Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

OGG --> ORD 777 takeoff from 7000ft runway

OGG --> ORD 777 takeoff from 7000ft runway

Old Sep 29, 15, 10:05 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: ORD
Posts: 5
OGG --> ORD 777 takeoff from 7000ft runway

Hi folks,

I will be flying UA348 OGG to ORD (772) nonstop in couple weeks.

Did a little research, it seems the 7000ft length is a bit tight for an ideal takeoff of a fully loaded 777-200. However UA does fly this nonstop not daily but seasonal from time to time, and there are takeoff videos posted on youtube.

Initially the route was ORD->OGG->KOA->ORD years back. Due to the runway length thus weight limitation at OGG, the bird cannot leave OGG with full fuel, therefore it has to hop on KOA to get additional fuel. But now no stop needs to be made at KOA, which means they must have figured out some other trade off? Or the birds are equipped with more powerful engines? Or they are subject to weight restriction?Searched here and there, no answers found =(

Anyone has flown this route? Any comment is welcomed. Thanks.
supertrouper is offline  
Old Sep 29, 15, 10:54 pm
  #2  
Moderator, Trip Reports
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 6km East of EPAYE
Programs: UA Silver, AA Platinum, AS & DL GM Marriott TE, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,578
There are some brilliant FTer's who are very educated on aircraft; I am not one of them but I will do my best to get the ball rolling.

Essentially because of the low departure altitude the plane can have a take of weight of around 520,000lbs on a 7,000 foot runway. The 777-222's that fly this route have a MTOW of 545,000lbs - so the answer is: it's all in the altitude.

Sorry this isn't much of an answer. Check out THIS LINK for more.
Madone59 is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 12:03 am
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: ORD
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by Madone59 View Post
There are some brilliant FTer's who are very educated on aircraft; I am not one of them but I will do my best to get the ball rolling.

Essentially because of the low departure altitude the plane can have a take of weight of around 520,000lbs on a 7,000 foot runway. The 777-222's that fly this route have a MTOW of 545,000lbs - so the answer is: it's all in the altitude.

Sorry this isn't much of an answer. Check out THIS LINK for more.
Thanks Madone59, this is very informative, more important, I know where to look for answers next time =)
supertrouper is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 3:44 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midwest USA
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, WN A+/CP, UA SIL, DL Plat, Marriott TIT (LT), Hyatt EXPL, Hilton DIA
Posts: 1,749
The 777 will not be "fully loaded" because the fuel load will be minimal, compared to a normal 8-12 hour flight.
nachosdelux is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 3:53 am
  #5  
TA
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,210
Are you concerned or just curious?
TA is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 5:47 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lahaina, HI & Los Angeles, CA
Programs: UA GS
Posts: 2,314
Originally Posted by nachosdelux View Post
The 777 will not be "fully loaded" because the fuel load will be minimal, compared to a normal 8-12 hour flight.
Re-read OP. Flight is now direct without the KOA connection. Flight duration is 9+ hours.
LAXOGG is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 7:54 am
  #7  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 11,328
Take a look at the 777-200/300 ACAP.

Start at page 47, 777-200 baseline airplane takeoff performance for ISA+15C day (typical Hawaii day). With 7000 ft of runway at sea level, max takeoff weight is about 510k lb.

Then up to page 42, 777-200 baseline airplane payload/range. OGG-ORD is 3600nm, ESAD is about 3350nm. ~3500nm up to the 510k gross line gives about 385k lb OEW+payload. Subtract the ~300k lb OEW and you have 85k lb payload. 85k / 190 lb summer weight is 344 pax + 10t cargo.

Now these are just rough planning numbers. There may have been some limitation or combination of limitations (climb gradient, OEI, equipment, etc) that put further limitations on takeoff weight in the past that they've resolved. Or they've decided to fly with less/zero cargo to avoid the KOA stop.
mduell is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 8:48 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Alexandria, Longboat Key
Programs: Amtrak Select, AA AAdvantage, UA MileagePlus, DL SkyMiles, B6 TrueBlue
Posts: 1,936
I remember the ORD-OGG-KOA-ORD triangle routing. It wasn't until I studied up on the 777 to realise the KOA stop was primarily for fuel, not for additional passengers. NW operated SEA-OGG-KOA-SEA triangle routing on the 753 as the 753 also could do a profitable run on OGG-SEA. (As DL has installed winglets on the 753, the extra range allows for OGG-SEA should DL chose to operate the aircraft on the route.)

I believe UA realised it was more profitable to go light on cargo and try to sell as many seats as possible on the 777 to operate OGG-ORD nonstop rather than do the extra KOA stop and have to go through all of the extra steps for operating the inter-island OGG-KOA. During the winter, the wind and slightly lower temperatures at OGG help out a bit.

The larger issue at hand is the folks in the OGG don't want a longer runway even fewer aircraft are being built specifically designed for short runways and can fly a long distance. Even though LIH is distinctly the number four airport in the islands, its 6500' long runway, yes its shorter than DCA, is getting a 855' extension, which will enable more aircraft to operate Kaua'i without as many weight restrictions. Before this extension, a sCO 757 for example can barely do a MTOW in the winter time.

Its been well documented in this forum of UA's issues of flying 737s to the islands. (Only the 737-700 doesn't encounter these problems due to its longer range and possessing the best takeoff performance of the 737NG.) The 737 MAX and A320NEO families will do better with more powerful engines. One of the myriad of idiotic things management has done is to operate 738/739s to OGG/LIH.

Last edited by goalie; Sep 30, 15 at 4:05 pm Reason: changed uncalled for word
Longboater is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 11:41 am
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: ORD
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by TA View Post
Are you concerned or just curious?
TA, I'm concerned whether there is enough margin of safety.
supertrouper is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 11:46 am
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,759
As for the 738s, the aircraft is more suitable for much of the Hawaii traffic. The 24-seat 752/3 F cabin has never much actual F-paying passengers. The Hawaii fares are also fairly low for the distances and the economies of 757 dictate the move to 738s. UA is moving to 738s because of demand, availability of ETOPs 738s, and not runway limitations.

Sure - build a 9000 foot runway for airlines that won't fly planes that need it here. Might as well build a Federal CIQ facility that won't be used either.

As a resident, I know the desire for a longer runway has gone away because it's not needed. Most of the noise about a longer runway is already 20 years old when Japanese companies were making world-class mistakes in purchase prices for hotels and golf course on Maui (and across the Islands) and the imagined need for Japan flights ex-Maui was the rage of discussion years ago. Those investments have all gone into the toilet and Japanese visitors make up a miniscule portion of Maui visitors (and not because of the lack of non-stop flights).

Biggest International visitors? Canadians arriving on Westjet and AC's 738s.

Last edited by goalie; Sep 30, 15 at 4:05 pm Reason: discuss the issue-not each other
IAH-OIL-TRASH is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 11:57 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: san antonio, texas
Programs: 3.2MM AA, 1.4MM UA,StwdLftPlt
Posts: 1,584
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Take a look at the 777-200/300 ACAP.

Start at page 47, 777-200 baseline airplane takeoff performance for ISA+15C day (typical Hawaii day). With 7000 ft of runway at sea level, max takeoff weight is about 510k lb.

Then up to page 42, 777-200 baseline airplane payload/range. OGG-ORD is 3600nm, ESAD is about 3350nm. ~3500nm up to the 510k gross line gives about 385k lb OEW+payload. Subtract the ~300k lb OEW and you have 85k lb payload. 85k / 190 lb summer weight is 344 pax + 10t cargo.

Now these are just rough planning numbers. There may have been some limitation or combination of limitations (climb gradient, OEI, equipment, etc) that put further limitations on takeoff weight in the past that they've resolved. Or they've decided to fly with less/zero cargo to avoid the KOA stop.
Thanks, always refreshing to see the details and compromises that go into route planning and a reminder that airlines are engaged in a complex daily operation..Somewhat OT, but made me wonder if there have been any 777 examples like the Dreamlifter at Jabara in Wichita where the aircraft landed at an unintended airport and had to takeoff from a runway technically too short .
luckypierre is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 12:42 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Alexandria, Longboat Key
Programs: Amtrak Select, AA AAdvantage, UA MileagePlus, DL SkyMiles, B6 TrueBlue
Posts: 1,936
Originally Posted by IAH-OIL-TRASH View Post
As for the 738s, the aircraft is more suitable for much of the Hawaii traffic. The 24-seat 752/3 F cabin has never much actual F-paying passengers. The Hawaii fares are also fairly low for the distances and the economies of 757 dictate the move to 738s. UA is moving to 738s because of demand, availability of ETOPs 738s, and not runway limitations.

Sure - build a 9000 foot runway for airlines that won't fly planes that need it here. Might as well build a Federal CIQ facility that won't be used either.

As a resident, I know the desire for a longer runway has gone away because it's not needed. Most of the noise about a longer runway is already 20 years old when Japanese companies were making world-class mistakes in purchase prices for hotels and golf course on Maui (and across the Islands) and the imagined need for Japan flights ex-Maui was the rage of discussion years ago. Those investments have all gone into the toilet and Japanese visitors make up a miniscule portion of Maui visitors (and not because of the lack of non-stop flights).

Biggest International visitors? Canadians arriving on Westjet and AC's 738s.
Except the 738s have issues getting to OGG from the West Coast in the winter. The 738 engines suck and are even worse on the 739. The 73G wouldn't experience these problems. The A321NEO is the long term future for OGG-West Coast flying. The combined range, runway performance will suit OGG, although I wouldn't be surprised to see it a bit light on cargo in the summer. HAL wouldn't have ordered these aircraft if they couldn't do a near MTOW run at OGG to the West Coast.

I agree the 757 was a bit too premium heavy for UA/AA/DL. Delta's move to reconfigured 20F/179Y will help out margins. AA's new A321 16F/165Y is probably the best configuration for OGG flights although they are blocking off seats. The A321NEO won't have these issues and I assume they'll keep the same configuration.

Last edited by goalie; Sep 30, 15 at 4:05 pm Reason: edited quoted post to match edited original post
Longboater is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 12:47 pm
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,759
Originally Posted by Longboater View Post
Except the 738s have issues getting to OGG from the West Coast in the winter....
Provide proof of this assertion. As a resident and frequent flyer on the aircraft between OGG and West Coast, have experienced zero cancellations due to range issues, and know of noone who has. Not saying there's a rare cancellation because of the issue (none that I know of). There's more far more likely to be a UA mechanical cancellation than a range issue. Alaska and the Canadian airlines also use the 738s. There is no issue.

Delta is not a major player here (easily 5th). They don't have near the frequency or capacity of UA, AA/US, HA, AK.

Don't get me wrong - the airlines have been flying planes unsuitable to the island traffic due to range issues and I like it. 24 F seats on the 757s with 2 paid F passengers have meant a ton of easy upgrades, even for Silvers and NRSAs. Upgrades are (and will be) getting tougher with the switch to 738s as UA takes delivery and retires the su752s. All these changes are not runway issues - they're aircraft suitability issues. I'll miss the 752s.

Last edited by IAH-OIL-TRASH; Sep 30, 15 at 1:08 pm
IAH-OIL-TRASH is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 1:05 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SEA/YYZ
Posts: 1,561
Originally Posted by IAH-OIL-TRASH View Post
Provide proof of this assertion. As a resident and frequent flyer on the aircraft between OGG and West Coast, have experienced zero cancellations due to range issues, and know of noone who has. Not saying there's a rare cancellation because of the issue (none that I know of). There's more far more likely to be a UA mechanical cancellation than a range issue. Alaska and the Canadian airlines also use the 738s. There is no issue.

Delta is not a major player here (easily 5th). They don't have near the frequency or capacity of UA, AA/US, HA, AK.
Alaska does encounter range issues with their ETOPS 738s to Hawaii.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alask...iversions.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alask...erted-pdx.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alask...ns-1-10-a.html
United757 is offline  
Old Sep 30, 15, 1:11 pm
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,759
Still minor %. And Alaska will not fly to Hawaii if it has to use anything other than a 737. UA doesn't have this problem out of LAX/SFO.

Originally Posted by supertrouper View Post
TA, I'm concerned whether there is enough margin of safety.
I wouldn't be concerned about this, there's a lot of safety oversight and planning for runway performance.

Originally Posted by luckypierre View Post
Thanks, always refreshing to see the details and compromises that go into route planning and a reminder that airlines are engaged in a complex daily operation..Somewhat OT, but made me wonder if there have been any 777 examples like the Dreamlifter at Jabara in Wichita where the aircraft landed at an unintended airport and had to takeoff from a runway technically too short .
Well arguably the Qatar 777 at Miami only using 8500 ft with an intersection departure and taking out the approach lights. May have been doing a derated takeoff thinking they were going to use the full length rather than an absolute limitation of the aircraft.

Southwest put a 737 into KPLK (3700 ft runway) not too long ago (and got it out).

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Oct 1, 15 at 10:55 am Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member -- please use multi-quote
IAH-OIL-TRASH is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: