757s on Trans Atlantic Flights

[Spooky 2]

Spooky--The TWA 767-200ER's started life as straight "200's". They were brought up to "-200ER" standard either before or shortly after delivery. They had the same range as the other 767-200ER's rolling off the assembly line at that time that went to AA, UA, DL, etc..

The REALLY long range "-200ER's" that are operated by CAL are new derivations of the -200 airframe but with larger tanks. I believe CAL got them to do IAH-NRT and EWR-NRT before the 777's were delivered or for long thin routes. It's a different animal than the early -200ER's. (And, it really should have a different designation.)TC

Just a small point of order. The TWA -200ER's did not carry the same fuel loads or MTOGW as say a 767-200ER that was built in 1988 or there abouts.
21,150 gal and 350MTOGW was about as heavy as the airplanes went until the early nineties when they crept up to around 360MTOGW and still a little more fuel. Very few of these airplane were built and currenty two of the aircraft that MaxJet has purchased from Air Mauritius fit this description.
Finally the CAL birds and just a few other that have been built since around 2000 are the really heavy weight, really long range aircraft. Newer engines like the PW 4060 made this possible. The B767-200ER is really an amazing airplane!

 

[Fly4hire]

Or maybe they will dedicate specific aircraft to these sectors and bump the MTOGW to 255K so they can get the full fuel (75K) and still carry a full or near full pax load. Nah, forget it, that would be to logical.

They are bumping the MTOGW on the aircraft specifed for the routes. The winglets are supposed to give a 5% decrease in burn on legs of that length. Intl re-release procedures and it's not that big a deal. Act will be configured for ~170 pax with world business class and increased pitch coach, video, etc...

We need to make sure and have our tech-ops folks come here for advice:bomb:

 

[redflyer65]

The 757-200 that I got bumped from (DTW-ANC) had 184 seats and with full fuel they could only push back with around 150 px. And this was in the summer time.

 

[SKC]

Not so fast. I'm pretty familair with Part 121.631 and this is not what I'm spaeking of. It's been awhile since I have done any 121 flying so forgive me if I'm not being clear in my attempt to describe this alternative method of fuel calculation. Lets say your going from EDDF to KLAX. That's about a 11:40 flight and of those 11:40 minutes, probably 8 hours are spent in Class 11 airspace, the rest are in Class 1 and in that airspace and ATC enviroment, you do not need the 10%, which is thus subtrated from you Min Fuel Release number of Gal/Lbs. I think this authority lives in your Opspecs and not in any Part 121 In my example there is no re-release or re-dispatch involved as described in 121.631. Might not have anything to do with the subject at hand so I'm sorry I even brought it up.

BTW. Most ETOPS diversions are not becasue of engine problems.

I've never seen an ops specs (*) that determines fuel requirements based on Class 1 or 2 airspace. Fuel requirements are based on either domestic requirements (dep-dest, alt, 45 mins) or international (dep-dest, alt, 30 min, 10%). Nothing to do with what type of airspace you're operating in.

* - I have not seen ALL ops specs, so I can't confirm that there isn't any company that operates that way.