Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ULH Aircraft Used For ULH Missions  
User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 726 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

Over the past few years, I have read many discussions about the A340-500 and the B777-200LR and its ability to fly further than ever before. As far as I'm concerned only SQ uses the full potential of the aircraft (345) for the SIN-EWR leg but I will surely miss some routes.

What 345 and 77L operators deploy these aircraft where it is designed for?

Thanks for your input!

Reg,
SASMD82

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineYflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 997 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

There was a thread in the Polls & Preferences forum fairly recently about the world's longest flights. You'll probably find your answer there:

World's Longest Flights, 2nd Edition (by yeogeo Mar 27 2011 in Aviation Polls)


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3927 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SASMD82 (Thread starter):
What 345 and 77L operators deploy these aircraft where it is designed for?

TG uses their A340-500s for BKK-LAX and BKK-JFK, as I recall.


User currently offlineordjoe From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3850 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
BKK-JFK, as I recall.

JFK went away around 08 I believe TG's major problem with their JFK flight, while record fuel did not help, it was too much discount economy pax going on holiday or visiting relatives.
Yes these planes can go farther than what they are used, but you can make the argument that they are not used to their full potential (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2430547/) where that 772 went from SIN to LHR the long way albeit with only about 40 pax. When you get into ULH flying, the economics start to become less desirable as it gets to a point where you have to shed cargo weight (typically where the true money is at, airlines will fly certain routes just for cargo contracts, passengers are just icing on the cake) and you have to get more crew on these longer flights.
SQ is able to pull this flight off as it is a very unique and desirable scenario. all business class of people paying around $5000 and up for these flights and it also helps it goes from business capital of USA to one of, if not the biggest business city of Asia. I have heard SQ is strict with employee non-rev travel and their frequent flyer program is not that generous (SQ seems to get loyalty from their service, not their mileage program). For United states based airlines it can be common a lot of your F cabin can be reward and non rev travel, so I could not see AA, UA, DL succesfully pulling of an all business configuration flight
Ultimatly airlines have realized most of the flying public will not pay a premium to cover the costs of ULH flights and are just fine with utilizing connections or alliances to get people where they need. As much as I would have loved to take that record length 772 flight, just image how much it would cost per pax if airline where to offer it


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19278 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

The main markets where ULH aircraft could theoretically be useful are few. SYD-JFK, SYD-LHR, SIN-NYC, CDG-PPT. That's all I can think of. Maybe a few out of JNB/CPT?

On all of those routes except SIN-NYC (which currently flies to EWR), there are substantial leisure passengers.

The benefits of operating these as non-stops are few. For the vast majority, there is an intermediary airport along the GC route that will be a good refueling place. Few passengers want to sit that long in a plane without a break. The time savings on such a long trip are trivial. A flight that takes 18 hours without a stop might take 20 with a stop. Few passengers are in that much of a hurry on such a long journey.

But, most importantly, as the ULH aircraft begin to approach the limits of their range, they fall off in efficiency. This is because in order to fly the last 4,000 NM of an 11,000 NM trip, the aircraft has to haul the first 7,000 NM worth of fuel with it. In fact, SO much extra fuel needs to be burned to haul all that fuel for the first 2/3 of the trip that it would burn less fuel to land, refuel, and take off again. The exact spot where that occurs varies from model to model, but there is such a spot for each model and the ULH routes all exceed that limit.

If engine efficiency improves to the point where such ULH routes can become justifiable economically, I still doubt that they will be very popular. The number of routes where such an aircraft would be useful is small. So there would have to be a second selling point to get these aircraft in the order books.


User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2926 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):

DocLightning, I agree with you.But why did Airbus go for this plane in 2000 and - more importantly - why did Boeing copied it with its B77L. Perhaps more important, why do airliners currenly use these heavy (empty weight) aircraft for relatily short flights? In Amsterdam we have EK with the DXB-AMS. I think a A330-300 would be much much more profitable on this route (what happened with the A333 order of EK) and a great alternative on the domestic routes.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2798 times:

This is pretty easy to answer as there are not that many ULH aircraft in the world. The standard I'm using for inclusion is "a 77W or A346 would seriously struggle to fly the route."

A345

SQ - SIN-LAX, SIN-EWR
TG - BKK-LAX

(Note that EK and EY are not using their 345s on any ULH service at the moment.)

