AT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 872 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
Do you think that European airlines would be inclined to purchase ultralong haul aircraft such as the A340-500, or the B 777-200LR, or the B 747 400ER?
It seems that Europe is the most conveniently positioned continent in terms of commercial flights, and you can get just about anywhere from Europe non-stop, on the current 777s, A340s and 747s. Australia remains a problem, but then I don't think the newest A340s and 777LRs wll be able to do those nonstop either.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15907 posts, RR: 66 Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
Western and Northern Australia is in range (IIRC even from London) with the A345/772LR. New South Wales and (let's not forget) New Zealand are not.
I think as you say it's simply not worth it to acquire several ultralonghaulers just for a couple of routes, unless you have a niche business market like SIN-EWR.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2048 times:
The 744ER is still a B-market aircraft.
Western Europe is very well placed in the fact that B-market jetliners can handily reach most any profit-potential destination nonstop.
That said, I believe some of the Euro-carriers could certainly find a use for the C-market ships; whether they could justify them though, is a different matter entirely.
BA could use the 772LR for: LHR-SYD (heavily payload restricted)
AF could use the 772LR for: CDG-PPT (decent loads, but doubt they'd give up LAX feed)
AZ could use the 772LR for: FCO-SYD (decent loads, facilitate their proposed return to Oz)
Not really sure what good the A345 would be to the Euro-carriers other than an "abused" on B-routings. LH, IB, and VS are the only ones I can see making any use of it, yet none of them [plan to] serve destinations needing [yet still within] its range.
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2007 times:
BA could use the 772LR for: LHR-SYD (heavily payload restricted)
Could, but VERY unlikely as they need capacity not range on that operation. Or preferably both.
If you look at a globe, it's mostly open sea on the opposite side of the planet from Europe. So reaching anywhere from Europe is B market apart from Australia and New Zealand. Both those routes are ones which need capacity so C market aircraft available today aren't really suited to Euro haulers.
The777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6115 posts, RR: 56 Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1938 times:
It has been suggested that BA or QF would fly a 777-200LR nonstop LHR-SYD with mostly F and C class, similiar to SQ on SIN-LAX/EWR. The restriction in payload would be made up for (in money) by the premium traffic. I think there's probably room for one or two flights like this per direction per day.
The777Man (currently in HNL)
Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....GA, T5, CI and LX 777s
JeffDCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
It has been suggested that BA or QF would fly a 777-200LR nonstop LHR-SYD with mostly F and C class, similiar to SQ on SIN-LAX/EWR. The restriction in payload would be made up for (in money) by the premium traffic. I think there's probably room for one or two flights like this per direction per day.
I agree with that. A lot of people may not want such a flight if they were planning to travel from LHR-SYD, purely due to the time in the air, and the public awareness/fear of DVT.
If a premium service on an aircraft capable of such range was offered however, i can see the service being a success. SQ is the one to follow with regards to this, they have the right idea, and i wouldn't be surprised to see others like BA and QF follow.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
The 777LR and A345 are of little interest to the European carriers, these very expensive niche aircraft (dont forget that there is huge price premium for the 777LR over a typical 777ER, and the A345 is also an expensive toy) would not allow the European carriers to add any important new routes where there is potentially lots of money to be made. Neither the A345 or 777LR can fly LHR-SYD nonstop without very extreme restictions (we are talking about a very light pax load and absolutely no cargo)......seating would have to be far less than SQ's premium A345s with about 170 seats. The economics do not work out. A LHR-Perth-SYD route would be possible, but the airline would simply be trading the stopover in SIN, BKK or HKG for a stopover in Perth.....it would be a novelty, but there is far more traffic (and far more premium traffic) on routes via the Asian cities. Flights to Australia from other European cities (with the possible exception of Frankfurt) are extremely price sensitive, with lots of budget travellers.....I would not expect an airline to invest in ultra-longhaul airliners to fly these types of routes when such good service is available via SIN or other cities.
The CDG-PPT flight mentioned above would be possible, I think, but this is not a big enough market to inspire AF to introduce another fleet type and buy a handful of airplanes to operate one route.....the flights via LAX work fine in this market. Air Tahiti Nui has looked at the A345 to operate the CDG-PPT route and decided against it.....for economic reasons, probably the right decision.
Aside from routes to Australia and the South Pacific, current airliners like the A346, 777ER or the 744 can fly from Europe to any destination that can handle the aircraft. Both Boeing and Airbus realize that the A345 and 777LR are niche aircraft with a very small potential market - mainly Gulf and Asian carriers looking to connect their homebases with key cities in North and South America but only where there is sufficient business traffic to support the route. And, the other potential purchaser is QF, in the case that they decide to open up nonstop routes from Australia to cities in the US (such as the long rumored SYD-DFW flight to take advantage of AA's DFW megahub). US carriers could be interested in the ultra-long range types, but they simply cannot afford a luxury item like the A345 or 777LR at the moment.....too much money and too much risk.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1748 times:
seating would have to be far less than SQ's premium A345s with about 170 seats.
You have no way of accurately determining this.
to inspire AF to introduce another fleet type
um, they wouldn't have to.
Air Tahiti Nui has looked at the A345 to operate the CDG-PPT route and decided against
Because it couldn't hack the range/payload.... but if you'll recall, the aforementioned CDG-PPT was a Euro carrier with a longer ranged twinjet, not a Pacific-territory carrier with a shorter-ranged, slower A340.
Texdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1266 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1688 times:
Dutchjet,
Thanks for bringing up the SYD-DFW dream that many of us DFW'ers have!!
One can still dream, right?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 872 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15907 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
