I was reading that the proposed 777-8LX range was 10,905 miles which is just 18 miles short of the range required to operate GRU-PEK. Assuming one of the Chinese carriers ordered the 777X and decided to operate to South America, this is the shortest route. Would the 777-8LX have the range to make it?

sonicruiser wrote:

I was reading that the proposed 777-8LX range was 10,905 miles which is just 18 miles short of the range required to operate GRU-PEK. Assuming one of the Chinese carriers ordered the 777X and decided to operate to South America, this is the shortest route. Would the 777-8LX have the range to make it?

Only going off what you said, like most aircraft under development, I would assume that 1) actual, average range will be less than promised range, even under the best conditions, and 2) many factors will "decrease" the range, from payload to winds to alternates. Also, I would guess that 3) such a route would likely require an all premium cabin like SQ uses on their NY route, and Chinese carriers might or might not want to configure 2-3 aircraft with such a cabin just for one, unproven route (although there might be other uses for such a configuration).

Pretty sure it would be shorter to fly to eng. Peru instead and it would also be shorter to fly from e.g. airports in Xinjiang instead.

I could see SIN-GRU before I see anyone trying PEK-GRU.

For sure it wouldn't make it.

Also, keep in mind that range is not a fixed distance. There are many things that influence the range of an aircraft, like payload and wind. Certainly on the return flight Sao Paulo to Beijing you're going against the jet stream which always burns more fuel than going with it.

And then of course, Sao Paulo is on the wrong side of South America. The side that is the furthest from China. Therefor it would seem likely that they'd try destinations at the other side of South America first before they enter Sao Paulo. Panama, Quito, Lima, etc. Maybe from there they'd tag on an additional leg to Sao Paulo.

The real challenge would be GRU-HND.

Maybe PEK-GRU is too far, but in light of increasing business and political ties between China and South America, this is an interesting question.

How much of Central/South America could be covered non-stop from PEK or Daxing with the future "Project Sunrise" aircraft (whatever it will be)?

c933103 wrote:

it would also be shorter to fly from e.g. airports in Xinjiang instead.

Yes, but keep in mind that in any case direct China-South America flights are a bit on the extreme side and will be very expensive. Currently, there is only one market in China capable of sustaining such flights: PEK. Even Shanghai probably does not have enough high yielding demand to make something like this possible.

workhorse wrote:

c933103 wrote:

it would also be shorter to fly from e.g. airports in Xinjiang instead.

Yes, but keep in mind that in any case direct China-South America flights are a bit on the extreme side and will be very expensive. Currently, there is only one market in China capable of sustaining such flights: PEK. Even Shanghai probably does not have enough high yielding demand to make something like this possible.

I thought yield at Shanghai would be better than Beijing?

c933103 wrote:

I thought yield at Shanghai would be better than Beijing?

Nope. It is a close second, and maybe on some destinations can get as good as PEK, but overall PEK is the place where most of the money (and power) is.

The best chance for a non-stop between China and GRU or anywhere in S.America will be from Urumqui (URC).

airbazar wrote:

The best chance for a non-stop between China and GRU or anywhere in S.America will be from Urumqui (URC).

Can you imagine officials from Beijing ministries and CEO of large state companies fly through URC?

No, direct China-South America flights will be from ZBAA/ZBAD or will not be.

URC, on the other hand, would make a great hub for Europe-China traffic (a little bit like XIY is today, only better), but that's for another thread.

Wow, this is a route 304nm (still air) further than SYD-LHR (project sunrise). So in effect, 45 minutes or so more flight time.


I'm sorry, I just do not see enough premium traffic to drive such a route. A private 778 or even A359LR (in a very light configuration) could do so.
But without high end traffic, you have one stop with EK, or the EU3 being excellent options. Or, Stop in the USA. Normally I am a HUGE fan of P2P, but this is a bridge too far. You need both stops being high premium (e.g., SIN-JFK/LHR, SYD-LHR) or a trapped market (PER-LHR) to make ULH work. ULH only works when the extra 3 hours is worth thousands of dollars to each of dozens of passengers. Right now, that is not the GRU economy.

workhorse wrote:

Can you imagine officials from Beijing ministries and CEO of large state companies fly through URC?

