Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:21 am

Why are Tarom intending to fly to Chicago ? Would have thought announcing an intention to fly to Atlanta would be a safer bet commercially
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:26 am

davidjohnson6 wrote:
Why are Tarom flying to Chicago ? Would have thought Atlanta would be a safer bet commercially...


RO flew to Chicago back in the 90's on alternate days with JFK using the A310. It would be interesting to see them try something different, but airlines the world over often file true-and-tested markets over potentially more lucrative ones. At least they'll know how much they'll lose.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10708
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:51 am

I don’t know why anyone would think ATL is more lucrative than NYC or Chicago. Both those areas have far larger Romanian populations and are still well suited for connections to other areas in the US with a Romanian concentration.

Don’t get me wrong though, Tarom is going to lose money where ever they fly to in the US. This is all about vanity.
 
TLG
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Fri Feb 21, 2020 3:23 pm

Blerg wrote:
Tarom does not fly to Chicago, they just announced their intention to do so, like they did a few times in the past.


I flew Tarom ORD-TSR and OTP-ORD (with a brief stop in AMS) back in 1997. I believe it was operated by an A300. The routing of the outbound flight was unknown until we arrived at ORD for the flight. I had seen online that it:

1. Stops at AMS
2. Stops at TSR (which turned out to be correct)
3. Is nonstop to OTP

Since TSR was actually closer to our final destination in Romania than OTP, I requested at check in to be able to get off there. They said I could, and checked our bags to TSR. I knew enough to clarify that it would not cancel the return. They assured me that it would not affect the return. When we arrived in TSR, we got off. Someone was checking boarding passes as we entered the terminal building, and noticed that ours said OTP (I'm not sure why, but they did). He said that we were to continue on to OTP. However, the luggage tags were TSR, and I spoke to him in Romanian and told him that I indeed wanted to be here. He didn't have any trouble letting us go after I spoke in Romanian. I guess he figured out that an American speaking Romanian (albeit somewhat broken and very accented) wouldn't be on his first trip to Romania!

The return was also strange. We did not have any issues because of ending the outbound travel at TSR. We didn't know that we had a stop in AMS on the return until check in at OTP. In AMS, we got off the plane but we were held in the gate area. We asked to leave the gate area but they didn't let us. We are Americans, so we can enter the country without visas, but they still didn't let us.

Overall, it was an OK experience, if a little under informed.
 
Flanker7
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:09 pm

TLG wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Tarom does not fly to Chicago, they just announced their intention to do so, like they did a few times in the past.


I flew Tarom ORD-TSR and OTP-ORD (with a brief stop in AMS) back in 1997. I believe it was operated by an A300. The routing of the outbound flight was unknown until we arrived at ORD for the flight. I had seen online that it:

1. Stops at AMS
2. Stops at TSR (which turned out to be correct)
3. Is nonstop to OTP

Since TSR was actually closer to our final destination in Romania than OTP, I requested at check in to be able to get off there. They said I could, and checked our bags to TSR. I knew enough to clarify that it would not cancel the return. They assured me that it would not affect the return. When we arrived in TSR, we got off. Someone was checking boarding passes as we entered the terminal building, and noticed that ours said OTP (I'm not sure why, but they did). He said that we were to continue on to OTP. However, the luggage tags were TSR, and I spoke to him in Romanian and told him that I indeed wanted to be here. He didn't have any trouble letting us go after I spoke in Romanian. I guess he figured out that an American speaking Romanian (albeit somewhat broken and very accented) wouldn't be on his first trip to Romania!

The return was also strange. We did not have any issues because of ending the outbound travel at TSR. We didn't know that we had a stop in AMS on the return until check in at OTP. In AMS, we got off the plane but we were held in the gate area. We asked to leave the gate area but they didn't let us. We are Americans, so we can enter the country without visas, but they still didn't let us.

Overall, it was an OK experience, if a little under informed.

The used the A 310 on that route.
Flying blue only if possible
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:21 pm

Polot wrote:
I don’t know why anyone would think ATL is more lucrative than NYC or Chicago. Both those areas have far larger Romanian populations and are still well suited for connections to other areas in the US with a Romanian concentration.

Don’t get me wrong though, Tarom is going to lose money where ever they fly to in the US. This is all about vanity.


If Tarom fly to Atlanta, they get network feed of pax across all over N.America from Delta via their megahub by virtue of both being in Skyteam. If Tarom fly to Chicago, there is little or no network feed. Those pax who want to fly between (for example) Dallas and Bucharest suddenly have a very good reason to choose Tarom for the transatlantic flight
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10708
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:36 pm

davidjohnson6 wrote:
Polot wrote:
I don’t know why anyone would think ATL is more lucrative than NYC or Chicago. Both those areas have far larger Romanian populations and are still well suited for connections to other areas in the US with a Romanian concentration.

Don’t get me wrong though, Tarom is going to lose money where ever they fly to in the US. This is all about vanity.


If Tarom fly to Atlanta, they get network feed of pax across all over N.America from Delta via their megahub by virtue of both being in Skyteam. If Tarom fly to Chicago, there is little or no network feed. Those pax who want to fly between (for example) Dallas and Bucharest suddenly have a very good reason to choose Tarom for the transatlantic flight

The biggest markets for Tarom are NYC and the Midwest. ATL is not a good connection for those markets.
 
Rossiya747
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:56 am

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:04 pm

My only wish is to have these fares not to be insane, like Lufthansa's or Air Serbia's.
223 319 320 321 332 333 346 388 734 737 738 739 38M 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 77W 788 789 208 CRJ2 E145 E190 UA DL AA WN AC CM 4O AV 2K FI DY D8 SK LH EI FR U2 IB OS LX BA VS BT PS MS SA SW QR EY HY AI 9W TG SQ MH AK D7 QZ BR NH CA QF MI LV/IB VY AL
 
jerseyewr777
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:06 am

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:12 am

I believe Tarom late last year applied for JFK, EWR & ORD & were approved.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sat Feb 22, 2020 4:06 am

ewt340 wrote:
They might want to wait for A321XLR for couple more years.

...what good would that do them?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26252
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sat Feb 22, 2020 4:19 am

Polot wrote:
davidjohnson6 wrote:
Polot wrote:
I don’t know why anyone would think ATL is more lucrative than NYC or Chicago. Both those areas have far larger Romanian populations and are still well suited for connections to other areas in the US with a Romanian concentration.

Don’t get me wrong though, Tarom is going to lose money where ever they fly to in the US. This is all about vanity.


If Tarom fly to Atlanta, they get network feed of pax across all over N.America from Delta via their megahub by virtue of both being in Skyteam. If Tarom fly to Chicago, there is little or no network feed. Those pax who want to fly between (for example) Dallas and Bucharest suddenly have a very good reason to choose Tarom for the transatlantic flight

The biggest markets for Tarom are NYC and the Midwest. ATL is not a good connection for those markets.


Largest local markets from Bucharest to the States are NYC, Miami, LA, SF and DC. None are in the Midwest.
a.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10708
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:28 pm

MAH4546 wrote:
Polot wrote:
davidjohnson6 wrote:

If Tarom fly to Atlanta, they get network feed of pax across all over N.America from Delta via their megahub by virtue of both being in Skyteam. If Tarom fly to Chicago, there is little or no network feed. Those pax who want to fly between (for example) Dallas and Bucharest suddenly have a very good reason to choose Tarom for the transatlantic flight

The biggest markets for Tarom are NYC and the Midwest. ATL is not a good connection for those markets.


Largest local markets from Bucharest to the States are NYC, Miami, LA, SF and DC. None are in the Midwest.

Ok, even then Miami would be the only destination in which ATL is a good connecting point. Delta also serves all those destinations from their JFK hub, for those thinking that Skyteam connections are what is going to make this work.
 
artflyer
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:08 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:11 pm

Tarom is now waiting for a EC decision on approval of state aid granted to Tarom this year by the Romanian government, so I don't think there is any posibility of them starting any new routes, and in particular any longhaul routes. State aid means they will be subject to remedies to prevent distortion of competition and this means shrinking and not expanding.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:47 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
They might want to wait for A321XLR for couple more years.

...what good would that do them?


Profitability for the routes to the US and their overall survival?
They also have commonality with A318 they operate.
 
User avatar
CarbonFibre
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:02 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:55 am

Could someone do a B788 rendering in the new livery.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:15 am

MalevTU134 wrote:
Blerg wrote:
If RO launches these flights, who stands to lose the most? OS? TK? LH? LO?

RO


LOL Agreed.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:20 am

TLG wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Tarom does not fly to Chicago, they just announced their intention to do so, like they did a few times in the past.


I flew Tarom ORD-TSR and OTP-ORD (with a brief stop in AMS) back in 1997. I believe it was operated by an A300. The routing of the outbound flight was unknown until we arrived at ORD for the flight. I had seen online that it:

1. Stops at AMS
2. Stops at TSR (which turned out to be correct)
3. Is nonstop to OTP

Since TSR was actually closer to our final destination in Romania than OTP, I requested at check in to be able to get off there. They said I could, and checked our bags to TSR. I knew enough to clarify that it would not cancel the return. They assured me that it would not affect the return. When we arrived in TSR, we got off. Someone was checking boarding passes as we entered the terminal building, and noticed that ours said OTP (I'm not sure why, but they did). He said that we were to continue on to OTP. However, the luggage tags were TSR, and I spoke to him in Romanian and told him that I indeed wanted to be here. He didn't have any trouble letting us go after I spoke in Romanian. I guess he figured out that an American speaking Romanian (albeit somewhat broken and very accented) wouldn't be on his first trip to Romania!

The return was also strange. We did not have any issues because of ending the outbound travel at TSR. We didn't know that we had a stop in AMS on the return until check in at OTP. In AMS, we got off the plane but we were held in the gate area. We asked to leave the gate area but they didn't let us. We are Americans, so we can enter the country without visas, but they still didn't let us.

Overall, it was an OK experience, if a little under informed.


I had a similar experience in 1997. I flew with TAROM to Bangkok via Budapest. I saw that the flight from Bucharest to Dubai was an A300 that made a stop somewhere but I couldn't find out where the stop was. I called the airline and they said there was no stop. But when I got on the plane, I saw that Business Class was full of Arabs and at after about 4 hours we started descending to land in what turned out to be Dubai, during which we were all bussed to the terminal and had to wait about half an hour before being bussed back to the plane.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:14 pm

ewt340 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
They might want to wait for A321XLR for couple more years.

...what good would that do them?

Profitability for the routes to the US and their overall survival?
They also have commonality with A318 they operate.

....you're missing what I'm trying to tell you.

Review the range of that aircraft, vis-a-vis the still air distance westbound OTP-JFK.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
airboss787
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:39 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:04 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
...what good would that do them?

Profitability for the routes to the US and their overall survival?
They also have commonality with A318 they operate.

....you're missing what I'm trying to tell you.

Review the range of that aircraft, vis-a-vis the still air distance westbound OTP-JFK.


A321XLR range is 4700nm. OTP-JFK is 4132nm. What's the issue?

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=OTP-JFK&MS=wls&DU=nm
Star Alliance Gold
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:10 pm

I'd be a little dubious about sending an A321XLR from OTP to JFK in late November when the wind at FL350 is blowing at 150+ knots in the other direction - diverting to Bangor in Maine won't be cheap
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:53 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
...what good would that do them?

Profitability for the routes to the US and their overall survival?
They also have commonality with A318 they operate.

....you're missing what I'm trying to tell you.

Review the range of that aircraft, vis-a-vis the still air distance westbound OTP-JFK.


I still don't get it. I did stated that they needed A321XLR. Not A321LR.

Chicago is a bit on the edge in terms of the range. But I'm pretty sure NYC would be their main target. Montreal and Toronto are also on the range. They flew to these 4 destinations back in the day.
Surely the distance to NYC at 4130,66 nmi would be doable as long as they kept their density light enough. It's not like they have high cargo demand between Bucharest and NYC.

They could fly to Beijing and Bangkok again using A321XLR.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:55 pm

airboss787 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Profitability for the routes to the US and their overall survival?
They also have commonality with A318 they operate.

....you're missing what I'm trying to tell you.

Review the range of that aircraft, vis-a-vis the still air distance westbound OTP-JFK.

A321XLR range is 4700nm. OTP-JFK is 4132nm. What's the issue?

The words "still air" and "westbound" were included for a REASON...........




ewt340 wrote:
I still don't get it. I did stated that they needed A321XLR. Not A321LR.

I know what you stated. See response immediately above.

A plane with 4700nm advertised range doesn't mean you're going to be able to fly it 4700nm (spare us the 789 on PER-LHR comparisons, as that's an entirely different issue)... especially on westbounds, especially in winter. Keep in mind that distance isn't just the issue, you've got to fight the winds, you've got to have sufficient fuel for missed approach, and diversion and hold. You then have to land with regulatory minima still in the tank.

If you want a very crude way to guesstimate that for this type of op: knock about 10% off the advertised range for westbound flights, and 15% in winter.
Then plot those flights. Changes the picture a bit, doesn't it?

Doesn't help that OTP is not a premium-heavy destination; as the aircraft would likely be in a denser configuration that advertised, making it heavier and requiring more hold space.
The fixed tank likely wouldn't be an issue, but the optional tank for max range might present difficulties there. I'll admit that this effect would be far less pronounced in a narrowbody than wide, though.

So in summary: this isn't to say that it's impossible; while ORD westbound on that aircraft is a non-starter, the A321XLR could probably limp its way into JFK for most of year.
But if you'll recall, my original question was: "what good does that do them?"
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:22 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
airboss787 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
....you're missing what I'm trying to tell you.

Review the range of that aircraft, vis-a-vis the still air distance westbound OTP-JFK.

A321XLR range is 4700nm. OTP-JFK is 4132nm. What's the issue?

The words "still air" and "westbound" were included for a REASON...........




ewt340 wrote:
I still don't get it. I did stated that they needed A321XLR. Not A321LR.

I know what you stated. See response immediately above.

A plane with 4700nm advertised range doesn't mean you're going to be able to fly it 4700nm (spare us the 789 on PER-LHR comparisons, as that's an entirely different issue)... especially on westbounds, especially in winter. Keep in mind that distance isn't just the issue, you've got to fight the winds, you've got to have sufficient fuel for missed approach, and diversion and hold. You then have to land with regulatory minima still in the tank.

If you want a very crude way to guesstimate that for this type of op: knock about 10% off the advertised range for westbound flights, and 15% in winter.
Then plot those flights. Changes the picture a bit, doesn't it?

Doesn't help that OTP is not a premium-heavy destination; as the aircraft would likely be in a denser configuration that advertised, making it heavier and requiring more hold space.
The fixed tank likely wouldn't be an issue, but the optional tank for max range might present difficulties there. I'll admit that this effect would be far less pronounced in a narrowbody than wide, though.

So in summary: this isn't to say that it's impossible; while ORD westbound on that aircraft is a non-starter, the A321XLR could probably limp its way into JFK for most of year.
But if you'll recall, my original question was: "what good does that do them?"


They're not gonna fit the aircraft with 200-240 seats into the cabin for such long flights. The seat counts would probably be closer to 180-200 seats. Maybe some recliner seats with decent pitch and 30"-31" pitch for economy and 35"-36" for extra legroom economy. And maybe if they are crazy enough, they put some 11-14 staggered business class seats into the cabin like many airlines did.
As stated before, JFK-OTP isn't a cargo heavy routes. So this would less likely be a problem for them.

With such factors, I don't think A321XLR would "limp its way" into JFK for most of the year. Chicago? yes, it's gonna be hard. But JFK? The likely are way better.

My answer for your original question would be: "Profitability for the routes to the US and their overall survival"

Also, if anybody think using A330-200/-800 or B787-8 would be a good idea for such long and thin routes. Then I don't know what to say anymore....
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:43 pm

ewt340 wrote:
I don't think A321XLR would "limp its way" into JFK for most of the year.
ewt340 wrote:
Chicago? yes, it's gonna be hard. But JFK? The likely are way better.

*sigh* I don't really know how to explain it to you any more clearly that you're conflating advertised range, with functionally usable range, farrrrr too much in this assessment.

Best I can do is leave you with the question of:
"why do you think CO/UA's TXL-EWR flight had to make so many fuel stops, when it's 500nm under their 752's advertised range, with that aircraft in lite config" ?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Blerg
Posts: 4159
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Mon Feb 24, 2020 3:53 am

Given that there was no update on this I guess it's safe to assume RO has given up on plans to fly to North America. This makes absolute sense for so many different reasons. Even JU which has a much wider network and more government support is struggling to make money to JFK in winter.
 
TLG
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:17 pm

Flanker7 wrote:
The used the A 310 on that route.


Yes, thank you. It was the A310. I knew that too, my mistake.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:07 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
I don't think A321XLR would "limp its way" into JFK for most of the year.
ewt340 wrote:
Chicago? yes, it's gonna be hard. But JFK? The likely are way better.

*sigh* I don't really know how to explain it to you any more clearly that you're conflating advertised range, with functionally usable range, farrrrr too much in this assessment.

Best I can do is leave you with the question of:
"why do you think CO/UA's TXL-EWR flight had to make so many fuel stops, when it's 500nm under their 752's advertised range, with that aircraft in lite config" ?


Cause it's B757-200. Distance between TXL-EWR is 3,453nmi. B757-200 range is 3,915nmi.
OTP-JFK is 4,124nmi. A321XLR range is 4,700nmi.

