Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ANA To Start NRT-BRU In S.2011 With 787  
User currently offlineSN-MD11 From Luxembourg, joined Dec 1999, 116 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 14307 times:

News has been confirmed by the ANA Brussels office.

Now press release yet though.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/all-n...n-tokyo-brussels.html#post13687475

It should be ANA's first International 787 route.

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2954 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14003 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.

[Edited 2010-04-09 01:43:30]

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12468 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 13916 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.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4001 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13404 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinenaritaflyer From Japan, joined Apr 2006, 549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13046 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.

User currently offlineairbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4269 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11591 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"
User currently offlineJalap From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 355 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11312 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  


User currently offlineairbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4269 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11150 times:

Quoting Jalap (Reply 6):
Would NRT-BRU require ETOPS?

Of course it would! You fly over Russian airspace, needing at least a 3 hour ETOPS certification to suitable enroute alternate airports.

Quoting Jalap (Reply 6):
The 787 would be the perfect plane to make it work

Without doubt. Expect a lot of 'new markets' getting direct routes.



"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10818 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?



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10659 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):

He was being sarcastic.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25332 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10588 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.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10588 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.


User currently offlineairbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4269 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9842 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"
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8306 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.


User currently offlineSexyAdonis From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6721 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.

Sexy Adonis


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6575 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.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8373 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6503 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.


User currently offlineairbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4269 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6033 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"
User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5837 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.


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...
NH To Start NRT-Okinawa In Nov. posted Tue Aug 29 2006 06:00:02 by Carpethead
ANA To Start NRT-LAX Using 777-300ER On OCT8 posted Thu Sep 15 2005 06:22:19 by SQ2
Turkish Airlines To Enter Australian Market In 2011 posted Tue Aug 4 2009 18:07:27 by ZKOJH
4C Aires Colombia To Start BAQ/FLL In November posted Thu Jul 9 2009 15:22:37 by TBYO787
Royal Air Maroc To Start New Airline In Senegal posted Sun May 31 2009 14:06:23 by RoyalAirMaroc
Report: CSA To Start PRG-MIA In March '09 posted Thu Oct 16 2008 18:26:18 by Falcon flyer
Qatar Airways To Start Doha-Glasgow In March 09'? posted Wed Sep 24 2008 08:06:30 by 8herveg
9W To Start BLR-BRU posted Mon Aug 18 2008 15:14:04 by BlrBird
Virgin Nigeria, Arik To Start US Routes In '08'? posted Thu Dec 20 2007 18:31:29 by Thomasphoto60
VS To Start MAN - Shanghai In March 08? posted Thu Nov 29 2007 14:39:45 by 8herveg