASALT for the RNAV 13 approach. We will land on 13R."
Nov 22, 2016, 7:27 am
#19
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mostly living in the basement
Programs: Newly minted free agent; MR LT(!)TE, HH SE, BA SECM, DL MM, UA PS, 2V Fanboi, CBP GE
Posts: 5,108
One could argue that US airports should be reconfigured for I-I transit, but this type of passenger accounts for a tiny fraction of overall US travel volume. ie: Not worth it.
Nov 22, 2016, 8:49 am
#20
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: 1 thousand
Posts: 2,112
It's not really the same thing. In one example a plane makes a technical stop with nobody getting on or off. In the other, a plane arrives at an airport with a mix of terminating and connecting (domestic and international) passengers, where the airport infrastructure has no way to physically separate the different categories. Thus, everyone has to be treated the same way.
One could argue that US airports should be reconfigured for I-I transit, but this type of passenger accounts for a tiny fraction of overall US travel volume. ie: Not worth it.
One could argue that US airports should be reconfigured for I-I transit, but this type of passenger accounts for a tiny fraction of overall US travel volume. ie: Not worth it.
Nov 22, 2016, 9:57 am
#21
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ATL
Posts: 637
The 777-200LR has some serious legs. With 291 passengers, normal weights for passengers and baggage, the no-wind range under "typical mission rules" is 8,900 nautical miles (10,240 statute miles). This is for the basic airplane, without additional cargo hold fuel tanks.
With a full tank of gas, and at maximum takeoff weight (about 60,000 lbs of cargo in addition to 291 passengers), the range is about 8,200nm (9,430sm).
ATL to JNB is 7,333nm (8,439sm). Westbound is more of a concern, because the JNB airport is at 5,558 ft elevation (more than Denver). The high elevation will limit the takeoff performance of the airplane. Max takeoff weight from a 6,000 ft MSL elevation field is about 705,000lbs (standard day temperatures), about 60,000 lbs less than the max takeoff weight at sea level, so with a full tank of gas, the 77L can still carry 291 passengers and travel for 8,900nm.
I do not think fuel capacity would be a concern. I doubt fuel capacity or additional cargo would be a concern Southeast bound, but cargo capacity could be a concern Northwest bound if winds were a factor.
With a full tank of gas, and at maximum takeoff weight (about 60,000 lbs of cargo in addition to 291 passengers), the range is about 8,200nm (9,430sm).
ATL to JNB is 7,333nm (8,439sm). Westbound is more of a concern, because the JNB airport is at 5,558 ft elevation (more than Denver). The high elevation will limit the takeoff performance of the airplane. Max takeoff weight from a 6,000 ft MSL elevation field is about 705,000lbs (standard day temperatures), about 60,000 lbs less than the max takeoff weight at sea level, so with a full tank of gas, the 77L can still carry 291 passengers and travel for 8,900nm.
I do not think fuel capacity would be a concern. I doubt fuel capacity or additional cargo would be a concern Southeast bound, but cargo capacity could be a concern Northwest bound if winds were a factor.