Airbus and Northwest Airlines: Well done

Triathlon Forum
1

-Flew economy class from Detroit to Amsterdam and then on to Nice for the triathlon.

Econo class used to be a terror. It was like being in the hold of the Amistad or a Roman slave ship. Horrible. The flight attendants were mean, the food abyssmal, the aircraft packed so tight it was absurd, the air quality terrible and it smelled bad.

This past trip over to Europe was amazingly different. Northwest has recently acquired some new Airbus A330s. These aircraft are amazing. First off, absolutely beautiful airplane. I sat in the gate at the new Detroit McNamara Terminal looking out the window at this shiny new Airbus thinking “Wow, what an incredible airplane.”

Second, there seems to be a critical 5% more room under the seats. Still tight, but livable.

Third, the little personal entertainment movie thing in the seatback in front of you is brilliant.

Fourth, food wasn’t just passable, it was good. Not enough of it though.

Fifth, the flight attendants are intelligent and friendly.

Sixth, it was cheap. -And on time, early in fact.

Seventh, it was FAST!!! Our ground speed at 40K over the Atlantic with a 120 mph tailwind was depicted as 714 mph on the display in the cabin. Is that even possible? I though 721 mph was Mach 1? We were absolutely flying.

Eight, my stuff showed up too- not even damaged.

Nine, security in Amsterdam was actually- secure. When they found out I was travelling alone they put me through an entire additional level of screening. Eerie but effective.

In general Northwest has come a long way in the past five years, tough years in the airline industry. I was pretty impressed.

2

Here is an Airbus A330 in Northwest colors like the one I flew on. Beautiful… Look at the nose. Awesome. Beautiful plane sitting on the ground too.

http://www.airbus.com/multimediaelements/1972.jpg

3

Tom,

I believe that mach 1 is highly dependant on the temperature and the gas in which you are traveling.

speed of sound at sea level = 340.29 m / s or roughly 761 or so mph. Keep in mind physics class was a long time ago. Glad to hear you had a good race and trip though.

JW

4

I’m certain that well exceeds the aircraft’s published velocity- at least I would imagine it does.

I presumed the display was wrong. Just the same, it was cool to think we may have been going over 700 mph. That is the fastest I have ever gone.

5

Mach 1 is relative to the fluid, not to the ground.

If the tailwind was 120, then you were traveling 600 mph relative to the air. Still seems high to me.

7

If the tailwind was 120, then you were traveling 600 mph relative to the air. Still seems high to me.

Turbine powered aircraft traveling at high altittudes manage air speed in terms of a percentage of mach given air density and pervaling temperature of the atmosphere at the time! My understanding is that max. operating speed for the Airbus 330 is Mach 0.86 but with the ground speed you reported, that sounds closer to mach 0.92-0.94! In addition to things like loading, aircraft performance is also effected by the prevaling atmospheric conditions at the time which effects the efficiency of the airframe in the surrounding air as well as the performance of the engines.

At that altitude, speed is more of a concern in terms of high speed (subsonic) aerodynamics as the aircraft has to contend with the fact that at higher altitiudes as airspeed increases, both the high and low end stall speeds also increase. As these two speeds converge the aircraft can reach a point where 1 knot too fast or to slow - referred to as coffin corner - can result in a stall. Now as the speeds get closer together, the result is a very, very narrow spread in the acceptable airspeed range of the aircraft that can be as little as 5-7 knots but the Airbus flight management systems can easily maintain the airspeed to the nth degree. Unfortunately things like Clear Air Turbulence or other atmospheric anomalies can instantly put the aircraft outside the range of acceptable airspeeds possibly resulting in departure from controlled flight which could result in the loss of a lot of altitude before aircraft control can be regained.

8

I work as an engineering analyst for the “other” airplane company. One of the things I’ve done is discussed the differences in aircraft inflight operations with the flight attendents. The NW operated Airbus is considered the “senior” (meaning the attendents and flight crews with the most experience) get the first choice of aircraft and routes.

This is sobering answer for us which in turn explains why you are getting better in-flight service. This has not been lost on us and is a part of a continuing effort to improve our product. Jay

10

I think you’ll see a better product from both sides and the competition will be decided on our, Airbus’s & Boeing’s, service to the operators. Just keep in mind that good people are designing and building good airplanes on both sides!!! but, we will be number one again. Jay

11

Would you say the speed I saw was actual or accurate? I looked at the little display on the screen frequently throughout the flight- it was above 700 mph for an extended time, at least 30 minutes. At that time it also reported altitude as over 40,000 ft- which also struck me as very high.

Is this real? Is this pretty standard for A330’s flying transatlantic?

Two weeks prior to my trip a customer in our store who is a mechanic for the airlines told me the A330 pilots have to go off autopilot to pull out of the flight lanes to pass slower aircraft at similar altitudes such as 747s. Any truth to this?

There was a spectacular view of Greenland on the way home. Absolutely superb. Really, one of those vision I will take to my grave.

14

I’ve never been on a 777 but would love to. I flew to hong Kong on a A340 with Cathay Pacific and it was downright opulent. It was a beautiful aircraft with a British trained flight crew, maybe former RAF.

My understanding was the 7E7 is a long way from reality. I have only seen rendering of the interior and exterior. It has larger windows, that’s very cool but I hope it doesn’t do a “DeHavilland Comet”!

What is going on with the Airbus jumbo? The A380?

16

I believe air speed equals speed going through the air (jet propulsion) plus tail wind. The long range cruise speed of jets are .82-.86 mach. When you add the 120 mile an hour tailwind (reverse Kona winds), the 700 mile an hour speed makes sense. If mach is about 760 miles an hour, .82 x 760 + 120 puts you at about 120.

In effect, you are still going ‘only’ 600 mph, well under mach, but the tail wind makes your ground speed (how much turf you cover) over 700.

All jets have airspeed overspeed clackers that sound when the aircraft does go too fast, alerting the pilots to slow 'er down a bit.

It is true, some aircraft run about 20-25 mph faster than others.

Mark

17

On the way back the display hovered in the mid 500 range, usually around 545 mph. That seemed much more reasonable for an airliner.

I was so amazed by the number on the display I seriously considered digging a camera out and shooting a photo of it. Both speed and altitude seemed extraordinary to me.

19

Ahh the good old Jet stream. It flows from west to east. I flew to LA to Hong Kong last year and on the way there we had very strong headwinds. We had to stop to take on etra fuel in Taiwan. I believe the winds were 200 something or other. This translated to 17.5 hours going (though probably 1-2 hours is due to the stop at Exxon) and 11 hours home. Thankfully I somehow was upgradedon the way to Hong Kong.

JW

21

I got that beat. I think Anchorage to Hong Kong was 15 hours. It was space flight.

22

Very interesting thread for I am a B737 FO for Continental.

In a nutshell, airline fuel costs are the most expensive overhead item we deal with today. Our flight plans also show us the cost per gallon of JetA for each given flight which varies from day to day and station to station. Because of this, fuel efficiency is paramount. We flight plan to improve upon this aspect by taking advantage of routes that maximixe tailwinds to increase our groundspeed and conversely, minimize headwinds to preserve groundspeed. Our flightplans also are planned at the most economical speed. This speed is primarily determined by the wing’s airfoil design and secondly by the aircraft weight. We want to achieve the most lift with the least amount of drag (the L/D ratio). Our Flight Management Computers (FMCs) do this calculating. The older airplanes I first flew at Continental, B-727s, B737/100s/200s, DC-10s had Planning and Performance Manuals on board that we referenced. Now on the B737/300/500/700/800/900s that I fly, we have FMCs.

The speed that the passangers see on their video screen is the resultant groundspeed. At a typical cruising altitude, say 35000 feet, at Mach .79, our true airspeed is around 480 knots (nautical miles per hour). Multiply by 1.15 gives you 552 mph. The airplane doesn’t care whether it is flying into a headwind or with a tailwind. The true airspeed is always unchanged. If we have 100 mph dead on the tail, our groundspeed in the above case will be 652. A headwind would be 452. I have seen groundspeeds as low as the upper 300s flying west in the winter into the jetstream and around 600 flying east with the wind in 737s.

On the north atlantic routes to Europe, the eastbound tracks across change on a daily basis to take advantage of the prevailing jet stream. Generally, the lattitudes of the routes from north to south are between say Maine and New Foundland. You can see some impressive goundspeeds at times. Coming back, Europe to the US, flight plans go way north to get above the prevailing jetstream. This also takes advantage of flying a great circle route, ie. shortest distance between A to B. Often, the west bound flights overfly Greenland where at times, the wind can be basically calm, thereby preserving maximum groundspeed.

When we ride our time trial bikes, we attempt to achieve the most aerodynamic position possible in order to reduce parasitic drag. In calm wind conitions, a given wattage produces a given speed. We all know the effects of headwinds and tailwinds. Same thing with airplanes.

Swimming in a river that is flowing at 1 mph has a huge influence on ones time, whether plus or negative depending on either swimming with or against the current. Consider the IM swim leg. The top pros swim at 3 mph, so 2.4/3.0 equals 48 minutes. If just for example, that same pro had a 1 mph current to swim into, 2.4/2.0 equals 1 hour 12 minutes. Going with the current, 2.4/4.0 equals 36 minutes!

So, the physics of aeronautics applies to us triathletes also.

Good luck to all in the final months of the season. I for one have gone into the “off-season.”

Conrad

23

All I know is that usually it takes a lot less time to go from the US to Europe than the opposite (winds I guess).

24

Glad you had a decent flight. Years ago I flew a few times as a passenger to Europe in economy–it was tough. Now that I fly for a living, 3 hrs is about my limit in economy.

