Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ULR's Unefficient With Distance?  
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Given that an ULR flight has to burn proportionately more fuel simply to carry the fuel to fly it further, I wonder whether, with increasing distance, a point is reached where it becomes more economic to schedule a fuel stop? With a fuel stop, proportinately less of the average airborne weight is fuel, in turn requiring less fuel to maintain it aloft.

I think that ULR's in general are an overblown phenomenon commercially; I have a creeping suspicion that this may apply to their fuel efficiency too.

Faro


The chalice not my son
4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1620 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Given that an ULR flight has to burn proportionately more fuel simply to carry the fuel to fly it further, I wonder whether, with increasing distance, a point is reached where it becomes more economic to schedule a fuel stop? With a fuel stop, proportinately less of the average airborne weight is fuel, in turn requiring less fuel to maintain it aloft.

The short answer is, "yes." The long answer is, "It depends on how you measure your economics."

In pure fuel burn terms, you're absolutely right. This is why a whole bunch of air cargo stops in Anchorage or Honolulu going across the Pacific. Even when you throw in the extra fuel to descend, land, and climb back to altitude, you come out ahead on fuel burn.

However, that's not the only cost that figures into your economics. People are willing to pay a premium to fly nonstop, so you can go somewhat onto the "backside" of the fuel burn curve if you're carrying passengers instead of cargo and still come out ahead on profit. At some point, peoples' preference for non-stop gives out and they just won't pay what it costs...that's why ULR flights are pretty rare, heavy on premium classes, and only connect large cities.

Tom.


User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1554 times:

Thanx Tom, you said it all.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Every plane has an optimal stage length for a set payload.

Take off is very taxing so for a short flight which is primarly made up of the takeoff and little crusing, the overall fuel consuption for distance flown will be very hight.

The other factor that you mention, fuel to carry fuel, is also influencial at the extreme ranges.

The optimal stage length is somewhere in between.

So yes, it can often be cheaper to make a fuel stop, and it normally means you can take more payload with you too.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1444 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 1):
The short answer is, "yes." The long answer is, "It depends on how you measure your economics."

If I recall correctly, Tom, we used SYD-SIN-LHR as an example and concluded that the fuel burn could be as much as 15% higher.
According to Airbus GMF, fuel burn typically accounts for about 40% of trip costs.
If so, the fuel burn increase would increase the trip costs by 6%.
I'm guessing that if you remove the landing at SIN, you'll lose some landing/navigation fees.

So the overall cost might go up 5% or so. Perhaps.


Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 1):
People are willing to pay a premium to fly nonstop, so you can go somewhat onto the "backside" of the fuel burn curve if you're carrying passengers instead of cargo and still come out ahead on profit.

Taking those figures as an example, if you can up your revenue by 6% or more, the flight becomes economically viable.

Regards


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic ULR's Unefficient With Distance?
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...
ATC Callsigns For Aircraft With Alphabetic Regs posted Tue Feb 12 2008 09:33:42 by N353SK
SAN-LHR: Planes With Best Economics posted Sat Feb 9 2008 10:27:14 by DL767captain
What Are Aircraft Tires Inflated With? posted Tue Jan 15 2008 18:34:03 by CAP2008
Smallest Jet With Auto-throttle posted Fri Jan 11 2008 01:10:15 by RJFlyer0891
Both Pilots With Hands On The Yoke/Stick posted Fri Jan 4 2008 20:13:33 by RedFlyer
What's Up With The "SSSS" Code On AA Bpasses? posted Thu Jan 3 2008 11:15:36 by JMBWEEBOY
Retrofitting Car With Aircraft Throttles posted Mon Dec 31 2007 12:39:44 by FlyASAGuy2005
What Is Wrong With This Aircraft's APU? posted Sat Dec 29 2007 00:18:50 by DIJKKIJK
Turbofan With Free-spinning Fan Section? posted Thu Dec 27 2007 14:49:58 by KELPkid
WHY Is The 777 Tail Shaped With A Vertical Pinch? posted Wed Dec 26 2007 14:05:16 by HOOB747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format