Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4719644/

Topic: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: speedbird9
Posted 2010-02-20 07:33:19 and read 23328 times.

Hi
i read some where that the Boeing 777-200LR and the A340-500 HGW could do the kangaroo route London to Sydney non stop how come no-one has done this yet? is it simply because no on in the UK or Australia has the aircraft or is it a profit and revenue thing. Because i would have thought it would have been welcome news for the airlines less money on refueling ground ops and landing slots and a great help to passengers
Thanks

p.s. sorry if discussed previously couldn't find anything  

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: TymnBalewne
Posted 2010-02-20 07:36:35 and read 23339 times.

I thought it could go LHR PER non-stop but not SYD. If I'm correct, well, there's not really the market to do LHR PER non-stop.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: SW733
Posted 2010-02-20 07:37:34 and read 23351 times.

Quoting speedbird9 (Thread starter):
i read some where that the Boeing 777-200LR and the A340-500 HGW could do the kangaroo route London to Sydney non stop how come no-one has done this yet?

1) I am still not 100% sure they can do it reliably westbound?

2) Economics...there was an interesting thread not long ago about how ULH flights are just rubbish on cash flow. Emirates has a nice lock on OZ to Europe via DXB, as do others via SIN/HKG/BKK. That covers most of what is needed.

[Edited 2010-02-20 07:38:10]

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: speedbird9
Posted 2010-02-20 07:53:44 and read 23227 times.

hmmmm.... maybe your right only if Concorde could fly that, that would be fun
and i think it might have been PER i might have remembered it wrongly

I also remember hearing that Airbus was going to develop a Airbus A350-900R XWB for BA if they wanted a non stop LHR-SYD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stop_flight#Future_of_ultra_long-haul
(i know its Wikipedia but hey ....)

is this true or just Wikipedia babble


thanks
speedbird9

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2010-02-20 08:00:47 and read 23178 times.

Quoting speedbird9 (Thread starter):
Hi
i read some where that the Boeing 777-200LR and the A340-500 HGW could do the kangaroo route London to Sydney non stop how come no-one has done this yet? is it simply because no on in the UK or Australia has the aircraft or is it a profit and revenue thing. Because i would have thought it would have been welcome news for the airlines less money on refueling ground ops and landing slots and a great help to passengers
Thanks

p.s. sorry if discussed previously couldn't find anything

Simply because there is no aircraft currently available which could do it even remotely profitably. Indeed, there are numerous threads available discussing this issue.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-02-20 08:13:41 and read 23078 times.

Quoting speedbird9 (Thread starter):
i read some where that the Boeing 777-200LR and the A340-500 HGW could do the kangaroo route London to Sydney non stop

But probably not SYD-LHR, with a meaningful payload anyway. The only way it would work is an all business configuration like SQ does, and now is definitely not the time to be starting that.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: YULWinterSkies
Posted 2010-02-20 09:25:56 and read 22809 times.

That no one in the UK and Oz has the aircraft is not the issue. If the aircraft were capable of doing it in a viable way (economically), they would operate some.
While a 772LR (and probably also A345) can technically do SYD-LHR non-stop, in no way it can do it with a profitable revenue of cargo and pax, especially in the current economic environment when lowest airfares are the rule.
Plus, i'm not convinced whether the travelers will be ready to spend 18+ hours (or is that rather 20) on an airplane seat without touching ground. And being a direct flight, it would end up with higher airfares than a HKG, SIN, DXB stopover... That would be another risk for the airlines.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: gkirk
Posted 2010-02-20 09:36:13 and read 22732 times.

Plus thankfully people from outside of Londres haveother options rather than being catle fed through LHR with BA/QF.

Emirates are a godsend  

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: rktsci
Posted 2010-02-20 10:16:26 and read 22555 times.

If you look at the Great Circle Route from Sydney to London, it goes almost directly overhead Hong Kong. So if an airline can turn a plane in 90-120 minutes, then you're talking only 10%-15% longer trip time compared to a non-stop and almost no additional flying distance.

Combine that with the network effect of having multiple routings, e.g. SYD, MEL, AKL, BNE feeding in and connecting to LHR, ORY, FRA, etc. routings going out, and the economy of this structure likely outweighs the benefits of a non-stop substantially.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: dennys
Posted 2010-02-20 11:03:53 and read 22391 times.

I am still convinced that an HGW A345 with approximatively 180 J class seats could have flown LHR - SYD .

But is this kind of buisness class seat really intersting for VS or QF . ?

regards

dennys

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: CO787EWR
Posted 2010-02-20 11:09:04 and read 22358 times.

Quoting dennys (Reply 9):
I am still convinced that an HGW A345 with approximatively 180 J class seats could have flown LHR - SYD .

Thats alot of J seats, SQ only has a 100 on their A345's

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: kaitak
Posted 2010-02-20 11:41:01 and read 22271 times.

You know, it's particularly interesting to read this thread, because I'm just starting to read a book (by Meredith Hooper) about the development of the Kangaroo Route; it only goes up to 1976, but it's interesting to see the development of the route in the 50 years or so from the Vimy to the 747.

Against that background, I think it's only a matter of time before nonstops happen. PER-LHR will certainly happen. There was a thread about that quite recently (I think it was discussed in the thread about QF abolishing F Class on more routes). The 777-200LR is the most likely acft for that. I can see V Australia creating a hub at PER, once the domestic and international facilities there have been combined. That would provide a very convincing challenge to EK, because of course only a UK or Australian carrier can fly between PER and LHR (unless, of course, an EU Open Skies deal is reached with Australia).

SYD-LHR may well happen at some stage; it may become possible, technically and it may be operated as a novelty, but realistically, I can't see it being attractive to passengers, especially Y Class passengers; can you imagine being in a Y (or even a Y+) seat for 20h? Count me out!

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2010-02-20 12:16:36 and read 22116 times.

Quoting dennys (Reply 9):
I am still convinced that an HGW A345 with approximatively 180 J class seats could have flown LHR - SYD .

It very well may do, but where are you going to find 160 J passengers on every flight at the prices which would have to be charged. Again, no-one is claiming a suitable aircraft cannot fly the route non-stop......however, to do so at a profit is another thing entirely and really for what point.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: airproxx
Posted 2010-02-20 14:41:19 and read 21577 times.

According to the great circle mapper, the LHR to SYD route would be roughly 9200 Nm direct. This distance doesn't include the extras Nm of routing :

LHR-SYD&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=.85&SPEED-UNITS=Mach&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=180" target="_blank">http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=L...&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=180

The A345 already flies SIN to EWR wich is approximately 8300 Nm long. And Singapore Airlines wondered a few times ago if they would even maintain the line. The payload was to weak to keep a 2 class config inside, so they switched to a full business config. It'd be interesting to see the current average loads...
Anyway a LHR to SYD would be somewhat 900 Nm longer than that.
I don't think that, even if the A340-500 or the B777-200LR are both amazing ULH performers, they still are unable to carry a decent payload on such long routes.
So unless a manufacturer launch a Very very very ultra long haul aircraft, I don't think we'll see such a route flown directly for a while.
And what to say about flying time?? Nowadays, who wants to stay 20 hrs or more in a tube @ 35000 ft??

Next step for airliners is SPEED dear fellows  

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: DLPhoenix
Posted 2010-02-20 15:09:06 and read 21246 times.

Quoting speedbird9 (Thread starter):
Because i would have thought it would have been welcome news for the airlines less money on refueling ground ops and landing slots and a great help to passengers
Thanks

You overlook the fact that the longer you fly, the more fuel you use to carry fuel that will be used at the later part of the flight. The savings in ground service fees would be therefore neglegible in comparisson to the increase in cost of jet fuel.

The other point is that only O&D passengers benefit from (and will therefore pay a premium for) ULH flights. If you start in London and your final destination is SYD it may be worth your while to pay more for a non-stop LHR-SYD flight. On the other hand if you are a premium passenger originating in MAN or NCL you would rather take EK to DXB and fly the entire route in international J/F. The same applies to the last leg if you are flying to MEL/BNE/PER/AKL.

DLP

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: borism
Posted 2010-02-20 15:27:32 and read 20978 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 11):
I can see V Australia creating a hub at PER, once the domestic and international facilities there have been combined. That would provide a very convincing challenge to EK, because of course only a UK or Australian carrier can fly between PER and LHR (unless, of course, an EU Open Skies deal is reached with Australia).

ULH flights are basically a matter of pride and seem to be designed to lose money from the beginning, but neither BA nor QF seem to have resources to afford such pride, so yes, V Australia seems to be the only one remotely able to pull it off. Whether they'll have resources to do this I'm not so sure.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: surfandsnow
Posted 2010-02-20 15:55:12 and read 20581 times.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 13):
Next step for airliners is SPEED dear fellows

Ah yes, but this technology is readily available - it has been for almost 50 years! Turns out that faster planes are more expensive to operate and fly on, and folks on the ground hate them even more than the planes we have now. I don't think we'll see faster planes until we can fly through space.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2010-02-20 16:16:19 and read 20319 times.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 13):
Next step for airliners is SPEED dear fellows

To do what though?

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 14):
The other point is that only O&D passengers benefit from (and will therefore pay a premium for) ULH flights

Whom do you mean though by O&D passengers in these circumstances.....and I ask simply because you particularly deferentiate by saying [i]premium]/i] passengers when talking connecting?

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: airproxx
Posted 2010-02-20 16:25:19 and read 20220 times.

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 16):
I don't think we'll see faster planes until we can fly through space.

That's what I'm talkin' about...
There used to be a time when manufacturers, under the impulse of military programs, were able to launch aircrafts defying all the usual aviation laws... In a few years we've passed through pistons engines, then props and Turbojets acfts.
Since then? Nothing.
Some improvements on fuel burn, noise, avionics, etc... But what has really changed since the Comet, the DC8, the 707? Nothing. A transat still lasts the same time.
We've been across a performance era, towards an economical era.
Performances were dopped by military competition. But this competition still exists. The run for space have never been so active since ages.
Ok I'm a crazy hoper, but I really believe that we'll see the first civilian "space airplane" because of this competition.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: cschleic
Posted 2010-02-20 16:37:47 and read 20079 times.

Plus, the airlines would be asking a manufacturer to develop and build a plane for use on just one or two routes in the entire world. Not very economical for them, either.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: airproxx
Posted 2010-02-20 16:41:09 and read 20035 times.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 17):
Next step for airliners is SPEED dear fellows

To do what though?

Well.. err... to offer shorter flight time to customers... for instance...??

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: DLPhoenix
Posted 2010-02-20 16:54:49 and read 19894 times.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 17):
Whom do you mean though by O&D passengers in these circumstances.....and I ask simply because you particularly deferentiate by saying [i]premium]/i] passengers when talking connecting?

I was refering to all O&D passengers, for the case of this example a person in London that needs to travel to Sydney or vice versa.
The implied argument that was not mentioned in my previous post is that ULH flights are more expensive than one stop flights and are therefore feasible only if there are enough customers that are willing to pay more for a non stop flight.
I assume that cost-consious passengers will not be willing to pay such a premium (they will stop being cost consious if they will) which leaves us with premium passengers (which may be persons flying in a premium class or persons flying coach who are willing to pay more for better Schedule/Mileage benefit/flexibility etc.).
The first group will prefer to use a routing that allows them to fly in an international premium class all the way.
I did not refer to the second group in my last post, but I can not see this segment bringing enough revenue to offset the lack of appeal to premium class passngers.

Hope this clarifies my position
And bear in mind that as an armchair CEO I am entitled to say anything I wish,

DLP

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: ETA Unknown
Posted 2010-02-20 16:58:53 and read 19862 times.

You would need to dedicate 3 aircraft for a daily LHR-SYD nonstop operation. Crew rest costs would be exhorbitant. Filling 150 business/first class seats daily at even marginally sustainable levels- impossible. The fact QF just announced this week their longhaul fleet is being reconfigured (they tried to wait the economic crisis out by avoiding doing this) further drops the scenario of nonstops happening anytime in the near/far future.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-02-20 17:01:10 and read 19846 times.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 18):
But what has really changed since the Comet, the DC8, the 707? Nothing. A transat still lasts the same time.

