yanksn4
Posts: 1367
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:05 am

Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:47 pm

Greetings everyone. I was just fooling around on the great circle map and just put in PPT-CDG. According to the map, the distance between the two airports was 8485 nm. Now with the Airbus A340-500 being around 8650 nm, why dosn't Air France or Air Tahiti Nui acquire a A345 and start a non-stop flight without having to stop in LAX. (by the way, yes i know the great circle map isn't exactly accurate)

Signed,
Matthew
2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:42 pm

For starters neither Air Tahiti Nui, nor Air France operate the A340-500.

ATN however until late 2003 was considering ordering a single A345. The aircraft in question would have been one of two at the time undelivered Air Canada birds Airbus had sitting around.

However it was determined the aircraft could not operate CDG-PPT nonstop with a full payload of passengers and a small amount of cargo economically. Headed westbound the aircraft would encounter the headwinds which would make the trip in reality a bit above the equivalent 9000nm. In addition the need to carry island alternate fuel reserves further reduces payload capabilities.

At the end of the day, if Airbus comes up with an improved A340-500IGW then I suspect the French taxpayer might end up footing the bill to provide Tahiti with an example. For now instead Air Tahiti awaits the arrival of its 5th standard A340-300 due mid 2005.

From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:07 pm

TN also makes a lot of money selling its seats to tour consolidators from the US out of LAX, while also competing on the LAX-CDG route, which tends to be a bit underserved. Given that PPT is mainly a leisure market, people are just not willing to pay the premium to have a light payload A345 flying the route. Even a 772LR, which would have a much better payload, would be unlikely to ply this route, as both TN and AF like the market they have now.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7061
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:28 pm

ATW in April had an article on Air Tahiti Nui, and the article agrees with LAXINTL - the 345 has payload issues. The 777 is a non starter for Air Tahiti Nuias they would have significant ETOPS certification issues.

The other comment is that they are hoping to maintain fleet commonality, as their fleet is maintained by AF. A common fleet allows them to rotate aircraft into and out of CDG as needed for maintenance.

Air Tahiti Nui have also looked at the 346 and two 333's for shorter flights to AKL and SYD.

You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:54 am

Also remember that the PPT-CDG market is rather small - its unlikely that daily nonstop services could be supported and the flight would probably not operate more than 2 or 3 times per week. As pointed out, Air Tahiti Nui studied the situation and considered acquiring one A345 for the route, but for the reasons pointed out above, plus high costs in maintaining only one A345, they decided to pass on the A345 and continue to run the PPT-CDG flights via LAX where there is probably more money to be made in total.

There is a good amount of premium traffic between PPT and CDG (lots of govenment officials and the like), but the LAX stopover is not a major issue - the flights and times are rather effecient (its similiar to the LAX-SYD route were stopping over in SIN is not a big deal).
 
VS045
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:33 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:51 am

Air Tahiti Nui are considering the purchase of some A345s, but they need airbus to increase the maximum take-off weight. The 772LR is not really a viable alternative, as it would be affected by ETOPS, and in the pacific thats not a good thing!

Cheers,
VS045
4 engines 4 long haul
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 4:57 am

Air Tahiti Nui are considering the purchase of some A345s, but they need airbus to increase the maximum take-off weight.

You're a lil' behind the times... they've already turned down the specs of the increased MTOW A345.




The 772LR is not really a viable alternative, as it would be affected by ETOPS, and in the pacific thats not a good thing!

The effect of ETOPS on PPT-CDG would be nigh-negligible at best.

(BTW, if you're relying on the G.C.M. to make this call, don't fool yourself. It doesn't really apply here).
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
VS045
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:33 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:14 am

But how can you fly a twin to PPT? The nearest adequate length runway is HNL or something, which would be like flying from LAX to Juneau in Alaska on one engine!

Cheers,
VS045
4 engines 4 long haul
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:29 am

...I'm curious; did you ever actually bother to PLOT the course??


If you did, you'd It's almost directly within ETOPS180 for an aircraft with the 777's capabilities-- though a slightly more northernbound route that the G.C. would be required, that'd probably happen regardless of aircraft flown on a nonstop anyways.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7061
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:01 am

Concorde - When Air Tahiti Nui was started, they would not have been granted ETOPS 180 approval. With no twinjet experience, would they get the approval today??

I'm off to PPT in April... wont be looking for runway alternates though!
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:33 am

With no twinjet experience, would they get the approval today??

You think that would really stop 'em?

...NW also had nigh-zilch ETOPS experience, but a little creativity on behalf of Boeing (particularly concerning some "interesting" flight techniques with the D10) and they picked up 180 certification very quickly.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Trolley Dolley
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2000 1:57 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:13 am

Concordeboy! The difference between NW and TN is that every single TN flight would fall under ETOPS rules. Twin engined wise, it's either ETOPS or don't fly. No ETOPS= No airline. They can only go with 3/4 engined aircraft. It's not A v B, as the same would apply to any twin-jet.


The challenge would be to build up experience. Long hauls with a small fleet build up the hours quickly, but not the number of flights. TN doesn't have the fleet size to get creative.


[Edited 2004-11-28 23:17:48]
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:31 am

The difference between NW and TN is that every single TN flight would fall under ETOPS rules. Twin engined wise, it's either ETOPS or don't fly.

...gee, really?  Yeah sure



They can only go with 3/4 engined aircraft.

Incorrect. Realistic maybe, but incorrect.





The challenge would be to build up experience. *** TN doesn't have the fleet size to get creative.

Therein would lie some difficulty, you're correct... but not necessarily an impediment.

HA & NW again are examples of airlines who were swiftly granted high ETOPS certification at/near service entry, without extensive [or in one case, practically any] use of the aircraft to which the specifications would apply.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Trolley Dolley
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2000 1:57 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:02 am

I'm confused, concordeboy. You say the assertion that they can only go with 3/4 engined aircraft is incorrect. Please may you ellaborate. How can the operate a twin on ETOPS routes without ETOPS certification?

This info was gathered from an interview with TN's CEO in Airways magazine. A logical view of the situation is that every route they fly would fall under ETOPS. (No flights could be operated under the 60 min diversion rule as PPT is too isolated.) If you can't get ETOPS, you can't get twins, you have to go with 3/4 engined aircraft.

The difference between HA, NW and TN is that the major US carriers have built up many years of operational experience. HA and NW probably have more flights operating in one day than TN has in a year. Sadly, TN's youth counts against it. It's a fantastic airline!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:10 am

How can the operate a twin on ETOPS routes without ETOPS certification?

Never asserted that one could.

Read what I wrote... it was written that way for a reason.





HA and NW probably have more flights operating in one day than TN has in a year.

Essentially none of which were opped under ETOPS specs....
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:21 am

HA piggy backed on DL's twin engine ETOPS policy and procedures in order to get its B767-300ER up an running.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Trolley Dolley
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2000 1:57 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:30 am

Yes, I read it. You say I was "incorrect" when I said they have no choice but to go with 3/4 engined aircraft.

This confuses me. Please ellaborate why this is an incorrect statement.

I'm not being facetious here. My understanding of how ETOPS is awarded is that you need to build up some form of operational experience, either with or without ETOPS flights, to be granted certification. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, please correct me. I'll be happy to learn.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy






 
ScandinA340
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:01 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:30 am

Don't the European authorities have tougher ETOPS-180 rules than the FAA in the US? Isn't the European rule that an twin a/c has to operate for 12 months without issues before it can be granted ETOPS-180? I had thought that Boeing's magic on the US Congress with the release of the 777 hadn't extended to Europe (and seeing as TN is a French airline, would fall under European jurisdiction)...

Cheers-
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:50 pm

My understanding of how ETOPS is awarded is that you need to build up some form of operational experience, either with or without ETOPS flights, to be granted certification

Yes.

Also, not just flight-wise... maintenance-wise, et al.





Isn't the European rule that an twin a/c has to operate for 12 months without issues before it can be granted ETOPS-180?

True, pretty much the same in the USA-- though there's ways around it.

E.G., much/most of NW's trial-before-cert. came from the rather ingenious tactic of altering a DC10 simulator to behave as if it were a twinjet.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:08 pm

>(its similiar to the LAX-SYD route were stopping over in SIN is not a big deal). <

Last I checked, that would be rather out of the way and inconvinient. Also, there is a very large market for the non-stops that currently ply the route. I am assuming you mean LHR-SYD.

As far as the whole ETOPS thing goes, if TN's fleet in being maintained by AF, an airline with a lot of ETOPS experiance, I am sure they could have found a way to get ETOPS. Again, they would likely need ETOPS clearence to fly A330s as well, so I am guessing it is not that.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7061
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:31 pm

Nobody has mentioned the political influence that France plays over French polynesia...

The French government paying the French polynesian government to buy american 777's is as likely as George Bush announcing that the next Air Force 1 will be an Embraer 170.


You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:36 pm

>Nobody has mentioned the political influence that France plays over French polynesia...
The French government paying the French polynesian government to buy american 777's is as likely as George Bush announcing that the next Air Force 1 will be an Embraer 170. <

I guess some people forget that the French government allowed the main French flag carrier, AF, to make the 744 and the 777 the flagship of their fleet, while reducing their A340 fleet. I honestly think that TN started with the A340 because they were able to get an A342 on a cheap lease rate and then decided to stick with the type because pilots were already trained and the fleet was mixed A342/A343 for a time.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7061
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: Why No Direct PPT-CDG?

Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:33 pm

N1120a - Air France is a commercial organization... Air Tahiti Nui is a state airline. The French state doesnt pay for the AF fleet.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!