Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A332 & 767 Range/usage: Long Thin Routes?  
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3029 times:

Yesterday while discussing NGO's AA replacement and today in the form about KIX, many people mentioned that by the time the 787 comes online we might see more airlines into places like NGO and KIX.

That got me thinking about the A332 and the 767-200ER & -300ER.
The A332 has a stated range (by Airbus) as 6750nm.
The 767-200ER has a stated range (by Boeing) as 6600nm. The 767-300ER has a range of 6105nm.

Of course these numbers are possible, but airlines operate them differently with different requirements. EX: DL's 767-300ER have a range of 5703nm (400nm less than Boeing page). OZ's A332 have a range of 8207nm (1457nm MORE than Airbus page...That can't be right. Bad Math maybe.)

But using the above numbers, it would be possible to do some longer thin routes with currently available equipment. Example; JFK-SHE (5792nm), SFO-CTS (4167nm) and LHR-VVO (4614nm) would be possible with nm to spare. (Even though the market might not be there quite yet)

Would it be possible for airlines (until the 787 and A350 are available) to start setting up thin routes using 767s or A332s? If an airline can do US East Coast to Europe with 757s, why not from Europe and the North America to Asia using 767s and A332s?


Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

767 can do it from certain places to NRT, but you are pushing the limits, and not the 764, only the 762 and sometimes the 763. But not really economically.

330 and DC10 can do it, too, with similar limitations, and you don't get a lot of cargo from anywhere.

London is a different story. You can serve LHR to much of Asia with any 767 model, but demand is usually such on those routes for a larger plane, so at least 777s, with more pax and cargo, are used.

But who knows, in the very long run, when the newer 762ERs need somewhere to go as 788s take over some of their routes, you could see such routes on CO EWR-NGO or whatever. That plane doesn't take much cargo anyway...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2958 times:

Quoting Centrair (Thread starter):
it would be possible to do some longer thin routes with currently available equipment.

... Or to provide seasonal extra capacity on heavy routes.

That's already what AF did by adding this summer a third DAILY flight on its prestigious CDG-NRT route.
AF272/279 is operated by an A332. This is the longest regular flight operated by this a/c type (9734km/5256nm/6048mi).
Due to the success of this new frequency, this flight will operate also this winter 5 x Weekly.

The two other Daily flights are operated by more "traditional" B772ER & B773ER on that route.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kazuteru Sugawara



User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2878 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 2):
This is the longest regular flight operated by this a/c type (9734km/5256nm/6048mi).

thats a long way! thought TPE-HNL and ICN-PRG, 4500nm was the longest A332 flight before this info.


User currently offlineA360 From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

^I think the ICN-PRG flight, is done using an A330-300, which has less range than the -200.

User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
767 can do it from certain places to NRT

Yes as far as YYZ. AC flies that route during the winter schedule on a B767-300ER which is quite suprising and impressive at the same time. That's what? like 13 hours or so in a 2-3-2 configuration which is good for the pax.



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26495 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2658 times:

Quoting Centrair (Thread starter):
OZ's A332 have a range of 8207nm (1457nm MORE than Airbus page...That can't be right. Bad Math maybe.)

That is very bad math. The A332 doesn't have a chance at doing anything close to that

Quoting Centrair (Thread starter):
DL's 767-300ER have a range of 5703nm (400nm less than Boeing page).

DL's numbers represent the actual range of the plane, not the still air range.

Quoting Centrair (Thread starter):
Would it be possible for airlines (until the 787 and A350 are available) to start setting up thin routes using 767s or A332s?

The reason that airlines can use an aircraft like the 787 to start up longer, thinner routes is the 20% savings in operating costs over 767s of the same size (and even greater savings over the heavier A330). It is not so much an issue of capacity but of actual operating cost, especially considering the 787 will not cost much more than a 767

Quoting Centrair (Thread starter):
If an airline can do US East Coast to Europe with 757s, why not from Europe and the North America to Asia using 767s and A332s?