77L

DL - ATL-JNB
EK - DXB-IAH, DXB-LAX, DXB-GRU
QR - DOH-IAH, DOH-GRU

Not many! The most common use for 77Ls, at any rate, is as cargo beasts on slightly shorter routes like YYZ-HKG and YVR-SYD (AC), LAX-SYD (DL), JFK-BOM (AI), and the like.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19278 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 5):
DocLightning, I agree with you.But why did Airbus go for this plane in 2000 and - more importantly - why did Boeing copied it with its B77L.

Only they know, but my guess is that as long as the 77W and 346 were being developed, it was a minimal additional developmental cost to basically shrink both airframes, especially since both airframes used identical fuselages from prior models (the A345 has the same fuselage as the A343 and the 77L has the same fuselage as the 772).

The other thing is that for shorter routes, both of these aircraft offer high thrust and MTOW, which can be very helpful for airlines with hot and high hubs, like JNB, SCL, or DEN during the summer. So while they may not use them for range, they can use them for cargo.

Remember, max quoted ranges are with full pax and baggae. NOT with full pax, baggage, and cargo. At MZFW, the range will be less than the maximum quoted. MTOW's decrease as elevation and airfield temps increase.

Now, why did QR order it? Dunno... Al Baker can't answer, either. He's not happy with them at all. Why did EK order it? Again, ask TC.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 5):
But why did Airbus go for this plane in 2000 and - more importantly - why did Boeing copied it with its B77L.

Started my post (got interrupted in the middle of it) before you posted this...

The A345 and 77L are different beasts. The A345 has a very heavy empty weight which makes it difficult (although not impossible) to fly profitably when it's up against lighter long-haul aircraft like the A343 and 77E. That empty weight is also the single biggest reason the A346 has not fared well against the 77W, but at least the A346 was able to offset its weight with additional capacity. The A343 is more efficient than the A345 on routes it can fly, which is not a good thing for the newer aircraft.

The 77L, by contrast, is only a bit heavier than the 77E. It won't compete well on shorter routes against the likes of the 789 and A359, but it does OK against the 77E and A343. For the most part, it's been range improvements to the 77W that killed off the 77L -- CX is now using them JFK-HKG without hiccups, and EK is even using them on DXB-SFO (although with occasional restrictions).

I'm sure Airbus would do the A345 and A346 differently if it could do them over. The 77L, on the other hand, is pretty much a no-brainer -- all the necessary work was done for the 77W and 77F, both of which are very successful. The 50-odd copies it's sold so far more than paid for it.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinebill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8439 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
Why did EK order it? Again, ask TC.

Probably to see what the fuss is all about.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19278 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
For the most part, it's been range improvements to the 77W that killed off the 77L

It's not that. The 772 market was pretty saturated with 772 by the time Boeing rolled out the 77L. Very few 772's have been ordered since the 77L because the 77L is superior in just about every sense.

A 77W is a bigger plane. It will have higher trip costs than the 77L on all trips, be it SAN-LAX or be it LAX-DXB. But if you can fill a 77W, then it has a better CASM than its little sister if only due to size. So if you think you can fill it, order a 77W. Most airlines can fill 77W's, so that's what they order. It's a 744 replacement, basically. Slightly fewer passengers, but offset by more cargo.

So few airlines needed more 772's because they had 772's. Lots of airlines needed a 744 replacement, so they ordered 77W's.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24643 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
For the most part, it's been range improvements to the 77W that killed off the 77L -- CX is now using them JFK-HKG without hiccups

I've often wondered whether AC really needs their 6 77Ls. They originally acquired them mainly for HKG and YVR-SYD. But if CX can use the 77W HKG without apparent problems, why not AC? And CO even uses the 77E EWR-HKG, slightly further than HKG. Actually AC does now appear to use the 77W on 2 of their 7 weekly HKG flights. Using the 77W would also give them more seats to sell. CX has more than twice AC's capacity HKG with twice-daily 77Ws vs. AC's one daily mix of 77L/77W.

I'm guessing CX may not carry as much cargo on their HKG 77Ws as AC is able to carry on the 77L, but CX operates 744 freighters to AC has to put all their cargo on passenger aircraft.

And VA operates the 77W LAX-SYD and LAX-MEL, the former slightly shorter and the latter slightly longer than AC's YVR-SYD 77L route. I wonder whether VA faces significant payload restrictions on LAX-SYD and especially LAX-MEL with the 77W?

