Haven't heard about 5 777's but I did hear from a very reliable source (Bus lady's boss e.g....) that we WERE getting TNT's 3 777's and that those 3 were all that we were getting this year (so far).

 

If you're interested, you can find the load charts in the MEL on your iPad. My favorite phrase during Airbus training was, "On some aircraft ..." They never tell you which ones, just to look out for this or that and be ready if you stumble across it.

In this case, the "some aircraft" appear to be some A300-600s. Take a look at MEL 25-50-02-01-J -- that 's the only one that shows the upper deck configured with AAD cans. There are 3 possible configurations:

A) 9 AMJs and 17 AYYs
B) 16 AADs, 3 SAAs, and 1 AYY
C) 9 AADs and 17 AYYs

The configuration including AMJs holds approximately 8,730 cubic feet. The configuration using 16 AADs holds 9,514 cubic feet, while the configuration using 9 AADs holds 7,935 cubic feet.

The 2 AADs for every 1 AMJ would be hard to pull off considering the footprint of the cans. AMJs are 96" wide by 125" long; AADs and AYYs have the same footprint - 88" wide by 125" long.

The AADs have an advantage over the AYYs because they are taller at their highest point. However, compared to the AMJs, they are more narrow and have a more severe taper from that maximum height. The AMJ is flat along most of its width, while the AAD begins tapering almost from the very center to the outboard edge.






.

 

So using AADs instead of AMJs increases the volume 10%.

 

Or 10% less, depending on which loading configuration is used on " some" A300-600s.

I provided details about A300/A310 loading because Full pull claimed you could put 2 AADs in the place of 1 AMJ, which is clearly not the case. I fail to see, however, how any discussion of Airbus loading has anything to do with the claims made by Global Western that an MD-11 is better than a B-767 for hauling freight.

I believe someone (Perm11FO) said their claims amounted to "putting lipstick on a pig". I'm still waiting to hear facts to substantiate such rhetoric.






.

 

Just my opinion but one interpretation of Global Westerns claim could be that MD-11s are essentially free for the taking.

 

I won't claim to have the knowledge Tony does of the cans and loading of the jets. But I will share a couple anecdotes from Asia...

NRT-SIN is gone from the 767 bidpack in Mar, and flight 5311 is now distributed across the 3 MD-11 bidpacks. Scheduled for just under 7:30, I went 8:19 on the flight yesterday. ATC delays and strong winds make that a pretty long flight. Add a few hiccups like holding and you go over 8 hours. Rather than jam an RFO into the 767 it appears the company decided the MD11 might be a better fit after all.

Second point was a friend ended up on Hotel standby because his CAN-ICN run had too much freight and they gauged up to an MD11 for that flight. The LAX hotel stby crew indicated they "expect" to fly most nights during their standby and this was a common occurrence.

I R simple pilot, not a smart MBA. I have no idea what the yield is per pound or total costs of using an -11 vice 767 on any segment. What is apparent to my operator perspective, however, is that the comm indicating the 767 will "replace" the -11 flying intra-Asia may have been a tad premature. Unless we reduce the scheduled freight and add an RFO to some of the longer legs, I suspect the MadDog is still gonna be seen on the CAN ramp....at least for a while.

And for the record, I'm not sniping at anyone in flight ops or on the line on this one. It just seems to me that maybe some of the capabilities we have with the MD-11 may not be captured on a 1 for 1 basis with the 767. We burned about 87,000 pounds of gas on the trip, so its obviously a pretty fuel efficient platform. Looking at PFC, you rarely read about any issues with the plane when you read the duty officer's reports. It may be the ideal MD-10 replacement domestically. For over-water class II ops, however, we need a few improvements to match the capability of the -11, and I am not sure even if those are made the plane still won't be leaving some freight behind on some of the legs if we really do the 1 for 1 switch. Kudos to those guys trying to be efficient and make a buck...I get it. It just seems (to my untrained eye) like it might have been an optimistic overreach on at least a couple of the pairings.

 

The problem with NRT-SIN is that we can't fly the 767 in certain airspace without satellite datalink. We opted not to purchase it. So the route is longer.

 

Now that it is obvious that it should be augmented (at least this time of year), I think two very big issues with the current NRT-SIN run on the B767 are:

1. They flat out don't have enough HKG based B767 FO's to augment that leg and operate the rest of the bid pack.

2. With the new CBA, they would be required to give the crew a 36-hour layover and they want to turn them in 24.

These also could be reasons that segment is not in the March bidpack. I guess we'll know for sure if we see it put back in for the summer.

 

So anyway.... about that upcoming bid?

 

Yeah really, talk about thread creep!

Anyone got any rumors out there?