Sign in to follow this  
nhagag

How Does Cathay Pacific Do It

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

Last year I flew Cathay Pacific flight 831 Boeing 777-300ER KJFK-VHHH. Its 14Hr 23min posted on Flight Aware

 

To My knowledge the Aircraft was fully loaded (not a single vacant seat) Don't know about Cargo.

 

I am trying to reenact their flight because it is unique in the sense it is East Bound and flies over Northern Canada, Greenland and Northern Europe and drops to Hong Kong across China.

 

 

FPXP indicates: insufficient fuel for the flight, fuel required exceeds Aircraft capacity of 325000lb.

I can't release the flight

 

 

Bill Hagag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Try checking the number of seats in the PFPX aircraft profile. There may not be as many in real life as in the profile, which was certainly the case in the some of the Emirates aircraft. That would bring down your ZFW, allowing you to make the trip.

 

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 300ER has a maximum range of 7,825 NM at maximum payload according to Boeing.In topcat, the flight distance is 7,300NM, so you're right at the edge. Does FPXP take step climbs into account for increased fuel efficiency? I would bet there is no cargo on the flight, just baggage and or it is not filled to max passenger capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

I worked for Continental (later UAL) many years and was familiar with our KEWR-VHHH B777-200ER operation. We were seldom weight restricted and if I recall correctly, operated the B772 with about 285 paxs. These segments require pure Great-Circle routes to the extent possible to insure mission completion, thereby avoiding very costly fuel stops. The majority of our flights were (and I'm sure still are) north over the Hudson Bay are, then northwest bound, north of PANC and onto the Polar Track System and into Russian airspace.

 

Another factor is the international "Re-Dispatch" or "Re-Release" procedure to reduce ICAO Flag Reserve Fuel requirements. Since I only fly GA in the FSX world, I don't know if you guys use these real-world procedures in the FSX Heavy Iron world. In short, it gets much more complicated than what I've described here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you're familiar with simbrief or not, but it's highly recommended. I've looked up the route on flightware.com for UAL 117 KEWR-VHHH. I've copied the route from flightware to simbrief and created the flight plan. The amount of fuel required for this flight is 112000 KG to complete the flight with remaining fuel at VHHH 9900 KG. I have AIRAC 1408 and the route from flightware was compatible with AIRAC 1408. Basically it means, the real world matches the sim world, at least as far as I understand it. This is the route that I've pulled from flightware:

 

GREKI JUDDS MARTN KB06E YBC YWK LOPVI GRIBS 6500N 06100W EPMAN 7000N 05400W 7500N 04000W 7900N 02000W 8100N 00000E PIREL R705 DOSON R705 ROKDI R705 BRT G490 SERNA A310 POLHO G218 TMR B458 WXI A461 LIG R473 NNX R473 WYN W18 NLG W23 ZUH R473 SIERA SIERA6D

 

I hope this helps you solve the mystery of how the real world does it. I think you should always look for the shortest way to get from point A to point B, including the least amount of fuel to burn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

 We were seldom weight restricted and if I recall correctly, operated the B772 with about 285 paxs. 

 

I thought 285 was a lot, the Boeing web site shows the 200 and 200ER at 440 max, wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to plan this flight with PFPX and did it just fine.

 

I had 290 adults and 16 children, with 14,483 lbs (6,569 kgs) of cargo and released with 316,010 lbs (143,339 kgs) of fuel and had a take off weight of 759,884 lbs (344,677 kgs) which is 15,156 lbs (6,878 kgs) below the MTOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought 285 was a lot, the Boeing web site shows the 200 and 200ER at 440 max, wow.

Correct what I said - It is currently 267 max. for the B772  (COA).  Of course this varies with operator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys

 

Reducing passengers number to 276 and 0 cargo did it.

 

Now I am on my way to Hong Kong

 

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys

 

Reducing passengers number to 276 and 0 cargo did it.

 

Now I am on my way to Hong Kong

 

 

Bill

What is your FOD (Fuel Over Destination)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cathay actually does this flight with as many people they can get on board and most of the time a belly full of freight. However, this route is very depended on winds that's why the cathay summer/winter route to KJFK-VHHH and vice versa always change. I've got family that worked with them and I ride to JFK on them a lot so if it helps I also know that they step climb at every chance they get on that route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

Interesting.

 

LPD1949 asked about fuel. Total Fuel was 326423lb  Inclusive of ETOPS and reserve a bit low of 6045lb. ALT is VMMC. No Chance. Got to land.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct what I said - It is currently 267 max. for the B772 (COA). Of course this varies with operator.

Yes! My wife works for UA, and we checked in the intranet the seating on this one. For UA 117 they use the two class configuration 772 ex-con. However, the three class 772 legacy (United) have more seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

Interesting.

 

LPD1949 asked about fuel. Total Fuel was 326423lb  Inclusive of ETOPS and reserve a bit low of 6045lb. ALT is VMMC. No Chance. Got to land.

 

Bill

Wow! Those are eye-popping numbers. 300+ on departure is huge and looks like w/o Re-Dispatch. On the arrival side, That's emergency fuel if by "reserve" you mean total remaining at FOD (Fuel Over Destination). 6045 would be more like a B737 VFR, w/o Alternate.