It does seem that europeans take security a lot more seriously than we do here in the US and AMS airport is a tight ship. The speeds you saw on the display were likely quite accurate, as they are fed from the aircraft computer which is flying the plane. But you were looking at groundspeed in mph. Pilots are more often concerned with airspeed in mach no. or knots (a knot is about 1.15 miles). And, as others have pointed out, the speed of sound is not a constant, but varies with conditions and especially altitude. Tailwinds of 200 mph at your altitude are not uncommon and Northwest was smart to take advantage of them. Your altitude (40,000’) was on the high side, but it was likely the optimal altitude for the Airbus, for the conditions, for the wind, and for the airplane weight. In general, the heavier the load, the lower a jet should fly for optimal efficiency. Over a long flight, as airplane weight decreases due to fuel burn, this optimal flying altitude creeps up, and, if possible, the flight crew will try to climb.

No, I don’t think the A330 has to get off the autopilot to pass “slower” planes across the Atlantic. For one, all other things being equal, 747s are the fastest subsonic large jets in the sky today (Airbus pilots can correct me, but I don’t think I am wrong). Also, crossing the Altantic in a passenger plane typically involves flying on tracks (airways) that require a constant set AIRspeed, not necessarily a super fast speed or optimal speed. If passing were to occur on a track, it could easily still be done with the autopilot still on, but the autopilot would be following the pilot commands off airway rather than tracking the airway.

About design, all airplanes have flaws, and all have advantages, but some more than others. It is funny to read comments that the sidestick in an Airbus is a “flaw”–who says? Many folks have never flown any plane with a stick; they can work very well. I can say that Boeing cockpits (at the least the one I am familiar with, 747-400) can be improved A LOT. But give me a few years in an Airbus and I can probably say the same thing about them. One big advantage of the Airbus is that their general design is NEWER. Their designers were able to start from scratch and use the newest technology avail. at the time. Boeing, rightly or wrongly, has tried to maintain some consistency in their cockpits, but they started out with layouts and designs that were decades old. There are also certification issues that prevent design upgrades. The 747-400, certified in the mid-1980s (‘84 I think), must still use electronics and technology from the 1980s. Anybody here still use a computer from then, you know, the ones with big ol’ 5 inch floppies and screens with nothing but little green letters?

26

A buddy of mine who’s a pilot for JetBlue said his job can be extremely boring at times. He does the red eyes across the US and said alot of pilots get into star gazing and constellations b/c there’s absolutely nothing to do up there while the plane is on auto. He also said that he’d be lying if he hasn’t “dozed off” up there

Glad I could fill you in on some details.

And no disagreements from me about the boredom. But here is another big advantage of the Airbus: the convenient slide-out laptop/meal shelf. Not nearly as easy to type away in a Boeing cockpit.

28

Spank you veddy much, Thomas. Me being a Northwest manager, I’ll pass this along to corporate. I’ve also had us look at becoming a travel provider for the U.S. teams for the various world championships :slight_smile:

I had the opportunity to be one of the test riders last year for the new A-330 (we flew DTW to Amsterdam a bunch of times, played with the seats, moved around…basically tried to break stuff ;-). It was a nice ride.

We’re trying, buddy. We’re sitting on 2.8 billion of unrestricted cash, and our labor talks are coming along and with a lot less acrimony than you see at the other airlines, too.

I’ll be sending you some more promotional stuff, btw.

Tony

30

Your miles are more than good. We’re looking at some promotional stuff that’d benefit our Elite-level flyers and the miles that they’re sitting on. We’re also getting set to run seasonal service from Anchorage to Maui and on to Honolulu and back to Anchorage, and probably a Portland, OR to Maui to Honolulu back to Portland.

We code share out here in Honolulu with Hawaiian Airlines. This works great for athletes coming out to do Kona or the new Honu 1/2 IM next year. I also have to say that I’ve got the best employees in the system. We’re way in the lead for what we call “Gateway of the Year”, and the agents and ramp personnel are easily the most dedicated that I’ve worked with. Prior to coming out here, I was a manager at our Detroit hub (which is a huge bear of an operation, I must admit), and the difference in attitude is night and day :slight_smile:

As a management group, we’re getting ready to “step over the cliff” with the pilots in terms of pay cuts and whatnot. It’s our hope that the rest of the labor groups will see that we’re going to take the pain along with them, and that we’ll come out at the end a much stronger airline. We also are going to be offering a ton more “point-to-point” (flying directly from one city to another without going through a hub) flights. Indianapolis is going from 6 flights a day up past 18 or more. We’ll also have a number of other cities using that model. Basically, we’ll have two major “fortress hubs” (Detroit and Minneapolis), one smaller hub (Memphis) and 6 to 8 point-to-point cities (Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Phoenix etc.). This is an attempt to marry the best characteristics of a hub-and-spoke network with a point-to-point network such as is flown by Southwest and Jet Blue.

I think we’ll be okay. I’m an optimist at heart, though :slight_smile:

Tony