VC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2417 posts, RR: 9 Posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2848 times:
I admit i could never guess the load and cargo, but would an AC like Singapore's all business A340 (used on SIN JFK) make it? Say HKG TO GRU? Or is there any other AC type that could. I was just interested after seeing a large Chinese conference in a Sao Paulo hotel. It was a giant venue...perhaps rare. But i was thinking "BRICS"!
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
OP3000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1678 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2784 times:
Quoting VC10er (Thread starter): Say HKG TO GRU? Or is there any other AC type that could. I was just interested after seeing a large Chinese conference in a Sao Paulo hotel. It was a giant venue...perhaps rare. But i was thinking "BRICS"!
Interesting idea. Great circle mapper shows that GRU-PEK is actually shorter than GRU-HKG, but still almost 11K miles. That is well short of the A345 or the 787-900's stated range.
Not even GRU-SIN is do-able, which means that the Gulf carriers will be able to feast on premium Brazil-China traffic for a number of years.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31107 posts, RR: 74 Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2766 times:
Quoting OP3000 (Reply 1): Not even GRU-SIN is do-able, which means that the Gulf carriers will be able to feast on premium Brazil-China traffic for a number of years.
Or, rather, U.S. carriers and Air Canada, since the huge bulk of South America-Asia traffic transits via the United States and Canada, not Europe, nor the Middle East, despite myths to the contrary.
OP3000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1678 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2663 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 2):
Or, rather, U.S. carriers and Air Canada, since the huge bulk of South America-Asia traffic transits via the United States and Canada, not Europe, nor the Middle East, despite myths to the contrary.
I'm aware of that - the earlier point was regarding SIN and SQ, which caters to a similar premium market segment than the Gulf carriers.
BNAOWB From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 349 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2433 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 2): Or, rather, U.S. carriers and Air Canada, since the huge bulk of South America-Asia traffic transits via the United States and Canada, not Europe, nor the Middle East, despite myths to the contrary.
Why is there considerably more traffic transiting via the United States/Canada than via Europe? I understand why the Middle Eastern carriers would still have a small share of the South America-Asia market since EK and QR have such limited South America service. However, considering geography and the huge number of South America to Europe flights, it is very surprising that at least half of the South America-Asia traffic does not transit through Europe.
lucky777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 460 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2388 times:
GRU-PEK and HKG are both around 11,000 miles...or around 9,700nm. The 340-500 has around a 9,000nm limit, and the 77LR has around a 9,400nm limit. The A350-900R is being talked about of having a max range of around 10,300nm, which should be more than enough to do the job. The 787 "only" has enough legs for around 8,500nm.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, RR: 43 Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2355 times:
Quoting lucky777 (Reply 5): The A350-900R is being talked about of having a max range of around 10,300nm
Wiki says 9,500nm, which wouldn't be enough by itself, but especially not after counting a margin for wind. Do you have a better source than wiki, though? I don't see anything in Airbus' website for the A350R.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
OP3000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1678 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2273 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 7):
can't imagine China-Brazil will happen before LHR-SYD or JFK-SYD or SFO/LAX-DEL/BOM
even NRT-GRU has a higher chance of happening
From a demand standpoint, China is Brazil's number one trading partner - above USA.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2269 times:
Well we need to remember that SQ's A340-500s may very well have an OEW lower than what Airbus uses in their ACAPs, so they should have MTOW available to tank more fuel and extend the range.
Ditto a 777-200LR configured in a similar all-Business Class configuration.
True, but then you need all-biz seat demand to fill such massive aircrafts, which I think you will not find. And cargo is typically so important on a route like this.
Quoting KFlyer (Reply 10): PVG-BOM-GRU aboard a 77L. Now that's real BRIC !
Would be an interesting flight with three very different cultures. I hear AI is selling some 77Ls so who knows, it could make sense, even if just to BOM and back
[Edited 2010-11-09 20:49:38]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
lucky777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 460 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1800 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 6): Do you have a better source than wiki, though? I don't see anything in Airbus' website for the A350R.
This is from the Wiki website per the -900R.... The -900R and -900F variants also have been proposed but not yet launched. These are to feature the higher engine thrust, strengthened structure and landing gear of the -1000.[70] Range of the "standard" A350-900R was estimated to 17,600 km (9,500 nmi), which would be boosted to about 19,100 km (10,315 nmi)
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 2): Quoting OP3000 (Reply 1):
Not even GRU-SIN is do-able, which means that the Gulf carriers will be able to feast on premium Brazil-China traffic for a number of years.
Or, rather, U.S. carriers and Air Canada, since the huge bulk of South America-Asia traffic transits via the United States and Canada, not Europe, nor the Middle East, despite myths to the contrary.
What do you think accounts for that? Can't imaqine why anyone would want do deal with the transit visa and related red tape of connecting in the US when you can avoid most of that via Europe where in most cases you just go from gate to gate with no immigration or passport controls.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31107 posts, RR: 74 Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
Quoting BNAOWB (Reply 4): Why is there considerably more traffic transiting via the United States/Canada than via Europe? I understand why the Middle Eastern carriers would still have a small share of the South America-Asia market since EK and QR have such limited South America service. However, considering geography and the huge number of South America to Europe flights, it is very surprising that at least half of the South America-Asia traffic does not transit through Europe.
Look at a map. From deep South America to most of Asia, North America is on the most direct routing. In fact, NRT-JFK-GRU and NRT-GRU non-stop practically overlap - and the difference in miles? It's one! GRU-NRT is 11,489 miles; GRU-JFK-NRT is 11,490. Not to mention the fact that northern South America to the U.S. is a medium-haul flight; as opposed to flying two long-hauls to the U.S. And the schedules often work out better via North America.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14): What do you think accounts for that? Can't imaqine why anyone would want do deal with the transit visa and related red tape of connecting in the US when you can avoid most of that via Europe where in most cases you just go from gate to gate with no immigration or passport controls.
Because there are not many hassles other than the myths promulgated on these message boards. A U.S. visa is incredibly fairly easy for a South American to acquire and some last as long as ten years. If you are traveling between South America and Asia, chances are one qualifies and already has a U.S. transit visa.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6868 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 2): Or, rather, U.S. carriers and Air Canada, since the huge bulk of South America-Asia traffic transits via the United States and Canada, not Europe, nor the Middle East, despite myths to the contrary.
But that's changing quickly. Until recently not a single gulf carrier flew to Brazil.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14): What do you think accounts for that? Can't imaqine why anyone would want do deal with the transit visa and related red tape of connecting in the US when you can avoid most of that via Europe where in most cases you just go from gate to gate with no immigration or passport controls.
Capacity would be my guess. The Europe-Brazil market is larger than the US-Brazil market and without an open skies agreement most of the seats are taken by O&D traffic thus leaving N.America as the transit point with cheaper fares and more seats. But with an emminent EU-Brazil open skies agreement on the horizon I suspect we'll see a shift away from N.America to Europe (and Middle East).
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, RR: 24 Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15): Quoting BNAOWB (Reply 4):
Why is there considerably more traffic transiting via the United States/Canada than via Europe? I understand why the Middle Eastern carriers would still have a small share of the South America-Asia market since EK and QR have such limited South America service. However, considering geography and the huge number of South America to Europe flights, it is very surprising that at least half of the South America-Asia traffic does not transit through Europe.
Look at a map. From deep South America to most of Asia, North America is on the most direct routing. In fact, NRT-JFK-GRU and NRT-GRU non-stop practically overlap - and the difference in miles? It's one! GRU-NRT is 11,489 miles; GRU-JFK-NRT is 11,490. Not to mention the fact that northern South America to the U.S. is a medium-haul flight; as opposed to flying two long-hauls to the U.S. And the schedules often work out better via North America.
That may be true for GRU-NRT, but there's much more to Asia-South America than that. For example, SIN-GRU is much shorter via DXB or Europe.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2417 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31107 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, 
From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1208 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
