Can The Airbus A380 Fly LHR-SYD Nonstop?

Mortyman · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:23 am

Can the Airbus A380 fly LHR-SYD nonstop without fuel stop / change of equipment ?

kurtverbose · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:36 am

No.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...eraircraft/a380family/performance/

rutankrd · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:36 am

With no passengers no seats and no cargo possibly.

But why ?

There are enough threads here on this subject or the usual variations can a 77L can a 77W would a 359 etc,,,,

I really couldn't imagine anything worse than 23 hours in a tube and modified air at 10,000 feet pressure even in a bath chair and £10,000 the lighter !

Stealthz · Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:06 pm

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 2):

I really couldn't imagine anything worse than 23 hours in a tube and modified air at 10,000 feet pressure even in a bath chair and £10,000 the lighter !

Can that be much worse than 14hrs + 2 or more hrs wandering DXB/AUH then another 7or so hours in the same tube?

WIederling · Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:06 pm

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 1):
LHR-SYD

about ~t 20 payload @ 9150nm going by Airbus-AC-A380-20131201.pdf section 03-02-01

No idea about prevailing winds. what you gain in one direction you loose on the return.

rutankrd · Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:36 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 3):

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 2):

I really couldn't imagine anything worse than 23 hours in a tube and modified air at 10,000 feet pressure even in a bath chair and £10,000 the lighter !

Can that be much worse than 14hrs + 2 or more hrs wandering DXB/AUH then another 7or so hours in the same tube?

A multitude worse in every way imo !

The stress on the body and mind boggles.

vv701 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:43 pm

Probably but with a very limited load.

On 24 March 2006 BA 772ER G-YMMO flew British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his wife and about 60 civil servants and media representatives non-stop from an EU summit in Belgium to the closing of the Commonwealth Games in Australia.

The BRU-MEL (BA9117C) non-stop sector time was 18 hrs 55 mins on a great circle routing distance of 10,303 miles. However the passenger load was only around one quarter of the normal maximum and I doubt it carried an iota of freight other than passengers' luggage.

At the time this flight was a world record for a commercial flight (that was paid for by the British government). Is this still the record?

If a 772ER can do it I am pretty sure a 380 could. But this would not be possible with anywhere near a full load.

Some British tax-payers may query why they paid for civil servants to attend the closing ceremony in Melbourne. The answer is that the same aircraft then carried the party to AKL for the Blair's Official Visit to New Zealand and then operated AKL-CGK for a similar visit to Indonesia before flying the Blairs' party home CGK-LHR on 30 March

PatrickZ80 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:11 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 6):
If a 772ER can do it I am pretty sure a 380 could. But this would not be possible with anywhere near a full load.

You realize the 772 does have a longer range than the A380, it's currently the aircraft with the longest range in the world.

I'm not able to find any info about it, but I remember something about the longest non-stop flight ever performed on a 777. It departed from SYD flying eastbound across the Pacific, overflying America and the Atlantic and finally landing at LHR. At least, that is if my memory serves me well. I don't think an A380 could make that trip. The A380 was designed to be big, not to have the longest range.

ClassicLover · Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:13 pm

I'd say yes, it can.

Qantas flew their first B747-400 non-stop from London to Sydney in 1989.

Here are all the details about it.

http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Qantas%...England-Aust%20non-stop%201989.htm

Therefore, I'd say the A380 could do it just fine under similar conditions.

Tristarsteve · Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:21 pm

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 7):
Quoting VV701 (Reply 6):
If a 772ER can do it I am pretty sure a 380 could. But this would not be possible with anywhere near a full load.

You realize the 772 does have a longer range than the A380, it's currently the aircraft with the longest range in the world.

What. Longer range than a B777-200LR??
Surprised more don't use it

PatrickZ80 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:21 pm

Quoting classiclover (Reply 8):
Therefore, I'd say the A380 could do it just fine under similar conditions.

Under similar conditions, yes. But let's have a look at these conditions:

Quote:
The flight took place on 16-17 August 1989, a few months short of 70 years after the Smiths set out. In order to maximise range, a special high-density fuel was used, the tanks were filled to overflowing and the aircraft was towed to the runway holding point before starting engines. The engines themselves were specially chosen examples. Although the aircraft was fully fitted out inside, to save weight all non-essentials, such as galley equipment, were removed.

Not exactly the conditions for a regular air service. If the plane would have been any heavier it would not have made it.

The A380 is heavier than the 747 and therefor also consumes more fuel. To make up for this it also has larger fuel tanks.

BaconButty · Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:25 pm

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 7):
You realize the 772 does have a longer range than the A380, it's currently the aircraft with the longest range in the world.

That's the -200LR, the aircraft VV701 refers to was a -200ER.

*If* they build an A380NEO, and *if* they do a -800 version, rather than just a stretch, you''ll be at or close to viable. If they do all that, and up the MTOW to c600 tonnes (as the planned A388R would likely have been*) it would definitely be viable. Wouldn't bet my house on it happening, though!

* The proposed A388R had the freighters MTOW of 590 tonnes, but that was before the base model came with a 9 tonne increase option at EIS.

WIederling · Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:26 pm

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 7):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stop_flight#Record_flights
( 3rd paragraph in that subtopic.)

27 pax "payload"

flown at an average of 960km/h i.e. with quite a bit of help from prevailing winds.
( cruise is 860km/h?)

Stitch · Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:27 pm

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 7):
You realize the 772 does have a longer range than the A380, it's currently the aircraft with the longest range in the world.

Depends on the 772.

The 777-200LR will fly around 2000nm farther at MZFW or design range than the 777-200ER and is the longest-legged airframe currently in service in terms of MZFW and design range.

vv701 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:46 pm

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 7):
You realize the 772 does have a longer range than the A380, it's currently the aircraft with the longest range in the world.

Which model are you referring to?

BA has a small fleet of 772As. It has a large fleet of 772ERs including the specific aircraft I referred too, G-YMMO. I think you may be referring to the 772LR. BA has none of these in its fleet..

According to the 'Aircraft Data' section of this web site the 772ER with an MTOW of 263 tonne has a maximum range of 5,960 nm. The version of the 772ER with an MTOW of 286 tonne is listed here as having a maximum range of 7,730 nm. Both of these figures are below the a-net listed maximum range of 8,000 nm for the A 380-800.

So, again, if BA's 772ER G-YMMO can fly BRU-MEL non-stop with a restricted payload then their A 380-800s can almost certainly fly LHR-SYD non-stop also with a reduced payload as their range is longer than that of either type of the 772ER.

mattinthehat · Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:43 pm

I knew they HKG-LHR flight was the longest but I just didn't know the stats. From the wiki: The 777-200LR Worldliner embarked on a well-received global demonstration tour in the second half of 2005, showing off its capacity to fly farther than any other commercial aircraft. On November 10, 2005, the 777-200LR set a world record for the longest non-stop flight. The plane, which departed from Hong Kong traveling to London, took a longer route, which included flying over the U.S. It flew 11,664 nautical miles (21,601 km) during its 22-hour 42-minute flight. It was flown by Pakistan International Airlines pilots and PIA was the first airline to fly the 777-200LR Worldliner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#2000.E2.80.932009

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 7):
I'm not able to find any info about it, but I remember something about the longest non-stop flight ever performed on a 777. It departed from SYD flying eastbound across the Pacific, overflying America and the Atlantic and finally landing at LHR.

DocLightning · Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:18 pm

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 2):

I really couldn't imagine anything worse than 23 hours in a tube and modified air at 10,000 feet pressure even in a bath chair and £10,000 the lighter !

Should take about 19 hours. And in a J class seat or better, that wouldn't be so bad as long as I didn't have to do it twice a month. But in Y, I need the two hour break to walk around, sit in a seat that isn't an airplane seat, do some jumping jacks, etc.

Mortyman · Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:43 pm

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 1):
No.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...eraircraft/a380family/performance/

Thanx for this.

So apparently no ... Atleast not from LHR .... However from Svalbard ( LYR ) , Norway ...

Hagic · Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:48 pm

Why would you need a non-stop LHR-SYD?

There's nothing more refreshing that a layover at SIN, the best airport in the world in my opinion. It has the best restaurants, high-quality food courts (not expensive at all), relaxing areas, and a great view of the A380 landings on either runway.

For me, a stop in SIN is part of the trip.

B777LRF · Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:12 pm

Quoting Hagic (Reply 18):
There's nothing more refreshing that a layover at SIN, the best airport in the world in my opinion. It has the best restaurants, high-quality food courts (not expensive at all), relaxing areas, and a great view of the A380 landings on either runway.

And yes, these days the majority of people seem to be making the stop in DXB, which has exactly none of the qualities you list.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:27 pm

One thought. For such stupidly long flights. Would one even bother flying against the prevailing winds? Or would it be faster to just keep flying east?

Totally ignoring the commercial part here.

Mortyman · Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:41 pm

Quoting Hagic (Reply 18):
Why would you need a non-stop LHR-SYD?

There's nothing more refreshing that a layover at SIN, the best airport in the world in my opinion. It has the best restaurants, high-quality food courts (not expensive at all), relaxing areas, and a great view of the A380 landings on either runway.

For me, a stop in SIN is part of the trip.

Stop overs cost money ...

Stitch · Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:50 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 21):
Stop overs cost money ...

They do, but shorter stage lengths need less fuel and can carry more payload (less fuel weight means more payload weight). So if you have the traffic / cargo loads on each leg, you can make more money than a non-stop.

Using Emirates as an example, flying between LHR and NRT with a stop at DXB in-between allows them to make more money than flying non-stop between LHR-NRT. They can carry more total passengers and freight between LHR-DXB and DXB-NRT (assuming all passengers and freight is not transiting between LHR and NRT, which it almost assuredly would not) for just a (relatively) bit more fuel burn.

[Edited 2016-03-06 14:12:23]

tommy1808 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:03 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
(as the fuel loads for LHR-DXB and DXB-NRT together are less than the fuel load for LHR-NRT).

I very,very highly doubt that.

Best regards
Thomas

PatrickZ80 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:09 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 21):
Stop overs cost money ...

That doesn't have to be the case. If you make a refueling stop at an airport with low landing fees and cheap fuel, it might be cheaper than a direct flight. Besides that, airlines can fill the plane with passengers traveling to or from the stopover airport. In the case of LHR-SYD there might not be enough passengers to fill the plane for a direct flight, but if you add the passengers flying LHR-SIN and SIN-SYD to that it becomes a whole other story.

Mortyman · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:09 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
They do, but shorter stage lengths need less fuel and can carry more payload (less fuel weight means more payload weight). So if you have the traffic / cargo loads on each leg, you can make more money than a non-stop.

I was commenting on "Hagic" post and from a passenger perspective, not an airlines economic perspective.

I don't wanna spend money on a hotel etc in a city that is not really part of a desired travel plan if I can avoid it.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:13 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 25):
I was commenting on "Hagic" post and from a passenger perspective, not an airlines economic perspective.

I don't wanna spend money on a hotel etc in a city that is not really part of a desired travel plan if I can avoid it.

I think they're meaning more spending a couple hours for a shower and stroll. Not even making use of any hotel to get a quick sleep or staying for longer. That chance to get a good leg stretch can be lovely to split up such a long flight. And this is as someone who'd seriously consider doing an LHR-SYD direct flight.

Stitch · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:20 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
(as the fuel loads for LHR-DXB and DXB-NRT together are less than the fuel load for LHR-NRT)

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 23):
I very,very highly doubt that.

Perhaps not on that specific mission, but the fuel burn should not be significantly more than doing a non-stop. And the revenue from the extra payload would comfortably cover it.

It's why a number of freight operators put in a stop in Anchorage on Asia-North America runs. widebodyphotog once did an analysis that showed a 747 freighter flying between NRT and ORD and stopping in ANC could lift ~20,000kg more payload and burn ~3,000kg less fuel than if it flew non-stop from NRT to ORD.

tommy1808 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:33 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):

Perhaps not on that specific mission, but the fuel burn should not be significantly more than doing a non-stop. And the revenue from the extra payload would comfortably cover it.

Those two hops are whooping 40% longer than the non-stop and those two segments will burn drastically more fuel together.
With the great circle distance being not even 5200nm the extra payload will be close to or at zero, since the mission is MZFW flyable anyways.
As long as you can accomplish the mission with all the profitable revenue on board you can sell, no one stop will ever win on cost vs. the non-stop. The fuel savings are not that drastic.

Best regards
Thomas

rbrunner · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:36 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
The 777-200LR will fly around 2000nm farther at MZFW or design range than the 777-200ER and is the longest-legged airframe currently in service in terms of MZFW and design range.

