|Quoting Slarty (Reply 26):|
I'll also choose P2P over hub-connecting frequency also. Many reasons why:
Safer; faster; less likely to be delayed; and more efficient from an environmental perspective.
The environmental part of it is simply the other way around.
If we compare two routes half way around the world, one non-stop and one with a fuel stop half way, then...
The non-stop flight will spend an enormous amount of fuel on the first quarter around the world on transporting fuel for the second quarter.
And on the second quarter it will suffer from being a much too large, powerfull and heavy plane since a sustantial part of the take-off weight has been converted into contrails.
On the type of ranges we are discussing here the weight of the fuelload will be roughly ten times the payload weight. And consequently some 80% of the fuel will be wasted on transporting fuel rather than payload.
Very long range flights have always been fuelwise inefficient. That was the case with the DC-7C, and it will always be the case.
Consequently, if the crude oil stays at $50 or 60/barrel, then we may have seen the last "standard" 777LR order, and the 777ULR will most likely stay a paperplane or "dreamliner" only.
Let's take a real example: A 777ULR will carry less payload than th LR
, let's say 250 instead of 300 pax. On LHR
non-stop it will need 160 tons of fuel.
A 767-400ER with one fuel stop could do the same in 3 class layout on 120 tons of fuel.
$80 million more plane - that's $25,000 more leasing costs per day. 40 tons more fuel, that's another $25,000. $50,000 for making the trip in 18 hours instead of 20 hours - or $200 more per seat one way whether it's filled or not (that will be $6-7-800 on a return ticket), I doubt that the market will be there.
And if it will be there, then it will be a niche market only.