但係service真係贏曬惡曬
淨係個餐已經贏曬
btw 我又覺得張櫈幾舒服，有小小斜，唔使直曬
[航空]連登飛機膠討論區3
真俊華
1001 回覆
10 Like
1 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁第 26 頁第 27 頁第 28 頁第 29 頁第 30 頁第 31 頁第 32 頁第 33 頁第 34 頁第 35 頁第 36 頁第 37 頁第 38 頁第 39 頁第 40 頁第 41 頁
機黎講就真係睇得出殘
但係service真係贏曬惡曬
淨係個餐已經贏曬
btw 我又覺得張櫈幾舒服，有小小斜，唔使直曬
但係service真係贏曬惡曬
淨係個餐已經贏曬
btw 我又覺得張櫈幾舒服，有小小斜，唔使直曬
SQ死忠表示，幾貴都想買佢
(不過我kf換埋曬，就轉去韓亞，係咁貶值唔係辦法)
(不過我kf換埋曬，就轉去韓亞，係咁貶值唔係辦法)
呢條線本身話2017/10開，又請hong kong base crew
仲要搞咁耐
仲要搞咁耐
其實SQ Y service 唔係真係咁好
CX其實都唔差，互有輸贏
櫈就真係無得輸
CX其實都唔差，互有輸贏
櫈就真係無得輸
五月三十號班CX580無啦啦無左
仲有582嘅
都無
其實A380做貨機輸因爲唔可以747咁開唔到頭入貨
但其實巴士俾資源搞埋個開機頭真係無得搞？
客機唔興大hub但貨機都仲大把市場啊應該
因為研究埋開口要成架機設計過？
Ps 完全9up 插細力啲
但其實巴士俾資源搞埋個開機頭真係無得搞？
客機唔興大hub但貨機都仲大把市場啊應該
因為研究埋開口要成架機設計過？
Ps 完全9up 插細力啲
應該係空間十足但載重唔夠
呢度答咗
https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/
"An A380-F would be too fat to fly at a profit: The plane would hit the maximum payload (a constraint of weight) before its maximum cubic space (a constraint of volume). Its design can’t support the maximum payload required to generate a profit.
Consider a comparison with the Boeing 747-400F, a popular air freighter. The 747 has a maximum take-off weight of 448,000 kilograms to the A380’s 575,000. In addition, the 747 has a cargo capacity of 710 m3 to the hypothetical A380-F’s 1134 m3. The A380-F would be able to carry 60% more volume than the 747, but only 28% more weight. It wouldn’t be fully loaded at typical levels of air cargo density, or at least nothing close to what can be supported by the thrust capacity of the 747."
https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/
"An A380-F would be too fat to fly at a profit: The plane would hit the maximum payload (a constraint of weight) before its maximum cubic space (a constraint of volume). Its design can’t support the maximum payload required to generate a profit.
Consider a comparison with the Boeing 747-400F, a popular air freighter. The 747 has a maximum take-off weight of 448,000 kilograms to the A380’s 575,000. In addition, the 747 has a cargo capacity of 710 m3 to the hypothetical A380-F’s 1134 m3. The A380-F would be able to carry 60% more volume than the 747, but only 28% more weight. It wouldn’t be fully loaded at typical levels of air cargo density, or at least nothing close to what can be supported by the thrust capacity of the 747."
但cargo唔是好似有另一種計法用 volume weight 計revenue
不過肥妹開唔到頭,幾大volume都冇用
不過肥妹開唔到頭,幾大volume都冇用
有道理
但有好多貨都講size
就係架機就有係到
研究開埋個頭真係咁唔值得搞
但有好多貨都講size
就係架機就有係到
研究開埋個頭真係咁唔值得搞
Volume Weight 可以用 ATK/RTK:
ATK= Available Ton * 航線里程
RTK 一樣
ATK= Available Ton * 航線里程
RTK 一樣
搭過sq 一次，覺得除咗套衫，同跪係度派餐
其他都普通，除非去南半球，唔值得特登去轉機
其他都普通，除非去南半球，唔值得特登去轉機
唔知係咪現實上啲空運貨都係重多過大件
同埋重量限制始終多於體積限制
好似寄艙行李咁，多數都係超重，好少話太大
仲有開到個頭主要係畀啲特長貨物用，機頭前面矮咗（如下圖），放後面位嗰啲高身嘅貨都要喺後面艙門上落
同埋重量限制始終多於體積限制
好似寄艙行李咁，多數都係超重，好少話太大
仲有開到個頭主要係畀啲特長貨物用，機頭前面矮咗（如下圖），放後面位嗰啲高身嘅貨都要喺後面艙門上落
咁唔係載啲奇形怪狀野777F 都好夠夠做 咁747F就可以食兩味 1. 啲貨真係多到食唔哂果陣 2. 可以仼開價嘅奇形怪狀
咁更大嘅380F反而淨係做到一味自然冇咁抵買 而且貨運業好週期性 唔會成年keep住有極大量嘅貨
咁更大嘅380F反而淨係做到一味自然冇咁抵買 而且貨運業好週期性 唔會成年keep住有極大量嘅貨
開機頭係咪放奇怪size 都係其次
最重要係上落貨快好多
空運貨其實有曬公式大細，好多機種都啱裝
如果有種新size 淨係得A380 裝到，咁對航空公司同佢啲客都好麻煩
最重要係上落貨快好多
空運貨其實有曬公式大細，好多機種都啱裝
如果有種新size 淨係得A380 裝到，咁對航空公司同佢啲客都好麻煩
支那啲花機真係柒都仆街
Air 支那隻 772 都仲影得落手
支那 Eastern 嗰兩隻 330 柒撚到...
Air 支那隻 772 都仲影得落手
支那 Eastern 嗰兩隻 330 柒撚到...
隻772好撚柒
我覺得幾好睇
支那大把柒機, 要講真係有排數
Ca 嗰d 算幾靚
mu 嗰d 垃圾小學雞功課咁
mu 嗰d 垃圾小學雞功課咁
淡季冇582/583
580/581 一星期四班
580/581 一星期四班