I would imagine those people have access to a gulfstream or Global Express to cut the flight time. Why deal with everything standard passengers need to? It has been pointed out for TATL a private jet makes the trip faster than a return of the concorde due to all the hassles of getting through the big airports (if they can be avoided).

Lightsaber

If a Chinese airline really opens a route to GRU or anywhere else at SA, I'd imagine they'd use a fifth freedom route via Africa. PRC have made a lot of investments in various African nations and have significant traffic between them. They can easily use their influence to get fifth freedom rights and operate a 789/A359 without making too much loss that is unbearable. Obviously these kind of routes are politically motivated and will be subsided, but operating via Africa seems to kill two birds in one stone.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

For sure it wouldn't make it.

Also, keep in mind that range is not a fixed distance. There are many things that influence the range of an aircraft, like payload and wind. Certainly on the return flight Sao Paulo to Beijing you're going against the jet stream which always burns more fuel than going with it.

And then of course, Sao Paulo is on the wrong side of South America. The side that is the furthest from China. Therefor it would seem likely that they'd try destinations at the other side of South America first before they enter Sao Paulo. Panama, Quito, Lima, etc. Maybe from there they'd tag on an additional leg to Sao Paulo.

Your comment about the winds is incorrect. PEK-GRU is close to half way around the world (PEK-SCL is even closer, almost exactly around the world), which means that the aircraft can fly eastbound both ways and have roughly the same ground distance. From PEK, it could fly through the pacific jetstream over Hawaii and into California, then head south to GRU. From GRU, it would have the jet stream almost the entire way over the Atlantic, into Northern Africa, the Middle East, and into China. Take a look at this Global Jet Stream Map to see what I'm talking about.

Depending on how strong the winds are, the jet stream would effectively shave off thousands of miles of required range in both directions. It would still be a close call but I think this would make it more feasible than a lot of people here are giving credit.

sabby wrote:

If a Chinese airline really opens a route to GRU or anywhere else at SA, I'd imagine they'd use a fifth freedom route via Africa.

Air China already flies to GRU from PEK via MAD, couple of times/week with the 789.

Any nonstop flight from China to any # of cities in South America would be up there with AKL-DOH or LHR-SYD competing for the longest flight title. As such it would need a higher % of premium traffic that the route/s can support. Of course, some Chinese airline could do it for prestige reasons. but I just don't see it.

As stated before:

LHR-PER = 7829 nautical miles
EWR-SIN = 8285 nautical miles

GRU-PEK = 9492 nautical miles

The direct route overflies much of Europe, adding in some cases, literally nothing except a transit time layover:



Is there a premium demand for those flying between the two locations for an 18+ hour-long flight that absolutely must bypass stopping? Given the distances, I would say no - and for that kind of range and demand, I'd suspect the first plane we'd see an Extreme Ultra-Long Haul flight would be LHR to SYD or AKL.

We all seem to agree that PEK-GRU is off limits.

So, technically, how far into Central/South America could a hypothetical Project Sunrise jet go from PEK (taking into account the winds, the air routes etc)? PTY? UIO? LIM?

Brazil is such an unstable market these past few years. As a profit-driven airline, it is really hard to predict a performance. For example US3 had a great time in Brazil in '16-'17 but '18 saw a huge dip and this cyclical trend is definitely not one to enhance service to Brazil. Sure, GRU will probably keep its slew of intercontinental flights, but as we recently saw with LA, they are exiting MIA & MCO.

ac33e wrote:

Brazil is such an unstable market these past few years. As a profit-driven airline, it is really hard to predict a performance. For example US3 had a great time in Brazil in '16-'17 but '18 saw a huge dip and this cyclical trend is definitely not one to enhance service to Brazil. Sure, GRU will probably keep its slew of intercontinental flights, but as we recently saw with LA, they are exiting MIA & MCO.

Not exactly: Brazil's econony was the pits in 2015-16, but then it stabilized and we are now seeing slow but steady growth once again. 2015 was when the US3 performed major surgery on their Brazilian destinations.

And LA cancelled the MIA & MCO routes out of GIG, not GRU. Delta did cancel the GRU-MCO route, but then GOL, related to DL, started the route from BSB with the MAX 8.

ac33e wrote:

Brazil is such an unstable market these past few years. As a profit-driven airline, it is really hard to predict a performance. For example US3 had a great time in Brazil in '16-'17 but '18 saw a huge dip and this cyclical trend is definitely not one to enhance service to Brazil. Sure, GRU will probably keep its slew of intercontinental flights, but as we recently saw with LA, they are exiting MIA & MCO.

Exiting MIA and MCO? What are you talking about?

Brazil is not an unstable market. You should really check how the market developed with the exception of Brazil-US. The economic crisis than began in 2014 was challenging, but nowhere was capacity cut as much to the US, so your anecdotal evidence cannot be carried over to other markets.

Since the 90s, every time the Brazil-US market overheated was because of the over-valuation of the Brazilian currency against the US Dollar. When airlines see that passengers are flying to MIA only to shop, they should really know that the development is not permanent.

People have such a distorted image of how the crisis is affecting the country, like it is the end of the world, a hunger-generating depression. I don't even think we are back to the capacity levels of 2008. Brazil-US did grow even if it lost, I would guess, 1/3 of capacity in comparison to peak bubble-levels.

G3 and AD have already been adding capacity back since last year, so I guess we will have to see if the US3 learn to react timely or do it like last time, when they came late to the party and thought they had to stay while the lights were already on and the party had long ended.

Please consider that profits are not the real incentive for this kind of service, it's a political thing. China Southern runs a tag from YYZ to serve MEX to CAN and they're doing only like 30 (in a 787!!!) passengers per flight on such long route and of course it's not profitable but who cares, the're even paying for interjet's slots at MEX.

C010T3 wrote:

ac33e wrote:

Brazil is such an unstable market these past few years. As a profit-driven airline, it is really hard to predict a performance. For example US3 had a great time in Brazil in '16-'17 but '18 saw a huge dip and this cyclical trend is definitely not one to enhance service to Brazil. Sure, GRU will probably keep its slew of intercontinental flights, but as we recently saw with LA, they are exiting MIA & MCO.

Exiting MIA and MCO? What are you talking about?

Brazil is not an unstable market. You should really check how the market developed with the exception of Brazil-US. The economic crisis than began in 2014 was challenging, but nowhere was capacity cut as much to the US, so your anecdotal evidence cannot be carried over to other markets.

Since the 90s, every time the Brazil-US market overheated was because of the over-valuation of the Brazilian currency against the US Dollar. When airlines see that passengers are flying to MIA only to shop, they should really know that the development is not permanent.

People have such a distorted image of how the crisis is affecting the country, like it is the end of the world, a hunger-generating depression. I don't even think we are back to the capacity levels of 2008. Brazil-US did grow even if it lost, I would guess, 1/3 of capacity in comparison to peak bubble-levels.

G3 and AD have already been adding capacity back since last year, so I guess we will have to see if the US3 learn to react timely or do it like last time, when they came late to the party and thought they had to stay while the lights were already on and the party had long ended.

I am talking about international flights out of Brazil to North America mainly. You can find fares on AC around 600-700 round trip from YYZ to GRU. This is definitely not a profitable fare and makes no sense. Secondary Brazil, yes even GIG, is seeing major reductions, that is MIA & MCO. GRU has to be maintained because of the critical mass.

workhorse wrote:

airbazar wrote:

The best chance for a non-stop between China and GRU or anywhere in S.America will be from Urumqui (URC).

Can you imagine officials from Beijing ministries and CEO of large state companies fly through URC?

No, direct China-South America flights will be from ZBAA/ZBAD or will not be.

It would still be a better choice for them especially if they wait to avoid western countries due to possible problems... They have uncountable amount of security force deployed in every corner of the city.

anoguez wrote:

Please consider that profits are not the real incentive for this kind of service, it's a political thing. China Southern runs a tag from YYZ to serve MEX to CAN and they're doing only like 30 (in a 787!!!) passengers per flight on such long route and of course it's not profitable but who cares, the're even paying for interjet's slots at MEX.

Get your facts right, it's YVR and they simply can't fly CAN-MEX direct with 787, no matter -8 or -9 and especially not westbound.

And they always have PEK-MEX with HU to take care of the political thing.

Michael

ac33e wrote:

I am talking about international flights out of Brazil to North America mainly. You can find fares on AC around 600-700 round trip from YYZ to GRU. This is definitely not a profitable fare and makes no sense. Secondary Brazil, yes even GIG, is seeing major reductions, that is MIA & MCO. GRU has to be maintained because of the critical mass.

How is the Brazil-North America market relevant in the discussion about the Brazil-China market? Even if we discuss secondary Brazilian airports, we have been only seeing additions in the last months with expansion to Florida at BSB, FOR, BEL and REC. You might be oblivious to it, because the expansion is being driven by G3 and AD.

C010T3 wrote:

ac33e wrote:

I am talking about international flights out of Brazil to North America mainly. You can find fares on AC around 600-700 round trip from YYZ to GRU. This is definitely not a profitable fare and makes no sense. Secondary Brazil, yes even GIG, is seeing major reductions, that is MIA & MCO. GRU has to be maintained because of the critical mass.

How is the Brazil-North America market relevant in the discussion about the Brazil-China market? Even if we discuss secondary Brazilian airports, we have been only seeing additions in the last months with expansion to Florida at BSB, FOR, BEL and REC. You might be oblivious to it, because the expansion is being driven by G3 and AD.

Because currently, Asia-Brazil traffic is currently being funnelled through North America, at least in most efficient ways. Furthermore, I don't think Azul and Gol are the reference to international networks into Brazil. Do you see AA, LA, any other large airlines doing anything great in Brazil? Because I don't. If anything, the 7 332s of Azul should prove how profitable international flying is vs. domestic.

ac33e wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

ac33e wrote:

I am talking about international flights out of Brazil to North America mainly. You can find fares on AC around 600-700 round trip from YYZ to GRU. This is definitely not a profitable fare and makes no sense. Secondary Brazil, yes even GIG, is seeing major reductions, that is MIA & MCO. GRU has to be maintained because of the critical mass.

How is the Brazil-North America market relevant in the discussion about the Brazil-China market? Even if we discuss secondary Brazilian airports, we have been only seeing additions in the last months with expansion to Florida at BSB, FOR, BEL and REC. You might be oblivious to it, because the expansion is being driven by G3 and AD.

Currently, Asia-Brazil traffic is currently being funnelled through North America, at least in most efficient ways. Furthermore, I don't think Azul and Gol are the reference to international networks into Brazil. Do you see AA, LA, any other large airlines doing anything great in Brazil? Because I don't. If anything, the 7 332s of Azul should prove how profitable international flying is vs. domestic.

workhorse wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I thought yield at Shanghai would be better than Beijing?

Nope. It is a close second, and maybe on some destinations can get as good as PEK, but overall PEK is the place where most of the money (and power) is.

From the US at least, PEK yields are absolute trash. No one is making money in or out of PEK. PVG performs better.

A stopover in Africa is totally possible. For example, there is no nonstop between Nairobi and South America, and if some Chinese carrier decide that they can go and extend th leg to GRU (NBO-GRU is within 5000nm), they can do it easily.

China Southern said in 2017 they'd would be flying to Brazil and Argentina in 5 years' time. It seems the route would be via JNB.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article ... expand-its

ac33e wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

ac33e wrote:

Because currently, Asia-Brazil traffic is currently being funnelled through North America, at least in most efficient ways. Furthermore, I don't think Azul and Gol are the reference to international networks into Brazil. Do you see AA, LA, any other large airlines doing anything great in Brazil? Because I don't. If anything, the 7 332s of Azul should prove how profitable international flying is vs. domestic.

Asia-Brazil traffic is disperse between gateways points in North America, Europe, Africa, not mention Asia itself.

What is this issue that you have with airlines without long traditions in intercontinental flying?

Azul has a small long-haul fleet, because the domestic market in Brazil dwarfs the international market. Its gateways of choice also don't allow them huge expansion, not to mention the fact that it is much newer actor in the market. LATAM Brazil (formerly TAM) was only able to grow its network to the current extend due to bankruptcy of VARIG.

C010T3 wrote:

ac33e wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

Asia-Brazil traffic is disperse between gateways points in North America, Europe, Africa, not mention Asia itself.

What is this issue that you have with airlines without long traditions in intercontinental flying?

Azul has a small long-haul fleet, because the domestic market in Brazil dwarfs the international market. Its gateways of choice also don't allow them huge expansion, not to mention the fact that it is much newer actor in the market. LATAM Brazil (formerly TAM) was only able to grow its network to the current extend due to bankruptcy of VARIG.

I have no issue with them, best of luck to them. I just wish to show the truth, which is there are low yields and no incentives to expand their widebody operations. Azul and Gol have chosen not to expand WB ops or not to start them at all because there is no money to be made in this market in Brazil!

workhorse wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I thought yield at Shanghai would be better than Beijing?

Nope. It is a close second, and maybe on some destinations can get as good as PEK, but overall PEK is the place where most of the money (and power) is.

Yeah, I'd like to see some statistical evidence behind the yield claim. Shanghai PLM has a higher GDP than Beijing PLM. Roughly 10m more people fly through Shanghai airports than Beijing ones annually. That's not to say Shanghai is necessarily higher-yielding, but it's not abundantly clear that PEK as the higher-yielding airport is categorically the case.

My instinct is the city with the stronger yield would largely vary based on destination (and relevant industries in SH/BJ that align with a given destination): e.g. capital-to-capital service will be higher yielding from PEK (PEK-IAD or PEK-TSE) while some industry routes would favor Shanghai (PVG-JFK, PVG-ZRH). Regionally, PEK may have a yield advantage as there are fewer low cost carriers active at the airport.

It would be great to see some evidence here.

Compare the number of business and first class seats on flights going out of PEK and PVG (on Chinese airlines only since we are talking about a hypothetical Chinese airline flight to Latin America).

Antarius wrote:

workhorse wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I thought yield at Shanghai would be better than Beijing?

Nope. It is a close second, and maybe on some destinations can get as good as PEK, but overall PEK is the place where most of the money (and power) is.

From the US at least, PEK yields are absolute trash. No one is making money in or out of PEK. PVG performs better.

Western airlines might have a better yield to PVG because Westerners tend to fly on their airlines and there's more foreign business presence in Shanghai.

workhorse wrote:

Compare the number of business and first class seats on flights going out of PEK and PVG (on Chinese airlines only since we are talking about a hypothetical Chinese airline flight to Latin America).

A) Foreign airline vs. Chinese airline wasn't originally stipulated B) No reason LATAM couldn't fly the route either, assuming there's appropriate aircraft, in which case foreign airlines are relevant C) the SHA/PVG split means of course there is more business and first class seats coming out of PEK than PVG, because there are more passengers going through PEK than PVG in the first place. Beijing, unsurprisingly, has more seats on Chinese carriers to, say, Europe, due to both geography and the fact that three long-haul Chinese carriers have hubs in the city. Even though PVG has only one long-haul carrier hub, Air China still has a considerable international network (~15 cities) from PVG in spite of having limited domestic presence, indicating that yields must be pretty healthy to keep this network running for essentially an O&D route.

I've yet to see any evidence that PEK is a higher yielding destination than PVG. There is circumstantial evidence that could indicate either PVG or PEK is higher yielding. The likely answer is: it depends on the route, but that a blanket statement PEK/PVG is higher yielding than PEK/PVG is unlikely to be accurate. This isn't MCO vs. JFK.

MCOGVADCA wrote:

A) Foreign airline vs. Chinese airline wasn't originally stipulated B) No reason LATAM couldn't fly the route either, assuming there's appropriate aircraft, in which case foreign airlines are relevant C) the SHA/PVG split means of course there is more business and first class seats coming out of PEK than PVG, because there are more passengers going through PEK than PVG in the first place. Beijing, unsurprisingly, has more seats on Chinese carriers to, say, Europe, due to both geography and the fact that three long-haul Chinese carriers have hubs in the city.

Well, I'd rather put it that way: three (and soon all four) major long haul Chinese carriers have a hub in Beijing BECAUSE it is the most lucrative market.

MCOGVADCA wrote:

Even though PVG has only one long-haul carrier hub, Air China still has a considerable international network (~15 cities) from PVG in spite of having limited domestic presence, indicating that yields must be pretty healthy to keep this network running for essentially an O&D route.

I totally agree that Shanghai is a very strong market.

MCOGVADCA wrote:

I've yet to see any evidence that PEK is a higher yielding destination than PVG. There is circumstantial evidence that could indicate either PVG or PEK is higher yielding. The likely answer is: it depends on the route, but that a blanket statement PEK/PVG is higher yielding than PEK/PVG is unlikely to be accurate. This isn't MCO vs. JFK.

Well, anyway, unless we have some hard data from revenue management departments of CA, MU, CZ and HU to play with, it's a question of belief. I'm willing to bet a dinner in a good restaurant near PEK, PVG or SHA that if a direct flight from China to Latin America sees the day, it will be from Beijing, at least in the beginning.

workhorse wrote:

MCOGVADCA wrote:

A) Foreign airline vs. Chinese airline wasn't originally stipulated B) No reason LATAM couldn't fly the route either, assuming there's appropriate aircraft, in which case foreign airlines are relevant C) the SHA/PVG split means of course there is more business and first class seats coming out of PEK than PVG, because there are more passengers going through PEK than PVG in the first place. Beijing, unsurprisingly, has more seats on Chinese carriers to, say, Europe, due to both geography and the fact that three long-haul Chinese carriers have hubs in the city. Even though PVG has only one long-haul carrier hub, Air China still has a considerable international network (~15 cities) from PVG in spite of having limited domestic presence, indicating that yields must be pretty healthy to keep this network running for essentially an O&D route.

I've yet to see any evidence that PEK is a higher yielding destination than PVG. There is circumstantial evidence that could indicate either PVG or PEK is higher yielding. The likely answer is: it depends on the route, but that a blanket statement PEK/PVG is higher yielding than PEK/PVG is unlikely to be accurate. This isn't MCO vs. JFK.

Well, I'd rather put it that way: three (and soon four) long haul Chinese carriers have a hub in Beijing BECAUSE it is the most lucrative market.

But anyway, unless we have some hard data to play with, it's a question of belief. I'm willing to bet a dinner in a good restaurant near PEK, PVG or SHA that if a direct flight from China to Latin America sees the day, it will be from Beijing, at least in the beginning.

I assume we mean South America, because Aeromexico already flies to PVG from Latin America and Hainan from PEK to MEX (and PVG was well before the Hainan flight). From South America? It would absolutely be Beijing, simply because Shanghai is too far. For example, Shanghai and Buenos Aires are the farthest two major cities in the world! That being said, there is considerable demand from South America. IIRC, one of the largest transfer markets on GRU-DXB is PVG. But, due to geographic constraints, nonstop to South America is never going to happen from PVG.

PVG is able to sustain long-haul operations with three Chinese carriers (although Hainan only has a few destinations from PVG) and soon a fourth (Juneyao), two of which without significant connectivity. PEK has just two carriers with longhaul operations (as CZ only flies to AMS nonstop longhaul). Other Chinese airlines don't have hubs at PVG not because Shanghai itself isn't lucrative, but because of the split airport situation and awful location of PVG.

sonicruiser wrote:

I was reading that the proposed 777-8LX range was 10,905 miles which is just 18 miles short of the range required to operate GRU-PEK. Assuming one of the Chinese carriers ordered the 777X and decided to operate to South America, this is the shortest route. Would the 777-8LX have the range to make it?

I don't think running out of fuel 18 miles before arrival would be considered acceptable, so no.

Also, GRU is located at 2500ft altitude, and with some hot summer days (and nights) a payload penalty is almost guaranteed.