Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Direct PPT-CDG?  
User currently offlineYanksn4 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1404 posts, RR: 12
Posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3579 times:

Greetings everyone. I was just fooling around on the great circle map and just put in PPT-CDG. According to the map, the distance between the two airports was 8485 nm. Now with the Airbus A340-500 being around 8650 nm, why dosn't Air France or Air Tahiti Nui acquire a A345 and start a non-stop flight without having to stop in LAX. (by the way, yes i know the great circle map isn't exactly accurate)

Signed,
Matthew


2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLAXINTL From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24805 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3541 times:

For starters neither Air Tahiti Nui, nor Air France operate the A340-500.

ATN however until late 2003 was considering ordering a single A345. The aircraft in question would have been one of two at the time undelivered Air Canada birds Airbus had sitting around.

However it was determined the aircraft could not operate CDG-PPT nonstop with a full payload of passengers and a small amount of cargo economically. Headed westbound the aircraft would encounter the headwinds which would make the trip in reality a bit above the equivalent 9000nm. In addition the need to carry island alternate fuel reserves further reduces payload capabilities.

At the end of the day, if Airbus comes up with an improved A340-500IGW then I suspect the French taxpayer might end up footing the bill to provide Tahiti with an example. For now instead Air Tahiti awaits the arrival of its 5th standard A340-300 due mid 2005.




From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26357 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3495 times:

TN also makes a lot of money selling its seats to tour consolidators from the US out of LAX, while also competing on the LAX-CDG route, which tends to be a bit underserved. Given that PPT is mainly a leisure market, people are just not willing to pay the premium to have a light payload A345 flying the route. Even a 772LR, which would have a much better payload, would be unlikely to ply this route, as both TN and AF like the market they have now.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

ATW in April had an article on Air Tahiti Nui, and the article agrees with LAXINTL - the 345 has payload issues. The 777 is a non starter for Air Tahiti Nuias they would have significant ETOPS certification issues.

The other comment is that they are hoping to maintain fleet commonality, as their fleet is maintained by AF. A common fleet allows them to rotate aircraft into and out of CDG as needed for maintenance.

Air Tahiti Nui have also looked at the 346 and two 333's for shorter flights to AKL and SYD.




The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3297 times:

Also remember that the PPT-CDG market is rather small - its unlikely that daily nonstop services could be supported and the flight would probably not operate more than 2 or 3 times per week. As pointed out, Air Tahiti Nui studied the situation and considered acquiring one A345 for the route, but for the reasons pointed out above, plus high costs in maintaining only one A345, they decided to pass on the A345 and continue to run the PPT-CDG flights via LAX where there is probably more money to be made in total.

There is a good amount of premium traffic between PPT and CDG (lots of govenment officials and the like), but the LAX stopover is not a major issue - the flights and times are rather effecient (its similiar to the LAX-SYD route were stopping over in SIN is not a big deal).


User currently offlineVS045 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 192 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

Air Tahiti Nui are considering the purchase of some A345s, but they need airbus to increase the maximum take-off weight. The 772LR is not really a viable alternative, as it would be affected by ETOPS, and in the pacific thats not a good thing!

Cheers,
VS045



4 engines 4 long haul
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Air Tahiti Nui are considering the purchase of some A345s, but they need airbus to increase the maximum take-off weight.

You're a lil' behind the times... they've already turned down the specs of the increased MTOW A345.




The 772LR is not really a viable alternative, as it would be affected by ETOPS, and in the pacific thats not a good thing!

The effect of ETOPS on PPT-CDG would be nigh-negligible at best.

(BTW, if you're relying on the G.C.M. to make this call, don't fool yourself. It doesn't really apply here).


User currently offlineVS045 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 192 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3131 times:

But how can you fly a twin to PPT? The nearest adequate length runway is HNL or something, which would be like flying from LAX to Juneau in Alaska on one engine!

Cheers,
VS045



4 engines 4 long haul
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

...I'm curious; did you ever actually bother to PLOT the course??


If you did, you'd It's almost directly within ETOPS180 for an aircraft with the 777's capabilities-- though a slightly more northernbound route that the G.C. would be required, that'd probably happen regardless of aircraft flown on a nonstop anyways.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3068 times:

Concorde - When Air Tahiti Nui was started, they would not have been granted ETOPS 180 approval. With no twinjet experience, would they get the approval today??

I'm off to PPT in April... wont be looking for runway alternates though!



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

With no twinjet experience, would they get the approval today??

You think that would really stop 'em?

...NW also had nigh-zilch ETOPS experience, but a little creativity on behalf of Boeing (particularly concerning some "interesting" flight techniques with the D10) and they picked up 180 certification very quickly.


User currently offlineTrolley Dolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

Concordeboy! The difference between NW and TN is that every single TN flight would fall under ETOPS rules. Twin engined wise, it's either ETOPS or don't fly. No ETOPS= No airline. They can only go with 3/4 engined aircraft. It's not A v B, as the same would apply to any twin-jet.


The challenge would be to build up experience. Long hauls with a small fleet build up the hours quickly, but not the number of flights. TN doesn't have the fleet size to get creative.


[Edited 2004-11-28 23:17:48]

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

The difference between NW and TN is that every single TN flight would fall under ETOPS rules. Twin engined wise, it's either ETOPS or don't fly.

...gee, really?  Yeah sure



They can only go with 3/4 engined aircraft.

Incorrect. Realistic maybe, but incorrect.





The challenge would be to build up experience. *** TN doesn't have the fleet size to get creative.

Therein would lie some difficulty, you're correct... but not necessarily an impediment.

HA & NW again are examples of airlines who were swiftly granted high ETOPS certification at/near service entry, without extensive [or in one case, practically any] use of the aircraft to which the specifications would apply.


User currently offlineTrolley Dolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

I'm confused, concordeboy. You say the assertion that they can only go with 3/4 engined aircraft is incorrect. Please may you ellaborate. How can the operate a twin on ETOPS routes without ETOPS certification?

This info was gathered from an interview with TN's CEO in Airways magazine. A logical view of the situation is that every route they fly would fall under ETOPS. (No flights could be operated under the 60 min diversion rule as PPT is too isolated.) If you can't get ETOPS, you can't get twins, you have to go with 3/4 engined aircraft.

The difference between HA, NW and TN is that the major US carriers have built up many years of operational experience. HA and NW probably have more flights operating in one day than TN has in a year. Sadly, TN's youth counts against it. It's a fantastic airline!


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2896 times:

How can the operate a twin on ETOPS routes without ETOPS certification?

Never asserted that one could.

Read what I wrote... it was written that way for a reason.





HA and NW probably have more flights operating in one day than TN has in a year.

Essentially none of which were opped under ETOPS specs....


User currently offlineLAXINTL From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24805 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2874 times:

HA piggy backed on DL's twin engine ETOPS policy and procedures in order to get its B767-300ER up an running.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineTrolley Dolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2861 times:

Yes, I read it. You say I was "incorrect" when I said they have no choice but to go with 3/4 engined aircraft.

This confuses me. Please ellaborate why this is an incorrect statement.

I'm not being facetious here. My understanding of how ETOPS is awarded is that you need to build up some form of operational experience, either with or without ETOPS flights, to be granted certification. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, please correct me. I'll be happy to learn.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy








User currently offlineScandinA340 From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2858 times:

Don't the European authorities have tougher ETOPS-180 rules than the FAA in the US? Isn't the European rule that an twin a/c has to operate for 12 months without issues before it can be granted ETOPS-180? I had thought that Boeing's magic on the US Congress with the release of the 777 hadn't extended to Europe (and seeing as TN is a French airline, would fall under European jurisdiction)...

Cheers-


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2304 times:

My understanding of how ETOPS is awarded is that you need to build up some form of operational experience, either with or without ETOPS flights, to be granted certification

Yes.

Also, not just flight-wise... maintenance-wise, et al.





Isn't the European rule that an twin a/c has to operate for 12 months without issues before it can be granted ETOPS-180?

True, pretty much the same in the USA-- though there's ways around it.

E.G., much/most of NW's trial-before-cert. came from the rather ingenious tactic of altering a DC10 simulator to behave as if it were a twinjet.


User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26357 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2291 times:

>(its similiar to the LAX-SYD route were stopping over in SIN is not a big deal). <

Last I checked, that would be rather out of the way and inconvinient. Also, there is a very large market for the non-stops that currently ply the route. I am assuming you mean LHR-SYD.

As far as the whole ETOPS thing goes, if TN's fleet in being maintained by AF, an airline with a lot of ETOPS experiance, I am sure they could have found a way to get ETOPS. Again, they would likely need ETOPS clearence to fly A330s as well, so I am guessing it is not that.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Nobody has mentioned the political influence that France plays over French polynesia...

The French government paying the French polynesian government to buy american 777's is as likely as George Bush announcing that the next Air Force 1 will be an Embraer 170.





The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26357 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

>Nobody has mentioned the political influence that France plays over French polynesia...
The French government paying the French polynesian government to buy american 777's is as likely as George Bush announcing that the next Air Force 1 will be an Embraer 170. <

I guess some people forget that the French government allowed the main French flag carrier, AF, to make the 744 and the 777 the flagship of their fleet, while reducing their A340 fleet. I honestly think that TN started with the A340 because they were able to get an A342 on a cheap lease rate and then decided to stick with the type because pilots were already trained and the fleet was mixed A342/A343 for a time.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2217 times:

N1120a - Air France is a commercial organization... Air Tahiti Nui is a state airline. The French state doesnt pay for the AF fleet.


The world is really getting smaller these days
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Direct Flights From LGW/LHR/MAN To HNL? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 23:20:08 by Ba757gla
Why No Direct LHR-LAS? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 15:01:05 by Londonlady71
Why No Direct LON-MNL Service? posted Mon Jul 18 2005 19:55:43 by Geoffm
Why No Direct TV On F9's 318's? posted Tue Jan 20 2004 17:57:38 by Diatraveler
Why No Direct Flights From Hawaii To Tahiti? posted Mon Jan 12 2004 18:58:26 by Mirrodie
Why No Direct Flights Between India And Australia? posted Fri Dec 5 2003 17:49:51 by DIJKKIJK
JETBLUE: Why No Direct TV Service On JFK-San Juan? posted Sat Jun 1 2002 21:31:25 by AsianaAirlines
Why No Direct Service To The Mid-East From DTW posted Fri Dec 28 2001 23:06:13 by Thomasphoto60
AI 772 In CDG Today 03/12, Why No 747? (pics) posted Sat Dec 2 2006 17:18:14 by Stevens91
El Al:why No More 777s And 744s To CDG? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 15:56:51 by LY777