Vietnam Airlines announces that it has formally received FAA's AOC for commercial flights to the US. It sets to operate SGN-SFO twice a week using its mainstay B789 from next week.
It seems like VN will operate the route nonstop as it directly mentions the flying hours and not mention any kind of technical stops or load factors.
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/business/c ... 86594.html

National flag carrier Vietnam Airlines will operate its first regular direct flight to the U.S. on November 28, achieving a dream conceived nearly two decades ago.
The flight will depart from HCMC (SGN) in the evening and arrive at San Francisco (SFO) 13 hours and 50 minutes later, CEO Le Hong Ha said at a press briefing Tuesday.

The return flight will leave SFO on the evening of November 29 (CA time) and arrive in SGN on December 1, 16 hours and 40 minutes later.

The wide-body aircraft Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner will be used for the direct flights.

Initially, there will be two flights a week and this can be increased to seven when the pandemic situation is under control, Ha said.

Vietnam Airlines thus becomes the first Vietnamese carrier to operate regular flight route to the U.S.

http://spirit.vietnamairlines.com/vi/em ... 12305.html

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sgn-sfo

The flight numbers will be VN98/99. First flight Nov 28th.

How do you think about this development? In terms of potential, profitability and technical aspects.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think this will be a great way to flush money down a toilet.

"National mission"

I'm sure the volume is there for this to be a success - the question will be whether the yields are there. I think the chances that this will work are steadily increasing over time, given that a lot of manufacturing has moved to Vietnam from China over the past several years, and given the rising profile of Vietnam as a tourist destination.

Is it normal on ULH flights for the westbound to be almost 3 hours longer than the eastbound?

FSDan wrote:

.
Is it normal on ULH flights for the westbound to be almost 3 hours longer than the eastbound?

I guess that we will understand why if we have exact info on the wind conditions and the choice of paths.

IIRC VN’s 789s we’re bought at a lower MTOW rating. They had to have bumped some or all of the aircraft operate this, right?

New information (article in Viet): https://vnexpress.net/gia-ve-bay-thang- ... 86643.html

- The price will be ~$1000 per ticket.
- Due to technical limitation of the A359 and B789, VN has to decrease ~100 pax per flight. Means that it will only sell only 210-220 seats instead of 300. That's the load factor.
- No profit until the next 5 or 10 years. Means that it knows that it is burning money. Governmental supports were not mentioned.
- Inbound flights (to Vietnam) are still being influenced by the pandemic regulations.
- Aiming the Lunar New Year volume with the community of 2.2 mil overseas Viet.

ikolkyo wrote:

IIRC VN’s 789s we’re bought at a lower MTOW rating. They had to have bumped some or all of the aircraft operate this, right?

Or to operate the flights with only 200 seats.

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market? Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

MIflyer12 wrote:

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market? Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

Who's to say that LAX isn't coming eventually? VN always expressed its intent to serve LAX w/ the A350, I'd say it's only a matter of time.

MIflyer12 wrote:

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market? Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

There is still a significant Viet population in San Jose.
Besides that, the S.R. Vietnam Consulate is in San Francisco which may make SFO a little bit more sensical, as the service is still being considered as a national (political) mission than a simple commercial route.

hl8208 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market? Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

Who's to say that LAX isn't coming eventually? VN always expressed its intent to serve LAX w/ the A350, I'd say it's only a matter of time.

As VN plans up to 7 flights per week in the future, the "slots" can be divided for both LAX and SFO fairly based on the demand and market. There is always a space for LAX in VN's mission.

Antaras wrote:

There is still a significant Viet population in San Jose.
Besides that, the S.R. Vietnam Consulate is in San Francisco which may make SFO a little bit more sensical, as the service is still being considered as a national (political) mission than a simple commercial route.

That's an interesting angle - but it sounds as if you don't disagree that LAX is the larger market.

hl8208 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market? Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

Who's to say that LAX isn't coming eventually? VN always expressed its intent to serve LAX w/ the A350, I'd say it's only a matter of time.

If they're forecasting to lose money for 5-10 years, opening yet another California route would be pathological. We'll see how much they're willing to pay for national prestige.

Not trying to be cocky here but not sure what kind of debate we're supposed to have. They themselves say this route won't be profitable, how would it be with 1/3 of the seats blocked. Now obviously blocking 100 Y seats isn't the same as blocking 100 J and Y+ but still. VN has pre-ULR wing retwist A350s so its not surprising they don't have the legs for a 16h flight.

I wonder what their gameplan is now, order more A350s? Go for the -1000? I think its pretty clear that they were trying to beat Bamboo to the punch.
I will say though, it is surprising they launched it from SGN, usually HAN get dibs on political routes, it's almost like there is a tiny bit of business sense going into the planning.

Antaras wrote:

New information (article in Viet): https://vnexpress.net/gia-ve-bay-thang- ... 86643.html

- The price will be ~$1000 per ticket.
- Due to technical limitation of the A359 and B789, VN has to decrease ~100 pax per flight. Means that it will only sell only 210-220 seats instead of 300. That's the load factor.
- No profit until the next 5 or 10 years. Means that it knows that it is burning money. Governmental supports were not mentioned.
- Inbound flights (to Vietnam) are still being influenced by the pandemic regulations.
- Aiming the Lunar New Year volume with the community of 2.2 mil overseas Viet.

Does anyone know the MTOW of their A359 and B789?

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

There is still a significant Viet population in San Jose.
Besides that, the S.R. Vietnam Consulate is in San Francisco which may make SFO a little bit more sensical, as the service is still being considered as a national (political) mission than a simple commercial route.

That's an interesting angle - but it sounds as if you don't disagree that LAX is the larger market.

Well yes, objectively SoCal (LA + SD counties) has a significantly larger Vietnamese population than the Bay Area (I'd guestimate 30%+ larger.) Per OAG, LAX-SGN ranks among the top 5 underserved int'l routes in the world (SFO-SGN coming in at #36).

MIflyer12 wrote:

hl8208 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market? Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

Who's to say that LAX isn't coming eventually? VN always expressed its intent to serve LAX w/ the A350, I'd say it's only a matter of time.

If they're forecasting to lose money for 5-10 years, opening yet another California route would be pathological. We'll see how much they're willing to pay for national prestige.

Fair in a normal scenario, but moot point here when they're on record saying they're expecting to lose money on both LAX/SFO.

In the short term freight rates from Vietnam are at historic highs. A 747 is getting up to 2 Million USD for a flight. This may help in the near future.

Antaras wrote:

- Due to technical limitation of the A359 and B789, VN has to decrease ~100 pax per flight. Means that it will only sell only 210-220 seats instead

thats bad. why dont they buy some second hand A345/A346

Zaf wrote:

Antaras wrote:

- Due to technical limitation of the A359 and B789, VN has to decrease ~100 pax per flight. Means that it will only sell only 210-220 seats instead

thats bad. why dont they buy some second hand A345/A346

Being a loss-making carrier (due to the Covid) acquiring a brand new type of old quadjets.

Hmm can't be a worse choice.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

There is still a significant Viet population in San Jose.
Besides that, the S.R. Vietnam Consulate is in San Francisco which may make SFO a little bit more sensical, as the service is still being considered as a national (political) mission than a simple commercial route.

That's an interesting angle - but it sounds as if you don't disagree that LAX is the larger market.

LAX is bigger but SFO is also not a bad choice.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

VN has pre-ULR wing retwist A350s so its not surprising they don't have the legs for a 16h flight.

VN has two A359 airframes using the revised ULR wings (VN-A898 and 899), and even though upgrading those to ULR MTOW is technically possible, I doubt that it will help VN any in the payload and the overall performance.

travaz wrote:

In the short term freight rates from Vietnam are at historic highs. A 747 is getting up to 2 Million USD for a flight. This may help in the near future.

Bingo.

With minimal pax traffic and a belly full of cargo, this route should print money for the foreseeable future. I understand them being very cautious when talking about passenger revenues, but the market right now is shifted.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

I wonder what their gameplan is now, order more A350s? Go for the -1000?

It seems premature to order A35Ks now with COVID still around...while its effects could linger well after it's gone.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

I will say though, it is surprising they launched it from SGN, usually HAN get dibs on political routes, it's almost like there is a tiny bit of business sense going into the planning.

Apart from the distance (added fuel & crew time), I'm guessing most of the diaspora to the U.S. came from the former RoV -- thus a closer affinity with the South.

Zaf wrote:

thats bad. why dont they buy some second hand A345/A346

That's even worse - getting those gas guzzlers that everyone else is discarding.

Antaras wrote:

VN has two A359 airframes using the revised ULR wings (VN-A898 and 899), and even though upgrading those to ULR MTOW is technically possible, I doubt that it will help VN any in the payload and the overall performance.

Well, it's a lot better than investing precious on brand-new frames. I don't think VN needs the full ULR treatment (eyeing the East Coast over the Pole?) PR managed MNL-JFK nonstop just fine with a MTOW bump.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

There is still a significant Viet population in San Jose.
Besides that, the S.R. Vietnam Consulate is in San Francisco which may make SFO a little bit more sensical, as the service is still being considered as a national (political) mission than a simple commercial route.

That's an interesting angle - but it sounds as if you don't disagree that LAX is the larger market.

If you work the numbers, the populations are very similar between the Bay Area Vietnamese population and SoCals. But I don't know why this comes up every time a route like this is started. There is a lot more to it then this to making the decision

Antaras wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

There is still a significant Viet population in San Jose.
Besides that, the S.R. Vietnam Consulate is in San Francisco which may make SFO a little bit more sensical, as the service is still being considered as a national (political) mission than a simple commercial route.

That's an interesting angle - but it sounds as if you don't disagree that LAX is the larger market.

LAX is bigger but SFO is also not a bad choice.

Sure LAX has larger VFR traffic, but SFO also has plenty of VFR as well as better potential for higher yielding tech manufacturing traffic.

MIflyer12 wrote:

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market? Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

You're also assuming that only Vietnamese people would be flying only to Vietnam. The Bay Area has a very large Asian population, suffice to say any new airline options to southeast Asia would be appealing to many of them.

Cdydatzigs wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market? Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

You're also assuming that only Vietnamese people would be flying only to Vietnam. The Bay Area has a very large Asian population, suffice to say any new airline options to southeast Asia would be appealing to many of them.

Yes, as if VN will become the major player on USA-ASEAN direct routes.

SQ is always targeting the premium market and you can hardly find a Y seat on an SQ's Changi-California nonstop flight.
Thailand is busy with its CAT 2.
No real hope on GA and MH.
And we don't know if PR can compete with VN.

(and if we consider Northeast Asian carriers' connection, it turns into a different thing)

Why they didn't pick SJC instead? I believe the Vietnamese community is mostly in the South Bay, which will be much more convenient.

FSflyer899 wrote:

Why they didn't pick SJC instead? I believe the Vietnamese community is mostly in the South Bay, which will be much more convenient.

I bet that everyone wants to pick a bigger airport.

Antaras wrote:

Due to technical limitation of the A359 and B789, VN has to decrease ~100 pax per flight. Means that it will only sell only 210-220 seats instead of 300. That's the load factor.

Utterly ridiculous.

I realize that it's not you making that claim, but it's nonsensical nonetheless by whomever made it.

• First, VN's longhaul 789s only seat 274.
  
  
  So some "journalist" (who'd thus make a great candidate for Simple Flying editor) probably just did a quick Google search, saw that VN's regional 789s seat 311, and ran with that.
  
  Nobody's flying, or ever planned to fly, 300seat 789s over the Pacific. That's not a "technical limitation," that's just not what they were designed nor offered to do. That's like saying "due to technical limitations of the ERJ145, the airline will have to block 30 seats to fly BOS-SAN."
  
  
• Second, a 280tonne A359 on the other hand, could easily carry 300 passengers on that distance. DL will be flying far longer than that, with 306 pax on theirs, taking high elevation into account, and still doesn't expect to block anything of the sort.

ikolkyo wrote:

IIRC VN’s 789s we’re bought at a lower MTOW rating. They had to have bumped some or all of the aircraft operate this, right?

Easily done, with but a phone call and a cheque to Boeing.

MIflyer12 wrote:

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market?

Larger, yes, but not "by far." The SF Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles Basin are, when tabulated, fairly lose in terms of Foreign Born + 1st Generation Vietnamese-American population, with SoCal being marginally bigger.

But keep in mind that "bigger" doesn't necessarily equal "more lucrative," as SFO has always been the USA's focal point of Vietnamese commerce and (on the west coast) government.

The Bay, for example, has a Vietnamese consulate, whereas SoCal does not.
Also, more Vietnamese-owned businesses are based in Santa Clara country (SJC) than any other in the country.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

FSflyer899 wrote:

Why they didn't pick SJC instead?

I'd say that both of these questions have the same answer:

For now: DL can feed two of the four other largest Vietnamese commercial markets (LAX and JFK) into SFO, whereas an interline on UA can feed the the other two (IAH and IAD).

Is it still true that many Vietnamese immigrants (or their descendants now) will likely avoid VN given that it's owned by the communist government which the Vietnamese that immigrated here were escaping from in the first place? I remember hearing this when I went to Vietnam many years ago. I wonder who the target demographic is for VN. There are umpteen other one stop options to get to Vietnam from SoCal, bay area, DFW, IAH, NYC ...

FSflyer899 wrote:

Why they didn't pick SJC instead? I believe the Vietnamese community is mostly in the South Bay, which will be much more convenient.

1) There's actually quite a Vietnamese community in the North Bay, as well. 2) SJC doesn't have the connections that SFO does. 3) SJC doesn't have the services (premium lounges, etc.) that SFO does. 4) SJC doesn't have the groundside transit connections (no BART connection, only Caltrain) that SFO does.

9w748capt wrote:

Is it still true that many Vietnamese immigrants (or their descendants now) will likely avoid VN given that it's owned by the communist government which the Vietnamese that immigrated here were escaping from in the first place? I remember hearing this when I went to Vietnam many years ago. I wonder who the target demographic is for VN. There are umpteen other one stop options to get to Vietnam from SoCal, bay area, DFW, IAH, NYC ...

"still true," or "ever true"...? I'm gonna go with the latter.

How many people, foreign born or not, have any clue of the ownership structure of any given air carrier?

And before you start thinking "Well XYZ group is special, because of what they went through!"... keep in mind that history does NOT demonstrate that overall. For example: there's still Taiwanese and Mainlanders, who get CA vs CI screwed up, on a daily basis. So much so that the latter got parliamentary approval to change its name last year, despite decades of having it.

And don't even get me started on all of the "___ Asia/Asie" subsidiary ridiculousness.

About the only modern example you'll see of clear Ethnic governmental identification by the non AvGeek public, is with LY.

Anyone know if they’ll be using A or G concourse at SFO for these flights?

LAX772LR wrote:

Antaras wrote:

Due to technical limitation of the A359 and B789, VN has to decrease ~100 pax per flight. Means that it will only sell only 210-220 seats instead of 300. That's the load factor.

Utterly ridiculous.

I realize that it's not you making that claim, but it's nonsensical nonetheless by whomever made it.

• First, VN's longhaul 789s only seat 274.
  
  
  So some "journalist" (who'd thus make a great candidate for Simple Flying editor) probably just did a quick Google search, saw that VN's regional 789s seat 311, and ran with that.
  
  Nobody's flying, or ever planned to fly, 300seat 789s over the Pacific. That's not a "technical limitation," that's just not what they were designed nor offered to do. That's like saying "due to technical limitations of the ERJ145, the airline will have to block 30 seats to fly BOS-SAN."
• Second, a 280tonne A359 on the other hand, could easily carry 300 passengers on that distance. DL will be flying far longer than that, with 306 pax on theirs, taking high elevation into account, and still doesn't expect to block anything of the sort.

I assume that it is VN CEO's claim.
I threw this directly into Google Translate without any considerable edit:

The above information was shared by Mr. Le Hong Ha, CEO of Vietnam Airlines on the sidelines of the Forum "Promoting Vietnam - US trade" on the afternoon of November 16.

Mr. Ha said that the US is the most competitive market, with more than 20 airlines operating from Vietnam to this country through many stops, with different prices. Therefore, the airline's airfare needs to be highly competitive. This is a non-stop flight, so it will save time for passengers. In the short term, the company targets customers with higher-paying levels such as businessmen or repatriated relatives.

In addition, due to the long flight route, there is currently no aircraft in Vietnam that can fly to the US to exploit the full load (full number of seats, enough cargo) without having to stop refueling. So with the wide-body Boeing 787 or Airbus A350 that Vietnam Airlines is using, in order to fly non-stop to the US, the airline has to reduce nearly 100 passengers on each flight. Accordingly, each airline's flight to the US only carries a maximum of 210-220 passengers, instead of more than 300 according to the designated seat capacity.

https://vnexpress.net/gia-ve-bay-thang- ... 86643.html

I think that 300 is just a symbolic number for the jets' capacity

UALifer wrote:

Anyone know if they’ll be using A or G concourse at SFO for these flights?

VN has been operating repatriation flights to SFO recently, you may have a check at them

UALifer wrote:

Anyone know if they’ll be using A or G concourse at SFO for these flights?

Most likely will be A Concourse. Since VNA is a member of SkyTeam, they can share the lounges with DL, CI, KE, etc.

G gates are mostly Star Alliance Members Airlines

LAX772LR wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

Is it still true that many Vietnamese immigrants (or their descendants now) will likely avoid VN given that it's owned by the communist government which the Vietnamese that immigrated here were escaping from in the first place? I remember hearing this when I went to Vietnam many years ago. I wonder who the target demographic is for VN. There are umpteen other one stop options to get to Vietnam from SoCal, bay area, DFW, IAH, NYC ...

"still true," or "ever true"...? I'm gonna go with the latter.

How many people, foreign born or not, have any clue of the ownership structure of any given air carrier?

And before you start thinking "Well XYZ group is special, because of what they went through!"... keep in mind that history does NOT demonstrate that overall. For example: there's still Taiwanese and Mainlanders, who get CA vs CI screwed up, on a daily basis. So much so that the latter got parliamentary approval to change its name last year, despite decades of having it.

And don't even get me started on all of the "___ Asia/Asie" subsidiary ridiculousness.

About the only modern example you'll see of clear Ethnic governmental identification by the non AvGeek public, is with LY.

I don't think it's completely true. I know my parents and their generation still have some animosity toward Vietnam political system. But it's slowly changing. Many of their generation are starting to starting to favor Vietnamese speaking airlines vs. other languages. They can communicate and ask for help on the plane. I remembered when I flew UA to Vietnam Via Hongkong. There are a lot of older Vietnamese don't know how to navigate the airport connection. While on the plane, when the flight attendant ask them what would they like? They just smile and point. When My parents flew to VN, they would fly CI, ANA, or UA and connect with VNA in TPE, or NRT.

As for my generation, we are educated here in the US and have been here over 3-4 decades. We really don't care much about the political land scape. We just believe what's best for the Vietnamese people on both side. I for one have been UA flyer for 3 decades. I'm approaching my 3 millions miles to get lifetime 1K. So I will continue to fly UA to Asia, but I fly VNA many times if I have to go from NRT/ICN/TPE to SIN. I like to make a weekend stop over in Vietnam. As for my children, they really don't care. They fly which ever I fly or which ever best fit their connection.

In general, the older generation are dying off and the political animosity will die off. I believe and hope that VNA will successful in the long term.

dnguyen7078 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

Is it still true that many Vietnamese immigrants (or their descendants now) will likely avoid VN given that it's owned by the communist government which the Vietnamese that immigrated here were escaping from in the first place? I remember hearing this when I went to Vietnam many years ago. I wonder who the target demographic is for VN. There are umpteen other one stop options to get to Vietnam from SoCal, bay area, DFW, IAH, NYC ...

"still true," or "ever true"...? I'm gonna go with the latter.

How many people, foreign born or not, have any clue of the ownership structure of any given air carrier?

And before you start thinking "Well XYZ group is special, because of what they went through!"... keep in mind that history does NOT demonstrate that overall. For example: there's still Taiwanese and Mainlanders, who get CA vs CI screwed up, on a daily basis. So much so that the latter got parliamentary approval to change its name last year, despite decades of having it.

And don't even get me started on all of the "___ Asia/Asie" subsidiary ridiculousness.

About the only modern example you'll see of clear Ethnic governmental identification by the non AvGeek public, is with LY.

I don't think it's completely true. I know my parents and their generation still have some animosity toward Vietnam political system. But it's slowly changing. Many of their generation are starting to starting to favor Vietnamese speaking airlines vs. other languages. They can communicate and ask for help on the plane. I remembered when I flew UA to Vietnam Via Hongkong. There are a lot of older Vietnamese don't know how to navigate the airport connection. While on the plane, when the flight attendant ask them what would they like? They just smile and point. When My parents flew to VN, they would fly CI, ANA, or UA and connect with VNA in TPE, or NRT.

As for my generation, we are educated here in the US and have been here over 3-4 decades. We really don't care much about the political land scape. We just believe what's best for the Vietnamese people on both side. I for one have been UA flyer for 3 decades. I'm approaching my 3 millions miles to get lifetime 1K. So I will continue to fly UA to Asia, but I fly VNA many times if I have to go from NRT/ICN/TPE to SIN. I like to make a weekend stop over in Vietnam. As for my children, they really don't care. They fly which ever I fly or which ever best fit their connection.

In general, the older generation are dying off and the political animosity will die off. I believe and hope that VNA will successful in the long term.

What does any of that have to do with what I said?

Antaras wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

VN has pre-ULR wing retwist A350s so its not surprising they don't have the legs for a 16h flight.

VN has two A359 airframes using the revised ULR wings (VN-A898 and 899), and even though upgrading those to ULR MTOW is technically possible, I doubt that it will help VN any in the payload and the overall performance.

In 2020, one of the charter flights to SFO, VNA used the 359. On the returned, they did not have to make a technical stop at ANC like the 787-10 did.

dnguyen7078 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

VN has pre-ULR wing retwist A350s so its not surprising they don't have the legs for a 16h flight.

VN has two A359 airframes using the revised ULR wings (VN-A898 and 899), and even though upgrading those to ULR MTOW is technically possible, I doubt that it will help VN any in the payload and the overall performance.

In 2020, one of the charter flights to SFO, VNA used the 359. On the returned, they did not have to make a technical stop at ANC like the 787-10 did.

Yes, the A359 can easily do Vietnam-SFO nonstop with a meaningful payload. The choice of 789, in this case, is a bit unclear.

Antaras wrote:

And we don't know if PR can compete with VN.

Would not make much sense for PR to do that...they would have to deeply undercut VN on fares for SGN bound pax to forego the nonstop and endure connecting at MNL.....

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-MNL-SGN-JFK&DU=nm

Besides, the timing needs to reasonably jive with outbound MNL-SGN schedules. PR would be better off incentivizing MNL terminating passengers. Perhaps when CRK T2 starts international operations

Antaras wrote:

The choice of 789, in this case, is a bit unclear.

I'd agree, if their intent was to be a high-density VFR people hauler.

Because from a logistics sense, this route is generally no challenge for a 254tonne 789.
There are multiple 789 routes (e.g. LAX-MEL, SFO-SIN, PER-LHR, etc) that are longer than this, some of them much more so.

It's just that the airlines who operate them (1) rely on premium traffic to sustain them, and (2) give them realistic configurations for flights of that length. VN...... didn't do that.

Maybe their intent was to just lose as little as possible on the total trip costs, knowing that the per-seat is going to be atrocious, no matter what they do? If not for that, them I'm scratching my head on why they'd choose the 789 over the A359.

An article on VN's website stating that they will use both 789 and 350 for the route. During the 1st phase, due to pandemic, they would focus more on cargo rather than pax passenger. This makes sense as VN still has not opened its border to any country yet. They even mention that they would make technical stop in ANC if required.

IMO, the reasons VN uses 789 for the time being could be either for cargo capacity (not sure their 789 vs 350 capacity) or to minimize total trip cost as the load factor would be low anyway. They will always have option to upgrade it to 350 when there is a need.


http://spirit.vietnamairlines.com/vi/em ... 12268.html

potter787 wrote:

An article on VN's website stating that they will use both 789 and 350 for the route. During the 1st phase, due to pandemic, they would focus more on cargo rather than pax passenger. This makes sense as VN still has not opened its border to any country yet. They even mention that they would make technical stop in ANC if required.

IMO, the reasons VN uses 789 for the time being could be either for cargo capacity (not sure their 789 vs 350 capacity) or to minimize total trip cost as the load factor would be low anyway. They will always have option to upgrade it to 350 when there is a need.


http://spirit.vietnamairlines.com/vi/em ... 12268.html

As recent info only mentions 789, I would assume that 789 is now the only choice for SGN-SFO. VN seemed didn't decide anything when it wrote the article that you attached.

Yes, they announced the launch with 789. I bet they have compared both and conclude that 789 is better for now. They have used 350 on a repatriation flight before so I assume that they applied both types with FAA. They could switch anytime they want.

LAX772LR wrote:

Antaras wrote:

Due to technical limitation of the A359 and B789, VN has to decrease ~100 pax per flight. Means that it will only sell only 210-220 seats instead of 300. That's the load factor.

Utterly ridiculous.

I realize that it's not you making that claim, but it's nonsensical nonetheless by whomever made it.

• First, VN's longhaul 789s only seat 274.
  
  
  So some "journalist" (who'd thus make a great candidate for Simple Flying editor) probably just did a quick Google search, saw that VN's regional 789s seat 311, and ran with that.
  
  Nobody's flying, or ever planned to fly, 300seat 789s over the Pacific. That's not a "technical limitation," that's just not what they were designed nor offered to do. That's like saying "due to technical limitations of the ERJ145, the airline will have to block 30 seats to fly BOS-SAN."
  
  
• Second, a 280tonne A359 on the other hand, could easily carry 300 passengers on that distance. DL will be flying far longer than that, with 306 pax on theirs, taking high elevation into account, and still doesn't expect to block anything of the sort.

The distance from SGN to SFO is 6811 nm. As you stated well within the 789's range with full pax and bags. There are at least a dozen flights a day around the world flown by the 789 greater than the distance between SGN-SFO. Where people come up with these stories of seat ;blocking is amazing. There is a list of 7,000 nm f789 flights here,





https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/sgn-to-sfo/

ikolkyo wrote:

IIRC VN’s 789s we’re bought at a lower MTOW rating. They had to have bumped some or all of the aircraft operate this, right?

Easily done, with but a phone call and a cheque to Boeing.

MIflyer12 wrote:

SFO rather than LAX to save 300nm? Isn't SoCal by far the larger origin market?

Larger, yes, but not "by far." The SF Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles Basin are, when tabulated, fairly lose in terms of Foreign Born + 1st Generation Vietnamese-American population, with SoCal being marginally bigger.

But keep in mind that "bigger" doesn't necessarily equal "more lucrative," as SFO has always been the USA's focal point of Vietnamese commerce and (on the west coast) government.

The Bay, for example, has a Vietnamese consulate, whereas SoCal does not.
Also, more Vietnamese-owned businesses are based in Santa Clara country (SJC) than any other in the country.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Wouldn't DL connections help at LAX?

FSflyer899 wrote:

Why they didn't pick SJC instead?

I'd say that both of these questions have the same answer:

For now: DL can feed two of the four other largest Vietnamese commercial markets (LAX and JFK) into SFO, whereas an interline on UA can feed the the other two (IAH and IAD).

The air distance between SGN and SFO is 6811 nm. As you stated, well within range of the 789 with full pax and bags. In fact there are about a dozen or so 789 flights every day around the world that exceed this distance.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights


https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/sgn-to-sfo/

Here is the flight details:

VN98 Ho Chi Minh City to San Francisco departing 8:40PM arriving 7:30PM
VN99 San Francisco to Ho Chi Minh City departing 11:00PM arriving 6:40AM (+2 days)

Antaras wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think this will be a great way to flush money down a toilet.

"National mission"

There's a joke here somewhere, but I'm not gonna be the one who makes it.

maps4ltd wrote:

Antaras wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think this will be a great way to flush money down a toilet.

"National mission"

There's a joke here somewhere, but I'm not gonna be the one who makes it.

The US service is purely a political mission, I don't think that there is any joke here.