pavlin
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:38 pm

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?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17114
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:24 am

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." - John Ringo
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:58 am

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
 
pavlin
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

RE: Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:07 am

tanks for replies

Your have very strong arguments. It is really better to go all the way if the airplane can handle it.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17114
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:08 am

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." - John Ringo
 
FlyingColours
Posts: 2202
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:13 am

RE: Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:48 am

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests