OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2648 posts, RR: 4 Posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9042 times:
Here is an idea. Could the 777-200LR fly between ARN and SYD with a decent payload? Could this be the first direct route between Europe and Sydney? If it has the range for it, IMO that would be a good possibility for SAS. I know they are struggling to survive, but SAS used to be a pioneer 60 years ago. They might get a sweet deal on a few 777-200LR machines as Boeing is cutting back on the production rates, and other airlines are eager to deffer deliveries?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5463 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8728 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): Could the 777-200LR fly between ARN and SYD with a decent payload?
Short answer: "with a decent payload" - no.
Slightly longer answer: certainly not west bound, maybe east bound, but probably depends on you definition of "decent".
There is not enough traffic Scandinavia-Oz to support the route and it's not particularly attractive for connecting traffic:
All distances great circle, in nautical miles.
So it longer than via HKG and just 66 nm shorter than via SIN from LHR and it gets worse for cities south/west of London. So unfortunately I don't see a real market for the route.
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3138 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8206 times:
There is no chance that SK will launch this route.
ULH-routes are very expensive to fly, as you burn a lot of fuel just to carry the fuel arround for the rest of your trip. So in terms of costs per mile, ULH is more expensive than just long-haul.
Taking into account landing fees and the extra fuel that is burnt for an extra take-off, stopping half-way is still cheaper than taking all the fuel with you for 1 leg. Actually, when the prices were skyrocketing like a year ago, it was even attractive to make a fuel-stop between Europe and Singapore.
So, for that matter, flying ARN-SYD is more expensive than ARN-SIN-SYD or ARN-DXB-SYD.
Now, the only reason to fly the route, would be if there are many passengers willing to pay extra to save 1 or 2 hours on the route between Stockholm and Sydney. I doubt you can find them. There is a reason that SK does not offer F on board of it's aircraft: there is not that much premium demand from Scandinavia. (similar to the Netherlands or Canada for that matter).
Now, you can't even (profitably) fill a 332 on ARN-SYD (with a stop) on O&D alone. But for connecting pax, there is no advantage in flying via ARN. For example from AMS, when you have the choice of flying AMS-ARN-SYD or AMS-SIN-SYD, you always have one stop. Now, I'd say that a stop in SIN is more attractive, as it really cuts the journey in half. And flying via ARN is more expensive for the airline, for the reasons stated above. Therefore, they will never be able to compete with the airlines like CX, SQ, EK, TG or MH.
Therefore, there is no chance SK will launch such a route.
Sydaircargo From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 242 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8114 times:
would be nice to see another european carrier other than BA and VS in SYD but i doubt that SK will go that way. flying OS in the past SYD-VIE via KUL was ok , i liked that opportunity to stretch my legs for 2 hours outside the aircraft. how long would a nonstop SYD-ARL be?
SeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4735 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8049 times:
Can the aircraft fly it? Yes, although there is no chance of carrying any cargo and seats will be blocked off westbound on certain days.
Is there a business case for it? Not in a million years. I personally think there is no business case for >8000 nm nonstops anywhere in the world. That may be an extreme position, but there certainly is no realistic way to go ULH between anything but the very highest-volume city pairs.
There is no reason to add the substantial extra expense (and decreased revenue, thanks to the lack of cargo) of a ULH flight for economy passengers, who will not pay much if any extra for the nonstop. A ULH flight is driven by premium passengers, who are much more willing to pay extra for convenience.
On top of that, ULH is driven by O&D, because connecting traffic might as well connect somewhere in the middle where the costs are lower, rather than very close to one end of the trip.
QF has been trying to figure out a way to make SYD-LHR work since the A345 was introduced. The 77L made it look a bit more realistic, but not much. London has many, many times the number of premium passengers traveling to Sydney that Stockholm does. If Europe-Sydney won't work from London, it won't work from anywhere.
[Edited 2009-05-13 07:22:53]
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
Kevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1155 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7917 times:
Quoting Someone83 (Reply 3): Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
IMO that would be a good possibility for SAS
Yeah, A good possibility to loose even more money.........
He he spot on....!
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4): Quoting Someone83 (Reply 3):
Yeah, A good possibility to loose even more money.........
Might be. If the loads are low.
Also if the plane is jam-packed and you have pax sitting on the wings..! Check out the Eu-Australia fare levels these days, all players are losing money by the bucket load, and M.E. airlines continue to flood the market with even more services.. you can get return Y fares from EUR 800, far below cost per seat, even considering th eodd full fare ticket, J- tickets etc...
OS paid an awfully high price for this prestige route.. they lost millions of Euros (or Schilling??!!)
Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 13): There is no reason to add the substantial extra expense (and decreased revenue, thanks to the lack of cargo) of a ULH flight for economy passengers, who will not pay much if any extra for the nonstop. A ULH flight is driven by premium passengers, who are much more willing to pay extra for convenience.
Very true indeed - premium pax would be the only ones willing to pay for this, and not from ARN, maaaaaybe in 10 years time from LHR.. But even for them: A trip across the pond saves you maybe 2-3 hours if it's direct rather than onestop, considerable time saved on a 7-8 hour flight. But saving 2-3 hours on a 20-hour flight, where you might even would greatly appreciate a small break from the flying, even if in J or F, naaaah.. don't think the increased willingness to pay is significant at all...
A 772LR would look great in SK colours, though! But nope, not in a million years!!
"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH...
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15129 posts, RR: 26 Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7801 times:
Quoting Joost (Reply 9): ULH-routes are very expensive to fly,
Exactly. For such a flight it is not a matter of having X number of people wanting to go to Sydney, but a matter of having X number of people who want to go to Sydney and are willing to pay a premium for a nonstop flight.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7630 times:
This type of long range route (Europe - Australia) has been discussed many times. The only way it will work at the moment and the airlines be interested in it is if they can have an aircraft that can carry maximum or failing that an economical payload BOTH ways non stop in all seasons and all weathers including very strong headwinds heading westbound. Until such an aircraft is avialable then I don't think this is a realistic prospect.
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3138 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6963 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 20): Would only the O&D traffic make this route possible? Doesn't it matter that at least in northern Europe it would be the fastest connection?
This is not realistic. Currently, the only East-Asian destinations served from ARN are BKK and PEK. Both airports are used as a hub for the region. SIN, a very important hub for the region, doesn't even have a link to ARN. If - apparently - SQ and/or SK (perhaps even codeshared) don't even think SIN-ARN would work, SYD-ARN is very much off the map.
Even carriers like LH couldn't make Australian flights work (they prefer codesharing via SIN), and also KL withdrew from Australia (in favour of codesharing via KUL). BA still flies to Australia, but only to SYD (they dropped MEL a couple of years ago) and the economic and social links between the UK and Australia are way, way larger than Sweden and Australia.
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 20): Maybe not every day, but there are many Scandinavians flying to SYD. Lots of student (low cost) some tourist, and even some Australian companies are investing heavily in the Northern part of Norway.
Students and tourists won't pay the extra money to save 2 hours for the stopover in SIN/KUL/BKK.
And why would people traveling to Norway fly to ARN. There aren't so many Norwegian destinations served from ARN. Then, shouldn't the flight go to OSL.
And then again, just for comparison: SK couldn't fill a 332 on OSL-EWR...
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1404 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6746 times:
There is only one plane that will be able to do it economically and thats the 380-800R with XWB engines,that will come in about 9-10 years - along with the 900. Until then they will spend that time making and selling the orders they have,whilst making little improvements all the time to keep the 748 hauling containers. By then the global economy will be in full swing and oil prices will be sky high.So it will be the right plane at the right time IMHO -we will have to wait
Birdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 443 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6344 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4): Maybe not. But my little sister flew between Europe and New Zealand, and she said it would have been better just to continue the flight than having to stop for some hours in Singapore.
...and the same person will likely say, "Gee, it would have been a lot nicer to break the trip up into two segments" if they had to endure a 18 hr plane ride. I can tell you that's what I was saying going SFO-HKG in business class, and that's *only* ~14hrs.
Having done SFO-CPT many times, it's just a hard trip, any way you slice it. My preference: stop in Europe and have a break. It has the additional advantage of risking having one's luggage lost and paying $3 for a cup of coffee.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
25 Borism: SFO-CPT non-stop? Wow, that would be heck of a flight! Back to topic: is ARN-SYD-ARN physically possible with 77L? - Absolutely. Weight restricted bo
26 SeaBosDca: If there is an A388R, it will indeed be a very capable plane, and may well be the first to take the 77L's range crown away. But it won't magically ch
27 Adam42185: I have flown from BOS to New Zealand several times and often wished that we could just fly direct and get it over with. Often times I have to wait in