LHR-PER is 7,818nmi. B787-9 range is 7,635 nmi.

I don't really know how to explain it to you. That range that manufacturers tend to use to indicate that they could carry certain number of passengers and their bags + some other products to service the flights like meals and such.

It is more than possible to use such range. The main thing that gonna make the range reduces soo much is paying cargo and really really strong headwind.
 
yulexpansion
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:08 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:53 am

ewt340 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
I don't think A321XLR would "limp its way" into JFK for most of the year.
ewt340 wrote:
Chicago? yes, it's gonna be hard. But JFK? The likely are way better.

*sigh* I don't really know how to explain it to you any more clearly that you're conflating advertised range, with functionally usable range, farrrrr too much in this assessment.

Best I can do is leave you with the question of:
"why do you think CO/UA's TXL-EWR flight had to make so many fuel stops, when it's 500nm under their 752's advertised range, with that aircraft in lite config" ?


Cause it's B757-200. Distance between TXL-EWR is 3,453nmi. B757-200 range is 3,915nmi.
OTP-JFK is 4,124nmi. A321XLR range is 4,700nmi.

LHR-PER is 7,818nmi. B787-9 range is 7,635 nmi.

I don't really know how to explain it to you. That range that manufacturers tend to use to indicate that they could carry certain number of passengers and their bags + some other products to service the flights like meals and such.

It is more than possible to use such range. The main thing that gonna make the range reduces soo much is paying cargo and really really strong headwind.



Having looked at in-depth range charts and analyses of the XLR, odds are that the plane will be able to make it throughout the year. However, this would be with a significant payload restriction westbound in winter, most likely rendering any TATL operation out of OTP unprofitable.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:55 am

ewt340 wrote:
I don't really know how to explain it to you.

Probably because you barely understand what you're talking about. ;)

Payload range is not linear, hence the caveat (re: PER-LHR) in Reply#72.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
FedexL1011
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:33 am

ewt340 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
I don't think A321XLR would "limp its way" into JFK for most of the year.
ewt340 wrote:
Chicago? yes, it's gonna be hard. But JFK? The likely are way better.

*sigh* I don't really know how to explain it to you any more clearly that you're conflating advertised range, with functionally usable range, farrrrr too much in this assessment.

Best I can do is leave you with the question of:
"why do you think CO/UA's TXL-EWR flight had to make so many fuel stops, when it's 500nm under their 752's advertised range, with that aircraft in lite config" ?


Cause it's B757-200. Distance between TXL-EWR is 3,453nmi. B757-200 range is 3,915nmi.
OTP-JFK is 4,124nmi. A321XLR range is 4,700nmi.

LHR-PER is 7,818nmi. B787-9 range is 7,635 nmi.

I don't really know how to explain it to you. That range that manufacturers tend to use to indicate that they could carry certain number of passengers and their bags + some other products to service the flights like meals and such.

It is more than possible to use such range. The main thing that gonna make the range reduces soo much is paying cargo and really really strong headwind.


That’s actually not a very reasonable explanation, just because it’s a 757-200 means it has to divert often? Headwinds play a very huge part in aircraft ability to perform. There was a lot of seemingly unending speculation of why DLs JNB-ATL has to divert to Miami because of head winds, the 77L has the legs enough to make the route work. So just because it was a 77L it had to divert right?
The 752s on the UA TXL-EWR are already less densely configured than their domestic counter parts, hence why LAX772LR was stating Lite configuration. Flying aircraft close to their advertised range is a huge gamble because if the winds act up you will see heavy payload optimization with bags and even possibly passengers being cut. All of the new technology and fuel efficiency in the world can not account for Mother Nature and the varying speed of winds. Look at earlier this month with the Jetstream making JFK-LHR flights less than 5 hours, for sure that would be impossible for an A321XLR heading westbound. And diversions are not cheap. Overall discussion about this is ultimately irrelevant as there has not been any movement on TAROM to the US, and as others have mentioned with them seeking government bailout they probably will not be taking, to be it nicely, a very ambitious risk.
712,722,732,733,735,737,738,739,744,752,753,763,764,772,319,320,321,21N,332,333,DH8,CRJ2,CRJ7,CRJ9,E175,E145,M88,M90
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:47 am

FedexL1011 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
*sigh* I don't really know how to explain it to you any more clearly that you're conflating advertised range, with functionally usable range, farrrrr too much in this assessment.

Best I can do is leave you with the question of:
"why do you think CO/UA's TXL-EWR flight had to make so many fuel stops, when it's 500nm under their 752's advertised range, with that aircraft in lite config" ?


Cause it's B757-200. Distance between TXL-EWR is 3,453nmi. B757-200 range is 3,915nmi.
OTP-JFK is 4,124nmi. A321XLR range is 4,700nmi.

LHR-PER is 7,818nmi. B787-9 range is 7,635 nmi.

I don't really know how to explain it to you. That range that manufacturers tend to use to indicate that they could carry certain number of passengers and their bags + some other products to service the flights like meals and such.

It is more than possible to use such range. The main thing that gonna make the range reduces soo much is paying cargo and really really strong headwind.


That’s actually not a very reasonable explanation, just because it’s a 757-200 means it has to divert often? Headwinds play a very huge part in aircraft ability to perform. There was a lot of seemingly unending speculation of why DLs JNB-ATL has to divert to Miami because of head winds, the 77L has the legs enough to make the route work. So just because it was a 77L it had to divert right?
The 752s on the UA TXL-EWR are already less densely configured than their domestic counter parts, hence why LAX772LR was stating Lite configuration. Flying aircraft close to their advertised range is a huge gamble because if the winds act up you will see heavy payload optimization with bags and even possibly passengers being cut. All of the new technology and fuel efficiency in the world can not account for Mother Nature and the varying speed of winds. Look at earlier this month with the Jetstream making JFK-LHR flights less than 5 hours, for sure that would be impossible for an A321XLR heading westbound. And diversions are not cheap. Overall discussion about this is ultimately irrelevant as there has not been any movement on TAROM to the US, and as others have mentioned with them seeking government bailout they probably will not be taking, to be it nicely, a very ambitious risk.


I don't think anybody is arguing about the problems the routes could faced or the fact that they had to limit the amount of passengers into the cabin and the paying cargo. As I stated before, the chance for the profitability for the routes would be better when they served the flights using smaller aircraft with lightly-dense configurations. Let's say 180 seats at most in 2 classes.

This would be way more logical compared to using B787-8 or A330-800 which they would have hard time to fill and they need to lower ticket costs which would impacted their overall profit after all.
I think taking a slight hit on fuel efficiency for lightly-dense configurations would be better compared to unable to fill half of their cabin with widebody aircraft. These 2 aircraft could carry up to 280-300 passengers in 2 class configurations because TAROM is not a premium heavy airlines. They would fit how much? 18 business old class seats and then tons of economy class seats into the cabin. While it would be good for fuel efficiency. I doubt they would be able to fill ll these seats unless they heavily discounted the ticket prices.

Obviously the limitations for the range and possibility for diversion would be necessary, but that's just the risk they need to make to make this project work. Presumably diversion to smaller airport like Shannon would be more affordable compared to Dublin.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:47 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
I don't really know how to explain it to you.

Probably because you barely understand what you're talking about. ;)

Payload range is not linear, hence the caveat (re: PER-LHR) in Reply#72.


No Sh*t. Hence why they need to lower the seat count and have no paying cargo for these routes.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Tarom seeks US service resumption in 2020; lease widebody

Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:50 am

yulexpansion wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
*sigh* I don't really know how to explain it to you any more clearly that you're conflating advertised range, with functionally usable range, farrrrr too much in this assessment.

Best I can do is leave you with the question of:
"why do you think CO/UA's TXL-EWR flight had to make so many fuel stops, when it's 500nm under their 752's advertised range, with that aircraft in lite config" ?


Cause it's B757-200. Distance between TXL-EWR is 3,453nmi. B757-200 range is 3,915nmi.
OTP-JFK is 4,124nmi. A321XLR range is 4,700nmi.

LHR-PER is 7,818nmi. B787-9 range is 7,635 nmi.

I don't really know how to explain it to you. That range that manufacturers tend to use to indicate that they could carry certain number of passengers and their bags + some other products to service the flights like meals and such.

It is more than possible to use such range. The main thing that gonna make the range reduces soo much is paying cargo and really really strong headwind.



Having looked at in-depth range charts and analyses of the XLR, odds are that the plane will be able to make it throughout the year. However, this would be with a significant payload restriction westbound in winter, most likely rendering any TATL operation out of OTP unprofitable.


Well unless they couldn't fill more than 60%-70% of the cabin. I don't think it would be that unprofitable. The unprofitability would probably came from lack of ticket sales rather than payload restrictions. That would be a bigger probability.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos