Aviation Appreciation Station

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

STeeLy, took those up in YEG?

That DHL 767-200 is operated by Airborne Express, and has operated CVG-YYC-YEG-YYC-CVG yesterday and again today. I think it is a new cargo route on behalf of DHL.

Yeah, I was up in YEG, had to connect there from YOW-YYC

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

Yeah, I was up in YEG, had to connect there from YOW-YYC

You chose a connection through YEG?

You are a traitor to this city.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

You chose a connection through YEG?

You are a traitor to this city.

I'm too cheap to pay an extra $300 for direct flights.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

How the hell does this even happen?


An Atlas Air 747 lands at the wrong airport and the runway is too short for it to take off.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...?mg=reno64-wsj

[Bigtime]

Been reading up on that incident this morning, apparently they are good to go for departure around noon there.

Incidents like this actually happen quite a bit. Here is a list of them: http://www.thirdamendment.com/wrongway.html

Here was the flight:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/G...355Z/KJFK/KIAB

New flight plan up for the quick hop over to Mc Connell:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/G...800Z/KAAO/KIAB

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

How the hell does this even happen?


An Atlas Air 747 lands at the wrong airport and the runway is too short for it to take off.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...?mg=reno64-wsj

That Wall Street Journal article wouldn't show the full text, wanted me to pay/register.

Found another one in the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11...abara-airport/

That's really bizarre though! How do you land at the wrong airport??

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Stealth22

That's really bizarre though! How do you land at the wrong airport??

Night time, visual approach, and two airports only a few miles apart with the runways on pretty much the same heading (only a degree off).

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Night time, visual approach, and two airports only a few miles apart with the runways on pretty much the same heading (only a degree off).

Oh, didn't realize they were that close. Yeah, I suppose that would certainly do it!

Just imagine what the pilot must have thought though!

*Leaning on the wheel brakes as he approaches the end of the runway*

"Hmm...this runway seems a little short. Doesn't seem that wide either..."

*Looks over at the ramp area and sees nothing but little Cessnas*

[Acey]

AA took their first A321 today, notable and somewhat game changing because they have only 102 seats in a 4-class config. (Air Canada A321 have 174 seats)

Spoiler!

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Acey

AA took their first A321 today, notable and somewhat game changing because they have only 102 seats in a 4-class config. (Air Canada A321 have 174 seats)

Spoiler!

But four classes, seatguru has it listed as a transcontinental, I'd assume for long haul.

Here's the layout:

Spoiler!

[Bigtime]

Damn those Airbus' look good with the new sharklets.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

But four classes, seatguru has it listed as a transcontinental, I'd assume for long haul.

Yeah they're to replace 762's on JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO, routes with high demand for F and J seats.

[KelVarnsen]

Cargolux must be big time heavy today. Was pretty low climbing out just now.

[Bigtime]

The stuck Dreamlifter just took off.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Acey

AA took their first A321 today, notable and somewhat game changing because they have only 102 seats in a 4-class config. (Air Canada A321 have 174 seats)

They've got a big order for B738's as well...wouldn't it make more sense to go either all A32X or all B73X? It would mean more commonality with regards to parts and training, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Acey

Yeah they're to replace 762's on JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO, routes with high demand for F and J seats.

Do they plan on adding more flights with A321's to meet demand?

I took a look at their schedule, and at least for JFK-LAX, all of their non-stop flights on that route are flown with 762's. You'd have to run the A321's more frequently.

My first thought was the A321 is too small in that config, and they should use something bigger. But their 762's only hold a total of 168 anyway. The A321 is probably cheaper to get as well compared to larger planes, and can always be re-purposed on other domestic routes.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Stealth22

They've got a big order for B738's as well...wouldn't it make more sense to go either all A32X or all B73X? It would mean more commonality with regards to parts and training, wouldn't it?



Do they plan on adding more flights with A321's to meet demand?

I took a look at their schedule, and at least for JFK-LAX, all of their non-stop flights on that route are flown with 762's. You'd have to run the A321's more frequently.

My first thought was the A321 is too small in that config, and they should use something bigger. But their 762's only hold a total of 168 anyway. The A321 is probably cheaper to get as well compared to larger planes, and can always be re-purposed on other domestic routes.

So I deleted my reply somehow. Odd.

Quickly:

They'd want a fleet of A321s and 738s because of the vast quantity they ordered. AA is replacing their entire fleet (or close to it). By having orders for both aircraft they are speeding up delivery by half. It's only two different types of aircraft, at the size of the airline training and certification for two plane types isn't a big deal.

As for the configuration on the small aircraft (compared to 767s). AA seems to be making a decision that the money is in first and business class. So order the smallest aircraft that can do the transcontinental haul that meets their needs for 10 first, and 20 business class seats. Then fill the rest of the aircraft 50/50 premium economy and economy. Those seats would be gravy in terms of revenue and load factors.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

They'd want a fleet of A321s and 738s because of the vast quantity they ordered. AA is replacing their entire fleet (or close to it). By having orders for both aircraft they are speeding up delivery by half. It's only two different types of aircraft, at the size of the airline training and certification for two plane types isn't a big deal.

Makes sense. Allows them to replace more aircraft more quickly. I could see it becoming an issue if the two types run on the same route. Like if a particular A321 has some sort of maintenance issue, and the only spare plane at that airport is a B738. But more often than not, that flight would probably just get cancelled if they couldn't get a pair of 737-certified pilots. They'd probably have more than a few spares of each type anyhow.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

As for the configuration on the small aircraft (compared to 767s). AA seems to be making a decision that the money is in first and business class. So order the smallest aircraft that can do the transcontinental haul that meets their needs for 10 first, and 20 business class seats. Then fill the rest of the aircraft 50/50 premium economy and economy. Those seats would be gravy in terms of revenue and load factors.

I wouldn't doubt that, actually. I'm inclined to believe that they make a lot more on business/first customers. Most people that fly business or first are big shots who don't care about price. As long as its not exorbitant, they just make their secretary book the flight for them. When you're making boatloads of money, you care a lot less about the details of what things cost as long as its in a reasonable ballpark.

Economy passengers on the other hand (Joe Average) follow WestJet's Twitter feed for Blue Tag sales, and surf sites like itravel2000 and Expedia looking for the lowest possible price. Economy sales will fill seats, but I doubt they make a big profit on cattle class.

The one thing that initially struck me as odd though is, I ran a search on their schedule for JFK to LAX, and they had 6 or 7 runs with the 762 that were non-stop, and there were a few other options it gave with 738's, 757's, and 777's, but those were flights going through places like Miami or Dallas. That's why I originally thought the A321 was too small compared to what they were replacing.

But at least for the non-stop flights, they can run more A321's to balance out the numbers. When the difference is only 65 seats (I thought the 762 can do north of 200 seats, probably just AA's config) per plane, then it's probably not that big of a deal.

Besides, when you look at the other options, the B738/9 or A321 are your best bet. Boeing has had 19 deliveries for the 767 in 2013, and no active orders. The plane is pretty much a legend, but it's being replaced with the 787. The 777 and 787 are both overkill for that route, and are mucho-expensive to get. Looking at Airbus, there's the A332, but at list prices, the A321 is literally half the price.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Stealth22

Makes sense. Allows them to replace more aircraft more quickly. I could see it becoming an issue if the two types run on the same route. Like if a particular A321 has some sort of maintenance issue, and the only spare plane at that airport is a B738. But more often than not, that flight would probably just get cancelled if they couldn't get a pair of 737-certified pilots. They'd probably have more than a few spares of each type anyhow.



I wouldn't doubt that, actually. I'm inclined to believe that they make a lot more on business/first customers. Most people that fly business or first are big shots who don't care about price. As long as its not exorbitant, they just make their secretary book the flight for them. When you're making boatloads of money, you care a lot less about the details of what things cost as long as its in a reasonable ballpark.

Economy passengers on the other hand (Joe Average) follow WestJet's Twitter feed for Blue Tag sales, and surf sites like itravel2000 and Expedia looking for the lowest possible price. Economy sales will fill seats, but I doubt they make a big profit on cattle class.

The one thing that initially struck me as odd though is, I ran a search on their schedule for JFK to LAX, and they had 6 or 7 runs with the 762 that were non-stop, and there were a few other options it gave with 738's, 757's, and 777's, but those were flights going through places like Miami or Dallas. That's why I originally thought the A321 was too small compared to what they were replacing.

But at least for the non-stop flights, they can run more A321's to balance out the numbers. When the difference is only 65 seats (I thought the 762 can do north of 200 seats, probably just AA's config) per plane, then it's probably not that big of a deal.

Besides, when you look at the other options, the B738/9 or A321 are your best bet. Boeing has had 19 deliveries for the 767 in 2013, and no active orders. The plane is pretty much a legend, but it's being replaced with the 787. The 777 and 787 are both overkill for that route, and are mucho-expensive to get. Looking at Airbus, there's the A332, but at list prices, the A321 is literally half the price.

Another thing I just thought of is with so few passengers on a narrow body aircraft, the weight restrictions would be less and it would maximize the range of distance it could travel (as opposed to having an extra 70 passengers or so).



As for an A321 breaking down and having the spare a 738, I suppose that unlikely scenario is possible, but I don't think they have planes sitting idle for very long. Especially long enough to warrant filling in on a specific route.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Another thing I just thought of is with so few passengers on a narrow body aircraft, the weight restrictions would be less and it would maximize the range of distance it could travel (as opposed to having an extra 70 passengers or so).

As for an A321 breaking down and having the spare a 738, I suppose that unlikely scenario is possible, but I don't think they have planes sitting idle for very long. Especially long enough to warrant filling in on a specific route.

Yeah, a plane ain't making money if it's not in the air.

As for the payload, yeah, ligher load means more range and less fuel burned. A lighter plane also means lower fees at airports. Canadian airports (I think the airports in the States work the same way, or at least similar) charge landing fees based on the aircraft's gross weight, and a lot of airports (not all, I don't think) charge terminal/parking fees by the number of seats. A 767 or A330 weighs significantly more than an A320 or 737.

All that means more money in the bank, on top of what they saved on the purchase/lease of the plane.

[Stealth22]

JetBlue E-190 makes emergency landing after slide deploys

A JetBlue Airways Embraer 190 diverted to Orlando International airport today in an emergency landing after the aircraft's slide deployed into the front galley.

...

The aircraft landed safely at Orlando at 15:45 and passengers deplaned from the aircraft's rear door at the gate, says the carrier.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...eploys-393356/



Crashed 737 pushed into dive during go-around

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...around-393302/

Initial flight-data recorder analysis indicates that the pilots of the Tatarstan Boeing 737-500 which crashed at Kazan pushed the aircraft into a steep dive after the jet pitched up during a go-around.

During the “intense” dive the aircraft reached 75° pitch down, says the inquiry, and it slammed into the ground at over 240kt just 45s after initiating the missed approach.

Both CFM International CFM56 engines were functioning until the moment of impact, and there is no immediate indication of system failure.

Too early to pass judgement, but from the article it looks like pilot error to me.