Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Kangaroo Route Why No Non-stop?  
User currently offlinespeedbird9 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 231 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23457 times:

Hi
i read some where that the Boeing 777-200LR and the A340-500 HGW could do the kangaroo route London to Sydney non stop how come no-one has done this yet? is it simply because no on in the UK or Australia has the aircraft or is it a profit and revenue thing. Because i would have thought it would have been welcome news for the airlines less money on refueling ground ops and landing slots and a great help to passengers
Thanks

p.s. sorry if discussed previously couldn't find anything  


Is the customer always right? Michael O'Leary: no the customer is nearly always wrong
117 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTymnBalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 951 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23468 times:

I thought it could go LHR PER non-stop but not SYD. If I'm correct, well, there's not really the market to do LHR PER non-stop.


Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offlineSW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6330 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23480 times:

Quoting speedbird9 (Thread starter):
i read some where that the Boeing 777-200LR and the A340-500 HGW could do the kangaroo route London to Sydney non stop how come no-one has done this yet?

1) I am still not 100% sure they can do it reliably westbound?

2) Economics...there was an interesting thread not long ago about how ULH flights are just rubbish on cash flow. Emirates has a nice lock on OZ to Europe via DXB, as do others via SIN/HKG/BKK. That covers most of what is needed.

[Edited 2010-02-20 07:38:10]

User currently offlinespeedbird9 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23356 times:

hmmmm.... maybe your right only if Concorde could fly that, that would be fun
and i think it might have been PER i might have remembered it wrongly

I also remember hearing that Airbus was going to develop a Airbus A350-900R XWB for BA if they wanted a non stop LHR-SYD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stop_flight#Future_of_ultra_long-haul
(i know its Wikipedia but hey ....)

is this true or just Wikipedia babble


thanks
speedbird9



Is the customer always right? Michael O'Leary: no the customer is nearly always wrong
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23307 times:

Quoting speedbird9 (Thread starter):
Hi
i read some where that the Boeing 777-200LR and the A340-500 HGW could do the kangaroo route London to Sydney non stop how come no-one has done this yet? is it simply because no on in the UK or Australia has the aircraft or is it a profit and revenue thing. Because i would have thought it would have been welcome news for the airlines less money on refueling ground ops and landing slots and a great help to passengers
Thanks

p.s. sorry if discussed previously couldn't find anything

Simply because there is no aircraft currently available which could do it even remotely profitably. Indeed, there are numerous threads available discussing this issue.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23207 times:

Quoting speedbird9 (Thread starter):
i read some where that the Boeing 777-200LR and the A340-500 HGW could do the kangaroo route London to Sydney non stop

But probably not SYD-LHR, with a meaningful payload anyway. The only way it would work is an all business configuration like SQ does, and now is definitely not the time to be starting that.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2180 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22938 times:

That no one in the UK and Oz has the aircraft is not the issue. If the aircraft were capable of doing it in a viable way (economically), they would operate some.
While a 772LR (and probably also A345) can technically do SYD-LHR non-stop, in no way it can do it with a profitable revenue of cargo and pax, especially in the current economic environment when lowest airfares are the rule.
Plus, i'm not convinced whether the travelers will be ready to spend 18+ hours (or is that rather 20) on an airplane seat without touching ground. And being a direct flight, it would end up with higher airfares than a HKG, SIN, DXB stopover... That would be another risk for the airlines.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlinegkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24938 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22861 times:

Plus thankfully people from outside of Londres haveother options rather than being catle fed through LHR with BA/QF.

Emirates are a godsend  



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlinerktsci From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22684 times:

If you look at the Great Circle Route from Sydney to London, it goes almost directly overhead Hong Kong. So if an airline can turn a plane in 90-120 minutes, then you're talking only 10%-15% longer trip time compared to a non-stop and almost no additional flying distance.

Combine that with the network effect of having multiple routings, e.g. SYD, MEL, AKL, BNE feeding in and connecting to LHR, ORY, FRA, etc. routings going out, and the economy of this structure likely outweighs the benefits of a non-stop substantially.


User currently offlinedennys From France, joined May 2001, 889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 22520 times:

I am still convinced that an HGW A345 with approximatively 180 J class seats could have flown LHR - SYD .

But is this kind of buisness class seat really intersting for VS or QF . ?

regards

dennys


User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 22487 times:

Quoting dennys (Reply 9):
I am still convinced that an HGW A345 with approximatively 180 J class seats could have flown LHR - SYD .

Thats alot of J seats, SQ only has a 100 on their A345's


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12480 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 22400 times:

You know, it's particularly interesting to read this thread, because I'm just starting to read a book (by Meredith Hooper) about the development of the Kangaroo Route; it only goes up to 1976, but it's interesting to see the development of the route in the 50 years or so from the Vimy to the 747.

Against that background, I think it's only a matter of time before nonstops happen. PER-LHR will certainly happen. There was a thread about that quite recently (I think it was discussed in the thread about QF abolishing F Class on more routes). The 777-200LR is the most likely acft for that. I can see V Australia creating a hub at PER, once the domestic and international facilities there have been combined. That would provide a very convincing challenge to EK, because of course only a UK or Australian carrier can fly between PER and LHR (unless, of course, an EU Open Skies deal is reached with Australia).

SYD-LHR may well happen at some stage; it may become possible, technically and it may be operated as a novelty, but realistically, I can't see it being attractive to passengers, especially Y Class passengers; can you imagine being in a Y (or even a Y+) seat for 20h? Count me out!


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 22245 times:

Quoting dennys (Reply 9):
I am still convinced that an HGW A345 with approximatively 180 J class seats could have flown LHR - SYD .

It very well may do, but where are you going to find 160 J passengers on every flight at the prices which would have to be charged. Again, no-one is claiming a suitable aircraft cannot fly the route non-stop......however, to do so at a profit is another thing entirely and really for what point.


User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 638 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21706 times:

According to the great circle mapper, the LHR to SYD route would be roughly 9200 Nm direct. This distance doesn't include the extras Nm of routing :

LHR-SYD&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=.85&SPEED-UNITS=Mach&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=180" target="_blank">http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=L...&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=180

The A345 already flies SIN to EWR wich is approximately 8300 Nm long. And Singapore Airlines wondered a few times ago if they would even maintain the line. The payload was to weak to keep a 2 class config inside, so they switched to a full business config. It'd be interesting to see the current average loads...
Anyway a LHR to SYD would be somewhat 900 Nm longer than that.
I don't think that, even if the A340-500 or the B777-200LR are both amazing ULH performers, they still are unable to carry a decent payload on such long routes.
So unless a manufacturer launch a Very very very ultra long haul aircraft, I don't think we'll see such a route flown directly for a while.
And what to say about flying time?? Nowadays, who wants to stay 20 hrs or more in a tube @ 35000 ft??

Next step for airliners is SPEED dear fellows  



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlineDLPhoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21375 times:

Quoting speedbird9 (Thread starter):
Because i would have thought it would have been welcome news for the airlines less money on refueling ground ops and landing slots and a great help to passengers
Thanks

You overlook the fact that the longer you fly, the more fuel you use to carry fuel that will be used at the later part of the flight. The savings in ground service fees would be therefore neglegible in comparisson to the increase in cost of jet fuel.

The other point is that only O&D passengers benefit from (and will therefore pay a premium for) ULH flights. If you start in London and your final destination is SYD it may be worth your while to pay more for a non-stop LHR-SYD flight. On the other hand if you are a premium passenger originating in MAN or NCL you would rather take EK to DXB and fly the entire route in international J/F. The same applies to the last leg if you are flying to MEL/BNE/PER/AKL.

DLP


User currently offlineborism From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks ago) and read 21107 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 11):
I can see V Australia creating a hub at PER, once the domestic and international facilities there have been combined. That would provide a very convincing challenge to EK, because of course only a UK or Australian carrier can fly between PER and LHR (unless, of course, an EU Open Skies deal is reached with Australia).

ULH flights are basically a matter of pride and seem to be designed to lose money from the beginning, but neither BA nor QF seem to have resources to afford such pride, so yes, V Australia seems to be the only one remotely able to pull it off. Whether they'll have resources to do this I'm not so sure.


User currently offlinesurfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2880 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks ago) and read 20710 times:

Quoting airproxx (Reply 13):
Next step for airliners is SPEED dear fellows

Ah yes, but this technology is readily available - it has been for almost 50 years! Turns out that faster planes are more expensive to operate and fly on, and folks on the ground hate them even more than the planes we have now. I don't think we'll see faster planes until we can fly through space.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks ago) and read 20448 times:

Quoting airproxx (Reply 13):
Next step for airliners is SPEED dear fellows

To do what though?

Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 14):
The other point is that only O&D passengers benefit from (and will therefore pay a premium for) ULH flights

Whom do you mean though by O&D passengers in these circumstances.....and I ask simply because you particularly deferentiate by saying [i]premium]/i] passengers when talking connecting?


User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 638 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 20349 times:

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 16):
I don't think we'll see faster planes until we can fly through space.

That's what I'm talkin' about...
There used to be a time when manufacturers, under the impulse of military programs, were able to launch aircrafts defying all the usual aviation laws... In a few years we've passed through pistons engines, then props and Turbojets acfts.
Since then? Nothing.
Some improvements on fuel burn, noise, avionics, etc... But what has really changed since the Comet, the DC8, the 707? Nothing. A transat still lasts the same time.
We've been across a performance era, towards an economical era.
Performances were dopped by military competition. But this competition still exists. The run for space have never been so active since ages.
Ok I'm a crazy hoper, but I really believe that we'll see the first civilian "space airplane" because of this competition.



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1254 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 20208 times:

Plus, the airlines would be asking a manufacturer to develop and build a plane for use on just one or two routes in the entire world. Not very economical for them, either.

User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 638 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 20164 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 17):
Next step for airliners is SPEED dear fellows

To do what though?

Well.. err... to offer shorter flight time to customers... for instance...??



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlineDLPhoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 20023 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 17):
Whom do you mean though by O&D passengers in these circumstances.....and I ask simply because you particularly deferentiate by saying [i]premium]/i] passengers when talking connecting?

I was refering to all O&D passengers, for the case of this example a person in London that needs to travel to Sydney or vice versa.
The implied argument that was not mentioned in my previous post is that ULH flights are more expensive than one stop flights and are therefore feasible only if there are enough customers that are willing to pay more for a non stop flight.
I assume that cost-consious passengers will not be willing to pay such a premium (they will stop being cost consious if they will) which leaves us with premium passengers (which may be persons flying in a premium class or persons flying coach who are willing to pay more for better Schedule/Mileage benefit/flexibility etc.).
The first group will prefer to use a routing that allows them to fly in an international premium class all the way.
I did not refer to the second group in my last post, but I can not see this segment bringing enough revenue to offset the lack of appeal to premium class passngers.

Hope this clarifies my position
And bear in mind that as an armchair CEO I am entitled to say anything I wish,

DLP


User currently offlineETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19991 times:

You would need to dedicate 3 aircraft for a daily LHR-SYD nonstop operation. Crew rest costs would be exhorbitant. Filling 150 business/first class seats daily at even marginally sustainable levels- impossible. The fact QF just announced this week their longhaul fleet is being reconfigured (they tried to wait the economic crisis out by avoiding doing this) further drops the scenario of nonstops happening anytime in the near/far future.

User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25458 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19975 times:

Quoting airproxx (Reply 18):
But what has really changed since the Comet, the DC8, the 707? Nothing. A transat still lasts the same time.

Most block times today are longer than 50 years ago, due both to airport and ATC congestion, and the fact that many of today's aircraft are slightly slower than the 707s and DC-8s of 50 years ago.

The published block time in the July 1983 OAG from LHR to JFK for all flights except Concorde was between 7:30 and 7:35 (all flights were 747s then except for 2 L-1011s). Today, the fastest block time is 7:45 (a BA 744), but almost all other flights are slightly over 8 hrs, with the 2 longest being DL's 764s with block times of 8:20 and 8:40.

The average JFK-LAX block time today is at least half an hour longer than 50 years ago.


User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1496 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19908 times:

Quoting ETA Unknown (Reply 22):
Filling 150 business/first class seats daily at even marginally sustainable levels- impossible

Exactly. What a lot of people do not realise is that London-Sydney is not a business route like, say, London-New York or London-Hong Kong. Many of the passengers are travelling for leisure or VFR reasons and they will seek out the best prices. The demand for full fare F and J tickets is extremely limited.


25 Post contains images airproxx : Didn't know that. Not very surprising though, but it couldn't better match my point...
26 surfandsnow : True, but if the weather is good, its not terribly uncommon to arrive almost an hour early, either! At least we have IFE to keep us entertained today
27 Post contains images Ferroviarius : Good afternoon, something I have wondered concerning this question: AY is a carrier successfully operating Europa - Far East with good and functioning
28 ManchesterMAN : If I was flying in Y and had a non stop option vs a stop in HKG/SIN/DXB/wherever, I'd still prefer the stop so I could stretch my legs. I'd only fly n
29 planesmith : Err! Not if you're sitting in the middle of one of their very cramped rows next to a fat bloke like me they're not!
30 AirNZ : Firstly, thanks for answering. Secondly, I don't need to bear anything in mind as, if you re-read it, I wasn't questioning what you said; I was askin
31 konrad : How about in-flight refuelling? Imagine how much one could save if not having to take-off with tons of fuel for an 18 hour flight. Just take off ligh
32 Post contains images Stitch : QF asked Airbus and Boeing to submit RFPs. Airbus' own studies showed that in a mixed Business Class and Economy Class configuration, the A340-500 wa
33 Post contains images DLPhoenix : I was trying to be funny (I did refer to myself as an "armchair CEO"), aparently it didn't work. Consider it a bad joke. Back to the discussuion: Sum
34 Viscount724 : Exactly, which isn't convenient for friends or relatives meeting arriving passengers. I was recently on a KL flight AMS-GVA (only 368 nm) that arrive
35 The Coachman : LOL! Obviously all you see are the backpackers. Whilst volume is not as high as New York, there are also more competitors. The market itself is quite
36 Jacobin777 : It was between 200-220 seats for the -200LR. Nonstop year round one way (can't recall which way it was-IIRC it was LHR-SYD but I'm not certain), but
37 DocLightning : There are other issues. 1) There is a point of ULH at which the cost of hauling the extra fuel into the air becomes higher than the cost of landing, r
38 LondonCity : And not just London. VFR passengers are drwan from all over the UK and Eire so a good number will be proceeding beyond London to, say, DUB, BFS, EDI,
39 Post contains images AirNZ : Yes, that might be, but it would be a VERY small group and, even within that, it's not something life of death than they can't delay their lives for
40 Post contains images Jacobin777 : SQ has their SIN-EWR flight as well..and that's rather a small group of people as well..
41 NAV20 : Couple of points. Firstly, yes, Sydney (and probably Melbourne) are out of reliable non-stop range to LHR with a full load even in the 772LR, because
42 Post contains images seabosdca : Being cattle fed through DXB?
43 mogandoCI : totally agreed. BA can be London-centric cuz the whole country lives there anyway, but Australia is way more spread out, and Sydney is just about the
44 Post contains images Stitch : I'm honestly not really surprised this flight does well with businessfolk, since it does cut out the need to fly to the US West Coast to connect with
45 DLPhoenix : Qantas problem in this particular case has been that their main O&D market is at the end of the route, and they are competeing with other parties
46 Jacobin777 : Well true, but there are a lot of ties between SYD-LHR as well.....had SYD-LHR been the same distance as SIN-EWR (of course, sans headwinds,etc.) and
47 Stitch : I agree, though looking at Great Circle Mapper, the routing non-stop LHR-SYD tracks almost identical to the routing for LHR-HKG-SYD. If it was a same
48 DLPhoenix : This is a hypothetical discussion, we can't eliminate the 900 nms. Having said that, I beleive part of the success of EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN is due to t
49 Jacobin777 : ..however, its more than enough. One can fly SIN-HKG-JFK (ok, different airport than JFK, but nonetheless)... in 21 1/2 hours-3 hours more than the n
50 Post contains links and images mandala499 : All these replies about non-stop Great Circle line going near HKG... Airplanes fly on airways... Whilst the GC non stop options and 1 stop options lo
51 747400sp : It would be nice if Airbus lunch the A380-800R. This aircraft would be great for a non stop Kangaroo flight.
52 Post contains links Viscount724 : EWR-SIN also sometimes uses the polar route heading almost due north from EWR and passing close to the North Pole. One example last Saturday. Note th
53 NAV20 : Agree in principle with your strategies, mogandCI, but Qantas has the basic problem that they don't have the right equipment. I don't see how making
54 Kent350787 : Yes, but would it have been profitable? I agree that QF is Sydney centric, but still don't see that QF has squandered a lucrative market for PER-LHR
55 CXfirst : A couple years ago, Richard Branson stated that he was very much interested in operating LHR-PER non-stop with the 787 when that arrived. He stated it
56 mainMAN : Not true. This is a misconception that is often quite popular amongst North Americans in particular. It's a bit like saying ALL Americans live in the
57 Post contains images Baroque : Well we are cutting most of about 8cms a year off the route, but that it might just be that engines improve faster than the N edge of the Aus plate d
58 Post contains images mainMAN : Precisely And speaking of demographics, 17 million of Australia's 22 million people live in QLD, NSW and VIC, predominantly in the coastal belt betwe
59 LondonCity : It's not just the main cities. The Asian and Gulf carriers also serve secondary cities in Europe which makes it more convenient for pax to connect vi
60 Post contains links NAV20 : I don't see why not, Kent. Back in 2005 Qantas looked at the 772LR very seriously - it wasn't the commercial prospects that put them off, it was quit
61 Baroque : Indeed, equally true and "we" are showing very little tendency to migrate away from the coast, or to be more exact migrate more than about 50 kms awa
62 Post contains images Jacobin777 : mandala499......excellent analysis... [Edited 2010-02-24 05:28:41]
63 Burkhard : There is one additional problem eastbound. For this route it is convenient to start in the evening. People want to make this flight after a normal wor
64 tim : I find this comment quite interesting. In what way is there not a PER-LHR-PER direct market? The way I see the facts suggests otherwise. 2 x EK daily
65 Post contains images seabosdca : If an all-premium 77L can't make it (see Mandala499's definitive post as to why), there is no way in he|| that a 789 can make it. No one has yet sugg
66 NAV20 : Good points, tim. I think one can add that:- a) Perth is the epi-centre of the resources boom which is keeping the Aussie economy alive at the moment
67 Gemuser : That may be true, but does that equal sufficient airline pax to justify what your proposing? (Not just pax, but ENOUGH pax) Why is the Federal govern
68 tim : With the current PER-Europe daily capactity outlined above why dont you think there would be enough pax to justify 1 direct flight out of interest? U
69 mandala499 : The YPPH-EGLL is 7994nm by airways... With (today's condition) about 2400NM ground dist with 100kt headwind, and about 2000NM gound distance with 50kt
70 tim : Alternates for Perth is Learmonth (Exmouth) this is where the QF 333 landed after the loss of altitude. Also Kalgoorlie is another one. All well with
71 Post contains links tim : http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...99/16-hour-flights-to-london-loom/ V Australia, the international arm of Virgin Blue, is understood to be about
72 mandala499 : Different companies have different criterias for alternates. One airline requires ILS + 2500m x 45m, which only Learmonth qualifies... other airlines
73 tim : Thanks for the reply. I see, someone needs to tell Richard its not going to work (Which usually makes him do it) unless its just a publicity thing. Ch
74 mandala499 : He knows PER-LHR ain't gonna work with what's available... he already said so... but then, there's more to Europe than just England... and they're mos
75 tim : Yeah I tend to agree, Perth - South Africa is no need for a LR though obviously. QF used to service it with 747's and SAA currently do it with 346's.
76 NAV20 : He's starting Melbourne-Johannesburg with 777s on 13th. March - that is, the week after next. We'll see how that goes. Qantas doesn't provide a nonst
77 Gemuser : Maybe/maybe not. All those services serve multiple destinations. PER-SIN gives access to all ports served non stop from SIN, a very large number, sam
78 mandala499 : With SIN, you have a lot of benefits... - 5th freedom cargo and pax rights (Qantas/BA remains one of the most popular carriers from Jakarta to Europe
79 Kent350787 : The Virgin announcement is very interesting - will it work financially? Given that they are already flying T7s, they don't have the fleet type issues
80 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : mandala499, you have some excellent analysis and thanks for providing us with some invaluable information...but here is something to take a look at..
81 Post contains images mandala499 : I am not a fan of the ACTs... shove enough ACTs and you can go about anywhere. I have to look into my 777manuals again, in particular, the 772LRs...
82 NAV20 : Mandala499, back in 2005 Qantas spent quite a long time evaluating the 772LR, and eventually decided not to proceed with it because it couldn't make i
83 Ben175 : I would love to see everyone's reactions if in the next few years, VA ends up commencing PER-LHR direct. There seems to be alot of pessimistic people
84 Post contains links cf6ppe : Ran across the following link when looking for something else. Part way down in the article talks about the Kangaroo Route - a little interesting hist
85 mandala499 : GC distance PER-LHR = 7829NM GC distance MEL-LHR = 9127NM Airways distance PER-LHR = 7944NM Airways distance MEL-LHR = 9203NM Sorry, under no circums
86 tim : Very interesting topic guys and thanks for the tech stuff Mandala499 Cheers Tim
87 tim : I also agree this wouldnt attract Eastern states pax. But as a standalone offering for PER pax I still think with the current traffic PER-Europe it wi
88 Post contains images NAV20 : Quite right, mandala, my mistake - I meant to compare MEL-PER-LHR with MEL-SIN-LHR, should have checked my notes! Great - we now seem to agree that i
89 LondonCity : I must admit that I was originally sceptical that a non-stop Perth-Europe service could succeed. But I have begun coming round to the idea because it
90 mandala499 : I thought I either misread it and had to refresh a few times or you went sloppy mate! LOL... I'm glad is one of the two and not something else! I'm j
91 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Cheers mate! You learn something every day..... I was surprised myself when I checked the GC route - there's no need to go that far west. The GC rout
92 seabosdca : It's unlikely they would be taking off in the hottest part of the day anyway... that would imply arrival in London in the middle of the night. If the
93 Post contains images Jacobin777 : That would make it quite interesting if a carrier such as V.Australia could make it work... Also, ostensibly, it doesn't seem as if LHR-PER would be
94 Post contains images mandala499 : Here's the GC line vs shortest Airways route for PER-LHR... I think it has the smallest GC to Airway distance deviation of all LHR - Australian State
95 mandala499 : The problem with the SQ SIN-EWR direct flights were that... whilst J had enjoyed very nice levels of demand, they couldn't fill up the Y+... and the
96 Baroque : Are there any restrictions on overflying Iran these days? The SIN-LHR route sticks to Afghanistan IIRC. Aus might need to amend its foreign policy if
97 Post contains images mandala499 : Westbound routes do go the Afghan-Russian way at times, passing south of Moscow before heading down the Baltic sea and onto Holland then UK... but th
98 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...... I think its going to be a "close call" in the end. One one side, we have some potential difficulties technically making this flight work on th
99 AirNZ : I would certainly agree with you on that, and reinforce that they are essentially correct for achieving no real advantage. To expand on that though,
100 Gemuser : All things considered, I'd say that's about right. Gemuser
101 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : QF L-1049G at CCK in 1958. It was a stop (in addition to PER and MRU) on the SYD-JNB route in the propeller era.
102 Post contains images NAV20 : Good guess on my part then! About the winds, agree they could be a problem eastbound. But it might save both time and fuel to stay a bit north of tra
103 Gemuser : Thanks a lot, Viscount724. Now be a real hero! Have you got a photo of a QF L188 Electra at CCK? I don't think I have ever seen one. Gemuser
104 sunrisevalley : With respect for Mandala499's work up I have a somewhat different take on the westbound PER-LHR sector using a 77L non-stop. In the N.Z. Aviation Thre
105 Post contains links Viscount724 : I did take a quick look but that was the CCK photo I could find featuring a QF aircraft. I remembered seeing that photo before in the following excel
106 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Interesting analysis ...if your data/numbers are indeed correct, it would make the flight more possible... I think the "truth lies somewhere in betwe
107 Post contains links kaitak : Firstly, thanks to all of those who have put such work and thought into this thread, providing all the figures and looking at all of the possibilities
108 Post contains images sunrisevalley : If V-Aus are intending to fly the route as some seem sure that they are, then the numbers I have put forward have to be close to reality unless they
109 Post contains images mandala499 : You mean Westbound? It's predominantly west to east by the way! One thing you'd find is that, once you enter the Arabian peninsula.... the number of
110 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Are you saying then its quite possible to fly PER-LHR without too many restrictions? If true, then the truth would be more to towards the right than
111 Post contains images seabosdca : Up to what temperature is this true? (What I am really asking is whether a 5pm departure is a feasible option in the southern summer... if not, what
112 sunrisevalley : I am looking for an elapsed time via the airways for JFK/EWR-SYD, Mach .83 step cruise , 10% air trip time, 200nm alternative , 1/2 hour hold at 1500
113 Post contains images mandala499 : Up to 33C for the F15 field limit and climb limits... for the 326tons ETOW, the temperature will come in the climb at about 39 - 40C... I'll hit the
114 sunrisevalley : I would like to see a flight plan for this! I wonder what the regulator has allowed VA for EDTO diversion time for this airframe/engine combination?
115 NAV20 : Don't know the exact track, but I gather EDTO allows 240-min. and that's quite doable if they stay reasonably close to Perth and Port Louis (Mauritiu
116 Post contains links mandala499 : OK you two, here's a quick blunt version... Plot this on www.gcmap.com ETOPS 180: MEL-PER-24°00'00"S 80°00'00"E-MRU-JNB 1150nm@CCK, 1150nm@MRU, 115
117 sunrisevalley : I took another look at the EDTO standard and it appears that the operator must satisfy the regulator that they can do 240-min. No doubt their history
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 Non-stop JFK-JNB? posted Sun Aug 7 2005 21:22:21 by AA767400
Why No Non-stop LAS-OKC Service? posted Thu Feb 24 2005 16:20:09 by Pe@rson
Why No Non-stop MSP-HNL NWA posted Tue Nov 28 2000 17:38:19 by NWA763
No Non-stop CCS-NYC? posted Mon Dec 29 2008 14:14:26 by UPPERDECKFAN
SAA IAD-JNB. No Non-stop? posted Thu Apr 3 2008 17:11:36 by Jonniesa
Why No Non-stops From NYC-PSP? posted Thu Apr 21 2005 18:16:46 by FA4B6
Why Not Non-stop Service Between MEX/TGU posted Mon Dec 6 2004 18:13:28 by TACAA320
Largest US City With No Non-stop From New York posted Tue Feb 17 2004 18:27:23 by Csavel
Why No Non-stop SIN To The US? posted Mon Mar 25 2002 00:43:58 by Jessman
Why No ORD -CHO Non Stop posted Tue Jun 20 2006 02:51:25 by Mycrj17