carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2772 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12424 times:
Until ANA sends out an official press statement, everybody should take it as a rumor or grain of salt.
ANA hasn't even set a date for its first commercial flight nor first route yet.
Even if the 787 test program goes as scheduled and enters service without major hiccups, a 2011 start for a long-haul route seems much too optimistic the way ANA runs thing these past 20 years.
The following would be much more attainable milestones.
1. Late 2010 - 1st domestic route.
2. Late summer or winter 2011 - 1st int'l route (Asian)
3. Summer schedule 2012 - 1st long-haul route
Do doubt 787 will be the perfect platform to start a route like NRT-BRU because a 777 would be too much aircraft.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, RR: 37 Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12337 times:
Quoting carpethead (Reply 1): Until ANA sends out an official press statement, everybody should take it as a rumor or grain of salt.
ANA hasn't even set a date for its first commercial flight nor first route yet.
Exactly; it's best to wait until ANA knows when it's going to have the aircraft (for certain!) before it makes firm plans. However, BRU doesn't surprise me as a choice, given that it is Europe's capital. Also, SN is now a part of Star Alliance, so there are handy connections there.
Hopefully, this is the first of many long, thin routes that we'll see NH (and other airlines) use the 787 to open.
blueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3126 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11825 times:
The one source for this news so far has pulled the story, supposedly because it was embargoed and they released it too soon. The Belgian prime minister is in Japan until Saturday, that would be the ideal context to officially announce this flight, if it is true.
naritaflyer From Japan, joined Apr 2006, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 11467 times:
I think that a month of two of domestic flying should give ANA sufficient comfort to deploy the aircraft on long haul routes. Starting with a marginal route makes sense in case things go wrong. You don't want to screw-up Tokyo-London or Tokyo-Paris routes but you could to Brussels without losing too much face.
airbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 10012 times:
Quoting naritaflyer (Reply 4): I think that a month of two of domestic flying should give ANA sufficient comfort to deploy the aircraft on long haul routes.
That's not up to ANA. Japan Civil Aviation Bureau does not approve ETOPS operations yet for the B787, so it will take quite some time after delivery of the first frames to get them approved for these services to Europe.
"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
Jalap From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 349 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9733 times:
Quoting airbuseric (Reply 5): Quoting naritaflyer (Reply 4):
I think that a month of two of domestic flying should give ANA sufficient comfort to deploy the aircraft on long haul routes.
That's not up to ANA. Japan Civil Aviation Bureau does not approve ETOPS operations yet for the B787, so it will take quite some time after delivery of the first frames to get them approved for these services to Europe.
Would NRT-BRU require ETOPS?
If true this woud be great news, SN served Tokyo for decades and I believe that wasn't without succes. The 787 would be the perfect plane to make it work
AA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1113 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9239 times:
Quoting airbuseric (Reply 7): Of course it would! You fly over Russian airspace, needing at least a 3 hour ETOPS certification to suitable enroute alternate airports.
Last time I checked the country of Russia is not submerged in water. Why would you need ETOPS?
AirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3639 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9080 times:
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9009 times:
Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8): Quoting airbuseric (Reply 7):
Of course it would! You fly over Russian airspace, needing at least a 3 hour ETOPS certification to suitable enroute alternate airports.
Last time I checked the country of Russia is not submerged in water. Why would you need ETOPS?
ETOPS isn't restricted to over-water routes.It's based on flying time to an alternate airport. There are some routes over land (and if memory correct some involve northern Russia) that also require ETOPS, or used to.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9009 times:
Quoting airbuseric (Reply 7): Of course it would! You fly over Russian airspace, needing at least a 3 hour ETOPS certification to suitable enroute alternate airports.
Almost all of Russia is within 90 minutes of a suitable airport for an Airliner.
airbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8263 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 11):
Almost all of Russia is within 90 minutes of a suitable airport for an Airliner.
Many Russian airports are not suitable to handle B777/787 aircraft. So can't be choosen.
You'll need 180min ETOPS to fly over Siberia-route to Japan. This is common practice even nowadays with B777 operations. The same will apply for B787-8.
Weather conditions should be above the stated weather minima as well, and I can tell you it's sometimes impossible to plan an ETOPS flight over Siberia due to adverse weather forecasts at these Russian airports. Many have just a single runway, many facilities are out of order more often then you can think of. Aerodromes are closed, another common practise in Russia. All situations which will affect flight operations...
Of course you can fly another route. That is correct. But then you'll have to fly on airways which are taking a longer flighttime. So these won't be used in general. Of course, when aircraft status or weather situation are in such a case that non-ETOPS should be flown, such routes (usually overflying Mongolia, China and South-Korea also) will be used.
But we're going too much offtopic here now...
[Edited 2010-04-09 14:09:02]
"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6727 times:
Quoting airbuseric (Reply 5): That's not up to ANA. Japan Civil Aviation Bureau does not approve ETOPS operations yet for the B787, so it will take quite some time after delivery of the first frames to get them approved for these services to Europe.
Boeing was able to achieve FAA ETOPS certification prior to EIS with the 777. They are aiming to do the same with the 787. Working out the reciprocal certifications won't take long and are already underway, no doubt.
SexyAdonis From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5142 times:
Just out of curiosity, perhaps anyone can share some information as to weather the services to Brussels will be operated with a partly European based crew hired through PARC such as the one that operates on LHR/NRT/LHR, CDG/NRT/CDG AND FRA/NRT/FRA sectors?
Is the huge ANA office on Av. Louise still there? I recall seeing it every day on my to work in my Brussels years.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4996 times:
Quoting airbuseric (Reply 12): Many Russian airports are not suitable to handle B777/787 aircraft. So can't be choosen.
You only need 3 diversion airports to cross Russia with Etops 90 and these are CCN, NSK, MMK and they can certainly handle 777s.
Fair points about the weather and i nearly mentioned this in my previous post. But best case scenario you shouldn't need anywhere near 180 minutes. I should imagine airlines use this for flexibility.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6890 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4924 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15): Fair points about the weather and i nearly mentioned this in my previous post. But best case scenario you shouldn't need anywhere near 180 minutes. I should imagine airlines use this for flexibility.
Another thing to consider is that each airline has it's own operating standards. Some operate certain routes under ETOPS rules even if the route is not technically an ETOPS route. I'm not sure about Russia but I remember reading an article on Airways magazine not too long ago about an EK flight over Africa on an A330 that was subject to ETOPS restrictions because of both unsuitable airports (from the airline's point of view), and because of the quality of air traffic control over Africa.
airbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 52 Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4454 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15): You only need 3 diversion airports to cross Russia with Etops 90 and these are CCN, NSK, MMK and they can certainly handle 777s.
All the 3 airports you mention cannot and will not be used as enroute alternate for ANA. There you go.
It comes back to standards set by the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau and the airlines' regulations as well.
A few they will use are KHV, OVB, ABA, KJA, SGC, CEK among a few more...
As I said, a long period in a year, weather conditions are so bad at most of the airports, that it is a difficult planning to stay within the 180-ETOPS circle throughout the flight, hence it cannot always be dispatched.
"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4149 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4258 times:
Quoting airbuseric (Reply 17):
All the 3 airports you mention cannot and will not be used as enroute alternate for ANA. There you go.
It comes back to standards set by the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau and the airlines' regulations as well.
Aren't there also bilateral restrictions regarding overflying Russia? I recall reading an article about the fact that certain airlines can't fly the desired route as Russia doesn't have the same bilateral with the countries of origin of those airlines. Furthermore, some airlines can't expand flights to Korea or Japan (from Europe) as Russia doesn't allow unlimited ovefly rights. I reckon that this may become an issue for Europe - Japan/Korea flights.
Sponsor Message: 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 1999, 116 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2772 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3126 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4015 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 349 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
