747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2824 posts, RR: 13 Posted (13 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 2254 times:
Hmm... if Boeing can make a 737 fly 6000 nm, why doesn't somebody take anything bigger than a 767 (i.e., DC-10, MD-11, L-1011, 777, 747) and put a few extra gas tanks in it and start direct service from Chicago to Sydney or New York to Sydney? It would very popular, I think, given that those are two of the largest international ports in the world, and the fact that a flight which currently requires 2 planes and 21 hours would take 1 and 16. Not to mention instead of costing $1500-$2700 it could cost only about $900...
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2824 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (13 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 2197 times:
Hmm... since no one seems to know, maybe I'll go call Boeing and ask them. I mean after all, why not? With a 747 which can fly 7500 nm. anyway, it wouldn't take too many LD-3's worth of underfloor space for the extra petrol, would it?
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (13 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 2183 times:
I do'nt think enough examples would be ordered for it to be worth it! Besdies, I don't think the airlines have a problem with making you connect and pay more money, as long as you have to do it on every other airline too, there's no problem.
Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (13 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 2160 times:
If not many people fly ORD-AMS-SIN what would the percentage of fliers be for ORD-SYD?
I dont think airlines would want to put something like LAX-SYD, SFO-SYD, JFK-SYD, EWR-SYD, MIA-SYD etc etc... just because the 2 are big international airports and since perhaps it could be done by long range airliners... perhaps the load for each flight would be 50+ POB...
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 34128 posts, RR: 70
Reply 7, posted (13 years 10 months ago) and read 2079 times:
QF is satisfied with it's JFK-LAX-SYD service, which resumes in a few weeks (3?) I am sure. Also, what do you mean by largest interantional ports in the world? Airports? The largest international airport in the US is MIA, and LHR is largest in the world.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1039 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (13 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2004 times:
Thats a 9,230 mile sector that would take approx. (in the best flying conditions) 18 hours, possibly more. That would require 3 crews to be onboard, unless the first crew could have their requisite rest and take over for the last couple hours.....??? At any rate, even the currently longest range aircraft available, the 747-400ER with 7325 miles in its fuel tanks couldnt do a sector that far.
My second thought would be this: with a 747-400 able to fly 7325 miles, you are looking at a signifigant additional amount of fuel to add that extra 2000 miles and 4-5 hours of flight time, likely way more than what could be carried realistically. I would bet that a 767-300ER or a 747-400 or even a 777-300 (with a range of 6000nm) would have to give up so much belly space for fuel that, A.) You wouldnt be able to carry a full load of passengers or freight. B.) You would have to have multiple crews onboard to accomodate at both ends of the trip. C.) Valuable space for cargo is unavailable for use.
I doubt that any of these a/c in question above would be within their structural MGTOW with so much fuel onboard. I think that there will have to be advances in speed, engine technology (to reduce consumption) and a really sweet contract w/flight crews to get them to do almost 20 hour sectors!
You also have to look at the ability of any currently available aircraft to be able to carry enough fresh water, dispose of that much waste via the lavatories and carry enough food for a flight lasting almost a whole day. If I was going to fly from ORD to SYD I think that I would not want to face such a flight, especially in coach! OMG, what a nightmare!
CcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1945 times:
I don't know when though but i found that out when I saw on this map of ORD that it had Qantas on it and I asked someone if Qantas served ORD and they said yeah they used to, so I don't know the year they did it but they did.
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
AlaskaMVP From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
When I flew LAX-SYD I was told by my uncle (who lived in Australia for business and flew regularly back to the states) that the LAX to SYD flight occasionally had to land in Tahiti if it had any serious headwinds. If you had a 777 with enough gas to make ORD-SYD, how much more often do you think the flight will "end up short"?
ETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1906 times:
QF never served ORD- the route map you're looking at is referring to a codeshare with American on the LAX-ORD sector.
Occassionally, the QF 747-400 nonstops have to set down en route if unfavourable wind conditions prevail westbound. Usually, this is done in Nadi, and I think Noumea a few times (Papeete is too far off the flightpath).
Until 1972, QF flew 707's on the following routes:
SYD-NAN-HNL-SFO-JFK-LHR (JFK-LHR usually always empty)
SYD-PPT-ACA-NAS-BDA-LHR (the "fiesta route" staff bus)