Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights?  
User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week ago) and read 3248 times:

Take for example a 13000km flight. Very few planes (777-200ER, 300ER, 747-400 and A340-500/600) can handle it with one flight.
My question is if it wouldn't be cheaper if a plane landed some 6000-7000 km into the flight and make a quick refuel (20minutes, something like formula 1) and takeoff again?

Since the plane would be lighter because it wouldn't need to carry all the fuel in one flight, it would also consume less and carry more payload. I know that when climbing the engines burn a lot of fuel, but on a 13000 km flight it would still use a less if you would make a short stop? And landing fees are not so high, that they would matter so much?

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3213 times:

This has been discussed before but it was a while ago. I don't mind a repeat.

Your argument has merit, but it is still better to go all the way if the aircraft can handle it. Take-off and climb use much, much more fuel than cruising, even with the lighter load of a shorter flight. Also, you are adding at the very least 1� hours to your total time. 20 minutes for refueling in itself might be feasible, but you have to descend, get into the patter, land, taxi, refuel, taxi, take off, climb. Takes longer.

You talk about landing fees, but there are other costs:
- Extra flight planning.
- Ground staff.
- Extra flight time = extra crew pay.
- Extra flight time = potentially extra catering.

I have a vague memory of Captain Squares doing a ballpark calculation once on the relative costs, or at least fuel consumption in take-off climb compared to cruise. There was a huge difference.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

You're adding unnecessary cycles to the airframe as well...

Brakes, Tyres, Landing Gear, Engines all measured in cycles and the more you land and takeoff the more cycles you're taking off the life of the aircraft.



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3187 times:

tanks for replies

Your have very strong arguments. It is really better to go all the way if the airplane can handle it.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 2):
You're adding unnecessary cycles to the airframe as well...

Brakes, Tyres, Landing Gear, Engines all measured in cycles and the more you land and takeoff the more cycles you're taking off the life of the aircraft.

Forgot all about the cycles! Thx Kaddyuk.

In addition to actual wear and tear, lease terms for some items like APUs involve costing per start, so an extra cycle may make the lease more expensive.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2315 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

I'd just like to add that adding an extra sector reduces the crews avaliable duty time, this could mean that the airline then needs to have crews on layovers nearto the refuling airfield.

Also in todays society people want to go from A to B without stopping for anything, folks used to hit the roof last year when we announced tech stops either planned or unplanned.

Phil
FlyingColours



Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Not Use Goo Tyres On Aircraft posted Tue Feb 1 2005 10:59:27 by Allpress
Why Not Round Engines Intake On 737 NG's? posted Fri Mar 7 2003 05:25:19 by Jgore
Lettering On Wings: Why Not Done Anymore? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 03:52:03 by Airwave
Why Not Accelerate Wheels On Landing? posted Mon Sep 12 2005 15:35:41 by TaromA380
Why Not Winglets On Every Airplane? posted Thu Jun 2 2005 18:24:04 by KCMike
Why Not Engines On Top Of The Wings? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 00:21:25 by Keta
Why No Logo Lights On Most Flights? posted Sun Mar 20 2005 14:40:18 by Skywatch
Winglets On DC10: Why Not? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 07:53:12 by Bruce
Why Not Visuals Recorded On CVR posted Wed Jul 9 2003 13:01:08 by HAWK21M
Dimples On Golf Balls, Why Not On Airplanes? posted Fri Nov 1 2002 23:52:44 by Beefmoney

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format