EK also uses the 77W DXB-SFO which is longer than both AC 77L routes. However winds are no doubt much less of a factor on that westbound polar route than on westbound transpacific routes, although westbound HKG uses a polar routing most of the time I believe.

YVR-SYD 6741 nm
HKG 6787 nm

LAX-SYD 6507 nm
LAX-MEL 6883 nm
DXB-SFO 7041 nm

Are there any 77W nonstops longer than DXB-SFO?

[Edited 2011-04-28 16:33:22]

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
I've often wondered whether AC really needs their 6 77Ls.

I have no inside info. From what you hear from the AC insiders here, though, it seems that they are making huge use of the cargo capacity of both the 77L and the 77W. The 77L could be packed with cargo on HKG-YYZ and YVR-SYD, while the 77W would be more restricted.

It's a question of whether the cargo or the lowest-paying passengers are worth more. I have no idea.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
I wonder whether VA faces significant payload restrictions on LAX-SYD and especially LAX-MEL with the 77W?

No passenger restrictions that I know of, but I'm sure they can't carry as much cargo, especially on LAX-MEL.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
Are there any 77W nonstops longer than DXB-SFO?

I haven't heard of any, and that one takes passenger restrictions some of the time. There was an analysis here awhile back that showed that the 77W was likely more profitable than the 77L on DXB-SFO even with the restrictions.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

Emirates Skycargo has done some ULH flights with its B777 freighter. One from Sydney to somewhere near New York:

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/art...ong-gallop-from-sydney-to-new-york

A6-EFD was the plane if I remember right. And the ATC made a comment apparently along the lines of "better you than us" in reference to the daunting 17.5 hour flight.


User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 882 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
Are there any 77W nonstops longer than DXB-SFO?

Yes! Currently, of the two DXB-LAX flights each day EK flies one of each: 77W and 77L. DXB-LAX is 205nm further than DXB-SFO, according to the GCM.

numbers 4 and 7 here:
World's Longest Flights, 2nd Edition (by yeogeo Mar 27 2011 in Aviation Polls)

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
DXB-LAX, DXB-GRU

DXB - GRU is on a B77W now.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
JFK-BOM (AI)

It's EWR-BOM non stop from W10.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
Are there any 77W nonstops longer than DXB-SFO?

Emirates uses the B77W on DXB - LAX which is 7246nm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
A 77W is a bigger plane. It will have higher trip costs than the 77L on all trips, be it SAN-LAX or be it LAX-DXB.

Are you sure? I always thought the OEW of the B77L was a lot thus not making sense for most airlines. And most routes that airlines use the B77L do justify the capacity of a B77W. Not sure about the ULH routes of AC and DL, but can say about EK, AI, QR. And the thin ULH markets, the B787 claims to be the answer, so there are just a hadnful of routes which actually need a B777-200LR. And just for those handful of routes do you think investing into a new aircraft sub type was the right thing to? (I'm myself confused on this issue)

And my thinking leads me to believe this:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
For the most part, it's been range improvements to the 77W that killed off the 77L -- CX is now using them JFK-HKG without hiccups, and EK is even using them on DXB-SFO (although with occasional restrictions).

W.r.t AI, QR, EK I just do not see the need of a B777-200LR in their network.


AI:

ORD, YYZ, JFK all are now operated by a B77W and they have a bunch of B787s on order as well. Only BOM - EWR is a ULH route that is operated with a B77L at the moment, but that too is expected to go to a B77W soon. Thus, the B777-200LR will not be used on any ULH mission then.

EK:

Other than DXB - IAH, I just don't see any other route that needs a B777-200LR. Besides being a volume driven case, the B77L makes absolutely no sense for them.

QR:

DOH-IAH/MEL/GRU all can be done with the B77W. Not a single route where the B77L is used to it's potential.


Which is why I always wondered why did airlines opt for the B77L when they knew beforehand a B77W can do the work for them? In the next couple of years are there many routes which need the B77L?



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2224 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 12):
I have no inside info. From what you hear from the AC insiders here, though, it seems that they are making huge use of the cargo capacity of both the 77L and the 77W. The 77L could be packed with cargo on HKG-YYZ and YVR-SYD, while the 77W would be more restricted.

That is correct. The 77L flies with the belly full on most routes. So AC is mostly using it to fly at max weight with no passenger restrictions. AC has options for more 777's and for now I don't see anymore 77L's needed because new routes that will open with the 787 won't mature for quite a while. Rumoured is a 77W option conversion when the current round of labour talks is over.

