Garuda postpones Sydney-Jakarta and Jakarta-London B777-300ER flights

[SteveJohnson]

As Effie on Acropolis Now used to say, "How embarrassment!"

Garuda Indonesia has postponed the launch of its Jakarta-London flights to May 2014, a delay of six months from the previously-planned date of 2 November this year, and will also restrict the Sydney-Jakarta flights to just six weeks from 8 November to 18 December (they were supposed to start October 27).

The reason? "Garuda says that the 28 year-old runway and apron at Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta Airport are not strong enough to carry the Boeing 777 if the aircraft was to operate with a full load of passengers, cargo and fuel sufficient for the 7,300 mile flight. The airport's operating surfaces are rated to handle only 120 tons while at full capacity the Boeing 777-300ER would require a rating of 132 tons."

Garuda postpones new London Boeing 777 service to May 2014 - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

 

[Newk]

As Effie on Acropolis Now used to say, "How embarrassment!"

Garuda Indonesia has postponed the launch of its Jakarta-London flights to May 2014, a delay of six months from the previously-planned date of 2 November this year, and will also restrict the Sydney-Jakarta flights to just six weeks from 8 November to 18 December (they were supposed to start October 27).

The reason? "Garuda says that the 28 year-old runway and apron at Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta Airport are not strong enough to carry the Boeing 777 if the aircraft was to operate with a full load of passengers, cargo and fuel sufficient for the 7,300 mile flight. The airport's operating surfaces are rated to handle only 120 tons while at full capacity the Boeing 777-300ER would require a rating of 132 tons."

Garuda postpones new London Boeing 777 service to May 2014 - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

inspires confidence in their planning

 

[Ansett]

inspires confidence in their planning

Is it Garuda or the Airport Authority holding them back as is the case in Brisbane

 

[docjames]

Well, that's a novel reason for something planned well in advance. Agree with Newk - not the image of a carrier who is "on top of things" - admittedly partially out of their control. You'd think they could fly via an intermediary point to LHR (? IST perhaps??)

Seems the airlines introducing the A380 had their destination airports organised reasonably in advance....

 

[TheEmu]

As Effie on Acropolis Now used to say, "How embarrassment!"

Garuda Indonesia has postponed the launch of its Jakarta-London flights to May 2014, a delay of six months from the previously-planned date of 2 November this year, and will also restrict the Sydney-Jakarta flights to just six weeks from 8 November to 18 December (they were supposed to start October 27).

The reason? "Garuda says that the 28 year-old runway and apron at Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta Airport are not strong enough to carry the Boeing 777 if the aircraft was to operate with a full load of passengers, cargo and fuel sufficient for the 7,300 mile flight. The airport's operating surfaces are rated to handle only 120 tons while at full capacity the Boeing 777-300ER would require a rating of 132 tons."

Garuda postpones new London Boeing 777 service to May 2014 - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

Serious question: Are 747-400s/400ERs/8s not able to land at CGK? A340-500/600?
All would be heavier than the 777-300ER?
I have no idea how airport surfaces are load rated but a 777−300ER's MTOW is about 350 tons…If the surface load-rating is the same as the aircraft weight, 120 tons seems pretty restrictive.

 

[dajop]

Serious question: Are 747-400s/400ERs/8s not able to land at CGK? A340-500/600?

I've taken off on an SQ 747-400 (my last time ever on SQ 747 as it turned out), but not much fuel to carry to make the 500 mile trip to SIN .....

 

[clifford]

That's why I don't fly Garuda.

 

[markis10]

Serious question: Are 747-400s/400ERs/8s not able to land at CGK? A340-500/600?
All would be heavier than the 777-300ER?
I have no idea how airport surfaces are load rated but a 777−300ER's MTOW is about 350 tons…If the surface load-rating is the same as the aircraft weight, 120 tons seems pretty restrictive.

Its not really about MTOW but more pavement rating vs aircraft ratings, as weight is spread across the gear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_classification_number



I suspect the truth is not quite within the story, a tristar has similar ACN properties to a 777-300, and who used to operate them...........http://www.airliners.net/photo/Garuda-Indonesia-(Eastern/Lockheed-L-1011-385-1-TriStar/0799061/L/

The saying same same but different would seem to apply.

 

[lovestotravel]

Great planning and just shows how pathetic Garuda really is

 

[TheEmu]

Its not really about MTOW but more pavement rating vs aircraft ratings, as weight is spread across the gear.

Aircraft classification number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I suspect the truth is not quite within the story, a tristar has similar ACN properties to a 777-300, and who used to operate them...........Photos: Lockheed L-1011-385-1 TriStar 1 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

The saying same same but different would seem to apply.

Thanks markis10 - a guide to the answer I was looking for.

Also: Pavement classification number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles like this (AusBT) can be misleading by trying to use layman's terms which don't correctly describe complex technical situations: the payment strength - PCN - is a value expressed by a 5 part code and is not a weight restriction as indicated by the article. The number expressed in the PCN code is unit-less, not tons, and calculated on a number of different factors rather than the direct, still-weight bearing capacity of the surface.
As far as Garuda goes, who knows…?

 

[dajop]

and just shows how pathetic Garuda really is

Yes, very bad planning. But in the legal, ethical and regulatory environment in which they operate they could probably just go ahead anyway and make regulatory or safety concerns "go away" so to speak.

I am not confident that some of the other airlines in Indonesia would take the same approach by putting compliance and safety first.