Flights from the Falkland Islands are not allowed to enter Argentina or Brazil.

There is a flight once per week from the Falkland Islands to Santiago, Chile. It's not allowed to cross Argentine airspace, so it stops in Punta Arenas (sothernmost Chile). This flight is operated by LANChile. There is also a twice weekly flight from RAF Brize Norton (BZZ) and flies directly to the Islands with a stopover in Ascension Island for refueling and crew change. It's had problems with the Ascension Island airport, and has been stopping in western Africa lately.

There are also 60,000 people scheduled to make a short visit via cruise ship, making the Falklands one of the few places to have more people arrive by ship than airplane.

Anyone want to speculate on the future of access to the Falkland Islands? When will Argentina or Brazil allow access from the Falklands? Will the RAF ever stop the Air Bridge between the UK and the Falklands? Will Chile ever also deny Falkland travel?

I think it'll go with small steps at a time. First step will be that Argentina will allow foreign aircraft to/from the Falklands to cross their airspace. That would already be a good step forward.

You've said that aircraft to/from the Falklands are not allowed to land in Argentina and Brazil. What about Uruguay? Can they use Montevideo as a stop? If not yet, I can see that coming in the future too.

Where does the cruise ship comes from?
60.000 visitors sounds like an awful lot so it will be quite a regular service.

P1aneMad wrote:

Where does the cruise ship comes from?
60.000 visitors sounds like an awful lot so it will be quite a regular service.

There are several cruise lines that move a ship or two into South America and do recurring 14 night sailings round the Cape between Valaparaiso and Buenos Aires via The Falklands.

Norwegian Cruise Line, Celebrity, Holland America Line and Princess will bring the largest numbers in plus irregular calls from other ships.

http://www.cruisetimetables.com/cruises ... lands.html



Mark

Crabgrass Airways will continue the airbridge as long as there's a large garrison on the islands, but the chances of catching a flight out of Brize aren't that great; although I seem to remember a trip report being posted some time ago, by someone who did just that.

Can't see Argentina relaxing the restrictions any time soon and neither can i see Chile stop the current flights as the relationship between the UK and Chile has always been generally pretty good. The airbridge will stay for now unless the government could get a civilian operator to do it? Could a 787 8 make the Falklands non stop?

Would London-St Helena-Falklands be viable? Say on a 737-700ER or an A319LR?

GlenP wrote:

Crabgrass Airways will continue the airbridge as long as there's a large garrison on the islands, but the chances of catching a flight out of Brize aren't that great; although I seem to remember a trip report being posted some time ago, by someone who did just that.

Companies can pay for passengers to use this service. My previous company had done this for a crew change in the Falklands.

Usually its for ship crews and those working on oil and gas installations around the islands

raylee67 wrote:

Would London-St Helena-Falklands be viable? Say on a 737-700ER or an A319LR?

Not until they sort St Helena airport problems first.

Actually Argentina does not, in principle, prohibit flights to the islands to cross their continental airspace. In fact the weekly flight to Punta Arenas stops in Río Gallegos once a month and even when it doesn't, it crosses the airspace of continental Argentina. These flights are operated by LATAM Airlines (Chile) but within the framework of a specific agreement between Argentina and the UK that dates back to 1999 and which in turn is rooted in the fact that the sovereignty over the Falkland or Malvinas Islands is disputed (a dispute between Argentina and the UK that has been recognised as such by the UN and many other international institutions, both before and after the 1982 armed conflict).

While the 1999 agreement between Argentina and the UK does contemplate the possibility of introducing additional flights to the Islands, Argentina has been insisting that some of these flights should also allowed to be operated by Argentine carriers (i.e. not exclusively, but in addition to foreign carriers), something the UK has refused to accept. Although the possibility of Argentine-operated flights had actually been contemplated in 1999 when the agreement was signed, the UK later argued that the island's population -which is not a part of the agreement- was unwilling to accept such flights. In other words, the islands could have additional commercial flights tomorrow if the UK only accepted that some of these flights be operated by Argentine carriers. So in a way it is not entirely Argentina's fault that there are no additional commercial flights to the islands, but in any case the matter should be seen within the context of the existence of a much broader sovereignty dispute that is far from being resolved.

Since practically all South American states support Argentina's position in the sovereignty dispute and most of them (especially Brazil) are openly against the British military presence in the maritime areas of South America, there has also been a policy of refusing any support to it, which led to British military vessels and planes generally not being able to use Brazilian ports or airports on their way to or back from the Malvinas or Falklands, including the RAF flights to Brize Norton.

TheGeordielad wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

Would London-St Helena-Falklands be viable? Say on a 737-700ER or an A319LR?

Not until they sort St Helena airport problems first.

What would be the diversion airport? Must be at the limit of range as is.

Aeropostale wrote:

Actually Argentina does not, in principle, prohibit flights to the islands to cross their continental airspace. In fact the weekly flight to Punta Arenas stops in Río Gallegos once a month and even when it doesn't, it crosses the airspace of continental Argentina. These flights are operated by LATAM Airlines (Chile) but within the framework of a specific agreement between Argentina and the UK that dates back to 1999 and which in turn is rooted in the fact that the sovereignty over the Falkland or Malvinas Islands is disputed (a dispute between Argentina and the UK that has been recognised as such by the UN and many other international institutions, both before and after the 1982 armed conflict).

While the 1999 agreement between Argentina and the UK does contemplate the possibility of introducing additional flights to the Islands, Argentina has been insisting that some of these flights should also allowed to be operated by Argentine carriers (i.e. not exclusively, but in addition to foreign carriers), something the UK has refused to accept. Although the possibility of Argentine-operated flights had actually been contemplated in 1999 when the agreement was signed, the UK later argued that the island's population -which is not a part of the agreement- was unwilling to accept such flights. In other words, the islands could have additional commercial flights tomorrow if the UK only accepted that some of these flights be operated by Argentine carriers. So in a way it is not entirely Argentina's fault that there are no additional commercial flights to the islands, but in any case the matter should be seen within the context of the existence of a much broader sovereignty dispute that is far from being resolved.

Since practically all South American states support Argentina's position in the sovereignty dispute and most of them (especially Brazil) are openly against the British military presence in the maritime areas of South America, there has also been a policy of refusing any support to it, which led to British military vessels and planes generally not being able to use Brazilian ports or airports on their way to or back from the Malvinas or Falklands, including the RAF flights to Brize Norton.

Could be a possible future route for Norwegian as they have a UK and Argetinian AOC?

I think the 787, 350 and 321ER in a distant future will be the answer!

Thank you for starting this thread, it is very interesting. I didn't know that the RAF had a reserve fleet of tankers operated by a civilian airline (AirTanker T2). You can buy tickets on them as well!

I suspect the air bridge will continue for the foreseeable future.

At the moment flights from the UK are going via Dakar, Senegal due to an extremely poor runway at Wideawake Airfield, Ascension. Indeed I'm expecting to use the service in January, but I suspect Ascension will be back in use by that time.

So there are options via Africa etc.

Aeropostale wrote:

Actually Argentina does not, in principle, prohibit flights to the islands to cross their continental airspace. In fact the weekly flight to Punta Arenas stops in Río Gallegos once a month and even when it doesn't, it crosses the airspace of continental Argentina.

What you wrote confuses me. If planes from the Falklands can cross Argentine airspace, why does the LATAM flight to Santiago go thousands of miles out of it's way?

Aeropostale wrote:

Since practically all South American states support Argentina's position in the sovereignty dispute and most of them (especially Brazil) are openly against the British military presence in the maritime areas of South America, there has also been a policy of refusing any support to it, which led to British military vessels and planes generally not being able to use Brazilian ports or airports on their way to or back from the Malvinas or Falklands, including the RAF flights to Brize Norton.

There is such a policy. And apparently, Brazil has been cheating! I have no idea why, unless they have some hope of buying old British aircraft carriers.

The RAF made 18 flights between the disputed Falkland Islands and airports in Brazil over the past two years, Argentina's government has said, calling them a breach of agreements between the two South American countries. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/02/british-raf-flights-brazil-falklands-anger-argentina/

Jerry123 wrote:

Can't see Argentina relaxing the restrictions any time soon and neither can i see Chile stop the current flights as the relationship between the UK and Chile has always been generally pretty good. The airbridge will stay for now unless the government could get a civilian operator to do it? Could a 787 8 make the Falklands non stop?

It's 7,800 miles, and mostly north-south so it's not fighting the winds the whole way.

A 777-200ER has a range of 9,395 miles.
An A3450-500has a range of 9,000 miles.
An A380 has a range of 8,500 miles.
An 787-9 has a range of 8,500 miles.
A 747-8 has a range of 8,000 miles.

The RAF operates none of these though.

Aeropostale wrote:

Actually Argentina does not, in principle, prohibit flights to the islands to cross their continental airspace. In fact the weekly flight to Punta Arenas stops in Río Gallegos once a month and even when it doesn't, it crosses the airspace of continental Argentina. These flights are operated by LATAM Airlines (Chile) but within the framework of a specific agreement between Argentina and the UK that dates back to 1999 and which in turn is rooted in the fact that the sovereignty over the Falkland or Malvinas Islands is disputed (a dispute between Argentina and the UK that has been recognised as such by the UN and many other international institutions, both before and after the 1982 armed conflict).

While the 1999 agreement between Argentina and the UK does contemplate the possibility of introducing additional flights to the Islands, Argentina has been insisting that some of these flights should also allowed to be operated by Argentine carriers (i.e. not exclusively, but in addition to foreign carriers), something the UK has refused to accept. Although the possibility of Argentine-operated flights had actually been contemplated in 1999 when the agreement was signed, the UK later argued that the island's population -which is not a part of the agreement- was unwilling to accept such flights. In other words, the islands could have additional commercial flights tomorrow if the UK only accepted that some of these flights be operated by Argentine carriers. So in a way it is not entirely Argentina's fault that there are no additional commercial flights to the islands, but in any case the matter should be seen within the context of the existence of a much broader sovereignty dispute that is far from being resolved.

Since practically all South American states support Argentina's position in the sovereignty dispute and most of them (especially Brazil) are openly against the British military presence in the maritime areas of South America, there has also been a policy of refusing any support to it, which led to British military vessels and planes generally not being able to use Brazilian ports or airports on their way to or back from the Malvinas or Falklands, including the RAF flights to Brize Norton.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify some misconceptions about these flights.

kitplane01 wrote:

Aeropostale wrote:

Actually Argentina does not, in principle, prohibit flights to the islands to cross their continental airspace. In fact the weekly flight to Punta Arenas stops in Río Gallegos once a month and even when it doesn't, it crosses the airspace of continental Argentina.

What you wrote confuses me. If planes from the Falklands can cross Argentine airspace, why does the LATAM flight to Santiago go thousands of miles out of it's way?

Because the flight calls at Punta Arenas (and once a month, in Rio Gallegos) before arriving at Mt Pleasant. There are no non stop flights from SCL to the Islands. There is not enough traffic to fill an A320 from SCL to the islands.

kitplane01 wrote:

Flights from the Falkland Islands are not allowed to enter Argentina or Brazil.
There are also 60,000 people scheduled to make a short visit via cruise ship, making the Falklands one of the few places to have more people arrive by ship than airplane.

Access to the islands via cruise ship is also not reliable. Stanley does not have a facilty/dock that can handle ships of such size, so the boats drop anchor a few miles off the coast and passengers are transported to Stanley by barge. Trouble is, the horrible weather that is more common than not in that part of the world and that makes the transfer from the ship to the islands subject to weather. If the forecast is not good, ships will ultimately drop the stop at the islands.

On top of that, Stanley lacks rooms capacity to lodge any serious amount of tourism. Interestingly enough, the Argentine arm of Windham Hotels/Howard Johnson has a proposal to build a Days Inn Hotel in Stanley.

http://en.mercopress.com/2017/04/28/fal ... in-stanley

Aeropostale wrote:

While the 1999 agreement between Argentina and the UK does contemplate the possibility of introducing additional flights to the Islands, Argentina has been insisting that some of these flights should also allowed to be operated by Argentine carriers (i.e. not exclusively, but in addition to foreign carriers), something the UK has refused to accept. Although the possibility of Argentine-operated flights had actually been contemplated in 1999 when the agreement was signed, the UK later argued that the island's population -which is not a part of the agreement- was unwilling to accept such flights. In other words, the islands could have additional commercial flights tomorrow if the UK only accepted that some of these flights be operated by Argentine carriers. So in a way it is not entirely Argentina's fault that there are no additional commercial flights to the islands, but in any case the matter should be seen within the context of the existence of a much broader sovereignty dispute that is far from being resolved.

Well if the U.K. (or rather said the islands inhabitants) would relax their apprehension to allow - most likely AR - to fly BUE (EZE or AEP) - MPN, the islands will be link to the Americas in no time.
However, seems the islanders priority isn't flying to MIA or NYC (doubt BUE, SAO and RIO are on their top desired destinations) but to LON.
Not sure if BA could be interested in a commercial LGW-VCP-MPN given they keep crews in SAO for its LHR-GRU.

Jerry123 wrote:

Could be a possible future route for Norwegian as they have a UK and Argetinian AOC?

Given Norwegian is coming up with all sorts of interesting routes lately, I would not rule it out.

But until clear heads prevail on both sides of this conflict, the Argentinian AOC would do Norwegian no good. The islanders simply will not allow any airline from Argentina to serve the islands, be it Norwegian or Aerolineas, LATAM Argentina, Austral, etc. Heck, they could have more flights in a matter of weeks and their transportation blues solved if they would allow flights from Buenos Aires. But they have the right to make that call. It's their home after all.

There is an agreement that the UK and Argentina signed last September (an MOU) that calls for additional flights via a third country such as Brazil or Uruguay, but calling at Argentina, but nothing has moved forward yet and the islanders are not happy about it, especially now that the UK MoD shuttle flights can no longer stop at Ascencion Island and have to stop at some West Africa airport.

http://en.mercopress.com/2017/04/27/fal ... ond-flight

And all this happens at a time when the Argentina-UK relationship is at its best point since the conflict, which is certainly good news. La Nacion has an interesting piece today about the state of affairs regarding the conflict. Quite a change from the previous governments is to have this one (Macri's) speak so candidly about it.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2019192-el-g ... nto-muerto

dcajet wrote:

Jerry123 wrote:

Could be a possible future route for Norwegian as they have a UK and Argetinian AOC?

Given Norwegian is coming up with all sorts of interesting routes lately, I would not rule it out.

But until clear heads prevail on both sides of this conflict, the Argentinian AOC would do Norwegian no good. The islanders simply will not allow any airline from Argentina to serve the islands, be it Norwegian or Aerolineas, LATAM Argentina, Austral, etc. Heck, they could have more flights in a matter of weeks and their transportation blues solved if they would allow flights from Buenos Aires. But they have the right to make that call. It's their home after all.

There is an agreement that the UK and Argentina signed last September (an MOU) that calls for additional flights via a third country such as Brazil or Uruguay, but calling at Argentina, but nothing has moved forward yet and the islanders are not happy about it, especially now that the UK MoD shuttle flights can no longer stop at Ascencion Island and have to stop at some West Africa airport.

http://en.mercopress.com/2017/04/27/fal ... ond-flight

And all this happens at a time when the Argentina-UK relationship is at its best point since the conflict, which is certainly good news. La Nacion has an interesting piece today about the state of affairs regarding the conflict. Quite a change from the previous governments is to have this one (Macri's) speak so candidly about it.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2019192-el-g ... nto-muerto

A future compromise could be Norwegian fly the route on their UK AOC but use Argentina based aircraft. Whether they would except that is another question entirely!

Virgin Atlantic can finally do what they were supposed to do from their inception. SRB intended them to connect GB with the Falklands after the war.

kitplane01 wrote:

Flights from the Falkland Islands are not allowed to enter Argentina or Brazil.

There is a flight once per week from the Falkland Islands to Santiago, Chile. It's not allowed to cross Argentine airspace, so it stops in Punta Arenas (sothernmost Chile). This flight is operated by LANChile. There is also a twice weekly flight from RAF Brize Norton (BZZ) and flies directly to the Islands with a stopover in Ascension Island for refueling and crew change. It's had problems with the Ascension Island airport, and has been stopping in western Africa lately.

There are also 60,000 people scheduled to make a short visit via cruise ship, making the Falklands one of the few places to have more people arrive by ship than airplane.

Anyone want to speculate on the future of access to the Falkland Islands? When will Argentina or Brazil allow access from the Falklands? Will the RAF ever stop the Air Bridge between the UK and the Falklands? Will Chile ever also deny Falkland travel?

How does the ban of Falkland flights to/from Argentina work?
As far as I can find the Falkland Islands do not have their own airspace (FIR) and they are actually located in the Comodoro Rivadavia (SAVF) FIR... Meaning that any flight operating in/out of the Islands crosses Argentine airspace.

Cheers

Reminds me a lot of the situation in Gibraltar. Albeit much closer to the UK but still disputed airspace between Spain and the UK.

PHBVF wrote:

How does the ban of Falkland flights to/from Argentina work?
As far as I can find the Falkland Islands do not have their own airspace (FIR) and they are actually located in the Comodoro Rivadavia (SAVF) FIR... Meaning that any flight operating in/out of the Islands crosses Argentine airspace.

Cheers

I can't speak to air traffic control in particular, but generally speaking, there is no ban on Falkland trips to/from Argentina. GA flights and pleasure sail boats trips from Argentina are not unheard of, provided the proper permits are obtained. Now, allowing an Argentinian airline to be one of the few life lines the islanders have to the outside world has so far proven to be too much; memories from the conflict are still fresh on some minds.

It is an incredible complex (and emotional) situation and one that will take generations to fix on both sides. Argentinians needs to recognize that the islanders have been there in some cases longer than most of them and their ancestors have been in Argentina and have a right to a say in the future of their homeland. The islanders need to let go of the conflict and realize that their neighbors are not monsters to be avoided at all cost. Because at some point in time the UK's willingness to fund its presence (military) in the Falklands at all costs will come into question and the present status quo will need to be re imagined. And ignoring your next door neighbor is not sound long term policy. Unless they want to keep living like today, that when the LATAM flight from Punta Arenas gets canceled, there went the fresh produce until the next flight or until the next ship from Montevideo gets there.

What is the reason for a monthly stop in Rio Gallegos?

RAF flights stop frequently in Brazilian airports on the way to/from the Falklands, since many years. I recall seeing a L1011 at GRU as early as the early 90's. Other frequent visited airports are REC, GIG and POA. Flights are/were operated by Tristars, Hercules, VC10s and even the new A330s already paid visits recently.

As far as I can find the Falkland Islands do not have their own airspace (FIR) and they are actually located in the Comodoro Rivadavia (SAVF) FIR... Meaning that any flight operating in/out of the Islands crosses Argentine airspace.

While it seems right, this conclusion is not true. Argentinian airspace extends a limited distance (lets say 200Nm) from the coast, into the sea. Anything beyond that, is International Airspace. The airspace is controlled, on an ATC sense, by an Argentinian control centre, but it does not mean it is Argentinian sovereign airspace. Likewise, Atlantico FIR, the adjoining FIR, extends almost to the mid-Atlantic and Ascension Island is located inside its borders.

Cheers,

AVFCdownunder wrote:

What is the reason for a monthly stop in Rio Gallegos?

An agreement between Argentina and the UK dating back to the 1990s.

It allows Argentinian citizens travel to the islands, especially relatives of the Argentine servicemen who wish to visit the place where their loved ones rest. There are still 123 unknown soldiers buried at Darwin Cemetery and after years of negotiations between Argentina and the UK, for the very first time their remains will be id'd by the Red Cross. 95 Argentinian families have given their consent to do so.

http://en.mercopress.com/2017/04/29/fal ... in-19-june

s.p.a.s. wrote:

RAF flights stop frequently in Brazilian airports on the way to/from the Falklands, since many years. I recall seeing a L1011 at GRU as early as the early 90's. Other frequent visited airports are REC, GIG and POA. Flights are/were operated by Tristars, Hercules, VC10s and even the new A330s already paid visits recently.

Cheers,

Indeed that has been the case for years with the knowledge of all parties involved.

But late last year, the Buenos Aires daily, Clarin, did an expose on these "irregular stops" by RAF planes at Brazilian airports which led to formal diplomatic note of protest that landed at Itamaraty, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry. The result being that Brazil has put an end to such stops... for the time being. This is mid term election year in Argentina, and while the Macri administration has mended the UK-Argentina relationship back to its highest point since the 1982 conflict, it can't afford to be seen as weak with these "irregular stops" unless they are for humanitarian reasons. Also Brazil can ill afford to say no - Macri has been one of the few regional leaders to support President Temer with a patina of legitimacy following his rather unorthodox rise to power. Next year things may revert back to business as usual!

dcajet wrote:

AVFCdownunder wrote:

What is the reason for a monthly stop in Rio Gallegos?

An agreement between Argentina and the UK dating back to the 1990s.

It allows Argentinian citizens travel to the islands, especially relatives of the Argentine servicemen who wish to visit the place where their loved ones rest. There are still 123 unknown soldiers buried at Darwin Cemetery and after years of negotiations between Argentina and the UK, for the very first time their remains will be id'd by the Red Cross. 95 Argentinian families have given their consent to do so.

http://en.mercopress.com/2017/04/29/fal ... in-19-june

Interesting, thank you.

kitplane01 wrote:

It's 7,800 miles, and mostly north-south so it's not fighting the winds the whole way.

A 777-200ER has a range of 9,395 miles.
An A3450-500has a range of 9,000 miles.
An A380 has a range of 8,500 miles.
An 787-9 has a range of 8,500 miles.
A 747-8 has a range of 8,000 miles.

The RAF operates none of these though.

Doesnt the RAF have some A330's? These should be able to do the job. Or perhaps RAF can charter a BA 777 for a quasi-scheduled service.

Are there runway limitations?

BawliBooch wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

It's 7,800 miles, and mostly north-south so it's not fighting the winds the whole way.

A 777-200ER has a range of 9,395 miles.
An A3450-500has a range of 9,000 miles.
An A380 has a range of 8,500 miles.
An 787-9 has a range of 8,500 miles.
A 747-8 has a range of 8,000 miles.

The RAF operates none of these though.

Doesnt the RAF have some A330's? These should be able to do the job. Or perhaps RAF can charter a BA 777 for a quasi-scheduled service.

Are there runway limitations?

An A330 does not have the range.

One can (with enough money) charter anything. But a normal 777-300ER does not have the range, and is probably too big.

kitplane01 wrote:

Aeropostale wrote:

Actually Argentina does not, in principle, prohibit flights to the islands to cross their continental airspace. In fact the weekly flight to Punta Arenas stops in Río Gallegos once a month and even when it doesn't, it crosses the airspace of continental Argentina.

What you wrote confuses me. If planes from the Falklands can cross Argentine airspace, why does the LATAM flight to Santiago go thousands of miles out of it's way?

To further elaborate what dcajet already mentioned, there is a very important Chilean community living and working on the Islands, amounting to approximately 25 per cent of the latter's population. This community and the business they work in has strong ties to the Magallanes region of Chile, which is why there is a much bigger demand for flights to Punta Arenas than there is for Santiago where the flight continues on to. I'm not sure how it is right now but for some time the flight even made an additional stop in Puerto Montt on its way to Santiago. It should also be noted that even when flying to or from Punta Arenas, the flight always crosses Argentina's continental airspace.

Jerry123 wrote:

A future compromise could be Norwegian fly the route on their UK AOC but use Argentina based aircraft. Whether they would except that is another question entirely!

Back in 1999, when former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London and was going to be extradited to Spain, the Chilean government "suggested" LAN Chile to stop the flights to Mount Pleasant they were operating back then. As those flights were not profitable anyway, LAN Chile followed that "suggestion". Shortly afterwards Chile also established a policy that flights to the islands by Chilean carriers were only to be operated on the basis of an agreement between Argentina and the UK.

But before that agreement was concluded in July 1999, there was actually a proposal by British Airways to extend one of their existing flights to Buenos Aires to Mount Pleasant. The islanders would have had a weekly direct one-stop flight to London on their national carrier. The proposal was not turned down by Argentina -which wanted a direct flight from the islands to its mainland even if it wasn't at first operated by an Argentine airline- but by the islanders, who refused to stop at any point in continental Argentina on their way to/from the islands. It should be noted that for the same reason the 1999 agreement was also heavily criticised by the islander's and that the British negotiators had some explaining to do afterwards.

The islander's reluctance to travel through Argentina or to see any Argentine-registered or operated plane land in Mount Pleasant would probably also make it very difficult even today for an airline like Norwegian to land on the islands. It's mostly a matter of to which degree the UK government wants to consult the islanders before taking any steps in negotiations with Argentina.

kitplane01 wrote:

An A330 does not have the range.

One can (with enough money) charter anything. But a normal 777-300ER does not have the range, and is probably too big.

The A330MRTT has more than enough range. The trip is only some 12.700 km. Depending on how you load the plane (I doubt that they carry much payload anyway), it can manage up to 17.000 km.
Even if you had to take a greater payload, you could always do a fuel-stop in Cabo Verde or the Canary Islands.

kitplane01 wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

It's 7,800 miles, and mostly north-south so it's not fighting the winds the whole way.

A 777-200ER has a range of 9,395 miles.
An A3450-500has a range of 9,000 miles.
An A380 has a range of 8,500 miles.
An 787-9 has a range of 8,500 miles.
A 747-8 has a range of 8,000 miles.

The RAF operates none of these though.

Doesnt the RAF have some A330's? These should be able to do the job. Or perhaps RAF can charter a BA 777 for a quasi-scheduled service.

Are there runway limitations?

An A330 does not have the range.

One can (with enough money) charter anything. But a normal 777-300ER does not have the range, and is probably too big.

These flights to the Falklands are surely costing the UK taxpayer a pretty penny as they are right now. Chartering civilian planes, or using their A330 Tankers from Brize Norton nonstop to Mt Pleasant would cost a fortune (ULH flights are extremely expensive to operate by their own nature), way beyond what the MoD could stomach. Beyond servicing the transportation of personnel and cargo needs from the Mt Pleasant base, the civilian needs can't possibly warrant twice weekly flights from the UK.

That is why a second civilian flight via the continent would be ideal for the islanders. However, I don't see LATAM jumping in with a second flight (I am sure the existing one can't precisely be called a goldmine) nor can I see Brazilian carriers such as Gol, Azul or Avianca jumping in to offer a flight via Argentina. They have enough troubles at home and they have exponentially larger businesses in Argentina to mind, if push came to shove. So that leaves pretty much AR as the only airline with incentives besides financial ones that would be willing to step in. But they are not wanted at the islands, so back to square one we are.