Unless a surprize is in the works no AC routes will be taking advantage of the ULR capability.


User currently offlinejonathanxxxx From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 673 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

Quoting ojas (Reply 15):
Other than DXB - IAH, I just don't see any other route that needs a B777-200LR. Besides being a volume driven case, the B77L makes absolutely no sense for them.

Well; not really. With EK's expansion rate and how they can stimulate a market from a pretty medium demand to a profitable route. Who knows they could come to MIA (not sure if the 77L is actually needed or not), DFW, SEA, MEX, ATL. Who knows and one of them might just need 77L!
  


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2157 times:

Quoting ojas (Reply 15):
Emirates uses the B77W on DXB - LAX which is 7246nm

   I need to pay more attention...

They must be taking some heavy restrictions on that route.

Quoting ojas (Reply 15):
Which is why I always wondered why did airlines opt for the B77L when they knew beforehand a B77W can do the work for them? In the next couple of years are there many routes which need the B77L?

I think neither Boeing nor airlines knew just how good the 77W was going to turn out to be. It gained almost an hour of flying time between launch and EIS. Since EIS, it's gained over another half hour, with more in sight. It's usurped a lot of missions that looked like 77L missions in 2004.

If AI, EK, and QR could do it over again, I think AI would order no 77Ls; QR probably wouldn't order any either; and EK would probably still order their 10, which have given them some flexibility to experiment with ULH and can be dealt with easily within a fleet that has 1 hojillion 77Ws and a few 772s to boot.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2055 times:

Quoting jonathanxxxx (Reply 17):
Well; not really. With EK's expansion rate and how they can stimulate a market from a pretty medium demand to a profitable route. Who knows they could come to MIA (not sure if the 77L is actually needed or not), DFW, SEA, MEX, ATL. Who knows and one of them might just need 77L!

Yes, they need those 10 frames similar to the reason why they are still keeping the A345. However IMO, had those 10 B77Ls been 2 B77L + 8 B77W it would have been much better. Use the B77L to open new LH, ULH routes, similar to what QR does with the A319LR and then quickly upgrade to a B77W.



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
They must be taking some heavy restrictions on that route.

Yes, which is why they're pestering Boeing for a lighter 77W with better payload-range.


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...
What Aircraft Used For Such Views posted Thu Dec 9 2004 09:24:05 by HAWK21M
OA Aircraft Used To Fly Spare Parts For President posted Fri Oct 17 2008 02:32:08 by OA260
Getting A Used Aircraft Engine For A School? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 17:38:55 by Falstaff
US Marshalls: What Aircraft Is Used For Prisoners posted Tue Feb 14 2006 04:57:52 by Tappan
Will A380 Engines Be Used For Other Aircraft? posted Fri Dec 5 2003 00:45:55 by Keesje
Which Aircraft Were Used For Waco-Baghdad? posted Sat Nov 29 2003 08:33:02 by Commander_rabb
HKG/VHHH Code Used For 2 Airports posted Fri Feb 5 2010 09:58:07 by BALandorLivery
DC3's Used For Transport To Antarctica posted Thu Oct 15 2009 02:36:49 by Varig767
Why Was 23L Used For An Emergency Landing At MAN posted Tue Sep 29 2009 06:45:43 by ADB1
RAF Planes May Be Used For Holiday Flights posted Thu Sep 17 2009 02:08:43 by OA260
OA Aircraft Used To Fly Spare Parts For President posted Fri Oct 17 2008 02:32:08 by OA260
Getting A Used Aircraft Engine For A School? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 17:38:55 by Falstaff
US Marshalls: What Aircraft Is Used For Prisoners posted Tue Feb 14 2006 04:57:52 by Tappan
Will A380 Engines Be Used For Other Aircraft? posted Fri Dec 5 2003 00:45:55 by Keesje
Which Aircraft Were Used For Waco-Baghdad? posted Sat Nov 29 2003 08:33:02 by Commander_rabb
ULH Aircraft Used For ULH Missions posted Wed Apr 27 2011 14:36:32 by SASMD82
HKG/VHHH Code Used For 2 Airports posted Fri Feb 5 2010 09:58:07 by BALandorLivery
DC3's Used For Transport To Antarctica posted Thu Oct 15 2009 02:36:49 by Varig767
Why Was 23L Used For An Emergency Landing At MAN posted Tue Sep 29 2009 06:45:43 by ADB1