Really? Longer than the A340-500?

LH707330 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:38 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 21):
Stop overs cost money ...

So does filling up with more fuel to carry the fuel you need to carry later.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 25):
I was commenting on "Hagic" post and from a passenger perspective, not an airlines economic perspective.

I don't wanna spend money on a hotel etc in a city that is not really part of a desired travel plan if I can avoid it.

This makes sense, but the market seems to have voted with its wallet. If there were a strong demand to save the 2-3 hours of a SIN stop, some airline would offer the LHR-SYD nonstop with a hefty (>50%) price premium.

Stitch · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:46 pm

Quoting rbrunner (Reply 29):
Really? Longer than the A340-500?

Comparing the Airbus and Boeing Payload-Range charts, at the same 55,000kg payload, the 777-200LR will fly over 1000nm farther than the A340-500. Mind you, neither chart is reflective of real-world figures, but they imply that the 777-200LR will generally lift more and fly farther than the A340-500.

tommy1808 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:53 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 30):
So does filling up with more fuel to carry the fuel you need to carry later.

Around 4% if you split a 6000nm mission into 2x 3000nm missions. And that is without a long taxi on a crowded hub airport in the middle. Unless your midpoint airport is right in the middle and smack under the optimum flight path, you won't save fuel.
Take of and climb are rather fuel intensive.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 · Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:04 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 30):
This makes sense, but the market seems to have voted with its wallet. If there were a strong demand to save the 2-3 hours of a SIN stop, some airline would offer the LHR-SYD nonstop with a hefty (>50%) price premium.

That would take an 77L with 3 aux tanks and without a meaningful payload. I'd say there just isn't a frame that could do it with a 50% premium.
By the time 787 and A350 get a new gen engine 2025-2030 and have a matured MTOW the required 10k nm range may be doable with something resembling a useful cabin.
Then passengers get an actual vote.

Best regards
Thomas

rbavfan · Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:55 pm

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 7):
You realize the 772 does have a longer range than the A380, it's currently the aircraft with the longest range in the world.

The 777LR is. BA and Blair used a 772ER.

rbavfan · Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:11 am

LHR-URC-SYD would be a nice routing for a couple hour stop to stretch. You would fly almost perfectly over the city anyway. Could carry lots of extra cargo on both legs & break up a very long flight.

Would be some nice mountain views as well. At least on the days you could see through the polution.

Fuel wise though due to winds I would say do SYD-ANC-LHR with the winds & LHR-URC-SYD the other way. Get the best fuel for each direction and get an around the world round trip. At only 1086nm farther SYD-ANC-LHR you should get better fuel that the other route both directions due to winds.

[Edited 2016-03-06 16:19:46]

AirbusA322 · Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:35 am

Virgin flew an A330 on Delivery nonstop a few years ago.

Was about 20 hours from memory

LAX772LR · Mon Mar 07, 2016 1:11 am

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 7):
You realize the 772 does have a longer range than the A380, it's currently the aircraft with the longest range in the world.

772LR is, which BA doesn't have. They only ordered 772A and 772ER.

Quoting rbrunner (Reply 29):
Really? Longer than the A340-500?

772LR has always offered longer range than A345, and less fuel to do it.

Viscount724 · Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:34 am

Quoting Hagic (Reply 18):
Why would you need a non-stop LHR-SYD?

For many business travellers, time is money, and any stop adds roughly 3 hours to the elapsed time. With today's premium class products, flat-bed seats etc., if there was a nonstop LHR-SYD I'm sure most premium passengers would choose it. The problem is that you need a lot of those high-fare passengers on such a long nonstop route to offset the costs and I doubt there would be enough demand.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
It's why a number of freight operators put in a stop in Anchorage on Asia-North America runs.

Yes but ANC is almost on the great circle route for most Asia-North America cargo routes. The example being discussed of LHR-DXB-NRT at 7,289 nm for the 2 sectors is 40% further than nonstop (5,191 nm).

LAX772LR · Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:58 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38):
The problem is that you need a lot of those high-fare passengers on such a long nonstop route to offset the costs and I doubt there would be enough demand.

There's probably enough for at least one flight... the question is, how does any one airline (of the ones who'd have the right to operate nonstop) aggregate all of those pax onto a single segment?

ZaphodHarkonnen · Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:24 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 39):
There's probably enough for at least one flight... the question is, how does any one airline (of the ones who'd have the right to operate nonstop) aggregate all of those pax onto a single segment?

Especially as we know that people want frequency more than almost anything. That direct flight would be competing against multiple times a day flights that are only a few hours longer.

DocLightning · Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:45 am

According to this, it can do it, but as an empty frame with maybe some seats.

LH707330 · Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:55 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 32):
Around 4% if you split a 6000nm mission into 2x 3000nm missions. And that is without a long taxi on a crowded hub airport in the middle. Unless your midpoint airport is right in the middle and smack under the optimum flight path, you won't save fuel.

Do you have the same number for 8000 nm? For most modern longhaulers, I think the bend in the hockey stick (where fuel burn per distance shoots up) is around 7000 nm. I'd think that 2x 4000 would burn less than 1x 8000.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 33):

That would take an 77L with 3 aux tanks and without a meaningful payload. I'd say there just isn't a frame that could do it with a 50% premium.

I think you missed my sarcasm, but we agree. I was saying someone COULD do it, but it's not feasible at that price point.

Clipper101 · Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:05 am

Whichever the aircraft: A380/B777-???, if it is not achievable through current payload-range spec for that aircraft type & if it is to some airline(s) that much desirable passenger-wise even on the expense of one or may be two cargo ULD container(s) on few routes why not looking for removable auxiliary belly fuel tanks retrofit solution

[Edited: Looks to be discussed above, sorry]

[Edited 2016-03-06 20:12:35]

Gemuser · Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:02 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 39):
the question is, how does any one airline (of the ones who'd have the right to operate nonstop) aggregate all of those pax onto a single segment?

Which is only QF & BA and it wouldn't be the first time they jointly operated flights. There is NO Australia/EU bilateral so the other EU airlines don't have the rights.

Gemuser

TWA772LR · Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:19 am

Ok, let's settle this. Let's comprise a list of aircraft (civilian, or a military plane developed from a civilian plane) that can fly London to Sydney. Nevermind load. Just going off shear range capabilities in perfect weather the whole way.

I'll start with:
77L
VC-25
744 (as proven in QFs demonstration some years ago)

Can tanker planes tap into their fuel that they pass on to other aircraft? If so, I'd think the KC-10 would be a contender also.

And forget about LHR-SYD, lets push the range envelope to LHR-AKL for the next generations of human flight.

Gemuser · Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:26 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 45):
I'll start with:
77L
VC-25
744 (as proven in QFs demonstration some years ago)

A380
A330
Both have been delivered non stop from TLS to SYD
B772ER see above post on the BRU - MEL flight

Gemuser

skyhawkmatthew · Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:35 am

Quoting AirbusA322 (Reply 36):
Virgin flew an A330 on Delivery nonstop a few years ago.

Was about 20 hours from memory

Quoting gemuser (Reply 46):
Both have been delivered non stop from TLS to SYD

I'm not sure whether any of VA's A330s came non-stop, but QF definitely had at least one of their A332s delivered nonstop TLS-MEL (slightly shorter than TLS-SYD).

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 45):
Can tanker planes tap into their fuel that they pass on to other aircraft? If so, I'd think the KC-10 would be a contender also.

The KC-30 doesn't actually have any supplementary fuel tanks over a standard A330: it delivers fuel from the same tanks that feed its engines. I don't know about the older designs.

[Edited 2016-03-06 21:36:16]

LGAviation · Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:06 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 44):
Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 39):
the question is, how does any one airline (of the ones who'd have the right to operate nonstop) aggregate all of those pax onto a single segment?

Which is only QF & BA and it wouldn't be the first time they jointly operated flights. There is NO Australia/EU bilateral so the other EU airlines don't have the rights.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. From my understanding of the agreement, many others mights also have incl. i.e. LH and AF.

http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements...o?fullText=yes&treatyTransId=12964

Andy33 · Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:15 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 44):
Which is only QF & BA and it wouldn't be the first time they jointly operated flights. There is NO Australia/EU bilateral so the other EU airlines don't have the rights.

Also possibly VS - they operated LHR-HKG-SYD for years as a through route with a single flight number. I suspect the Australia-UK bilateral allows 2 airlines from each country.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net