Huh...I hadn't been following AC's fleet situation lately, so I didn't know they had ordered that many 77W's. Are they downsizing on the A333's as well? I remember reading about the 737 MAX order to replace the A32X aircraft, and thought that was somewhat surprising. Although not shocking...Boeing probably gave them a discount after the 777 and 787 orders.
From what I understand the A330's are all going within 2-3 years, simply because AC can't cram as many seats in them as they'd like. Indeed, the new 77W's they took were apparently massively discounted. As good looking as MAX is, unless somebody takes a big CSeries order our skies will be full of only 737.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth22
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe they use maximum braking and reverse thrust during normal landings either. In fact, I think (don't quote me on this), they normally use idle reverse, and do most of the work with the wheel brakes, to prevent wear and tear on the engines.
This is correct, for wear and tear and also because a lot of airports request or mandate the use of idle reverse for noise abatement, unless operationally necessary.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
Indeed, the new 77W's they took were apparently massively discounted.
I remember looking at the list prices a while back, and the 77W, if not the highest, was very close to being the most expensive aircraft on the list. Very expensive aircraft to buy. But it's a great plane (especially with them GE90's! ), it flies far, and it holds a lot of seats. Close to 747 levels.
In other news, WestJet was apparently named Value Airline of the Year.
Take a look at their photo of a "WestJet aircraft". Someone needs to get their eyes checked. Sometimes, Flight Simulator can look very real, but come on. Really? That shot isn't even that great!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe they use maximum braking and reverse thrust during normal landings either. In fact, I think (don't quote me on this), they normally use idle reverse, and do most of the work with the wheel brakes, to prevent wear and tear on the engines.
Normally a regular reverse thrust setting is used, with the option to use max reverse. Using idle reverse is actually fairly rare. In fact reverse thrust is used to minimize wear and tear on the brakes more than the other way around.
On takeoff, we usually use a very derated thrust setting. Every takeoff thrust setting is calculated for the weight, conditions, and runway length, and only the thrust that is needed to safely meet all takeoff run and climb criteria is used, allowing reduced noise, fuel burn, and engine wear. I won't bore you with too much detail, but it never ceases to amaze me that with big loads (fuel and guests) the amount of thrust reduction we normally use on the NG's. And if we do need to use full rated thrust, for example if there is some contamination on the runway (like snow), the performance is very impressive.
Hope that doesn't come across as too pedantic, but just some if you're interested info.
Last edited by Ryan Coke; 01-13-2014 at 08:44 PM.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
Normally a regular reverse thrust setting is used, with the option to use max reverse. Using idle reverse is actually fairly rare. In fact reverse thrust is used to minimize wear and tear on the brakes more than the other way around.
On takeoff, we usually use a very derated thrust setting. Every takeoff thrust setting is calculated for the weight, conditions, and runway length, and only the thrust that is needed to safely meet all takeoff run and climb criteria is used, allowing reduced noise, fuel burn, and engine wear. I won't bore you with too much detail, but it never ceases to amaze me that with big loads (fuel and guests) the amount of thrust reduction we normally use on the NG's. And if we do need to use full rated thrust, for example if there is some contamination on the runway (like snow), the performance is very impressive.
Hope that doesn't come across as too pedantic, but just some if you're interested info.
I can't speak for the others, but I personally love hearing all about this stuff.
Then again I'm weird. But I love it.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
Does anyone know why AC delays so many LAS outbound flights? They always site the temperature, meanwhile every other carrier flies out on time. Last year I was on two delayed flights where both times they decided to take off while leaving several bags in vegas. They say they need to be lighter for take off. One other flight they decided to wait until sundown. How come?
Was it in an airbus or an embraer? I assume it was summer. It really just depends on the airplane. Of course I don't know for sure about those situations, it makes sense that in the summer when temps are hot all airplanes become more limited in what they can lift.
Performance is better on a 737 than the 320 series so it isn't as limited as often, but loads can need to be capped when temps are above 40C.
And I should say, hot air is less dense, so it provides less lift as well the engines don't produce as much power. That's the reason temperature is a big issue.
Last edited by Ryan Coke; 01-13-2014 at 10:01 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
Was it in an airbus or an embraer? I assume it was summer. It really just depends on the airplane. Of course I don't know for sure about those situations, it makes sense that in the summer when temps are hot all airplanes become more limited in what they can lift.
Performance is better on a 737 than the 320 series so it isn't as limited as often, but loads can need to be capped when temps are above 40C.
And I should say, hot air is less dense, so it provides less lift as well the engines don't produce as much power. That's the reason temperature is a big issue.
It was a E90, temps ranged from about 32 to 40. I understand the air is thinner but in every case, AC is literally the only airline delaying their flight.
I can't speak for the others, but I personally love hearing all about this stuff.
Then again I'm weird. But I love it.
You and me both, man.
I used to play Flight Sim quite a bit, so I'm an airplane nerd.
I actually understood what Ryan Coke was talking about in regards to derated thrust on takeoff. Just didn't know about regular procedures during landing.
Terrain could be an issue as well for Vegas; if climb performance can't be guaranteed with an engine out then you're waiting for it to cool down, or leaving bags. Better that than hitting a mountain.
Does anyone know why AC delays so many LAS outbound flights?
It's always a gamble of whether they'll go or not....
Sorry couldn't resist.
__________________
''The Phaneuf - Regehr pairing reminds me a lot of when I'm having sex with a new partner'' -malcomk14
''Not only is he a good player, but I enjoy his company'' -Pierre Mcguire on Phaneuf
"I'm only watching now for the chance to see brief close-ups of White's moustache." - rockstar</br>
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Leon For This Useful Post:
I recently returned from a trip to the Cook Islands. We stayed in Rarotonga. Its a pretty small place (island is about 32km around) but there is some decent sized planes that land there.
Air New Zealand is the dominant user, with a few Virgin airlines flights mixed in occasionally.
We came via LA on a 767-300. The one shown here...
This airport is setup where you can get nice and close (jet blasted, wow!) watching flights come and go. I managed to get a few shots (sorry I am not a great photographer) of some planes getting ready for takeoff. Figured this may be a good place to share some of them.
Boeing 777-200 (this one was a beast up close!)
Airbus A320
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to greyshep For This Useful Post:
Love it love it love it. Wonder if it's a coincidence that they released the video today as the plane was actually in Orlando; hadn't been since December 20th.
I'd so love them to call her "Mickeyjet" or "Mickey One" but they'd have to clear that with Disney, I suppose...
Mickey is having a bad day. She left for Ixtapa, Mexico at 9:30 this morning; about 100 miles northeast of Salt Lake City they descended to 24,000 and turned around to come back here. It just landed and everything looked fine. Possible pressurization problem.
), it flies far, and it holds a lot of seats. Close to 747 levels.
