Boeing 777-300ER Could Harm Paris Orly

[babypurin]

Boeing Co.'s (NYSE:BA - news) B777-300ER airplane could damage the runways of Paris's Orly airport by exerting too much pressure, especially at take-off, Paris airports operator Aeroports de Paris (ADP) said on Monday.

Air France KLM (AIRF.PA) has ordered seven such planes -- an investment of more than 1 billion euros ($1.28 billion) -- to replace its Boeing 747 planes and fly from Orly to France's overseas territories in the summer of 2007, La Tribune newspaper reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050411/bs_nm/transport_adp_orly_dc_1

[FlyingPhotog]

I'm sure AF is thrilled to have found this out AFTER placing the order...

[ConcordeBoy]

Mostly bullsh!t....


First of all, this alleged damage would primarly happen at the aircraft's MTOW (AF doesn't even have any on order for the derivative's ultimate MTOW, much less plan to fly such aircraft out of ORY).

Secondly, only a few of the airline's 773ERs will be for COI ops out of ORY; that task mostly falling to retrofitted 744s.

And thirdly, if push came to shove... AF has the political clout to transition whatever offending flights to CDG, and get exemptions for capacity issues as needed.




....much ado.

[CathayPacific]

I would think AF's 773ERs would be operating out of CDG only anyway. There aren't any international (i.e. non-EU) routes left in Orly for AF, are there?

[screaming_emu]

I dont know how much it has to do with MTOW as much as it does with how much pressure each tire puts on the runway. The 747 has more tires to spread out the weight so it may create less pressure on the runway.

[DAL767-400ER]

I would think AF's 773ERs would be operating out of CDG only anyway. There aren't any international (i.e. non-EU) routes left in Orly for AF, are there?

Wrong. AF still operates a lot of longhaul flights, primarily to the Carribbean and the Indian Ocean, from ORY, using 4 747s based there.

[ConcordeBoy]

I dont know how much it has to do with MTOW as much as it does with how much pressure each tire puts on the runway.

The stats taken are under the assumption of MTOW. Obviously, the aircraft has a higher relative gear loading no matter what, but said concept only begins to run the risk of runway damage at it's highest application (which, as I mentioned earlier) would probably never be reached in any sort of routine operation.

[vojoboy]

Wrong. AF still operates a lot of longhaul flights, primarily to the Carribbean and the Indian Ocean, from ORY, using 4 747s based there.

Slightly off topic... Will the upcoming 777-300ER flights to Reunion be from ORY or CDG?

Edit.. should have read the link in depth. They did make a reference to the 773ER Options picked by AF a few weeks ago which will be configured for leisure routes.

[UnitedFlyer]

I dont know how much it has to do with MTOW as much as it does with how much pressure each tire puts on the runway. The 747 has more tires to spread out the weight so it may create less pressure on the runway.

The pressure on the runway stays the same no matter how many tires are on it. Howeer, if you spread it out, there is less presure on specific points on the runway.

ie 10 pounds / 10 tires = 1lb/tire*10 (assuming all things equal)

10 pounds / 1 tire = 10lb/tire*1

Same thing.

[UA-F9 Guy]

A great example of overpowered Jumbos...you cant tell me the 773 needs that much power. This is rediculous. Another reason why a "Blow Dryer" quad beats out a massivly overpowered twin anyday.

[billiam]

A great example of overpowered Jumbos...you cant tell me the 773 needs that much power. This is rediculous. Another reason why a "Blow Dryer" quad beats out a massivly overpowered twin anyday.

If the "Blow Dryer" quad is the crappy a343, then SQ would disagree

[wannabepilot777]

Me thinks this is the French government putting the pressure on AF to cancel the Boeing order and take up some A340's. IF nothing else, they can shift the flights around so that only CDG gets 773ERs.

[FlyingHigh26]

That story is a peice of crap. If it was such as big issue, why not any other airports?

[ConcordeBoy]

A great example of overpowered Jumbos...you cant tell me the 773 needs that much power. This is rediculous.

Sorry, but the only ridiculous elements here are you idiotic statement and ignorant spelling:

1) All twinjets must be certified to complete the five phases of flight, with a pressurized cabin, at MTOW... thus necessitating their high power ratios vis-a-vis their tri and quad brethren

2) The 773ER per se is nowhere near the apex of said performance spectrum: e.g., the highest MTOW 773ERs offered by Boeing will still have a smaller power-to-weight ratio than Korean Air's 773As.

Another reason why a "Blow Dryer" quad beats out a massivly overpowered twin anyday.

Riiiiiight... you mean like it's beaten them in sales, speed, payload uplift, RPMs, dispatch reliability, and hull integrity stats?

Me thinks this is the French government putting the pressure on AF to cancel the Boeing order and take up some A340's.

Not a chance in hell of that happening, and they know it:

• AF is no fan of the A340, and already have the -311s scheduled to go.
• AF has never been a fan of RR as well, and has had a rather tumultuous relationship with them concerning both the L1011s and Concordes.

[Trip7-300ER]

Runway cant handle the weight of the 777-300ER, how will it manage to hold that of the A380. and correct me if i am wrong, but doesn't the 777-300ER weigh less than the 744??