Most block times today are longer than 50 years ago, due both to airport and ATC congestion, and the fact that many of today's aircraft are slightly slower than the 707s and DC-8s of 50 years ago.

The published block time in the July 1983 OAG from LHR to JFK for all flights except Concorde was between 7:30 and 7:35 (all flights were 747s then except for 2 L-1011s). Today, the fastest block time is 7:45 (a BA 744), but almost all other flights are slightly over 8 hrs, with the 2 longest being DL's 764s with block times of 8:20 and 8:40.

The average JFK-LAX block time today is at least half an hour longer than 50 years ago.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: LondonCity
Posted 2010-02-20 17:08:06 and read 19779 times.

Quoting ETA Unknown (Reply 22):
Filling 150 business/first class seats daily at even marginally sustainable levels- impossible

Exactly. What a lot of people do not realise is that London-Sydney is not a business route like, say, London-New York or London-Hong Kong. Many of the passengers are travelling for leisure or VFR reasons and they will seek out the best prices. The demand for full fare F and J tickets is extremely limited.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: airproxx
Posted 2010-02-20 18:01:33 and read 19860 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
Most block times today are longer than 50 years ago

Didn't know that. Not very surprising though, but it couldn't better match my point...   

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: surfandsnow
Posted 2010-02-21 00:48:24 and read 17450 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
Most block times today are longer than 50 years ago, due both to airport and ATC congestion, and the fact that many of today's aircraft are slightly slower than the 707s and DC-8s of 50 years ago.

True, but if the weather is good, its not terribly uncommon to arrive almost an hour early, either!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):

The average JFK-LAX block time today is at least half an hour longer than 50 years ago.

At least we have IFE to keep us entertained today. Are airlines still required to shut it off for the entire hour before landing because of the underwear guy??

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Ferroviarius
Posted 2010-02-21 05:43:06 and read 15491 times.

Good afternoon,

something I have wondered concerning this question:

AY is a carrier successfully operating Europa - Far East with good and functioning connections at HEL. The 345 or even the 342-8000 could make HEL-SYD and HEL-MEL (and, important enough even v.v.) in a premium-only config, as SQ makes EWR-SIN and EWR-LAX. Obviously, SQ makes money on these routes otherwise they wouldn't operate them.

Now, somebody travelling from Northern or Western Europe bound to SYD, MEL or even AKL and willing to pay Biz would rather prefer to travel via HEL then first to go to LHR and then, from LHR to the destination in Australia / New Zealand (again crossing HEL without landing there, loosing the time from starting point to LHR and from LHR to HEL).

So, why did AY never buy a 342-8000 or 345 in order to provide 45min connections from Europe to HEL and then HEL-Australia / New Zealand directly?

The following explanations I came up with (and they might be wrong, of course):

Apparently, even if the number of required crew is smaller in a Biz only configuration, still this number would be considerable (hence the demand for crew rest area).
And, to carry fuel for burning it later is an uneconomic issue.
Also consider that the large rockets carrying satellites into space (or the Saturn V carrying men to the moon) are multi stage devices. It would, as far as I know, basically be impossible to have these jobs done with single stage rockets. Perhaps, if there would be a strong demand, Russian Airforce could provide an in-air refuelling service for 345s, 342-8000s or 772LRs?   Or have droppable optional fuel tanks for the 345, 342-8000, 772LRs like the tanks, which British and US hunters starting on missions from the UK during WWII carried with them in order to increase their range.

So, it seems still to be more economic to let passengers in HEL-Australia / New Zealand traffic change planes at HKG and pay for all the personnel required to land, handle luggage, do security checks and the like, and finally restart than to finance direct flights.-


Best,

Ferroviarius

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: ManchesterMAN
Posted 2010-02-21 05:47:16 and read 15442 times.

If I was flying in Y and had a non stop option vs a stop in HKG/SIN/DXB/wherever, I'd still prefer the stop so I could stretch my legs. I'd only fly non stop if it was significantly cheaper. That would be the problem. Only really works for premium pax and fares on the Kangaroo route are so low relative to the distance (thanks to carriers like EK) that the premium airlines would have to charge would make them particularly unattractive. Can't see it happening to be honest, even if the aircraft existed.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: planesmith
Posted 2010-02-21 06:11:31 and read 15181 times.

Quoting gkirk (Reply 7):
Emirates are a godsend

Err! Not if you're sitting in the middle of one of their very cramped rows next to a fat bloke like me they're not!

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2010-02-21 07:33:27 and read 14387 times.

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 21):
Hope this clarifies my position
And bear in mind that as an armchair CEO I am entitled to say anything I wish,

Firstly, thanks for answering. Secondly, I don't need to bear anything in mind as, if you re-read it, I wasn't questioning what you said; I was asking a simple question as to what exactly you meant by O&D (which has no specific definition whatsoever to any type of passenger) so I really fail to see any reason whatsoever for the need to be defensive! Is 'saying anything you wish' supposed to mean something special?

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 21):
I assume that cost-consious passengers will not be willing to pay such a premium (they will stop being cost consious if they will) which leaves us with premium passengers (which may be persons flying in a premium class or persons flying coach who are willing to pay more for better Schedule/Mileage benefit/flexibility etc.).
The first group will prefer to use a routing that allows them to fly in an international premium class all the way.
I did not refer to the second group in my last post, but I can not see this segment bringing enough revenue to offset the lack of appeal to premium class passngers.

I doubt very much if whom you refer to as "cost conscious passengers" would even consider paying any such price for such a flight - why should they and, indeed, such a flight is of no real benefit to anyone? Of course, you are obviously meaning Y by 'cost conscious' (why not simply say so), but I can certainly assure you that there are many alleged 'premium' passengers who are much more cost conscious than those of Y! If I may say, whilst you are most likely correct in thinking that your second group would not generate enough revenue, I would also perchance to say neither will your first. Quite simply, irrespective of the bleatings on a.net, the traffic is not there to fill 150-160 J seats on every flight, at a higher cost than a normal J fare.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: konrad
Posted 2010-02-21 11:14:00 and read 13905 times.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 13):
Next step for airliners is SPEED dear fellows

How about in-flight refuelling?

Imagine how much one could save if not having to take-off with tons of fuel for an 18 hour flight. Just take off light and top her up at 30k feet. Of course, this is now SF till reliable technology for in-flight refueling of commercial aircraft is developped.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-02-21 11:21:53 and read 13935 times.

Quoting dennys (Reply 9):
I am still convinced that an HGW A345 with approximatively 180 J class seats could have flown LHR - SYD .

  

QF asked Airbus and Boeing to submit RFPs. Airbus' own studies showed that in a mixed Business Class and Economy Class configuration, the A340-500 was limited to 120 seats. Boeing's studies with the 777-200LR showed 200 seats. QF rejected both as economically unsustainable.

The only real way I could see it work is if you put all your Business Class customers onto a single flight, using the one-stop service for Premium Economy and Economy. However, I am not sure if the scheduling at either end is conducive to this, plus it requires you have a back-up plane available since if you suffer a mechanical, you just inconvenienced one hundred high-fare customers. So at that point, I can't see it being economically viable.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: DLPhoenix
Posted 2010-02-21 11:26:29 and read 13869 times.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 30):
Secondly, I don't need to bear anything in mind as, if you re-read it, I wasn't questioning what you said; I was asking a simple question as to what exactly you meant by O&D (which has no specific definition whatsoever to any type of passenger) so I really fail to see any reason whatsoever for the need to be defensive! Is 'saying anything you wish' supposed to mean something special?

I was trying to be funny (I did refer to myself as an "armchair CEO"), aparently it didn't work. Consider it a bad joke.

Back to the discussuion:
Summary of my position:
1) ULH is more expensive than flights that stop close to the mid point. They are therefore viable only when there is enough demand from customers who are willing to pay more for N/S.
2) This is a very small market because:

  1. Cost concious passengers wouldn't do it, they will not be cost concious if the pay more than the necessary minimum (that includes paying more for a more comfortable seat / premium cabin).

  2. Coach passengers that have to connect at either end would rather connect close to the midde to strech their legs.

  3. J/F passengers will look for routes that minimize flight on SH product.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 30):
I doubt very much if whom you refer to as "cost conscious passengers" would even consider paying any such price for such a flight - why should they

  

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 30):
and, indeed, such a flight is of no real benefit to anyone?

There is a small group that may benefit from it. I have someone working for me that cares only for door to door duration, he would benefit from such a flight.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 30):
Of course, you are obviously meaning Y by 'cost conscious' (why not simply say so),

Because there are quite a few Y passengers that will pay a little more for scheduling, mileage program affiliation or relative comfort.


Quoting AirNZ (Reply 30):
but I can certainly assure you that there are many alleged 'premium' passengers who are much more cost conscious than those of Y!

We can argue this point ad nauseum, but it is not material to the discussion.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 30):
If I may say, whilst you are most likely correct in thinking that your second group would not generate enough revenue, I would also perchance to say neither will your first. Quite simply, irrespective of the bleatings on a.net, the traffic is not there to fill 150-160 J seats on every flight, at a higher cost than a normal J fare.

I never said that such routes are viable, or that the demand will be there (I don't think there will be). I was trying to point out that for connecting trafic ULH had very little appeal, whilst O&D passengers could benefit from them.

Bottom line: I think we share the same point of view, and I hope I made my position a little more clear.

Side note:
It is of my opinion that SQ can make EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN work because beyong the scheduling advantage they offer a hard product that is superior to most of the competition (Ho else can you fly in a flat bed between those two points?).

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-02-21 17:48:32 and read 13501 times.

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 26):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
Most block times today are longer than 50 years ago, due both to airport and ATC congestion, and the fact that many of today's aircraft are slightly slower than the 707s and DC-8s of 50 years ago.

True, but if the weather is good, its not terribly uncommon to arrive almost an hour early, either!

Exactly, which isn't convenient for friends or relatives meeting arriving passengers. I was recently on a KL flight AMS-GVA (only 368 nm) that arrived 25 minutes early.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: The Coachman
Posted 2010-02-22 04:42:42 and read 13112 times.

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 24):
Exactly. What a lot of people do not realise is that London-Sydney is not a business route like, say, London-New York or London-Hong Kong. Many of the passengers are travelling for leisure or VFR reasons and they will seek out the best prices. The demand for full fare F and J tickets is extremely limited.



LOL!

Obviously all you see are the backpackers.

Whilst volume is not as high as New York, there are also more competitors. The market itself is quite large; it's also quite a wealthy market full of people who will pay for J fares because of the length of the route.

I would actually say that a large proportion of leisure travellers would fly the Middle Eastern airlines or SQ, CX, KE or JL and others because they offer better fares generally ex-SYD.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-02-22 06:11:14 and read 12916 times.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 4):
Simply because there is no aircraft currently available which could do it even remotely profitably.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
Boeing's studies with the 777-200LR showed 200 seats. QF rejected both as economically unsustainable.

It was between 200-220 seats for the -200LR. Nonstop year round one way (can't recall which way it was-IIRC it was LHR-SYD but I'm not certain), but it would need a fuel stop a number of times/year the other direction, which QF felt wasn't viable enough.

Also, since QF had no B777's in the fleet, it didn't make sense to add the -200LR. IMHO, had QF had the B772A/B772ER in the fleet, they would have gone for the -200LR and -300ER.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-02-22 16:48:08 and read 12499 times.

There are other issues.

1) There is a point of ULH at which the cost of hauling the extra fuel into the air becomes higher than the cost of landing, refueling, and taking off again. In other words, much above 8,000 NM with current engines and the extra fuel burned by hauling all that extra fuel (if that phrase makes sense) costs more than the cost of landing somewhere, refueling, and taking off again.

2) Most passengers would rather the opportunity to stretch their legs.

3) Not all pax. from LHR are going to SYD. Many are going to MEL, PER, ADE, etc. Similarly, not all pax. from SYD are going to LHR. Others may be going to other European cities. The mid-point stop allows carriers to mix-and-match those pax. so that they can serve the largest number of destinations on either continent. If, say, BA served LHR-SYD, then pax. going to MEL would have to deplane at MEL and then fly domestic (i.e. not on BA metal). So it's to BA's advantage to have a mid-point stop.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: LondonCity
Posted 2010-02-23 02:41:50 and read 12180 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
) Similarly, not all pax. from SYD are going to LHR.