757s are incredibly efficient aircraft. They are significantly lighter than either 767s or A332s and are thus able to serve these smaller markets at a much lower risk.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2558 times:

And the 767 just can't make it from JFK, ATL, DFW, LAX, ORD, etc. 762 from some northern cities, but flying a 762 to it's limit on NRT when you have other routes to send it on, well it doesn't make a lot of sense. But, as I said, if the 788 takes over 762 routes to south america and europe, for example, you might see an airline like CO using it on a non-cargo route similar to how they deal with the 757. But as N1 says, the 767 is designed to carry cargo, so taking it on a route without it would really hurt the economics.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26495 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
And the 767 just can't make it from JFK, ATL, DFW, LAX, ORD, etc

The 763ER can make LAX-NRT rather easily, but why put such a small plane on such a high traffic route?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
762 routes to south america and europe, for example, you might see an airline like CO using it on a non-cargo route similar to how they deal with the 757. But as N1 says, the 767 is designed to carry cargo, so taking it on a route without it would really hurt the economics.

What most people don't understand about the 767 is that, yes it has the disadvantage of not being able to hold side by side LD3s all the way back, but it still can carry WAY more cargo, and WAY heavier cargo than a 757 ever could. There is a reason that when CO took the 777 off of MAN they didn't switch to 2 752s, rather they went with 1 752 and 762ER. It is cargo.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineFly2CHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Are these figures correct? Great Circle Mapper has a range from SIN-LHR of 5879nm, and I am sure a B767 could not make that non-stop. The B742 never even did that route without an intermediary.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26495 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2471 times:

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 9):
Are these figures correct? Great Circle Mapper has a range from SIN-LHR of 5879nm, and I am sure a B767 could not make that non-stop. The B742 never even did that route without an intermediary.

Actually, I do believe that the 747-200B did make the non-stop in later times. The 763ER could do the route, though only just barely.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineFinnWings From Finland, joined Oct 2003, 640 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2450 times:

A few words about ranges... One should consider that there are very many variables when considering of the range. Usually the range data of particular aircraft includes of course full tanks during take-off and only minimum legal reserve fuel at the time of landing. However in a real life you must add a lot extra, like fuel for the planned alternate airport and perhaps to the secondary alternate as well. This will decrease your real range a lot, depending of course how far away those alternates are. Those fuel calculations to alternate of course include one missed approach from your destination airport too and such a maneuver will burn tons of fuel.

Now you must also consider winds... manufacturers suppose zero winds when they announce maximum ranges. However, like we all know winds aren't ever zero in the upper airspace, in fact, you might easily have 150kts headwind for a whole trip. Then there is the age of the aircraft... just like with your car the manufacturer has promised that brand new aircraft (or car) will achieve those performance figures. However, as aircrafts gets older their fuel consumption increase, due the aging engines, increased drag due the stressed airframe etc... Every airline does have a performance office which makes necessary calculations for each individual aircraft on a regular basis, which almost always means that they are decreasing the performance of the aircraft from original values. The manuals and data will be of course updated to match with reality.

When considering all these and some other variable factors the usable economical range of a long haul aircraft might be even 1000nm less than the revealed maximum range by manufacturer. So be always very cautious when considering of the range...

I hope this helps!

Best Regards,
FinnWings


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...
Could BA Use Their 757's On Long Haul Routes? posted Mon Jul 24 2006 18:44:30 by Gilesdavies
CIT Leasing Order 5 X A332 & 4 X A320 posted Thu Jul 20 2006 13:39:35 by PanAm_DC10
UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes posted Thu Jun 15 2006 22:01:05 by Nopeotone
Long Pinnacle Routes posted Sat May 27 2006 01:56:18 by Flyf15
Cardiff Gets New Long Haul Routes posted Fri May 5 2006 21:13:46 by Drinkstrolley
Short Haul Planes On Long Haul Routes posted Wed Apr 12 2006 17:08:51 by Cedarjet
Will DL 767-400s Be Flying Int'l Routes? posted Sat Oct 15 2005 14:44:39 by Flydl2atl
AA A306's & 767's posted Wed Oct 5 2005 13:14:33 by VS773ER
Lufthansa Most Profitable Long-haul Routes? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 18:12:40 by Avianca
Comparing The 787 With The 767 - Range posted Thu Apr 14 2005 13:42:57 by Bluepoole