757s on Trans Atlantic Flights

[shon7]

For those at CAL and NWA that are flying/will be flying the 757s over the pond -- do you have to make fuel stops when the winds are too strong or do you just cancel the flight?

From everything I have read it seems that flying these things across the atlantic really pushes their limit (w.r.t range).

 

[redflyer65]

I was trying to ride from DTW to ANC a few years back on a 757-200 and got bumped along with about 25 paying px because of the fuel load needed. Just check the mileage and DTW-ANC is shorter than what NWA wants to do with Brussels and Dusseldorf. I really have a hard time figuring out what they are trying to prove.

 

[General Lee]

I was trying to ride from DTW to ANC a few years back on a 757-200 and got bumped along with about 25 paying px because of the fuel load needed. Just check the mileage and DTW-ANC is shorter than what NWA wants to do with Brussels and Dusseldorf. I really have a hard time figuring out what they are trying to prove.

I think NWA could make the shorter legs, like the proposed nonstop BDL to Amsterdam or maybe BOS to AMS with the 757 with winglets, but all the way to DTW from Europe may be tough. Maybe there will be a fuel stop in Gander...?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Spooky 2]

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.

 

[redflyer65]

The signs are already posted in the DTW airport for both cities. In my opinion, there is no way they will make it make west-bound. The winglets are good, but not that good. It will be real interesting to see, that's for sure. Could just lead to a bunch of pissed off px. But hey, this is Northwest so they should be used to it by now!

DTW-ANC 2530 naut. miles
BRU-DTW 3355 naut. miles

About 33 percent further for the winglets to make up. I'm not sure they are quite that good.

 

[Spooky 2]

The signs are already posted in the DTW airport for both cities. In my opinion, there is no way they will make it make west-bound. The winglets are good, but not that good. It will be real interesting to see, that's for sure. Could just lead to a bunch of pissed off px. But hey, this is Northwest so they should be used to it by now!

DTW-ANC 2530 naut. miles
BRU-DTW 3355 naut. miles

About 33 percent further for the winglets to make up. I'm not sure they are quite that good.

The airplane with full fuel is good for about 8+30 and the above flight from BRU to DTW is about 8 and change so if the winds are an overall minus 20 it's not likely to work, regardless of GW increase. There is a mod to the fuel system that wll get you another 3K or maybe even 4K on a real cold day, but that's certainly nothing to count on for a daily operation. Proably making a few stops in Bangor on those windy days. Now winglets, plus the fuel mod might mitigate the bulk of the stops.

Use to make routine stops in TPE while tryng to make HKG in the mighty MD11. Suprising how fast you can turn even a big airplane like that if the ground crew is ready and waiting. Couple of turns in less than 25 minutes.

 

[redflyer65]

Good info Spooky. The killer will be alternate fuel for the destination. Factor that in, and you are stopping somewhere. Anyone for BUS-BGR?

 

[AA717driver]

I've done JFK-BCN a few times. Usually, we'd do BCN-LIS-JFK so it really wasn't a stretch. Dusseldorf to DTW would be a hike. LGW-STL was a stretch in the winter for the 767-200's even. So that's not much different than BRU-DTW.

Probably a case of management believing the sales brochure from the winglet people...TC

 

[Spooky 2]

I've done JFK-BCN a few times. Usually, we'd do BCN-LIS-JFK so it really wasn't a stretch. Dusseldorf to DTW would be a hike. LGW-STL was a stretch in the winter for the 767-200's even. So that's not much different than BRU-DTW.

Probably a case of management believing the sales brochure from the winglet people...TC

I think the TWA -200ER's were pretty weak on range, so comparing the 57-200 to anything that TWA had is simply a poor example IMO. The latest and greatest -200's damn near go as far as the 747-400 basic. As the 767-200ER line went on the range and GW increased significantly. TWA was a launch customer on the 767-200ER, thus they got the short end of the stick.

 

[MTV]

Ask the ATA guys, they have a pretty good experience base on the 757 capabilities around the world.

 

[Singlecoil]

I believe there is a seperate set of rules from ETOPS. SCAFE or something like that. Apparently those just recently changed to the great benefits of carriers who intend to fly twin engine aircraft long distance. I was told by our VP of Marketing that a 737-800 under the old rules on the worst day would have to bump 30 pax to do SEA-HNL. Under the new rules, there is no penalty.
NW probably benefits from the same rule change.

 

[redflyer65]

Is there a difference in international alternates for long haul flights like this? I remember a NWA Captain mentioning this at one point.

 

[Spooky 2]

Part 121 Flag fuel is 10% but there is a way around this that many carriers have emplyed over the last few years where by that 10% is only applicable to the oceanic portion of the flight. I'm not aware of any new regulations that would lessen the ETOPS requirements and after all it simply takes X numer of gallons to proceed to you ETP alternates on 1 engine at 10,000'. Don't see ho you can massage that number very much and certainly HNL to anywhere on the west coast is the most severe example that you find for this scenorio.

 

[RJAA]

With Continental's B752s from Europe, NY center likes to keep everybody at 16000ft for the last hour of the flight or so followed by circles and vectors into final to EWR on a good day, which does not help the situation.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Part 121 Flag fuel is 10% but there is a way around this that many carriers have emplyed over the last few years where by that 10% is only applicable to the oceanic portion of the flight. I'm not aware of any new regulations that would lessen the ETOPS requirements and after all it simply takes X numer of gallons to proceed to you ETP alternates on 1 engine at 10,000'. Don't see ho you can massage that number very much and certainly HNL to anywhere on the west coast is the most severe example that you find for this scenorio.

Its called a "re-release/re-dispatch" flight plan; has been in use for years and years. I remember years ago it was the only way we could get the DC-8-61 (sleds, originally built as a 'domestic' a/c), to go westbound across the pond with anything close to a decent load of pax or freight.

Example: going from LGW-JFK, required Dest. fuel, 10% of that, plus 30mins reserve; and can't carry that amount of fuel. Released/dispatched LGW-GDR, with a 're-release/re-dispatch point' just prior to GDR, usually somewhere just prior to 50/50 (50N50W). Just prior to the re-dispatch point, you compute total fuel onboard and contact dispatch; if you have 'min req. fuel' for the re-release, 're-release-Dest.' (now the dest. fuel) + 10% of dest. fuel (now 10% of the fuel req. re-release-dest.) + 30mins, then you can be 're-released/re-dispatched' to Dest. JFK.

Its just a way of playing with the #s, and reducing the 10% required Int'l fuel requirement. Instead of needing 10% of the total dest. fuel (LGW-JFK), you only need to take-off with 10% of that required for LGW to re-release point; and from the re-release point only required to have 10% of that required from 're-release point to JFK'

As I said, its been used for years and still used today. Hope that helps.

DA

P.S. The ETOPS requirements cannot be changed. 180min ETOPS means at any point along the flight, a/c must be within 180mins of a suitable ALT airport. Remember ETOPS means; "Engines Turning Or People Swimming."

 

[FNG_that's me]

you only need to take-off with 10% of that required for LGW to re-release point; and from the re-release point only required to have 10% of that required from 're-release point to JFK'

Technically, I think you need to meet the fuel requirements for LGW-GDR(not just the re-release point), then Re-release point-JFK.

 

[AA717driver]

I think the TWA -200ER's were pretty weak on range, so comparing the 57-200 to anything that TWA had is simply a poor example IMO. The latest and greatest -200's dang near go as far as the 747-400 basic. As the 767-200ER line went on the range and GW increased significantly. TWA was a launch customer on the 767-200ER, thus they got the short end of the stick.

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

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Technically, I think you need to meet the fuel requirements for LGW-GDR(not just the re-release point), then Re-release point-JFK.

Correct, sorry, I did not word it correctly; what I meant to say, "10% of the fuel to the re-release airport" (correct in the example I gave LGW-GDR). The 're-release point' being just prior to the re-release airport. As I said, wrong wording on my part, and you are correct, thanks for correcting the error.

DA

 

[DC8 Flyer]

disregard.

 

[Spooky 2]

Its called a "re-release/re-dispatch" flight plan; has been in use for years and years. I remember years ago it was the only way we could get the DC-8-61 (sleds, originally built as a 'domestic' a/c), to go westbound across the pond with anything close to a decent load of pax or freight.

Example: going from LGW-JFK, required Dest. fuel, 10% of that, plus 30mins reserve; and can't carry that amount of fuel. Released/dispatched LGW-GDR, with a 're-release/re-dispatch point' just prior to GDR, usually somewhere just prior to 50/50 (50N50W). Just prior to the re-dispatch point, you compute total fuel onboard and contact dispatch; if you have 'min req. fuel' for the re-release, 're-release-Dest.' (now the dest. fuel) + 10% of dest. fuel (now 10% of the fuel req. re-release-dest.) + 30mins, then you can be 're-released/re-dispatched' to Dest. JFK.

Its just a way of playing with the #s, and reducing the 10% required Int'l fuel requirement. Instead of needing 10% of the total dest. fuel (LGW-JFK), you only need to take-off with 10% of that required for LGW to re-release point; and from the re-release point only required to have 10% of that required from 're-release point to JFK'

As I said, its been used for years and still used today. Hope that helps.

DA

P.S. The ETOPS requirements cannot be changed. 180min ETOPS means at any point along the flight, a/c must be within 180mins of a suitable ALT airport. Remember ETOPS means; "Engines Turning Or People Swimming."

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.

 

[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.