And not just London. VFR passengers are drwan from all over the UK and Eire so a good number will be proceeding beyond London to, say, DUB, BFS, EDI, GLA,

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2010-02-23 03:16:07 and read 12071 times.

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 33):
There is a small group that may benefit from it. I have someone working for me that cares only for door to door duration, he would benefit from such a flight.

Yes, that might be, but it would be a VERY small group and, even within that, it's not something life of death than they can't delay their lives for an hour or so.

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 33):
We can argue this point ad nauseum, but it is not material to the discussion.

I think it's very material to the discussion......without such passengers it just simply isn't economically viable to operate such flights. And if the vast majority of premium passengers are cost conscious then it's just not going to work.

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 33):
I never said that such routes are viable, or that the demand will be there (I don't think there will be). I was trying to point out that for connecting trafic ULH had very little appeal, whilst O&D passengers could benefit from them.

Then what are we discussing......such is either viable or it's not, and demand is either there or it's not? Indeed, I fail to see why ULH would even be considered for connecting traffic and surely O&D would be the solitary market.

Yes, I think we're both basically agreeing on the same things and sorry for not realising you were making a joke earlier   

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-02-23 05:41:39 and read 11923 times.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 39):
Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 33):
There is a small group that may benefit from it. I have someone working for me that cares only for door to door duration, he would benefit from such a flight.

Yes, that might be, but it would be a VERY small group and, even within that, it's not something life of death than they can't delay their lives for an hour or so.

SQ has their SIN-EWR flight as well..and that's rather a small group of people as well..  

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-02-23 06:29:28 and read 11816 times.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 1):
I thought it could go LHR PER non-stop but not SYD. If I'm correct, well, there's not really the market to do LHR PER non-stop.
Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 28):
If I was flying in Y and had a non stop option vs a stop in HKG/SIN/DXB/wherever, I'd still prefer the stop so I could stretch my legs.

Couple of points. Firstly, yes, Sydney (and probably Melbourne) are out of reliable non-stop range to LHR with a full load even in the 772LR, because of winds. However, Perth (which is busy combining its domestic and international terminals at this time) is well within range right through the year.

Next, about this 'leg-stretch' business, at the moment you usually get it in the (enclosed and stuffy) international terminal at Changi, Singapore. Me. I'd far sooner take it in Perth with the availability of some fresh air. What's more, the stop would probably be far shorter. And on top of that, once the stop was over, I'd be able to settle down to a proper sleep.

Thing is, the first trip (to Perth) need NOT be in the same aeroplane. It could be in a 737, 767, or A330, from anywhere in Australia. The direct-to-LHR aircraft could and would be based in Perth, and would do straight 'out-and-return.'

Qantas problem has always been (and remains) that it is 'Sydney-centric.' As one example, the only place you can get a direct flight to Johannesburg is Sydney. From anywhere else (even Melbourne) you either have to 'back-track' to Sydney, or catch a 'feeder flight' (I believe in an A330) to Perth, after which you get a 'codeshare' with South African Airways.

The 'writing is on the wall' for Qantas, in that all sorts of other (foreign) airlines are setting up rival international services to other Australian cities. Both Melbourne and Brisbane airports achieved something close to 10% increases in international business last year, 'downturn' notwithstanding - almost ALL of which was at Qantas' (and Sydney's) expense.

The next 'body-blow' to Qantas looks like happening on 13 March, when V Australia (run by Branson, a guy I can't stand, but he seems to have the right idea) will start a direct Melbourne-Johannesburg service in 777s. My guess is that that service will almost immediately cripple Qantas' current codeshare arrangement though Perth. Branson has already hit Qantas hard with direct 777 flights to LAX from Melbourne and Brisbane.

If Branson is to be believed (and if, I suppose, he can raise the cash) his next ambition is to set up nonstop flights from Perth to LHR or Gatwick. He already has quite a well-developed internal Australian network with Virgin Blue, which is now in profit, so he'll be able to sell 'through' tickets on that service from any Australian city.

Qantas, of course, will be virtually powerless to respond. Their Sydney-Johannesburg service depends on filling a 747, they could hardly send another whole jumbo from Melbourne or Perth. And they don't have any 777s, or any on order; nor will their 787s arrive for years, because they ordered them so late. Nor will they have any effective counter to a non-stop London service from Perth, when (it's no longer a question of 'if') Branson or some other airline sets it up.......

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2010-02-23 06:38:45 and read 11789 times.

Quoting gkirk (Reply 7):
Plus thankfully people from outside of Londres haveother options rather than being catle fed through LHR with BA/QF.

Being cattle fed through DXB?  

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2010-02-23 07:32:01 and read 11694 times.

totally agreed. BA can be London-centric cuz the whole country lives there anyway, but Australia is way more spread out, and Sydney is just about the worst point possible as a hub towards EAFE.

QF can have 2 approaches to fix this :

1. exactly like what you propose - an east coast hub of SYD for anything to the Americas, and a west-coast hub in PER for anything to EAFE. A few pax from Darwin and Cairns might not be so happy, but they're not today either, so no harm done.

2. on top of that, embrace the 789 with aux tanks and all premium config (Y+ / J / F).... and you don't need all those overhead bins for a 1-2-1 config in J anyway. Put only 100-150 pax in that ship, and do SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR, thus regaining the high-yield pax back from EK. And with that few passengers, u'll only need the front cargo bays for luggage, leaving the entire aft cargo bays for even more aux tanks so do kangaroo route year-round.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 41):

Qantas problem has always been (and remains) that it is 'Sydney-centric.' As one example, the only place you can get a direct flight to Johannesburg is Sydney. From anywhere else (even Melbourne) you either have to 'back-track' to Sydney, or catch a 'feeder flight' (I believe in an A330) to Perth, after which you get a 'codeshare' with South African Airways.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-02-23 07:32:29 and read 11691 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 40):
SQ has their SIN-EWR flight as well..and that's rather a small group of people as well...     

I'm honestly not really surprised this flight does well with businessfolk, since it does cut out the need to fly to the US West Coast to connect with the SQ non-stop or fly to North Asia to then connect or take SQ to FRA and then on to SIN. All of those likely add some serious hours compared to flying non-stop.

LAX-SIN does offer multiple Asian connecting options via both SQ and UA, but perhaps the layovers at the connection are overly long or result in an undesirable arrival time for a businessperson.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: DLPhoenix
Posted 2010-02-23 07:49:27 and read 11659 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 41):
Qantas problem has always been (and remains) that it is 'Sydney-centric.' As one example, the only place you can get a direct flight to Johannesburg is Sydney. From anywhere else (even Melbourne) you either have to 'back-track' to Sydney, or catch a 'feeder flight' (I believe in an A330) to Perth, after which you get a 'codeshare' with South African Airways.

Qantas problem in this particular case has been that their main O&D market is at the end of the route, and they are competeing with other parties that have better located hubs. In other words - there is not much they can do.
SQ can offer one stop connections between: LHR, FRA, AMS, ZRH, BCN, CDG (and I probably forgot some) in Euopr and SYD, MEL, BNE, PER in australia. EK has a similar model with an even bigger European network, EY and QR are growing and CX is also a player. They both can do it without remote crew bases, and with airplanes one stop away from their hub.

SLP

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-02-23 08:12:01 and read 11615 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 40):
SQ has their SIN-EWR flight as well..and that's rather a small group of people as well...

I'm honestly not really surprised this flight does well with businessfolk, since it does cut out the need to fly to the US West Coast to connect with the SQ non-stop or fly to North Asia to then connect or take SQ to FRA and then on to SIN. All of those likely add some serious hours compared to flying non-stop.

Well true, but there are a lot of ties between SYD-LHR as well.....had SYD-LHR been the same distance as SIN-EWR (of course, sans headwinds,etc.) and not 900nm more miles, QF definitely would have gone with the B772LR IMHO...

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-02-23 11:29:51 and read 11455 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 46):
Well true, but there are a lot of ties between SYD-LHR as well...

I agree, though looking at Great Circle Mapper, the routing non-stop LHR-SYD tracks almost identical to the routing for LHR-HKG-SYD. If it was a same-plane through service, you'd only lose the time spent descending into and departing out of HKG plus the on-the-ground time. So total trip time might be ≤10% longer, which is not terribly bad, considering the length of the trip.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: DLPhoenix
Posted 2010-02-23 12:23:12 and read 11339 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 46):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 46):
Well true, but there are a lot of ties between SYD-LHR as well.....had SYD-LHR been the same distance as SIN-EWR (of course, sans headwinds,etc.) and not 900nm more miles, QF definitely would have gone with the B772LR IMHO...

This is a hypothetical discussion, we can't eliminate the 900 nms.
Having said that, I beleive part of the success of EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN is due to the superior product.

Flying from NYC to SIN in flat-bed J is possible either on EWR-SIN or connecting through LHR.
LAX-SIN is similar.

On the other hand flt bed J is now the norm on LHR-SYD service (EK380, SQ380, QF380, BA, VS etc). I am not sure that many passengers will pay the difference in operating costs just to save 2 hours.

DLP

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-02-23 13:33:08 and read 11224 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 46):
Well true, but there are a lot of ties between SYD-LHR as well...

I agree, though looking at Great Circle Mapper, the routing non-stop LHR-SYD tracks almost identical to the routing for LHR-HKG-SYD. If it was a same-plane through service, you'd only lose the time spent descending into and departing out of HKG plus the on-the-ground time. So total trip time might be ≤10% longer, which is not terribly bad, considering the length of the trip.

..however, its more than enough. One can fly SIN-HKG-JFK (ok, different airport than JFK, but nonetheless)... in 21 1/2 hours-3 hours more than the nonstop flight-yet SQ still does fare ok with their nonstop route.

Its really the 900nm which hurts it in terms of the extra fuel needed to be carried...otherwise I think QF could have gone up to 225-230 pax (in 2-class configuration)...or at the very least 215-220 pax in 2-class configuration. I think 220 pax nonstop both ways would make the route profitable.....

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 48):
This is a hypothetical discussion, we can't eliminate the 900 nms.

..of course not, hence why the route isn't being flown right now. I don't think the seating situation makes the biggest of difference more than the distance does.

[Edited 2010-02-23 13:45:48]

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-02-23 16:14:45 and read 11076 times.

Quoting speedbird9 (Thread starter):
i read some where that the Boeing 777-200LR and the A340-500 HGW could do the kangaroo route London to Sydney non stop how come no-one has done this yet?

All these replies about non-stop Great Circle line going near HKG...
Airplanes fly on airways...
Whilst the GC non stop options and 1 stop options look like this:

(Non-Stop, via SIN, via HKG, via DXB)
OK, HKG has the nearest to the direct line...
Which is 9188NM...

The reality is, the non-stop track using airways look like this when you go via HKG:

A nice 9519NM

When you go direct via the airways, the track goes like:

It gives a ground distance of 9332NM...

Does the plane fly 9332NM?

Has anyone checked the winds up there? Look at FL340... http://aviationweather.gov/data/iffdp/2793.gif and http://aviationweather.gov/data/iffdp/2843.gif

The weather is quite generous for westbounds today... I've seen >100kts on these weather charts on other days... but let's just make it as what it is when this reply is written... (as those images will change as time goes by with weather updates).

It gives you a 40 - 50kt headwind component for about 700NM...
Then a 30kt heading component for about 800NM... We can dismiss the headwind from that point until the Andaman sea, 80kt components for about 1500NM... then about a 30kt component for about 1000 NM....
How much do these winds add?
Let's just be generous and give them 50kt headwind components for those distances... 4000NM... that results in an air distance of 4500NM... 500NM extra... (for M0.82)

So, let's try for the A345... to fly direct, I will have to fly 9832NM air distance.
Add 30 mins hold at 1500ft, and a 200NM alternate...
I would need about 180 tons of fuel on the A345... add the reserve and holding requirements, I'm up to 197 tons in my tanks... now with the aircraft with it's inflight entertainment systems, etc, food in the galley etc, the OEW is already 186 tons... add 180 Biz class pax it's 17 tons... my zero fuel weight is 203 tons... My MTOW is 372 tons... 203 tons + 197 tons = 400 tons !!!! I'm busted by 30 tons... I can only fly 8700 NM air distance... ironically, I can do the route, if I do not carry any passengers at all!!!!

On the 772LR for the same pax load, I would need a take off weight of 350 - 357 tons... about 5 - 10 tons over the MTOW of 347.5

I hope this explains why, there is no non-stop Kangaroo route... It's just impossible at the moment...

Quoting rktsci (Reply 8):
If you look at the Great Circle Route from Sydney to London, it goes almost directly overhead Hong Kong. So if an airline can turn a plane in 90-120 minutes, then you're talking only 10%-15% longer trip time compared to a non-stop and almost no additional flying distance.

Unfortunately, it doesn't go that way when using the shortest airways... it goes via Singapore... and the current Kangaroo routes are cruising at M0.84 on 777 and 0.86 on the 744... that A345 sample I did above is on M0.82... so it will need about 21Hrs15 to do the route from brake release to landing... the 777-200LR figures I mentioned above, would do it on long range cruise which is slightly slower than 0.82 I think... it takes about 22hrs to do the route...

Quoting dennys (Reply 9):
I am still convinced that an HGW A345 with approximatively 180 J class seats could have flown LHR - SYD .

See above. It can do LHR-SYD, but it needs a 1 stop for SYD-LHR...

Quoting airproxx (Reply 13):
The A345 already flies SIN to EWR wich is approximately 8300 Nm long. And Singapore Airlines wondered a few times ago if they would even maintain the line. The payload was to weak to keep a 2 class config inside, so they switched to a full business config. It'd be interesting to see the current average loads...

For those who are wondering how SQ can do the SIN-EWR route... it's 8750NM by airways... it gets there by riding the jetstream... From Taiwan it literally rides the 90 - 180kt tailwind all the way to BC or Seattle, then joins the mid US jetstream to New York... Either that or ride the 50kt tailwind all the way (shortest airway routing is near the GC line of SIN-ANC-EWR)... The Air distance shrinks to about 7000 - 7500NM only...

on the way back, it hops the either the polar route if the winds are real cr4p (8200NM GC, but the airways would give it about 8700NM... carry pax and dump any cargo), or if the winds are good, ride the tailwinds all the way through Europe, to Asia... Today it is about 9500NM on the airways with about 75kt average tailwind component the whole way... That translates to 8600NM flight... with the correct optimization software on the ground routes, I'm not surprised if they can pick a route which with the winds shrinks the air distance to 8200NM... well within reach of the A345...

Oh and I hear, the loads on Business class has been good on the routes from the beginning, but they were struggling to fill the economy (premium economy actually)... and when they went all business, it's been good...

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 33):
It is of my opinion that SQ can make EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN work because beyong the scheduling advantage they offer a hard product that is superior to most of the competition (Ho else can you fly in a flat bed between those two points?).

SIN-EWR-SIN works because the flight can go eastbound all the way and just ride the jetstreams... Otherwise, the route wouldn't exist... no matter the product you have!

Mandala499

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: 747400sp
Posted 2010-02-23 16:24:36 and read 11041 times.

It would be nice if Airbus lunch the A380-800R. This aircraft would be great for a non stop Kangaroo flight.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-02-23 17:06:40 and read 10929 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 50):
SIN-EWR-SIN works because the flight can go eastbound all the way and just ride the jetstreams... Otherwise, the route wouldn't exist... no matter the product you have!

EWR-SIN also sometimes uses the polar route heading almost due north from EWR and passing close to the North Pole. One example last Saturday. Note the ABERI waypoint in the flight plan which is only 151 nm from the North Pole.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/S...1/history/20100221/0400Z/KEWR/WSSS

The next day it took a fairly southerly transatlantic route passing almost over LHR. Those routes also vary widely from day to day depending on winds.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/S...1/history/20100222/0400Z/KEWR/WSSS

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-02-23 20:48:54 and read 10778 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 43):
QF can have 2 approaches to fix this

Agree in principle with your strategies, mogandCI, but Qantas has the basic problem that they don't have the right equipment. I don't see how making more use of Perth as their European hub would help, since the 'crow's flight' (GC) distance to Heathrow is 7,800nms., so the 747s and A380s which they own in numbers would still need a refuelling stop. I'm not at all sure that even a 'stripped-down' 789 could make it - and in any case they won't be taking delivery of those for some years yet.

It all comes down to what, IMO, was their big mistake - not ordering any 777s when they had the chance. And especially not ordering the 772LR in 2005, and using it nonstop from Perth; what a 'coup' that would have been..........

I can't help feeling that Qantas didn't take any 777s - and later didn't 'think laterally' about a Perth-London nonstop or any other options (like a service to DFW, which was also mooted at one time) because, in a odd way, they felt that they would have been 'competing with themselves,' by drawing the high-revenue customers away from the Kangaroo Route and the 'milkrun' to LAX, to serve which they'd already committed to buy no less than 20 A380s.

They're still stuck with lots of jumbos. And rejigging their seating plans, so that they now have to try to find up to 550 passengers for every A380 flight, won't help one bit. I'm afraid that they're going to remain wide open to competition - particularly from airlines creatively using 777s - for many years to come. Not just on the London run, but on point-to-point routes to the rest of Europe, the USA, and key cities in the Asia-Pacific region as well. The 787s will help a lot when they finally arrive - but I fear that Qantas will have lost a lot of customers by then, and will have a hard time winning them back.

[Edited 2010-02-23 20:51:22]

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Kent350787
Posted 2010-02-23 21:13:55 and read 10741 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 53):
And especially not ordering the 772LR in 2005, and using it nonstop from Perth; what a 'coup' that would have been..........

Yes, but would it have been profitable?

I agree that QF is Sydney centric, but still don't see that QF has squandered a lucrative market for PER-LHR non-stop. SYD-PER-LHR is still one-stop for Sydneysiders and, given that there are over 4 million people in and around Sydney, compared to around 1.7 million for Perth, surely a fair chunk of the potential market would come from the Eastern states? Are there enough people who'd prefer 4+17 hrs to 8+14hrs on their flight to make it worthwhile?

Kent

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: CXfirst
Posted 2010-02-24 00:24:38 and read 10590 times.

A couple years ago, Richard Branson stated that he was very much interested in operating LHR-PER non-stop with the 787 when that arrived. He stated it would be one of the inaugural routes along with LHR-HNL. However, that was before the crisis, so everything could have changed by then. I, for one, a Perth resident travelling back to Norway every year, would love for a direct LHR-PER flight.

-CXfirst

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mainMAN
Posted 2010-02-24 02:25:27 and read 10473 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 43):
totally agreed. BA can be London-centric cuz the whole country lives there anyway

Not true. This is a misconception that is often quite popular amongst North Americans in particular. It's a bit like saying ALL Americans live in the North East between Washington and Boston.

England has a population of c.50 million, of whom 15.5 million live in the South East/London.

14.5 million reside in the North
9.6 million live in the Midlands
5 million live in the East, and the South West.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-02-24 02:48:56 and read 10423 times.

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 48):
This is a hypothetical discussion, we can't eliminate the 900 nms.

Well we are cutting most of about 8cms a year off the route, but that it might just be that engines improve faster than the N edge of the Aus plate disappears under PNG/Indonesia/Timor Leste

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 50):
Has anyone checked the winds up there? Look at FL340... http://aviationweather.gov/data/iffdp/2793.gif and http://aviationweather.gov/data/iffdp/2843.gif

Pretty convincing Mandala, let me know how your neck recovers from that map - a regular Captain Cook version.  
Quoting mainMAN (Reply 56):
England has a population of c.50 million, of whom 15.5 million live in the South East/London.

I think he meant the ones that count, or to be more exact are counted. Says he bitterly having been born in the North. All we were good for was bowling to the gentlemen! Look at the fate of Larwood - had to live out his days in a certain colony!

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mainMAN
Posted 2010-02-24 03:19:37 and read 10388 times.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 57):
I think he meant the ones that count, or to be more exact are counted. Says he bitterly having been born in the North. All we were good for was bowling to the gentlemen! Look at the fate of Larwood - had to live out his days in a certain colony!

Precisely  

And speaking of demographics, 17 million of Australia's 22 million people live in QLD, NSW and VIC, predominantly in the coastal belt between Brisbane and Geelong. So any assertion that Australia is 'way more spead out' is another massive misnomer!

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: LondonCity
Posted 2010-02-24 03:41:46 and read 10325 times.

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 45):
Qantas problem in this particular case has been that their main O&D market is at the end of the route, and they are competeing with other parties that have better located hubs. In other words - there is not much they can do.
SQ can offer one stop connections between: LHR, FRA, AMS, ZRH, BCN, CDG (and I probably forgot some) in Euopr and SYD, MEL, BNE, PER in australia. EK has a similar model with an even bigger European network, EY and QR are growing and CX is also a player. They both can do it without remote crew bases, and with airplanes one stop away from their hub.

It's not just the main cities. The Asian and Gulf carriers also serve secondary cities in Europe which makes it more convenient for pax to connect via hubs like SIN, HKG, DXB, DOH etc.

For example, with SIA you can depart from MAN or MUC, with EK from BHX, NCL, GLA, DUS or VCE.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-02-24 04:03:50 and read 10304 times.

Quoting Kent350787 (Reply 54):
Yes, but would it have been profitable?

I don't see why not, Kent. Back in 2005 Qantas looked at the 772LR very seriously - it wasn't the commercial prospects that put them off, it was quite simply that it couldn't make Sydney with a full load.

Quoting Kent350787 (Reply 54):
given that there are over 4 million people in and around Sydney, compared to around 1.7 million for Perth, surely a fair chunk of the potential market would come from the Eastern states?

That's the beauty of a service based in Perth. It would serve the whole country - the first leg would be on a domestic route to Perth, from anywhere in Australia.

If I have a worry it's that any such service would turn out to be TOO popular - especially with businessmen and politicians. Us ordinary mortals might not be able to afford to travel on it, it might be all Business and Premium.

Quoting Kent350787 (Reply 54):
Are there enough people who'd prefer 4+17 hrs to 8+14hrs on their flight to make it worthwhile?

I would vastly prefer it, for one. One of the problems with the Kangaroo Route is that you can't settle down for a proper sleep on either leg. And I could certainly do without hanging around in Changi for a couple of hours, with only the choice between full-blast air-conditioning or fearful humidity on those pathetic 'roof-gardens.'

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 55):
A couple years ago, Richard Branson stated that he was very much interested in operating LHR-PER non-stop with the 787 when that arrived.

He's still saying it - though now he's moved on to saying that he's talking to Boeing about ordering 772LRs. I guess he's got to get V Australia into profit first, though. He's made a good start on that, though, their half-year report says that their 777s to the USA are achieving 85% occupancy:-

http://markets.news.com.au/Announcements/2010/0224/01040619.pdf

The next question will be how his Melbourne-Johannesburg service (starting 13th. March) works out. That might really hurt Qantas if it comes off.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-02-24 05:12:19 and read 10213 times.

Quoting mainMAN (Reply 58):
17 million of Australia's 22 million people live in QLD, NSW and VIC, predominantly in the coastal belt between Brisbane and Geelong. So any assertion that Australia is 'way more spead out' is another massive misnomer!

Indeed, equally true and "we" are showing very little tendency to migrate away from the coast, or to be more exact migrate more than about 50 kms away from it. Sydney is already past the New-Ney-Gong stage and rapidly moving to Port-Ney-Ra. (Port Stephens and Nowra, the latter as in Now Rice Kool being the Strine for Nowra High School). That is why QF can remain Sinney centric and apparently moderately successful at one and the same time.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-02-24 05:28:07 and read 10183 times.

mandala499......excellent analysis...  

[Edited 2010-02-24 05:28:41]

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2010-02-24 05:36:40 and read 10179 times.

There is one additional problem eastbound.

For this route it is convenient to start in the evening. People want to make this flight after a normal working day, so going off beteen 21h and midnight is the best time to start.

When you arrive in Sydney on a ULR - it is still closed, 8 hours night closure.

So either the flight has to depart at 3 in the morning, very unpopular, airports are closed here, to arrive in Sydney in early morning, or much earlier , to arrive in Sydney before night closure.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: tim
Posted 2010-02-28 20:45:34 and read 9714 times.

Quoting SW733 (Reply 2):
I thought it could go LHR PER non-stop but not SYD. If I'm correct, well, there's not really the market to do LHR PER non-stop.

I find this comment quite interesting. In what way is there not a PER-LHR-PER direct market? The way I see the facts suggests otherwise.

2 x EK daily wideboies PER-DXB-Europe
2 x SQ daily widebodies PER-SIN-Europe
2 x QF daily widebodies PER-SIN-Europe
2 x MH daily widebodies PER-KL-Europe
1 x D7 daily widebody PER-KL-Europe

Not too mention QF/CX flights to PER - HKG and QF PER - NRT with connections to Europe from Hongkong mainly.

at least 75% of the pax on those flights listed above are connecting to European flights.

Cheers

Tim

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2010-02-28 20:59:08 and read 9698 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 43):
2. on top of that, embrace the 789 with aux tanks and all premium config (Y+ / J / F).... and you don't need all those overhead bins for a 1-2-1 config in J anyway. Put only 100-150 pax in that ship, and do SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR, thus regaining the high-yield pax back from EK. And with that few passengers, u'll only need the front cargo bays for luggage, leaving the entire aft cargo bays for even more aux tanks so do kangaroo route year-round.

If an all-premium 77L can't make it (see Mandala499's definitive post    as to why), there is no way in he|| that a 789 can make it. No one has yet suggested aux tanks for a 787, and they won't be developed for one customer that would probably need a fleet of 8 ships.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-02-28 21:54:47 and read 9590 times.

Quoting tim (Reply 64):
In what way is there not a PER-LHR-PER direct market?

Good points, tim. I think one can add that:-

a) Perth is the epi-centre of the resources boom which is keeping the Aussie economy alive at the moment,

b) The Federal government is spending something over $1B. to expand Perth Airport, with priority being given to combining and enlarging the domestic and international terminals (to cope with the fact that Perth's passenger traffic has just about doubled over the last ten years), and

c) a higher proportion of the population of Western Australia have family links with the UK than any other part of Australia.

Even that leaves aside the essential point that no-one I know is likely to regret the passing of refuelling stops at places like Changi or HK. Perth would, IMO, be vastly preferable. So, IMO, there'd be unlimited scope for a service through Perth to attract passengers from anywhere else in Australia - including Sydney.

I think Qantas only really has two choices. Either to buy the required equipment (772LRs in my opinion) and set up PER-LHR themselves, or to keep their heads buried in the sand and watch some other airline do it and make it a success; and then lose a helluva lot of business while they 'play catch-up.'

[Edited 2010-02-28 21:57:33]

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Gemuser
Posted 2010-03-01 00:41:45 and read 9437 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 66):
a) Perth is the epi-centre of the resources boom which is keeping the Aussie economy alive at the momen

That may be true, but does that equal sufficient airline pax to justify what your proposing? (Not just pax, but ENOUGH pax)

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 66):
b) The Federal government is spending something over $1B. to expand Perth Airport, with priority being given to combining and enlarging the domestic and international terminals (to cope with the fact that Perth's passenger traffic has just about doubled over the last ten years),

Why is the Federal government doing this, is PER not privatized?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 66):
c) a higher proportion of the population of Western Australia have family links with the UK than any other part of Australia

Again, while true is it ENOUGH pax?

[PS all the above are serious questions, I don't know the answers]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 66):
Even that leaves aside the essential point that no-one I know is likely to regret the passing of refuelling stops at places like Changi or HK. Perth would, IMO, be vastly preferable

Why the H*LL do you think that? Even spending the $1B I can't see them matching SIN or HKG or DXB. They could, but not for $1B. Also, as has been pointed out its longer for over half the population of the country, just under an hour extra from SYD, just over from BNE and about half an hour from MEL, why bother?


Gemuser

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: tim
Posted 2010-03-01 01:21:32 and read 9373 times.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 67):
That may be true, but does that equal sufficient airline pax to justify what your proposing? (Not just pax, but ENOUGH pax)

With the current PER-Europe daily capactity outlined above why dont you think there would be enough pax to justify 1 direct flight out of interest? Unless I have misunderstood you. Looks like it would fit like a glove with the amount of daily flights currently doing PER-Euro. I am genuinley interested to see what I am missing here as there looks to be more than sufficent pax to me.


Cheers

Tim

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-01 02:28:07 and read 9271 times.

The YPPH-EGLL is 7994nm by airways...
With (today's condition) about 2400NM ground dist with 100kt headwind, and about 2000NM gound distance with 50kt headwind.

That adds 600NM and 230NM to the distances hence the total air distance is... 8830NM-ish... On an A345, my MTOW will be busted (I can do about 8700NM air distance, and that's about it).

There is another problem with Perth-London, where's your alternate for Perth???? We have carriers nominating Adelaide, Darwin, heck even Alice Springs, for widebodies... Now, that makes Perth-London and vv non-stop, NOT VIABLE! Even on a 777-200LR with 180 J class pax only).

Aussie-SIN/KUL-LHR is, as perfect as it can be.

Mandala499

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: tim
Posted 2010-03-01 02:55:34 and read 9224 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 69):
There is another problem with Perth-London, where's your alternate for Perth???? We have carriers nominating Adelaide, Darwin, heck even Alice Springs, for widebodies... Now, that makes Perth-London and vv non-stop, NOT VIABLE! Even on a 777-200LR with 180 J class pax only).

Alternates for Perth is Learmonth (Exmouth) this is where the QF 333 landed after the loss of altitude. Also Kalgoorlie is another one. All well within ETOPS limits so no issues for alternates. What is the difference of a alternate for a PER-LHR flight compared to a PER-DXB flight for example. I dont follow your point but genuinley interested in understanding if you can elabroate.

With a 777LR PER-LHR-PER is certainly achievable then?

Cheers

Tim

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: tim
Posted 2010-03-01 02:58:00 and read 9219 times.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...99/16-hour-flights-to-london-loom/

V Australia, the international arm of Virgin Blue, is understood to be about to announce a new 16-hour, non-stop Perth to London service in 2011 that will be the world's second longest air route and will shave up to five hours off today's journey.

Chief executive Brett Godfrey is in final negotiations with Boeing for up to 70 aircraft that will include six of those with the world's longest range, the 300-seat Boeing 777-200LR, which can fly to virtually anywhere in the world non-stop.

The airline will also open a route linking Sydney and New York non-stop.

In February, when the airline's first 361-seat Boeing 777-300ER was delivered for the Sydney to Los Angeles route, Mr Godfrey and Sir Richard Branson, the airline's main shareholder, discussed making Perth a hub for routes to Britain and South Africa.

Sir Richard first raised his vision of London to Perth non-stop flights with _The West Australian _in late 2003 but aircraft availability and capability were obstacles.

Boeing's 777-200LR, which entered service in 2005, set the non-stop record for a commercial jet aircraft when it flew 21,600km east from Hong Kong to London over the US in November, 2005, in 22 hours and 42 minutes.

Virgin Atlantic had planned London to Perth non-stop flights with 270-seat 787-9s from 2014 but that plane is more than two years late.

Depressed aircraft prices are giving Virgin Blue a chance to fast track expansion plans.

A Virgin Blue spokesperson would only confirm that it had executives in the US looking to replace many of its 737s from 2011 and that now was a good time to shop for aircraft.

"We're often talking with Boeing and any aircraft manufacturer would certainly take that opportunity to make further presentations and typically that includes hypothetical modelling of aircraft options," the spokesperson said.

"We always keep an open mind as to opportunities and changing market conditions. Network planning and fleet strategy is part of that."

Virgin is also expected to launch a Sydney-Perth- Johannesburg route late next year.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-01 03:08:31 and read 9200 times.

Quoting tim (Reply 70):
Alternates for Perth is Learmonth (Exmouth) this is where the QF 333 landed after the loss of altitude. Also Kalgoorlie is another one.

Different companies have different criterias for alternates. One airline requires ILS + 2500m x 45m, which only Learmonth qualifies... other airlines, put Adelaide (SQ)... LOL...

Quoting tim (Reply 70):
With a 777LR PER-LHR-PER is certainly achievable then?

No, it still won't make it westbound... the headwinds will make the 8000NM trip (ground distance) into an 8800NM trip (air distance)... if you can, it'll be 180 J class pax only...

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: tim
Posted 2010-03-01 03:11:59 and read 9197 times.

Thanks for the reply. I see, someone needs to tell Richard its not going to work (Which usually makes him do it) unless its just a publicity thing.

Cheers

Tim

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-01 03:19:33 and read 9191 times.

He knows PER-LHR ain't gonna work with what's available... he already said so... but then, there's more to Europe than just England... and they're mostly all closer to PER than England... so, we may see him trying Perth - Europe...
PER-South Africa, ETOPS 180 galore ! *grin*

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: tim
Posted 2010-03-01 03:22:20 and read 9172 times.

Yeah I tend to agree,

Perth - South Africa is no need for a LR though obviously. QF used to service it with 747's and SAA currently do it with 346's.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-03-01 04:17:55 and read 9074 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 74):
so, we may see him trying Perth - Europe...
PER-South Africa, ETOPS 180 galore !

He's starting Melbourne-Johannesburg with 777s on 13th. March - that is, the week after next. We'll see how that goes. Qantas doesn't provide a nonstop service to SA from any Australian airport except Sydney - as usual.......

From Melbourne they have an A330 to Perth and an onward codeshare with South African Airways. If Branson's service comes off, that's another route they can forget, I guess.

[Edited 2010-03-01 04:20:16]

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Gemuser
Posted 2010-03-01 04:28:10 and read 9045 times.

Quoting tim (Reply 68):
With the current PER-Europe daily capactity outlined above why dont you think there would be enough pax to justify 1 direct flight out of interest?

Maybe/maybe not. All those services serve multiple destinations. PER-SIN gives access to all ports served non stop from SIN, a very large number, same for HKG & DXB. PER-LHR gives access to basically the UK only & Trans Atlantic routes (is that shorter from PER?) because you have already overflow most of Europe.

As far as other Oz ports go, despite Nav's endorsement of PER as an Oz connection hub, I remain skeptical that most Oz pax will find it any more convenient than SIN, HKG OR DXB.

Gemuser

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-01 14:13:47 and read 8748 times.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 77):
As far as other Oz ports go, despite Nav's endorsement of PER as an Oz connection hub, I remain skeptical that most Oz pax will find it any more convenient than SIN, HKG OR DXB.

With SIN, you have a lot of benefits...
- 5th freedom cargo and pax rights (Qantas/BA remains one of the most popular carriers from Jakarta to Europe despite not serving Jakarta)
- Established scissor hub operations, with both westbound and eastbound scissors arriving within a few hours of each other, this optimizes the scissor feeds for cities (eg: Perth).
- It is the shortest route via Airways for London-Sydney.
- Many alternates available in the region, hence reducing the burden on reserve fuel requirements.

Many thought that using DXB would be crazy, but then, all it needed was a crazy airline called Emirates... Now Perth hub might work for someone, but I doubt it would be Qantas...

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Kent350787
Posted 2010-03-01 16:01:42 and read 8651 times.

The Virgin announcement is very interesting - will it work financially? Given that they are already flying T7s, they don't have the fleet type issues which QF would have come up against.

I'm actually more interested in the SYD-NYC non-stop......difficult to see how that couldn't work!!!!

Kent

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-03-01 16:12:29 and read 8631 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 69):
That adds 600NM and 230NM to the distances hence the total air distance is... 8830NM-ish... On an A345, my MTOW will be busted (I can do about 8700NM air distance, and that's about it).
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 72):

No, it still won't make it westbound... the headwinds will make the 8000NM trip (ground distance) into an 8800NM trip (air distance)... if you can, it'll be 180 J class pax only...
mandala499, you have some excellent analysis and thanks for providing us with some invaluable information...but here is something to take a look at..

According to widebodyphotog..

