Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Any Other ULH Routes Other Than To/From US?  
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4251 times:

I'm wondering if there are any other ULH routes outside of the US? Seems like all the aircraft that were developed for routes like this seem to be flying to and from the US, not anywhere else. Is the US really isolated in terms of geography in terms of the rest of the world? I guess if you wanted to pick the furthest two points in the world other than Europe/Australia, does the US take the cake?

(I know South America/Asia would probably be up there, but other than GRU-NRT or something similar, I don't see much of a market).

UAL

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4225 times:

Air Canada are doing YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG with 772LRs. Flight time is ~15h each way, so not sure if that absolutely qualifies as ULH, but it does in my book. I think Pakistan International either have or plan to operate KHI-YYZ as well.

I saw an Air India 773ER @ YYZ last week - not sure if that operates direct BOM or DEL or makes an intermediate stop. If direct could qualify as a ULH service. AC used to operate it with an A340-300. Could do the eastbound n/s, but frequently had to tech in STK westbound.

Future ULH routes likely will include LHR-SYD/PER/MEL .



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4197 times:



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 1):
Future ULH routes likely will include LHR-SYD/PER/MEL .

If any manufacturer ever builds a plane that can do it economically.

Sorry, I guess I forgot about Canada, but technically, couldn't all those routes be done with a 772ER? Or even a 773ER?

AA does ORD-DEL with the 772 and CO does EWR-HKG which are longer or just about as long.

UAL


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6289 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4167 times:

ULH is mostly a Pacific Ocean thing. Therefore involving America.

I doubt that Europe - Australia will ever become a viable non-stop route. Simply because there are so many nice places for a fuel stop.

ULH is energy wise very inefficient. Simply because so much fuel is spent on transporting fuel instead of payload.

Therefore non-stop ULH routes will dominantly be routes where a fuel stop would mean landing at some inconvenient place and/or a pretty large diversion from the optimal great circle track.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineHestaman From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Not sure what the definition of UHL really is... For example... does EWR-DEL qualify? (Know this is a US route... but it IS over the Atlantic...)

User currently offlinePacNWjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4125 times:

Would Iran Air's 747SP service between Damascus and Caracas count? UK Dispatcher wrote an excellent trip report about his experience flying DAM-CCS:

Iran Air B747SP Transatlantic DAM-CCS [+pics/vids] (by UK_Dispatcher Aug 24 2007 in Trip Reports)

AS UK Dispatcher observes, the flight, which originates in Tehran, "is as a result of the special friendship which Hugo Chavez seems to have with his anti-US counterparts in Iran and Syria."


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4090 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 3):

I doubt that Europe - Australia will ever become a viable non-stop route. Simply because there are so many nice places for a fuel stop.

You know, I can see it becoming a J-only route. I bet a 77L in an all J-layout could do it. But that would only really be good for the folks who do that route frequently and in J-class. For those of us who usually have to do Y-class, a fuel stop (and resulting leg stretch) is a welcome thing.


User currently offlineTravelExec From Spain, joined Dec 2007, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4088 times:



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 1):
I saw an Air India 773ER @ YYZ last week - not sure if that operates direct BOM or DEL or makes an intermediate stop. If direct could qualify as a ULH service.

ATQ-LHR-YYZ

There used to be a DEL-ATQ-BHX-YYZ... I used to catch the BHX-YYZ leg as it was the cheapest UK flight to Toronto, but they seem to have pulled it.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4072 times:



Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 5):
Would Iran Air's 747SP service between Damascus and Caracas count? UK Dispatcher wrote an excellent trip report about his experience flying DAM-CCS:

At 5722 nm I wouldn't include DAM-CCS in the ULH category. Also, that THR-DAM-CCS route has been operated with Conviasa's only A340-200 for quite a while as far as I know, codeshared with IR.


User currently offlineNickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1483 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3975 times:

How about DXB-GRU/SYD/BNE/MEL - all come in at over 7,000 miles. Similarly, Abu Dhabi-SYD/MEL.

User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2951 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3951 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 1):
I think Pakistan International either have or plan to operate KHI-YYZ as well.

They do fly this with 777-200LRs, replaced the previous A310 KHI-BHX-YYZ service.

I guess the question come down to what qualifies as ULH... alas i dont think anything from YYZ qualifies, YYZ-HKG has been flown for around 10 years now between Cx and AC... anything in A343 range to me is VLH, not ULH.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6289 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3939 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
You know, I can see it becoming a J-only route. I bet a 77L in an all J-layout could do it. But that would only really be good for the folks who do that route frequently and in J-class. For those of us who usually have to do Y-class, a fuel stop (and resulting leg stretch) is a welcome thing.

Yes, I see your point. But where are the routes where you can fill a 77L with J-only? (or J-mostly)?

Many (if not most) long range planes are configured with less than 10% J seats. And even on a full plane, if you ask the J pax, then 50+% of them will be various sorts of upgrades. And the J vs Y part of travellers is shrinking year by year.

If we compare a 77L and a 77W doing the same 8,000nm leg, then those two birds will fully loaded have nearly the same fuel burn in cruise. The 77W, however, will do two 4,000nm legs and a fuel stop. For any 4,000nm leg it will never need nearly full fuel tanks, therefore never be near MTOW, therefore have a supperior milage compared to the 77L.

Add to that the greater pax capacity, and the per seat milage difference becomes very high even if the fuel stop itself costs a few tonnes fuel plus landing fees.

In an energy constrained world, then the luxury of flying J on ULH routes will be for the few, too few to fill large planes without hysterically low frequencies, when the alternative is not too inconvenient. Or costly due to wide diversions from the optimal track. It will be a tiny niche thing comparable to the Concorde operations of last century. It will never be something which puts butter on the bread for airline shareholders.

Therefore ULH will mostly be a Pacific Ocean thing.

Also a major part of poteltial J (or F) travellers on, say, LHR-SYD, they may not travel exactly that distance, but possibly from Manchester to Canberra. Or Hamburg to Perth. Or whatever. Meaning three legs. Some of them will these days rather make it two legs on their own long range biz jet sleeping in their own bed on board. Not because it is fuel efficient, but because it is possible. Not so many years ago the alternative was 5-6-7-8 legs on a short range biz jet because long range biz jets hardly existed.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15476 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3812 times:



Quoting Ual747 (Reply 2):
Sorry, I guess I forgot about Canada, but technically, couldn't all those routes be done with a 772ER? Or even a 773ER?

Possibly with a 77W. If I remember what I read in these threads correctly, the threshold where a 77L becomes more effective than a 77E is somewhere in the 5500-6000 NM range.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3652 times:



Quoting Ual747 (Reply 2):
If any manufacturer ever builds a plane that can do it economically.

Sorry, I guess I forgot about Canada, but technically, couldn't all those routes be done with a 772ER? Or even a 773ER?

Both are within the capability of the 77W. In fact AC launched the YVR-SYD route witha 77W as no 77L's had been delivered. LHR-PER is I believe already within the capability of the 77L, but MEL & SYD require somewhat longer legs, like about another 500-600 nm I think.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
You know, I can see it becoming a J-only route. I bet a 77L in an all J-layout could do it. But that would only really be good for the folks who do that route frequently and in J-class. For those of us who usually have to do Y-class, a fuel stop (and resulting leg stretch) is a welcome thing.
D

I definitely think some of the ULH routes are likely J-only -- although a heavier product to lift.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

What about DXB-GRU? LHR-SIN?


"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3293 times:



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 13):
Quoting Ual747 (Reply 2):
If any manufacturer ever builds a plane that can do it economically.

Sorry, I guess I forgot about Canada, but technically, couldn't all those routes be done with a 772ER? Or even a 773ER?


Both are within the capability of the 77W. In fact AC launched the YVR-SYD route witha 77W as no 77L's had been delivered.

However when AC was using the 77W on YVR-SYD-YVR they limited the number of seats sold to the capacity of the 77L so there must have been some payload-range issues with a fully-loaded 77W.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5552 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3270 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 11):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
You know, I can see it becoming a J-only route. I bet a 77L in an all J-layout could do it. But that would only really be good for the folks who do that route frequently and in J-class. For those of us who usually have to do Y-class, a fuel stop (and resulting leg stretch) is a welcome thing.

Yes, I see your point. But where are the routes where you can fill a 77L with J-only? (or J-mostly)?

I think you are both wrong. I agree with every thing you both say, except for one item discussed below, but you have missed the point.

SYD/MEL-LHR WILL HAPPEN! It awaits the right aircraft, which is starting to look like it willl be a variant of the A380, so it will probably happen in the late 2010s/early 2020s. It will be a three or four class aircraft, not just J.

Why am I so sure, yet agreeing with you? IMHO you have forgotten two words: "Marketing" & "Profitability". The SYD/MEL-LHR non stop is ALL about cutting the Asian & Middle Eastern airlines out of the OZ-UK trade and therefore clawing back at least some of the profitability now going to SIN, DXB. KUL, BKK, etc, etc. [Note: Oz-UK trade, NOT OZ-Europe]

With a non stopper only QF, BA & the Virgin Group (if they are prepared to pay the price) can play. Historically a non stop beats a one stop and I see no reason for that to be any different in this case, it's just a case of doing it at the right price, which is why the B72L is not currently doing it.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 11):

Also a major part of poteltial J (or F) travellers on, say, LHR-SYD, they may not travel exactly that distance, but possibly from Manchester to Canberra. Or Hamburg to Perth. Or whatever.

This is the point I disagree about. There is little traffic from Europe or the UK regions that would feed into the non-stopper. From Europe, why travel west to go east (unless you have to go to the UK as well)? From the UK regions, is there ANY connecting traffic to OZ via LHR? I am certainly under the impression that most of it goes via DXB, AUH, etc already. The non-stopper will live or die on LHR-Oz traffic. On the OZ end most of the traffic has SYD or MEL as a destination. The rest will have to connect in DXB, SIN, etc as it does now.

My $A0.02 worth

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8090 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3214 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Emirates from Dubai to GRU, Goes over all of Africa and the Atlantic Ocean.

User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3118 times:



Quoting Gemuser (Reply 16):
SYD/MEL-LHR WILL HAPPEN! It awaits the right aircraft, which is starting to look like it willl be a variant of the A380, so it will probably happen in the late 2010s/early 2020s. It will be a three or four class aircraft, not just J.

I agree that it's probably waiting for the right aircraft, but disagree with your other points. SQ got rid of premium economy on its SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR and went for J only. I'd expect anyone operating Oz-LHR to follow suit. It's just too long sitting in a moderately comfortable seat. That makes the A388R probably the wrong aircraft, an A359R has a chance, but if it can't do it we might wait for the next generation of aircraft.

But I might be wrong.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3042 times:



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 1):
Air Canada are doing YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG with 772LRs. Flight time is ~15h each way, so not sure if that absolutely qualifies as ULH, but it does in my book. I think Pakistan International either have or plan to operate KHI-YYZ as well.

As far as I'm concerned anything over 14-15 hours is ULH. Flights such as DXB-GRU, JNB-NYC, and possibly even YVR/LAX/SFO-SYD should fit the bill.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5552 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2995 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 18):
SQ got rid of premium economy on its SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR and went for J only. I'd expect anyone operating Oz-LHR to follow suit

Totally different market. There are substantial numbers traveling, unlike SIN-EWR. QF still managers to put 4 B744/A380 into LHR daily, which is considerably more than SQ can put on SIN-EWR. It's a bigger broader market.

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 18):
It's just too long sitting in a moderately comfortable seat.

That's purely a subjective opinion, many disagree. We've had THAT discussion on this forum many times. Non stops have ALWAYS been preferred to stops, it'll happen SYD/MEL-LHR, as well.

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 18):
That makes the A388R probably the wrong aircraft, an A359R has a chance, but if it can't do it we might wait for the next generation of aircraft.

It might not even require the R model if Airbus keeps incrementally improving the basic frame. It's a bit early, yet to say which variation of the A380 will do it.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2790 times:



Quoting Gemuser (Reply 20):
Non stops have ALWAYS been preferred to stops, it'll happen SYD/MEL-LHR, as well.

No doubt. But will it see Y class service? If you don't want to pay for Y+, would you want to pay what would necessarily be a more expensive fare to non-stop? Only if the difference wasn't significant, I would say.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 20):
It's a bigger broader market.

I have to concede this point.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 20):
It might not even require the R model if Airbus keeps incrementally improving the basic frame.

A possibility, but there might not be an R model unless QF or someone else presses for it.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21092 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2750 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 11):
Yes, I see your point. But where are the routes where you can fill a 77L with J-only? (or J-mostly)?

SIN-EWR. And SYD-LHR would seem to be a bigger business market than that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9837 posts, RR: 96
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2724 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 13):
LHR-PER is I believe already within the capability of the 77L

Easily, and with a full payload.
PER-LHR, is probably about 8 800Nm with 1 000Nm "windage" factored in - at which range the 772LR should be good for nearly 45t payload, which I would guess to be an "economic" payload.

SYD-LHR, with windage is likely to be around 10 000Nm air range, at which the 772LR will only manage about 18t payload, which almost certainly isn't "economic".
For perspective, I'm not sure that there's another current aircraft that will actually FLY 10 000Nm, even in ferry mode...

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
I'm wondering if there are any other ULH routes outside of the US?

A definition would be useful

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 19):
As far as I'm concerned anything over 14-15 hours is ULH

This sounds like a good one..  thumbsup 

Rgds


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5552 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2723 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 21):
No doubt. But will it see Y class service? If you don't want to pay for Y+, would you want to pay what would necessarily be a more expensive fare to non-stop? Only if the difference wasn't significant, I would say.

IMHO it will carry full Y, maybe not discount Y.

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 21):
A possibility, but there might not be an R model unless QF or someone else presses for it.

Sure, but if Airbus keep improving the basic frame, it could reach a point where the payload/range trade off could be big load/long distance v slightly smaller load/ULH.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
25 Astuteman : FWIW I think the basic frame would need a dramatic SFC improvement to achieve SYD-LHR, simply because of the lack of tankage. Doesn't matter how much
26 Gemuser : Is the extra tankage the only difference between the A380 and proposed A380R? Gemuser
27 Rutankrd : Simply put the economics of ULH are weak. Sure the engineering allows it but the economics fail it ULH COSTS 1. Two crews tied up for entire flight- b
28 Astuteman : In essence yes, but the extra tankage (about 40 tonnes IIRC) will make much better use of much higher MTOW's, so expect at least 590 tonnes, possibly
29 BMI727 : In many cases this is true. But there do exist several heavily traveled, mostly business markets where airlines could pull down a substantial premium
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...
Top Carriers For International Travel To/From US posted Wed Nov 29 2000 17:14:41 by Travelin man
Routes From Gibraltar (other Than To UK) posted Sat Apr 23 2005 16:16:41 by Orion737
Delta Restarts Cairo. Any Other US Airlines? posted Sat Sep 29 2007 02:57:49 by MSYYZ
Any Other Takers For International Flights To SEA posted Thu Jul 19 2007 07:51:36 by Flybynight
Requirements For Operating Routes To Asia From US? posted Thu Mar 29 2007 20:43:38 by FlyDeltaJets87
Requirements For Operating Routes To Asia From US? posted Thu Mar 29 2007 20:42:21 by FlyDeltaJets87
NW Name Larger In Europe Then Any Other US Carrier posted Thu Dec 7 2006 06:08:53 by Burnsie28
Airline Mascots : Any Other Than Air India's? posted Tue May 3 2005 06:35:24 by Wassch71
Flight Tracking Of Flights Other Than To/fr USA posted Sun Jan 9 2005 07:41:35 by ETStar
Any Other 'Air Jamaica's' US Gateways Seeing.... posted Sat Jul 17 2004 00:15:45 by Thomasphoto60