Louisiana needed it, because it optimizes the number of Euro-side connections. The New York, L.A., Boston, etc flights that can fill a widebody to London on their own, can sustain the early morning and/or late evening arrivals.
yep took off to the South on 7000' runway...9 hrs of fuel and probably good passenger load and still good enough power to weight to get it done in a southerly breeze
I showed my dad this,he was impressed. He was a Delta pilot based here in New Orleans, until he started flying international. He always complained about the short runways here at MSY and at LGA(plus he left Queens when he was 19,not a big fan of his native NYC)-especially in the last 2 models of aircraft he flew(DC8/stretch 8,and the L1011-his favorite,especially those Rolls Royce engines)it is amazing that a fully loaded and fueled widebody can go from New Orleans to London from MSY,especially that short runway!What a testament to Boeing for making such a light plane,and RR for continuing to make state of the art engines!
Interesting, though NOLA doesn't ONLY have the short runway. 11/29 is 10,104ft long and below sea level... plenty of length for typical transatlantic takeoffs. To see this one go off of 02/20 at only 7000ft though, was amazing! An Air Canada Rouge 763ER later did an even longer nonstop (charter to Switzerland) off of it as well.
Not necessarily. Plenty of other factors involved: terrain clearance, precipitation/contamination, temperature, humidity, etc etc. This flight is was departing a place that's relatively cool, consistent winds, below sea level, and only flying about 60% of its available range (and thus relatively lightly loaded with fuel), and the runway was dry. Were it departing for a longer flight, at higher temps, with the runways wet/rainy, then it would've required significantly more available runway. And that's a 787. There are aircraft that don't have particularly great runway (distance) performance, e.g. 739ERs, due to their rotational issues and the like.
That's going to be us, in a month!
very convenient to go nonstop. Just wish it didn't get to London at noon.
Same aircraft turnaround, and they wanted the westbound to leave later for possibility of cnnx, so sorta has to happen.
Louisiana needed it, because it optimizes the number of Euro-side connections.
The New York, L.A., Boston, etc flights that can fill a widebody to London on their own, can sustain the early morning and/or late evening arrivals.
yep took off to the South on 7000' runway...9 hrs of fuel and probably good passenger load and still good enough power to weight to get it done in a southerly breeze
I showed my dad this,he was impressed. He was a Delta pilot based here in New Orleans, until he started flying international. He always complained about the short runways here at MSY and at LGA(plus he left Queens when he was 19,not a big fan of his native NYC)-especially in the last 2 models of aircraft he flew(DC8/stretch 8,and the L1011-his favorite,especially those Rolls Royce engines)it is amazing that a fully loaded and fueled widebody can go from New Orleans to London from MSY,especially that short runway!What a testament to Boeing for making such a light plane,and RR for continuing to make state of the art engines!
Interesting, though NOLA doesn't ONLY have the short runway. 11/29 is 10,104ft long and below sea level... plenty of length for typical transatlantic takeoffs. To see this one go off of 02/20 at only 7000ft though, was amazing!
An Air Canada Rouge 763ER later did an even longer nonstop (charter to Switzerland) off of it as well.
Proof that those 11-13,000' runways are unnecessary (for low elevated areas).
Not necessarily. Plenty of other factors involved: terrain clearance, precipitation/contamination, temperature, humidity, etc etc.
This flight is was departing a place that's relatively cool, consistent winds, below sea level, and only flying about 60% of its available range (and thus relatively lightly loaded with fuel), and the runway was dry. Were it departing for a longer flight, at higher temps, with the runways wet/rainy, then it would've required significantly more available runway.
And that's a 787. There are aircraft that don't have particularly great runway (distance) performance, e.g. 739ERs, due to their rotational issues and the like.