Yes! My wife works for UA, and we checked in the intranet the seating on this one. For UA 117 they use the two class configuration 772 ex-con. However, the three class 772 legacy (United) have more seats.

The ex-cons are newer and have the superior engines - GE90's vs. UA Pratts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

I worked for Continental (later UAL) many years and was familiar with our KEWR-VHHH B777-200ER operation. We were seldom weight restricted and if I recall correctly, operated the B772 with about 285 paxs. These segments require pure Great-Circle routes to the extent possible to insure mission completion, thereby avoiding very costly fuel stops. The majority of our flights were (and I'm sure still are) north over the Hudson Bay are, then northwest bound, north of PANC and onto the Polar Track System and into Russian airspace.

 

Another factor is the international "Re-Dispatch" or "Re-Release" procedure to reduce ICAO Flag Reserve Fuel requirements. Since I only fly GA in the FSX world, I don't know if you guys use these real-world procedures in the FSX Heavy Iron world. In short, it gets much more complicated than what I've described here.

 

The latest sanctions threatened by Russia will certainly damage US carriers using this route although whether it will be extended beyond the European carriers is to be seen. It's quite interesting how or even whether flights from the Eastern US will be possible to Asia should the sanctions include US carriers. At the moment there is already a food ban but a ban on US carriers in this proposed sanction is so far seemingly absent.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/siberia-flight-ban-threat-sanctions-dobrolyot

 

Cathay will not be affected as they are not based in a country being sanctioned but I imagine as a hypothetical scenario any airline using the mentioned northern route will have quite considerable performance implications added if they cannot route through Russia. KJFK-VHHH is ~7000nm and this great circle route involves flying over a significant portion of Russia. Playing around in FSC I found that routing across Canada and via Alaska to Japan/South Korea adds at least 600nm to the route point to point, it is probably more. I'm not aware of the prevailing winds over the Northern Pacific and Bering Strait area but I don't envy the flight planners and loadmasters should the sanctions go ahead and include the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are some very good points regarding the US-EU-Russian sanctions. I was reading the same in WSJ just this morning. I moved out of the International Dispatch end of the business and into the airline  ATC world about the time of the negotiations with the Russians to utilize their airspace. Prior to that time, we often used the R20  airway just south of the Russian FIRs. I don't recall what the delta difference is between use of Russian FIR's vs. the more southern NOPAC structure. I could find out if anybody is interested. I do recall the very severe impact of Solar Flares as it relates to HF radio reliability. This phenomena required very costly fuel stops in KSFO or KSEA. The myth that the "shortest distance.between two points"  is nonsense when dealing with real-world, very long-range missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The myth that the "shortest distance.between two points" is nonsense when dealing with real-world, very long-range missions.

Not really. Once you have everything included in the flight plan, it's still the shortest distance between the two points. I have a good friend that worked in network planning, and I will suit with him and discuss this route. Real world or not, I know for a fact that what the airline it's concerned about is flight time and fuel consumption since this is going to reflect on the route profitability overall and flight profitability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you don't consider ESAD. In any case, I'm going back to my Cessna 210.

 

 

Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Real world or not, I know for a fact that what the airline it's concerned about is flight time and fuel consumption since this is going to reflect on the route profitability overall and flight profitability.

 

I think his point was more that shortest distance might actually take longer due to wind en route.

 

EDIT:

I guess you don't consider ESAD. In any case, I'm going back to my Cessna 210.

 

I was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the JFK-HKG goes via polar routes with average distance around 7500nm. Fuel load from JFK usually sits around 135-140Tons using VMMC as ALTN with ZFW limits to about average 215Tons. And most of the time coming out of JFK with Max Take off weight. Given the tank capacity of 145.5 Tons they can even be able to carry an extra hour of holding fuel if required by kicking some cargo off. With the empty weight of the airplane in average about 170tons, it can still carry a good 40tons of payload doing the trip.

 

 

Break down of the a Fuel required

Taxi 0.5 ton

Trip ~125Tons

Contingency ~3 tons

ALTN 3 tons ( VMMC )

Reserve 3 tons.

 

Without ATC delay and arrival holding, the FOB when the airplane arrives at the gate is around 7tons.

 

One of the examples of the polar route ( over Russia, Mongolia and China ):

 

ABERI B934 UNILA B934 LUMIG B155 TUNIR A45 USONA G490 SERNA A310 POLHO G218 TMR B458 KR B458 WXI A461 LKO A461 LIG R473 WYN W18 NLG W23 ZUH R473 SIERA

 

From JFK to waypoint ABERI (polar gateway) it is flex routing, and depends solely on wind. There are several others polar gateways some of them are closer to Europe and some of them are on the Alaska side.

 

Due to the hefty overfly charges of using polar route and it is slot limited, I was told the polar route must generate a fuel saving of at least 9tons before it can be selected as the route to fly, so at times when the head wind is not so strong, some of the flights would be routed through north Alaska over the Fairbanks area, then head west into Russia.

 

There are numerous combinations for polar routes and every flight is different, however the average fuel burn is about the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this