Change Forum... Civil Aviation Travel, Polls & Prefs Tech/Ops Aviation Hobby Aviation Photography Photography Feedback Trip Reports Military Av & Space Non-Aviation Site Related LIVE Chat My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search
 Ideal Long-haul Leg Length?
 Remcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 361 posts, RR: 0Posted Wed Mar 21 2007 17:22:55 UTC (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2225 times:

 Is there an ideal distance/time between two cities for airlines such that they can do daily flights with the fewest amount of aircraft, and does this affect fares? For example: If cities A and B are, say, 10 hours apart, then a single aircraft could fly from A to B, turn around and fly back from B to A and be ready to do it all over again the next day. However if cities A and B are 11.5 hours apart, then you couldn't turn around and fly that aircraft back to city A in time to make the next daily flight. So in theory, shouldn't there be an ideal flight time between two cities such that daily flights are possible with 1 aircraft? And if a city is only slightly farther away, shouldn't it mean a dramatically large fare increase for that extra distance?[Edited 2007-03-21 17:31:48]
 DiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 981 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted Wed Mar 21 2007 18:18:53 UTC (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2193 times:

 Quoting Remcor (Thread starter):So in theory, shouldn't there be an ideal flight time between two cities such that daily flights are possible with 1 aircraft?

Well, sort of. As you suggest, a rotation is most efficient if both legs fit in a 24-hour period with a moderate turn time.

In practice, though, consider these:

1. Block time is rarely the same in both directions. The main factor here is wind - eastbound flights over the North Atlantic have a tailwind, while westbounds have a headwind. This means the eastbound leg is shorter than the westbound leg.

Another factor is congestion. For example, EWR is known, at certain times of the day, for having long lines for departure - 45 minutes there isn't unusual in morning and evening rushes. Since this is a regular part of flying the route, it must be figured into the block time. Also, some airports experience holding for arrival (either in the air or via ground delays) - LHR, ORD, and the like come to mind, so this must also be added into the block time. A flight EWR-LHR, then, must allow for both departure queues and arrival holding. The return, on the other hand, might involve less taxi out time and less holding on arrival.

 Quoting Remcor (Thread starter):And if a city is only slightly farther away, shouldn't it mean a dramatically large fare increase for that extra distance?

No. Airlines (usually) don't use the same aircraft to run the same route every day. For example, CO runs 772's on both EWR-CDG-EWR and IAH-CDG-IAH. The EWR roundtrip takes somewhat less than 24 hours including ground time; the IAH roundtrip takes over 24 hours. By routing the 772 EWR-CDG-IAH-CDG-EWR (for example), CO uses two 772's to cover two routes over two days - thus bringing fleet utilization back to 1 bird per route.

The other part of the answer to this question is economics. Prices are set as low as they need to be set for people to be willing to buy them - often, this means matching a competitor's fare. If prices were set lower than this, airlines would be losing revenue because people are willing to pay more. If prices were set higher, passengers would buy a competitors' ticket, thus also causing the airline to lose revenue. If airlines could sell tickets based on what it cost to transport people, I'm sure they would. If this were the case, maybe we wouldn't be seeing so many companies in bankruptcy (e.g. DL and NW) or being sold (SN, TW).

 Remcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted Wed Mar 21 2007 18:35:53 UTC (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2166 times:

 Interesting comments, thanks. The routing example you provided really makes sense. It is interesting to think how complicated airline routing must be, considering all the various factors to try to make a system that is marketable, reliable and economical. It's interesting to think then how a slight increase in aircraft speed, say from Mach 0.81 to Mach 0.85, might have a significant impact on the airlines overall routing system.
 DiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 981 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted Wed Mar 21 2007 19:21:40 UTC (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

 Quoting Remcor (Reply 2):It's interesting to think then how a slight increase in aircraft speed, say from Mach 0.81 to Mach 0.85, might have a significant impact on the airlines overall routing system.

Efficiency in routing is one thing. On the other hand, scheduling planes with minimal turn times isn't a good idea, either. While some delays are normal and built into the schedule, things like snowstorms, strikes in foreign countries, and exploding engines are not normal (all have happened to CO in the last few days), and the schedule needs to have some slack if normal operations are to be recovered.

While some turns are done in the 90-minutes (minimum) that a widebody needs, others are longer, so that there's time to recover from delays.

Thus, changes in cruise speed (as when a 767 is subbed for a 777), aren't likely to have such a terrible impact.

As you can tell, I'm fascinated by routing, particularly of longhaul planes - it seems you are, too!

 Evan767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2957 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted Wed Mar 21 2007 19:31:41 UTC (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

 Yeah this is what DL does. You'll notice they fly the routes to Eastern Europe from JFK mainly, not out of the ATL megahub. The reason being is for better ground time for their 763's. Ex. If DL went ATL-KBP-ATL, ground time would be very short and difficult to service the 763, enplane/deplane passengers, etc. This is a main reason they start these routes from JFK.
 The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
 Top Of Page Change Forum... Civil Aviation Travel, Polls & Prefs Tech/Ops Aviation Hobby Aviation Photography Photography Feedback Trip Reports Military Av & Space Non-Aviation Site Related LIVE Chat Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

 Similar topics: More similar topics...
Biggest VFR Long-haul Routes? posted Sat Mar 3 2007 23:48:32 by CityAirline
More Long Haul For EMA posted Sun Feb 25 2007 19:05:49 by BDRules
Most Profitable Very Long Haul Non Stop! posted Wed Feb 21 2007 07:38:09 by B773ER
Austrian Long Haul Decisions - Interview With CEO. posted Wed Feb 14 2007 10:48:48 by Gilesdavies
Tame Going Long Haul? posted Sun Feb 11 2007 13:08:36 by LHStarAlliance
DL JFK-SEA: All Flights The New Long Haul Product? posted Sun Feb 4 2007 04:11:46 by JerseyGuy
Austrian Secured All Iraq Flt/Long-haul C On 320/1 posted Wed Jan 24 2007 07:40:22 by Jimyvr
Why Are AFs Seats Different On Long-haul Aircraft? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 16:42:44 by 8herveg
Any Update On Kingfisher's Long Haul Ambitions? posted Mon Jan 22 2007 03:20:08 by PHX Flyer
Future Long - Haul Expansion From Birmingham, UK? posted Sun Jan 21 2007 02:46:04 by 8herveg