StarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
Well... according to Airbus the A340-500 is able to fly 8,650nm nonstop. According to the Great Circle Mapper the distance is 8,906nm as the bird flies. So this would not be possible unless the aircraft was payload restricted, even then I think there would definitely be a problem particularly on the way from SYD to FRA due to prevailing winds.
However this would be an interesting route. Though LHR-SYD would probably have a lot more pax demanding a nonstop flight.
Andreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2623 times:
I believe this discussion was led a few years ago, when Airbus was discussing ranges of A340-8000, whether airlines are interested in super-longhaul etc. I seem to remember that nonstop routes Europe-Australia were economically said to be not that interesting, especially since there is not that much time saving as compared to a one-stop flight (like it is done via BKK or SIN or KUL).
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2537 times:
No, that's the range based on full pax/bags/fuel with zero cargo.
Also, for what it's worth... the 772LR's expected 10,553mi range can cover the great circle distance from FRA to SYD whereas the A345 cannot; but even the twinjet will not have the legs for the (practical application) still air distance, westbound.
Aussie747 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2161 times:
That 744 delivery flight did use a more expensive lighter aviation fuel and had 28 total pax including crew by memory that was on 1989 for its first ever 747-400 model.
It would be interesting if a model could take full load full pax SYD-LHR non stop(as there would be a huge demand, so many pax prefer to get their ASAP with as few stops as possible)
however the practicality of such a service would be difficult, DVT, hours it could run you would have to have the service running either very early AM or LATE PM from Sydney to make curfew hours, whilst from London It would not be able to depart in the evening it would have to depart in the morning only - that is unless this new aircraft were to operate faster than the current standard of mach 0.8 to 0.85
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6834 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2007 times:
Well, most Europe - Australia flights "redistribute" their passengers at either SIN/KUL/BKK/HKG.
LHR/FRA/AMS/CDG/FCO/ZRH to SIN/KUL/BKK/HKG then they redistribute to PER/ADL/MEL/SYD/BNE(and AKL).
EK is doing this too now though DXB.
Talking to a couple of SQ, GA and MH people, they said only London-Sydney did not require such "redistribution" all year round. The rest of Europe do need redistribution at a point somewhere. So, a direct FRA-SYD flight mean pax are distributed at SYD (and to a certain extent... FRA). I had a discussion with a couple of analysts a few years back and they said if Qantas ever does an extreme long haul flight it would be All points in Australia to PER, then PER-Europe direct. Hence keeping the redistribution at one point only. But, the current airport layout wouldn't make it convenient.
Given the larger population and the higher population density in Europe than Australia, it makes more sense however to make the distribution point either in Asia or in Europe instead of within Australia...
The Asian redistribution point also allows the airline to serve the Asia-Australia market aswell... and a little cargo on board.
However, traffic between Europe and Australia is very dependent on Y class pax... tourists. Will tourists want a direct flight for a little higher price, or just go with the current arrangement.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Manairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1959 times:
I can think of nothing worse than boarding an aircraft at LHR and not getting off until it arrived at SYD. What a nightmare of a journey it would be cooped up in an aluminium tube for that length of time.
Ahlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1976 times:
Another interesting "re-distribution" point would be Helsinki, at only 8202 nm from Sydney, which is closer than Athens at 8247 nm. All the other major Australian points are less than 8200 nm from Helsinki, so with a 345 this could be possible.... though my guess is Finnair is not going to go out and buy a bunch of 345s to fly to Australia.
Ted747 From Australia, joined Jul 2003, 195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
I knida agree - that amount of time in an aircraft, DVT, the extra catering etc - it would drive people nuts cooped up that long. Many people now days are over-nighting in SIN, HKG, BKK for example to break the flight and make it more bearable.
From a consumer perspective I don't think there is the demand for super long haul non stop flights.
StarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1668 times:
It's not like everyone overnights at SIN, HKG or BKK. I am sure there is plentyof people, particularly high yield business people, that would like a direct flight if that would shave a few hours off the travelling time. I agree that this would possibly only work on LHR-SYD.
If you prefer to stop over, dear Ted, then I'm sure there will still be plenty of connections available. That way, everyone's happy!