Hello guys, I created this topic, just for curiosity and to know what do you think about it. I was just wondering what non-flights would be impossible in the future between big cities, taking in to account the newest airplanes available (A359ULR or 778)due to flight duration. For example I can think of NRT-BOG, NRT-GRU, SIN-MEX, SIN-MIA, LAX-JNB, LHR-AKL, PER-JFK...

The thing is that, I don't think this flights can be possible in the future unless planes can go faster. I don't imagine 21-22 hours or more non-stop seated on a plane. What do you guys think?

Pd: the cities that I wrote are examples that comes to mind, can be other cities pairs and I'm not saying that those cities have enough demands for nonstop flights, they're just examples of big cities pairs.

honestly, I don't think the actual flight time is the showstopper, reason being any city pair so far apart as to be concerned about pushing the comfort envelope is going to require an all premium config just to justify high trip cost anyhow. The SQ SIN-EWR route is the model for this: super low density, with cabin configured to not overstress pax. But not only are there scant few city pairs that will support the fares required, there are few carriers that have the cachet to make it work.

It will be interesting to see if QF do SYD-LHR "right". I am concerned that they are too concerned with number of pax.

The B777X business jet can fly all possible city combinations non stop

Anywhere in Asia to anywhere in South America. MNL-MEX and MNL-BOG might have been possible if MEX and BOG weren't so high-altitude. The same holds for DXB-MEX and DXB-BOG. In fact, EK was going to launch DXB-PTY along with DXB-AKL, but this was cancelled.

JNB-HNL was the longest I could find. Wouldn’t be commercially viable anyway, but was 10,365 nm. NRT-GRU and LHR-CHC were both close to that as well.

VTCIE wrote:

Anywhere in Asia to anywhere in South America. MNL-MEX and MNL-BOG might have been possible if MEX and BOG weren't so high-altitude. The same holds for DXB-MEX and DXB-BOG. In fact, EK was going to launch DXB-PTY along with DXB-AKL, but this was cancelled.

Yes, the problem with MEX and BOG are the high altitude. But that also could count on this topic, it will be imposible for any aircraft (with decent payload and passengers) taking off full of fuel in those condition for an 18-19 hour flight. On the other hand, gcmap shows MNL-BOG at 10,757nm, taking apart hot and high conditions, that flight would be impossible too

Gbass21 wrote:

The thing is that, I don't think this flights can be possible in the future unless planes can go faster. I don't imagine 21-22 hours or more non-stop seated on a plane. What do you guys think?

I have to disagree here. When a plane flies faster it burns more fuel and therefor decreases it's range. The way to increase range is to fly slower.

LIS-AKL - 10 595nm (and no weight restrictions) just my contribution !!

Gbass21 wrote:

VTCIE wrote:

Anywhere in Asia to anywhere in South America. MNL-MEX and MNL-BOG might have been possible if MEX and BOG weren't so high-altitude. The same holds for DXB-MEX and DXB-BOG. In fact, EK was going to launch DXB-PTY along with DXB-AKL, but this was cancelled.

Yes, the problem with MEX and BOG are the high altitude. But that also could count on this topic, it will be imposible for any aircraft (with decent payload and passengers) taking off full of fuel in those condition for an 18-19 hour flight. On the other hand, gcmap shows MNL-BOG at 10,757nm, taking apart hot and high conditions, that flight would be impossible too

MNL-BOG distance is not 10.757 nm. It is 10.757 mi, which is equivalent to 9.348 nm.

Rgds.

Gonzalo

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Gbass21 wrote:

The thing is that, I don't think this flights can be possible in the future unless planes can go faster. I don't imagine 21-22 hours or more non-stop seated on a plane. What do you guys think?

I have to disagree here. When a plane flies faster it burns more fuel and therefor decreases it's range. The way to increase range is to fly slower.

It is more complicated than this.
The Concorde was quite economical once up cruising. All other phases were less so.
To simplify a lot:
To fly slower you need to go lower for denser air which again is uneconomical.
You can not fly slow in thin air. Up there you have to go fast.
Doubling the weight of the airframe with fuel is uneconomical to lift up and maintain altitude.

double post

trauha wrote:

The Concorde was quite economical once up cruising.

Meaning, its cruise consumption per seat-kilometer was only four times as much as a 747? Or was it more than that?

timz wrote:

trauha wrote:

The Concorde was quite economical once up cruising.

Meaning, its cruise consumption per seat-kilometer was only four times as much as a 747? Or was it more than that?

Yes, roughly the same mpg on both planes. The 747 seats 4 times more people, for more hours in lesser seat pitch, at less than half the speed.

Gbass21 wrote:

Hello guys, I created this topic, just for curiosity and to know what do you think about it. I was just wondering what non-flights would be impossible in the future between big cities, taking in to account the newest airplanes available (A359ULR or 778)due to flight duration. For example I can think of NRT-BOG, NRT-GRU, SIN-MEX, SIN-MIA, LAX-JNB, LHR-AKL, PER-JFK...

The idea of SIN-MIA is beyond ridiculous. Nobody's even willing to take a chance on Miami-Tokyo with massive One World hubs at both ends.

bagoldex wrote:

Gbass21 wrote:

Hello guys, I created this topic, just for curiosity and to know what do you think about it. I was just wondering what non-flights would be impossible in the future between big cities, taking in to account the newest airplanes available (A359ULR or 778)due to flight duration. For example I can think of NRT-BOG, NRT-GRU, SIN-MEX, SIN-MIA, LAX-JNB, LHR-AKL, PER-JFK...

The idea of SIN-MIA is beyond ridiculous. Nobody's even willing to take a chance on Miami-Tokyo with massive One World hubs at both ends.

You should,t read everything first.....

"Hello guys, I created this topic, just for curiosity and to know what do you think about it. I was just wondering what non-flights would be impossible in the future between big cities, taking in to account the newest airplanes available (A359ULR or 778)due to flight duration. For example I can think of NRT-BOG, NRT-GRU, SIN-MEX, SIN-MIA, LAX-JNB, LHR-AKL, PER-JFK...

The thing is that, I don't think this flights can be possible in the future unless planes can go faster. I don't imagine 21-22 hours or more non-stop seated on a plane. What do you guys think?

Pd: the cities that I wrote are examples that comes to mind, can be other cities pairs and I'm not saying that those cities have enough demands for nonstop flights, they're just examples of big cities pairs."


He knows some routes might be ridiculous but he´s just "imagining" that situations not stating that they are doable economical speaking.

There’s a bus service from Los Angeles to San Francisco which, instead of seats, has beds stacked up. You sleep at night and arrive early morning.

Density would have to be sacrificed a little bit even with beds “stacked up” in a plane, if an all-business configuration is not to be considered.

SIN - UIO: 10.655nm
and it includes Quito as hot and high airport.

There are also longer routes possible like UIO-PKU (Quito - Pekanbaru at 10.807 nm) but that's far less viable.