"Base range with 301 pax in still air is ~8,950nm without ACT and ~9,700nm with three ACT. "

Delta Becomes US Launch Customer For 777-200LR

-reply 92

To me, it might seem possible to make it LHR-PER with about 270-275 pax...including your added numbers for headwinds, etc....QR has 259 on their -200LR with no F-class, but a J-class and 3-3-3 in Y.......DL's B77L has 276 with J and Y.....and lets forget about EK with their 3-4-3 Y..  

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-01 17:38:40 and read 8508 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 80):
ase range with 301 pax in still air is ~8,950nm without ACT and ~9,700nm with three ACT. "

I am not a fan of the ACTs... shove enough ACTs and you can go about anywhere. I have to look into my 777manuals again, in particular, the 772LRs... I want to take a closer look at the fuel burn figures... but one thing widebodyphoto gets spot on... the ACTs don't improve range that much, which is the reality of ULH... you can burn so much less fuel and carry more by making it a one stopper instead of a non-stop... (bye bye LHR-PER nonstop idea  &nbsp 

Mandala499

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-03-01 18:07:54 and read 8473 times.

Mandala499, back in 2005 Qantas spent quite a long time evaluating the 772LR, and eventually decided not to proceed with it because it couldn't make it to Sydney 'with a full load at certain times of year.'

The Great Circle route Perth-London is just about exactly the same distance as Melbourne-London (about 7,800nms.). And since a much higher proportion of the route (basically all the way until it reaches the Gulf) is over-ocean (though relatively close to land, so no ETOPS problems) it will probably be possible for the formal air route to stay closer to the GC than the Kangaroo route anyway?

In any case (to my own detriment, worse luck, since I can't afford business fares) I expect that, if a direct flight does get set up, it will be very attractive to the business/political 'jetset' because it will offer the opportunity for a single long sleep, rather than the two interrupted ones you get on the Kangaroo Route; and will therefore work financially with a reduced passenger load through having a high proportion of business/premium passengers?

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Ben175
Posted 2010-03-01 18:32:10 and read 8434 times.

I would love to see everyone's reactions if in the next few years, VA ends up commencing PER-LHR direct. There seems to be alot of pessimistic people in this thread! Nobody has attempted this route, so you cannot logically say it won't be profitable. Sure, there may not be the numbers needed at the moment to maintain a sustainable service, but think of all the advertising they could do. They'd the have the right to brag about being the only airline offering Australia-Europe non-stop.

The flight could also be advertised in the UK as a "one stop service to any destination in Australia" (all the destinations DJ fly to in WA and interstate)

I know for a fact when it was announced V Australia was interested in doing Europe non-stop, alot of people were talking about it.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: cf6ppe
Posted 2010-03-01 19:12:07 and read 8367 times.

Ran across the following link when looking for something else. Part way down in the article talks about the Kangaroo Route - a little interesting history...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...cheap/story-e6frg95x-1111117770487

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-02 00:55:49 and read 8197 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 82):
The Great Circle route Perth-London is just about exactly the same distance as Melbourne-London (about 7,800nms.)

GC distance PER-LHR = 7829NM
GC distance MEL-LHR = 9127NM

Airways distance PER-LHR = 7944NM
Airways distance MEL-LHR = 9203NM

Sorry, under no circumstances are PER-LON and MEL-LON being "just about exactly the same difference)...

But anyways, I had another look at the manuals... The 772LR can make it PER-LHR (with the headwinds as per previous post), one just need to take 146 tons of fuel with him... It brings your take off weight to about 320 Tons... so about 19 tons of spare for structural payload, but only about 10 tons of spare for taking off in the Perth summer heat (Your take off weight under 33C conditions would be limited to 348 Tons for Perth's runway... 340 for 37C and 330 tons for 42C)... However, we are talking about bare plane with seats only... no fancy IFE etc, which does add to the weight. I'll have to dig out some more numbers to get a more accurate OEW.

To put it simply, it can fly PER-LHR non-stop without an ACT as long as temperatures are below 42C on departure in Perth, total air distance due to wind is not greater than 9000NM, I'm assuming of course OEW 145.2T and MTOW 347T.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 82):
And since a much higher proportion of the route (basically all the way until it reaches the Gulf) is over-ocean (though relatively close to land, so no ETOPS problems) it will probably be possible for the formal air route to stay closer to the GC than the Kangaroo route anyway?

Actually, you need at least ETOPS 120 for PER-LHR even via the airways to keep the air miles to a minimum. The route flies over CCK, and that place is ETOPS 120 territory.

Interestingly, I did some fun calculations for myself and found that for a 3000NM journey, the 772LR would burn about 14.71kgs of fuel a mile (this is the cheapest)... on a 9000NM trip, it goes up to 16.28kg/NM.

PER-LHR would cost each pax about 488.33kgs of fuel, and PER-LHR only 392.67kgs of fuel...

Now... 9000 air NMs would need about 19 to 19:30 schedule time...
and 7000 air NMs would be about 15 to 15:30...

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 82):
and will therefore work financially with a reduced passenger load through having a high proportion of business/premium passengers?

I don't think it would make much difference... the current Kangaroo route allows a long snooze on the LHR-SIN portion.... for PER, yes, I think there's a marginal benefit for pax sleeping comfort by doing it non stop, but as for the rest of the Kangaroo route, negligeable, or might even be detrimental... We'll have to see... can't comment further on this at the moment.

Quoting Ben175 (Reply 83):
I would love to see everyone's reactions if in the next few years, VA ends up commencing PER-LHR direct. There seems to be alot of pessimistic people in this thread!

Well, if anyone's gonna do that route, my bets would be on VA... I wouldn't bet on QF for that route.



Mandala499

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: tim
Posted 2010-03-02 01:19:07 and read 8156 times.

Very interesting topic guys and thanks for the tech stuff Mandala499

Cheers

Tim

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: tim
Posted 2010-03-02 01:36:34 and read 8134 times.

I also agree this wouldnt attract Eastern states pax. But as a standalone offering for PER pax I still think with the current traffic PER-Europe it will fill and be popular. Time will tell.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-03-02 05:01:57 and read 7992 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 85):
GC distance PER-LHR = 7829NM
GC distance MEL-LHR = 9127NM

Quite right, mandala, my mistake - I meant to compare MEL-PER-LHR with MEL-SIN-LHR, should have checked my notes!

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 85):
To put it simply, it can fly PER-LHR non-stop without an ACT as long as temperatures are below 42C on departure in Perth, total air distance due to wind is not greater than 9000NM,

Great - we now seem to agree that it's feasible.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 85):
and 7000 air NMs would be about 15 to 15:30...

Fits with my own (less professional) analysis - say 16-17 hours PER/LHR, depending on winds. That's no problem really, if you're used to travelling anywhere from Oz - MEL-LAX (the other trip I do fairly often) is 14 hours and that's 'survivable' even in Economy.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 85):
I don't think it would make much difference... the current Kangaroo route allows a long snooze on the LHR-SIN portion.... for PER, yes, I think there's a marginal benefit for pax sleeping comfort by doing it non stop,

All I can say is that (living in Melbourne) I'd jump at it if it was available. Not just the chance of a decent sleep; hanging around in the international terminal at Changi is a total 'bind.' At least, if the stop was in Perth, I could get a walk in the open air; since I wouldn't have to go through passport control until I checked in for the PER-LHR leg.

PS - I wouldn't bet on Qantas either. They had their chance in 2005, now (because of decisions and 'non-decisions' taken years ago) they just haven't got the equipment..............

PPS - where on Earth is CCK? Smile

[Edited 2010-03-02 05:14:28]

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: LondonCity
Posted 2010-03-02 05:12:15 and read 7976 times.

Quoting Ben175 (Reply 83):
The flight could also be advertised in the UK as a "one stop service to any destination in Australia" (all the destinations DJ fly to in WA and interstate)
I know for a fact when it was announced V Australia was interested in doing Europe non-stop, alot of people were talking about it.

I must admit that I was originally sceptical that a non-stop Perth-Europe service could succeed.

But I have begun coming round to the idea because it's the last marketing tool the end-to-end carriers have left in order to compete with the SE Asian and Gulf-based airlines on the kangaroo route.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-02 05:44:09 and read 7942 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 88):
Quite right, mandala, my mistake - I meant to compare MEL-PER-LHR with MEL-SIN-LHR, should have checked my notes!

I thought I either misread it and had to refresh a few times or you went sloppy mate! LOL... I'm glad is one of the two and not something else!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 88):
Great - we now seem to agree that it's feasible.

I'm just saying that it is POSSIBLE, not necessarily feasible. I'll go and have a look at the numbers a little deeper when I have time to start gauging its feasibility. Physical possibilities just need me looking up some numbers in the respective manuals, feasibility, require more "hand" in it, especially when comparing it with a 1-stopper. By the way, how much is Jetfuel in Perth nowadays? That would give a nice headstart into looking at the feasibility...

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 88):
Fits with my own (less professional) analysis - say 16-17 hours PER/LHR, depending on winds. That's no problem really, if you're used to travelling anywhere from Oz - MEL-LAX (the other trip I do fairly often) is 14 hours and that's 'survivable' even in Economy.

LHR-PER is 15:30 eastbound, and PER-LHR at 19:30... due to the winds. Eastbound is more than feasible and bearable in economy... the westbound, is a totally different ballgame.
I've done SYD-SIN-FRA-BCN before, and lots of CGK-SIN/HKG-LHR/LGW or CGK-SIN-somewhere in Europe-LHR/LGW before... in the days before PTV... and yes, am talking those actual legs above. A crappy schedule can make a huge difference between the direct being attractive or a torture. And then seeing enough wind charts to gobble down enough overnight coffee to make my eyes open for the whole week because of following a westbound, or run a simulated load westbound.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 88):
where on Earth is CCK?

Cocos Island! You know that other set of islands to the west of Christmas Island?
Look ETOPS 120 isn't too much of a problem, it's when you start going into ETOPS 180 territory does the "safety costs" begin to bite, and engine mishap penalties excruciatingly painful.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 88):
They had their chance in 2005, now (because of decisions and 'non-decisions' taken years ago) they just haven't got the equipment.

Actually, from the 772LR documents I've had from "that era", the MTOW hadn't reached the current 347Tons, it was still 320 something tons... which would have been useless for Qantas...

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-03-02 06:13:56 and read 7891 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 90):
Cocos Island! You know that other set of islands to the west of Christmas Island?

Cheers mate! You learn something every day..... 

I was surprised myself when I checked the GC route - there's no need to go that far west. The GC route stays pretty close (by jetliner standards) to Sumatra, then goes over Sri Lanka, up the west coast of India, and pretty well straight over Karachi.

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=P...E=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=

[Edited 2010-03-02 06:36:20]

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2010-03-02 06:15:08 and read 7891 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 85):
To put it simply, it can fly PER-LHR non-stop without an ACT as long as temperatures are below 42C on departure in Perth, total air distance due to wind is not greater than 9000NM, I'm assuming of course OEW 145.2T and MTOW 347T.

It's unlikely they would be taking off in the hottest part of the day anyway... that would imply arrival in London in the middle of the night.

If they took off in the late evening or in the early morning, temperature should almost never be an issue.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-03-02 06:34:49 and read 7851 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 85):

To put it simply, it can fly PER-LHR non-stop without an ACT as long as temperatures are below 42C on departure in Perth, total air distance due to wind is not greater than 9000NM, I'm assuming of course OEW 145.2T and MTOW 347T.

That would make it quite interesting if a carrier such as V.Australia could make it work...  

Also, ostensibly, it doesn't seem as if LHR-PER would be a problem year round-that would certainly something of importance when it comes to advertising and comfort......15-16 hours is almost "standard" in many flights..

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 85):
Now... 9000 air NMs would need about 19 to 19:30 schedule time...

SQ's SIN-EWR-SIN has >18.5 hour flying, so I don't think its out of the realm of possibility of having a 19 to 19.3 hours flight time......now the only problem I see here is that SQ had J and Y+ on their A345's at one time...not so sure how a carrier such as V.Australia would configure its planes as it would certainly need to cater to some Y pax......

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 85):
I don't think it would make much difference... the current Kangaroo route allows a long snooze on the LHR-SIN portion.... for PER, yes, I think there's a marginal benefit for pax sleeping comfort by doing it non stop, but as for the rest of the Kangaroo route, negligeable, or might even be detrimental... We'll have to see... can't comment further on this at the moment.

I agree here-LHR-SIN-PER can be done in 19-20 hours.....and I would say probably in a more comfortable and probably cheaper price........V.Australia would really have a challenge on its hands offering a direct flight...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 90):
I'm just saying that it is POSSIBLE, not necessarily feasible

  

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 90):
LHR-PER is 15:30 eastbound
Completely , probably even close to a "standard" B77L configuration...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 90):
PER-LHR at 19:30... due to the winds. Eastbound is more than feasible and bearable in economy... the westbound, is a totally different ballgame.

  ...you just ruined my day...    ...

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-02 07:53:22 and read 7774 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 91):
I was surprised myself when I checked the GC route - there's no need to go that far west. The GC route stays pretty close (by jetliner standards) to Sumatra, then goes over Sri Lanka, up the west coast of India, and pretty well straight over Karachi.

Here's the GC line vs shortest Airways route for PER-LHR...

I think it has the smallest GC to Airway distance deviation of all LHR - Australian State Capital combinations there are.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 92):
It's unlikely they would be taking off in the hottest part of the day anyway... that would imply arrival in London in the middle of the night.

A 3pm departure from PER would give it a 1930 arrivals in LHR. (assuming fixed local times of UTC+0 for LHR and UTC+8 for PER)

1am departure from Perth would give you a 5:30 am London arrivals... A 5pm departure from Perth would give you a 930pm arrivals in London...

On the way back... a 9am departure out of LHR will give you a 0930 arrivals in Perth the next day...

Now, NAV20, whaddya reckon is the best schedule scenario? Am sure you know the PER connectivity schedule better than I do...

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-02 08:01:05 and read 7762 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 93):
SQ's SIN-EWR-SIN has >18.5 hour flying, so I don't think its out of the realm of possibility of having a 19 to 19.3 hours flight time......now the only problem I see here is that SQ had J and Y+ on their A345's at one time...not so sure how a carrier such as V.Australia would configure its planes as it would certainly need to cater to some Y pax......

The problem with the SQ SIN-EWR direct flights were that... whilst J had enjoyed very nice levels of demand, they couldn't fill up the Y+... and the flight is likely to be profitable as an all J flight...

If these flights tell something, is that Y pax (even Y+) would not pay extra for the fuel it carries just to avoid the 1 stop...

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 93):
...you just ruined my day...

Did I? *puts on a fake innocent face*

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-03-02 08:09:04 and read 7728 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 94):
I think it has the smallest GC to Airway distance deviation of all LHR - Australian State Capital combinations there are.

Are there any restrictions on overflying Iran these days? The SIN-LHR route sticks to Afghanistan IIRC. Aus might need to amend its foreign policy if it wants regular flights over Iran????

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-02 08:55:09 and read 7653 times.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 96):
Are there any restrictions on overflying Iran these days? The SIN-LHR route sticks to Afghanistan IIRC.

Westbound routes do go the Afghan-Russian way at times, passing south of Moscow before heading down the Baltic sea and onto Holland then UK... but they do this mainly because the headwinds around Turkey/Iran is severe westbound. I've gone westbound SIN-FRA, even HKG-LHR and go cover Turkey with little headwinds, but also, did LHR-HKG with a nice 150kt tailwind all the way from Turkey to Iran and Pakistan (so picking the Kunming Corridor instead of the Silk Route was a no brainer).

So, restrictions on overflying Iran? Well, even Israel-loving enemy of China island called Taiwan, has it's 744s flying over Iran, but dispatch ensures that "crew political risks" are minimized, so, whenever the cheapest routes go over Iran, they just don't send any crew from an "enemy of Iran" on that plane... or so they claim!   

Mandala499

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-03-02 09:27:20 and read 7613 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 95):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 93):
...you just ruined my day...

Did I? *puts on a fake innocent face*

  ......

I think its going to be a "close call" in the end. One one side, we have some potential difficulties technically making this flight work on the PER-LHR end, but on the other side, we have V.Australia who are trying to be a bit different and add a "competitive edge" against the other carriers, particularly QF...  

I give it 30:70 yay:nay chance...

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2010-03-02 09:39:40 and read 7589 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 95):
they couldn't fill up the Y+... and the flight is likely to be profitable as an all J flight...

If these flights tell something, is that Y pax (even Y+) would not pay extra for the fuel it carries just to avoid the 1 stop...

I would certainly agree with you on that, and reinforce that they are essentially correct for achieving no real advantage. To expand on that though, J pax wouldn't pay it either if they were buying the ticket themselves, and which the vast majority are not doing.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Gemuser
Posted 2010-03-02 12:34:42 and read 7483 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 98):
I give it 30:70 yay:nay chance..

All things considered, I'd say that's about right.

Gemuser

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-03-02 18:23:30 and read 7303 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 90):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 88):
where on Earth is CCK?

Cocos Island! You know that other set of islands to the west of Christmas Island?

QF L-1049G at CCK in 1958. It was a stop (in addition to PER and MRU) on the SYD-JNB route in the propeller era.

http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/constellation/vheaj1.jpg

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-03-02 19:33:35 and read 7269 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 94):
I think it has the smallest GC to Airway distance deviation of all LHR - Australian State Capital combinations there are.

Good guess on my part then! About the winds, agree they could be a problem eastbound. But it might save both time and fuel to stay a bit north of track (i.e. above 30 North) for a while early on - I know that the 772LR 'chased the winds' quite a lot on its record-breaking Hongkong-London flight

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 94):
Now, NAV20, whaddya reckon is the best schedule scenario? Am sure you know the PER connectivity schedule better than I do...

Can't help there, I've got no 'head for times.' In any case, flying longhaul from Oz to anywhere, you're usually so disoriented that you lose all track of what time it is (or indeed, in the case of flying to the USA, what day it is ) by the time you get where you're going!

PS - though, looking at the times you suggest, I think a mid-afternoon departure from Perth (which would allow for connecting flights) and an evening arrival at Heathrow would work well. Coming back, a mid-morning or midday departure from Heathrow would be better IMO (bearing in mind the time it takes to GET there!) while still providing say a midday arrival in Perth, again leaving plenty of time for onward flights to land in daylight.

PPS - thanks, Viscount724, interesting!

[Edited 2010-03-02 20:08:31]

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Gemuser
Posted 2010-03-02 20:18:31 and read 7214 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 101):
QF L-1049G at CCK in 1958. It was a stop (in addition to PER and MRU) on the SYD-JNB route in the propeller era.

Thanks a lot, Viscount724.

Now be a real hero! Have you got a photo of a QF L188 Electra at CCK? I don't think I have ever seen one.

Gemuser

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2010-03-02 20:30:47 and read 7196 times.

With respect for Mandala499's work up I have a somewhat different take on the westbound PER-LHR sector using a 77L non-stop. In the N.Z. Aviation Thread #65 SX1899 posted a flight plan based on that day, Nov. 12th 2009 showing an airways distance of 7969nm with an overhead to overhead time of 17hrs 47m which translates into a still air distance of 8394nm at Mach 0.83 cruise or - 24K winds. Using the load/range table and takeoff distance table in the Boeing ACAPS document dated Aug.2009 , 8500nm range, standard fuel capacity of 145.5t shows a ZFW of ~191t. for TOW of about 336t.
Based on the known 172t passenger ready weight of current build 77W's set up for ~320-passengers I have figured the 77L to be ~150t. for ~290- passengers , thus a payload of ~41t. The takeoff runway length of 11300ft in PER at sea level on a 30C day will allow for a 347.5t takeoff weight. At 336t the temperature can be in the 42C range.
On the basis of this hypothesis there is capacity for freight or some wriggle room on a 9000nm still air day to reduce the payload to ~25t . Probably a better solution to get 9000nm ESAD would be to add 1 -AFT for an additional 5.7t of fuel and a payload ~ 32t.
As usual E and OE and informed critique is welcomed.based on the sources quoted.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2010-03-02 21:34:27 and read 7151 times.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 103):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 101):
QF L-1049G at CCK in 1958. It was a stop (in addition to PER and MRU) on the SYD-JNB route in the propeller era.

Thanks a lot, Viscount724.

Now be a real hero! Have you got a photo of a QF L188 Electra at CCK? I don't think I have ever seen one.

I did take a quick look but that was the CCK photo I could find featuring a QF aircraft. I remembered seeing that photo before in the following excellent site covering QF 707 history as well as their various Lockheed types. You may want to have another look at the L188 section in case I missed one.
http://www.adastron.com/cus1.htm

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-03-03 08:50:46 and read 6962 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 104):
With respect for Mandala499's work up I have a somewhat different take on the westbound PER-LHR sector using a 77L non-stop. In the N.Z. Aviation Thread #65 SX1899 posted a flight plan based on that day, Nov. 12th 2009 showing an airways distance of 7969nm with an overhead to overhead time of 17hrs 47m which translates into a still air distance of 8394nm at Mach 0.83 cruise or - 24K winds. Using the load/range table and takeoff distance table in the Boeing ACAPS document dated Aug.2009 , 8500nm range, standard fuel capacity of 145.5t shows a ZFW of ~191t. for TOW of about 336t.
Based on the known 172t passenger ready weight of current build 77W's set up for ~320-passengers I have figured the 77L to be ~150t. for ~290- passengers , thus a payload of ~41t. The takeoff runway length of 11300ft in PER at sea level on a 30C day will allow for a 347.5t takeoff weight. At 336t the temperature can be in the 42C range.
On the basis of this hypothesis there is capacity for freight or some wriggle room on a 9000nm still air day to reduce the payload to ~25t . Probably a better solution to get 9000nm ESAD would be to add 1 -AFT for an additional 5.7t of fuel and a payload ~ 32t.
As usual E and OE and informed critique is welcomed.based on the sources quoted.

Interesting analysis   ...if your data/numbers are indeed correct, it would make the flight more possible...


I think the "truth lies somewhere in between"... 

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: kaitak
Posted 2010-03-03 11:19:11 and read 6889 times.

Firstly, thanks to all of those who have put such work and thought into this thread, providing all the figures and looking at all of the possibilities; threads like this are what makes A.net a genuine pleasure - passionate people talking about airplanes!

I'm no mathematician, but following on from the info provided, I wonder if we can extrapolate some possible configs of VA 77Ls, assuming this comes to pass.

Here's the current seating plan:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/V_A...a/V_Australia_Boeing_777-300ER.php

There's a 33'3" (or 399") length difference between the 77W and 77L (and I'm assuming this difference also carries through to cabin length). Since we know the pitch, we can adapt the above.

Focusing on Y class seats alone (which I think is reasonable, because with the possible weight limitations, VA will want to "weight" the config in favour of higher yielding pax - J and Y+), let's try a few options.

1. The length difference is (using VA's config) the equivalent of 10 rows of Y class (320") and 2 rows of Y+ (76"), or a total of 106 seats, giving a config of 35J24W198Y, total 257. Now, I think it's a fairly safe bet that they'll want to increase J a bit, but Y+ quite significantly ...

2. Looking at a config with three extra rows of J class and 5 of Y+ (based on the 777L config in No1 above), the outcome would be (very approx.) J53W64Y81, for a total of 198.

All very rough, of course, and how economic such a config would be is open to question; such a considerably lighter pax load would almost certainly make it easier to keep the payload within acceptable limits.

Anyway, fingers crossed that this will come to pass ...

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2010-03-03 11:26:29 and read 6880 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 106):
I think the "truth lies somewhere in between"...

If V-Aus are intending to fly the route as some seem sure that they are, then the numbers I have put forward have to be close to reality unless they are going to restrict the number of Y seats for something like 26J/36Y+/200Y. I should add that on a 191t ZFW day available cargo space could pretty much be filled assuming V-Aus. freight density is about typical at 150kg/ M3.
If the 77L project is in fact for real and NYC-SYD is one of the routes planned, the challenge westbound is considerably more than PER-LHR at ~ 800nm further and probably stronger winds . If Mandala499 is still aboard this thread and has an opportunity to run a flight plan I would like to know the airways distance and the overhead to overhead flight time for the day that he used so that the head wind component can be calculated. I would not be surprised if the ESAD is in the 9300 to 9500nm range. Assuming 9500nm 3-AFT's would be necessary with max fuel and MTOW. MZFW would be in the 180t range. Not much better than a 290-passenger load. I think there would be times of the year when the number of seats sold would be restricted unless the total seat count was reduced as above at ~ 260.
As usual...   

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-03 13:22:55 and read 6789 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 102):
agree they could be a problem eastbound.

You mean Westbound? It's predominantly west to east by the way!
One thing you'd find is that, once you enter the Arabian peninsula.... the number of good airway choices (ie: not the ones that take you from (say) Perth to Melbourne via Learmonth-Broome-Darwin-Kargoorlie-Brisbane-Adelaide (pardon my exaggerism) ), until you get to Turkey, Egypt, or the former Soviet Union west of Moscow...

When going eastbound, often, the bestway is to head down and ride the Anatolian/Med jetstream... it'll give you an extra 75 - 200 knots ground speed all the way from Greece down to the Indian Pakistan border before the airways don't go along the jetstream again, and goes east north east on the Kunming corridor before joining the Japanese/Pacific Jetstream...

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 101):
QF L-1049G at CCK in 1958. It was a stop (in addition to PER and MRU) on the SYD-JNB route in the propeller era.

MAGIC find !

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 106):
I think the "truth lies somewhere in between"...

Actually, it's not... I had another look again to see if I missed anything...

Whilst the initial fuel burn at higher weights of the 777-200LR is horrendeous (and can't be bothered to look back on it again tonight... I prepared the stuff below earlier in the day) up to a point where it can be worse than the 345, at the destination end, it'll burn literally 1/2 the fuel of a 345 when both are in a hold... just for description sakes...  

It was then when I realized I must have made a huge mistake somewhere inside. (apart from what I explain before, I'm not going to get into it    )

Sunrise,
Gotta thank you for making me have another look...
I got Airways distance PER-LHR as 7944NM without STARs and SID distances allowances, and used a 200NM alternate with 30 mins hold + 5% reserves (so not using reclearance method).

The 772LR numbers I used are based on a carrier's spec from it's FCOM and QRH (GE90-110), which is older than the Aug2009 ACAP version.
There is a slight problem in using the OEW from the ACAP in that it's generic, and would match the config displayed in the ACAP's alternative configs... plus the galley food, etc. The problem I found when looking back at my previous numbers, was that I found several mistakes on my part, one was a grossly bloated OEW of 165 Tons, which unless I can find the source of it or the method in getting there, needs to be thrown out. If the 345 ACAP equivalent to actual company OEW deviation is applied (given we're talking about additional fittings of similar items in similar numbers), it should only be about a 15 ton addition (Generic OEW to Basic Weight + Galley food correction), not 20! Perhaps using the same spreadsheed for the 777 and 345 and changing from one to the other got the better of me (especially whilst under medication over the weekend).

Anyways, I'm going to settle for a 10T increase instead (which I did for the 345)... unless we go bare minimums... which can be done for fun later and use identical passenger numbers (300), the same increase from the carrier's standard seat capacity for both types.

Using 3400m @ sea level no slope no wind, for a flap15, the 347.451 kg MTOW is no problem.

ZFW is now 179.46tons with the pax on board.

Alternate is 200NM LRC OptAlt = 4.1 tons, which leaves the Grossweight at decision to divert on 184.75tons, with about 2.67tons for the 30 min hold at 1500, it gives a planned estimated landing weight at destination at 187.432 tons... this gives trip burn at 132.735tons....

Trip burn + 5% trip reserves + holding + alternate + ZFW gives 326,795kgs TOW at PER... a nice 20,655kgs spare. Despite the bloated extra OEW, I still somehow end up 10 tons lighter on the MTOW... (of course, I need to recheck everything)

Now LRC for the 772LR at it's optimum altitudes for varying weights do go along at 0.837M - 0.840M... this may explain why I saved the extra fuel... (plus the internal configuration differences).

The westbound trip is estimated at 18:00 block to blow now with 50kt headwind all the way.

Whilst am happy to have found the mistake I made, the real bummber is to redo the SYD-LHR again!    I'm not happy to remember this morning that I've lost my Boeing method block burn and time estimate spreadsheet... especially after making the mistake using the Airbus method ones... can't mix them both fellas !   

Any variations I may make, unless I change the spreadsheet model, will be attributable to the wind... but I've saved the less than 24hr old reincarnated Boeing block burn and time estimator spreadsheet again! LOL

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 108):
I would like to know the airways distance and the overhead to overhead flight time for the day that he used so that the head wind component can be calculated.

Say again the routes? Config? Plus whether you want "Heavy cabin" like SQ/EK/EY or medium (whatever that is), or light (just like those seats 20 years ago... with no PTVs    !)
It's just a matter of "tweaking" the ZFW as i've done above, (plus galley and meals guesstimates).

Mandala499

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-03-03 14:19:26 and read 6730 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 109):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 106):
I think the "truth lies somewhere in between"...

Actually, it's not... I had another look again to see if I missed anything...

Are you saying then its quite possible to fly PER-LHR without too many restrictions?

If true, then the truth would be more to towards the right than to the left..  

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2010-03-03 14:47:33 and read 6691 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 109):
Using 3400m @ sea level no slope no wind, for a flap15, the 347.451 kg MTOW is no problem.

Up to what temperature is this true? (What I am really asking is whether a 5pm departure is a feasible option in the southern summer... if not, what about 2pm?)

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 109):
Now LRC for the 772LR at it's optimum altitudes for varying weights do go along at 0.837M - 0.840M

This was the part of your earlier analysis that made me wonder the most... thanks for the updated version   

Quoting kaitak (Reply 107):
1. The length difference is (using VA's config) the equivalent of 10 rows of Y class (320") and 2 rows of Y+ (76"), or a total of 106 seats, giving a config of 35J24W198Y, total 257. Now, I think it's a fairly safe bet that they'll want to increase J a bit, but Y+ quite significantly ...

2. Looking at a config with three extra rows of J class and 5 of Y+ (based on the 777L config in No1 above), the outcome would be (very approx.) J53W64Y81, for a total of 198.

I bet the truth, if this comes to pass, will be in the middle. I think 53 J is reasonable (or even maybe one more row, for 59 J) but I expect there would be fewer premium economy seats than you anticipate. Think about 215-220 pax, and relatively heavy seating products for most of those pax.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2010-03-03 18:10:23 and read 6587 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 109):
Say again the routes? Config? Plus whether you want "Heavy cabin" like SQ/EK/EY or medium (whatever th

I am looking for an elapsed time via the airways for JFK/EWR-SYD, Mach .83 step cruise , 10% air trip time, 200nm alternative , 1/2 hour hold at 1500 ft. Use ZFW of 184t ( 150t passenger ready plus 34t payload).
I am using 150t passenger ready weight for the 77L . I was given the passenger ready weight of new build 77W 's from an impeccable source as ~ 172t for a 3-class ~ 305 seater. From this I deducted the generic OEW spread between the 77W and 77L in Boeing's ACAP document , to get 150t. I am assuming the load/range chart is accurate and that unless the en route winds exceed ~ -40K the aircraft should do it with max fuel ( 162.64t) and at 347t MTOW. I am told the rule of thumb for 80% winds is about -35K from the U.S. West Coast. to the Australian eastern seaboard.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 111):
Up to what temperature is this true? (What I am really asking is whether a 5pm departure is a feasible option in the southern summer... if not, what about 2pm?)

The Boeing ACAP document shows takeoff distances for a variety of temperatures. Over night Perth temps. are in the 18-23C range with daytime in the 30 to 34 range.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 111):
Think about 215-220 pax, and relatively heavy seating products for most of those pax.

I don't see this fitting the V-Aus. model and I don't agree based on what I understand the the ACAP document to be saying. They have their 77W's fitted out 75J/40Y+/288Y.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 109):
ZFW is now 179.46tons with the pax on board.
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 109):
this gives trip burn at 132.735tons....

This leaves ~12.8t of fuel in the tanks on arrival . Could you have traded some of that away for some ZFW ?

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-03 19:43:07 and read 6545 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 111):
Up to what temperature is this true? (What I am really asking is whether a 5pm departure is a feasible option in the southern summer... if not, what about 2pm?)

Up to 33C for the F15 field limit and climb limits... for the 326tons ETOW, the temperature will come in the climb at about 39 - 40C... I'll hit the field limit at 44C....

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 111):
This was the part of your earlier analysis that made me wonder the most... thanks for the updated version

No worries.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 112):
I am looking for an elapsed time via the airways for JFK/EWR-SYD, Mach .83 step cruise , 10% air trip time, 200nm alternative , 1/2 hour hold at 1500 ft. Use ZFW of 184t ( 150t passenger ready plus 34t payload).

10% trip res? Geez, that's a lot! but it's a derived product component so won't be a problem... you can tweak it around without affecting the calculations much.
Anyways, the distance calculations would be based on the "most workable airway" to Hawaii state, then GC to a city on west coast, and then airways to EWR/JFK... I'll try and get the least ground dist alternative using that method.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 112):
From this I deducted the generic OEW spread between the 77W and 77L in Boeing's ACAP document , to get 150t.

For that one, I'll just use your number, for the same config as what I used before I would actually double the galley load!    but that's just me!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 112):
This leaves ~12.8t of fuel in the tanks on arrival . Could you have traded some of that away for some ZFW ?

It was 4.1T alternate, 2.67T hold, and 6.64T enroute reserve (5% trip burn)... plus my ZFW was "heavy cabin" for "standard galley load" (not ULH galley load), for 280 - 290 pax, hence the used ZFW "mix".

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 112):
I am told the rule of thumb for 80% winds is about -35K from the U.S. West Coast. to the Australian eastern seaboard.

I'll do a cross check on this too!

Mandala499

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2010-03-04 04:23:47 and read 6376 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 76):
He's starting Melbourne-Johannesburg with 777s on 13th. March - that is, the week after next. We'll see how that goes.

I would like to see a flight plan for this! I wonder what the regulator has allowed VA for EDTO diversion time for this airframe/engine combination? Westbound taking the winds into account and given that the diversion is calculated at 389K in still air the usual 180-min distance of ~ 1150nm is going to be probably 10% less than that. I would expect that the track over the ocean will be quite a zig-zag. Maybe Mandala can take a look at what this might be.

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2010-03-04 06:31:09 and read 6287 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 114):
I would like to see a flight plan for this!

Don't know the exact track, but I gather EDTO allows 240-min. and that's quite doable if they stay reasonably close to Perth and Port Louis (Mauritius).

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: mandala499
Posted 2010-03-04 08:34:55 and read 6223 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 114):
Maybe Mandala can take a look at what this might be.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 115):
but I gather EDTO allows 240-min.

OK you two, here's a quick blunt version... Plot this on www.gcmap.com

ETOPS 180:
MEL-PER-24°00'00"S 80°00'00"E-MRU-JNB
1150nm@CCK, 1150nm@MRU, 1150nm@PER, 1150nm@NKW

ETOPS 240:
MEL-35°00'00"S 83°00'00"E-JNB
1600nm@CCK, 1600nm@MRU, 1600nm@PER, 1600nm@NKW, 1600nm@LEA

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 114):
1150nm is going to be probably 10% less than that.

1150nm is probably the right number (I got that on the 1 engine INOP Driftdown and LRC interpolate for 3hrs), and 1600nm for the 4hrs...

Enjoy...

Mandala499

Topic: RE: Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2010-03-04 09:06:24 and read 6194 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 115):
but I gather EDTO allows 240-min

I took another look at the EDTO standard and it appears that the operator must satisfy the regulator that they can do 240-min. No doubt their history with the airframe/ engine combination will weigh heavily in the decision. No doubt VA have bent over backwards to be squeaky clean in the year they have operated the type.
From a Pprune post is a quote that MEL-JNB to meet EDTO240 is 5804nm. No doubt this is still air. From GC mapper I can see how this was arrived at. I reduced the diversion speed by 50k to 339K and the distance rose to 5984nm. The gate to gate time of 15hr.15min pretty much jives with a -50k wind assumption and the 5984nm ESAD .


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/