Search

Notices

Gates and wingspans

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-04-2014, 03:12 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
Default Gates and wingspans

Just curious if anyone knows how the wingspans of the 787-10 and A350-1000 will fit into our current gates. Im assuming the wingspans are longer than the 777-200.

Im specifically curious about how we are going to be getting our new wide body fleets wedged into EWR and SFO. Less gates? Can the lines be re-drawn, or are they maxed out? Or will EWR and SFO be where the 777 goes to die.
MasterOfPuppets is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:39 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
Default

Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets
Just curious if anyone knows how the wingspans of the 787-10 and A350-1000 will fit into our current gates. Im assuming the wingspans are longer than the 777-200.

Im specifically curious about how we are going to be getting our new wide body fleets wedged into EWR and SFO. Less gates? Can the lines be re-drawn, or are they maxed out? Or will EWR and SFO be where the 777 goes to die.
You can quickly google the wingspans of any aircraft. The 787-10 has a slightly shorter span then the 777-200/300.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:53 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
You can quickly google the wingspans of any aircraft. The 787-10 has a slightly shorter span then the 777-200/300.
Bet that mechanic moving the 777 in Ord the other day wished it was a 787.
SpecialTracking is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:53 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
You can quickly google the wingspans of any aircraft. The 787-10 has a slightly shorter span then the 777-200/300.
So it is. I'm shocked That the wing for 787-10 is so short. guess I should do research first instead of just posting what ever pops up into the old noggin .

So the 350 is 213ft guess the extra 14ft on the 777 won't be to much of a problem.

Thanks
MasterOfPuppets is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 06:59 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 194
Default

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
Bet that mechanic moving the 777 in Ord the other day wished it was a 787.
NO!!! Bummer. Didn't hear about that one.
El Gwopo is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 07:15 PM
  #6  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

How bad was it?
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 08-05-2014, 06:43 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
guppyflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Left of center
Posts: 191
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
How bad was it?
Well.....a -400 AND a 777 are down for months and may be scrapped. Other than that, it's all good! 777 wing went through the nose of the -400 and damaged the pressure bulkhead, the 777 needs 20ft of new wing, both are AOG for a long while IF they are determined to still be of value. Rumor was the -400 may be beer cans.
guppyflyer is offline  
Old 08-05-2014, 04:29 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Default

Originally Posted by guppyflyer
Well.....a -400 AND a 777 are down for months and may be scrapped. Other than that, it's all good! 777 wing went through the nose of the -400 and damaged the pressure bulkhead, the 777 needs 20ft of new wing, both are AOG for a long while IF they are determined to still be of value. Rumor was the -400 may be beer cans.
Amazed that there is zilch for pictures on the internets. Solid golf clap to the wrenches for this one...
intrepidcv11 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices