Hi!
Sorry if it's been discussed here before, I didnt find any threads about this so here it goes:
Out of curiosity...could Icelandair's 757s make it non-stop from Reyklavik to the Caribbean?
I know that Icelandair flies non-stop to Seattle, which in fact I think is further from Iceland than Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Puerto Rico....at least the distance is similar AFAIK (I saw an Icelandair plane myself at SEA as I landed from PHX back in 2014)...however I also know that 1. That route is mostly over land and 2. It's a route over fresher weather so gas consumption might not be as much of an issue as it could be on an Icelandair 757 flight to the warmer weather of the Caribbean...
So can they do it?
Thanks!!
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- GalaxyFlyer
- Posts: 12403
- Joined:
Re: Icelandair 757 question
If there’s profitable routes, sure. They evidently don’t think so
Re: Icelandair 757 question
~3,900 n.m. BIKF to Santo Domingo. Tight but possible. Probably not economical due to reduced payload to take the extra fuel required. Tech stop in CYYT would greatly improve viability of routes to all Caribbean destinations.
-
- WildcatYXU
- Posts: 3446
- Joined:
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Yikes! wrote:~3,900 n.m. BIKF to Santo Domingo. Tight but possible. Probably not economical due to reduced payload to take the extra fuel required. Tech stop in CYYT would greatly improve viability of routes to all Caribbean destinations.
According to gcmap.com the great circle distance between KEF and SDQ is 3327 nmi. Shouldn't this be doable with a 752?
Re: Icelandair 757 question
WildcatYXU wrote:Yikes! wrote:~3,900 n.m. BIKF to Santo Domingo. Tight but possible. Probably not economical due to reduced payload to take the extra fuel required. Tech stop in CYYT would greatly improve viability of routes to all Caribbean destinations.
According to gcmap.com the great circle distance between KEF and SDQ is 3327 nmi. Shouldn't this be doable with a 752?
3,851 according to Google Earth. Seems reasonable.
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Just used the same website and it showed From KEF To SDQ
Total: 3,829 mi
Total: 3,829 mi
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Yikes! wrote:Just used the same website and it showed From KEF To SDQ
Total: 3,829 mi
3,829 statute miles and 3,327 nautical miles are one and the same. Slightly different units.
-
- WildcatYXU
- Posts: 3446
- Joined:
Re: Icelandair 757 question
AirKevin wrote:Yikes! wrote:Just used the same website and it showed From KEF To SDQ
Total: 3,829 mi
3,829 statute miles and 3,327 nautical miles are one and the same. Slightly different units.
Guys, I realize it is the same distance. However, the 752's range should be around 3900nmi. Can she do it westbound with a reasonable load?
Re: Icelandair 757 question
WildcatYXU wrote:AirKevin wrote:Yikes! wrote:Just used the same website and it showed From KEF To SDQ
Total: 3,829 mi
3,829 statute miles and 3,327 nautical miles are one and the same. Slightly different units.
Guys, I realize it is the same distance. However, the 752's range should be around 3900nmi. Can she do it westbound with a reasonable load?
Yes CO and later UA flew TXL (Berlin) - EWR (Newark) for years using a 752, even in the winter. That route is 3,458 nm (for the people who never knew that there are different units, that's nautical miles).
Did they have to land for refueling in Newfoundland from time to time, especially in the winter? Yes. Was the route still a success? Yes. It's still flown until this day, but because of higher pax numbers now changing between 763ER and 764.
So Icelandair could fly to the Carribean for sure, if there would be money to make. I'm sure it's not worthwhile flying such routes year-round, but I could imagine a few charters when the Icelandic people have their main holiday time (school holidays etc.).
See: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=TXL-EWR%0D ... S=bm&DU=nm
Re: Icelandair 757 question
WildcatYXU wrote:AirKevin wrote:Yikes! wrote:Just used the same website and it showed From KEF To SDQ
Total: 3,829 mi
3,829 statute miles and 3,327 nautical miles are one and the same. Slightly different units.
Guys, I realize it is the same distance. However, the 752's range should be around 3900nmi. Can she do it westbound with a reasonable load?
Statute miles have no place in aviation. Yes, I didn't see the conversion factor on this "professional" aviation site.
Regardless, Earth still shows ~3,900 n.m.
Re: Icelandair 757 question
CARST wrote:WildcatYXU wrote:AirKevin wrote:3,829 statute miles and 3,327 nautical miles are one and the same. Slightly different units.
Guys, I realize it is the same distance. However, the 752's range should be around 3900nmi. Can she do it westbound with a reasonable load?
Yes CO and later UA flew TXL (Berlin) - EWR (Newark) for years using a 752, even in the winter. That route is 3,458 nm (for the people who never knew that there are different units, that's nautical miles).
Did they have to land for refueling in Newfoundland from time to time, especially in the winter? Yes. Was the route still a success? Yes. It's still flown until this day, but because of higher pax numbers now changing between 763ER and 764.
So Icelandair could fly to the Carribean for sure, if there would be money to make. I'm sure it's not worthwhile flying such routes year-round, but I could imagine a few charters when the Icelandic people have their main holiday time (school holidays etc.).
See: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=TXL-EWR%0D ... S=bm&DU=nm
Operated this Berlin to Newark on the 757
a few times and it was a challenge to make it non stop sometimes
It was right at the edge of the aircraft’s capability that by itself could be tricky but what made it worse was having to descend so far out to lower, inefficient altitudes on arrival into Boston, then NY center airspace
We had a whole list of techniques I used to get the best range performance on this and other challenging sectors
One of them was to fill the tanks ‘past capacity’ in the winter the fuel we loaded
in Europe was a lot colder and had a higher density, as fuel is measured in weight this meant the automatic volumetric shut off would not activate until we had a few thousand more pounds of fuel than normal
Whereas a 757 normally holds 75000 lbs of fuel I’ve seen totals of 80000 pounds which made a big difference
That, along with weight restrictions, and a few other procedures allowed us to make it
non stop most of the time, at least I never had to stop !
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Yikes! wrote:WildcatYXU wrote:AirKevin wrote:3,829 statute miles and 3,327 nautical miles are one and the same. Slightly different units.
Guys, I realize it is the same distance. However, the 752's range should be around 3900nmi. Can she do it westbound with a reasonable load?
Statute miles have no place in aviation. Yes, I didn't see the conversion factor on this "professional" aviation site.
Regardless, Earth still shows ~3,900 n.m.
Well said, nautical miles only in the air and at sea
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 21730
- Joined:
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Yikes! wrote:WildcatYXU wrote:AirKevin wrote:3,829 statute miles and 3,327 nautical miles are one and the same. Slightly different units.
Guys, I realize it is the same distance. However, the 752's range should be around 3900nmi. Can she do it westbound with a reasonable load?
Statute miles have no place in aviation. Yes, I didn't see the conversion factor on this "professional" aviation site.
Regardless, Earth still shows ~3,900 n.m.
I agree they have no place in aviation. So why does the US insist on reporting visibility in statute miles?
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Starlionblue wrote:Yikes! wrote:WildcatYXU wrote:
Guys, I realize it is the same distance. However, the 752's range should be around 3900nmi. Can she do it westbound with a reasonable load?
Statute miles have no place in aviation. Yes, I didn't see the conversion factor on this "professional" aviation site.
Regardless, Earth still shows ~3,900 n.m.
I agree they have no place in aviation. So why does the US insist on reporting visibility in statute miles?
That is a good question
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Max Q wrote:CARST wrote:WildcatYXU wrote:
Guys, I realize it is the same distance. However, the 752's range should be around 3900nmi. Can she do it westbound with a reasonable load?
Yes CO and later UA flew TXL (Berlin) - EWR (Newark) for years using a 752, even in the winter. That route is 3,458 nm (for the people who never knew that there are different units, that's nautical miles).
Did they have to land for refueling in Newfoundland from time to time, especially in the winter? Yes. Was the route still a success? Yes. It's still flown until this day, but because of higher pax numbers now changing between 763ER and 764.
So Icelandair could fly to the Carribean for sure, if there would be money to make. I'm sure it's not worthwhile flying such routes year-round, but I could imagine a few charters when the Icelandic people have their main holiday time (school holidays etc.).
See: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=TXL-EWR%0D ... S=bm&DU=nm
Operated this Berlin to Newark on the 757
a few times and it was a challenge to make it non stop sometimes
It was right at the edge of the aircraft’s capability that by itself could be tricky but what made it worse was having to descend so far out to lower, inefficient altitudes on arrival into Boston, then NY center airspace
We had a whole list of techniques I used to get the best range performance on this and other challenging sectors
One of them was to fill the tanks ‘past capacity’ in the winter the fuel we loaded
in Europe was a lot colder and had a higher density, as fuel is measured in weight this meant the automatic volumetric shut off would not activate until we had a few thousand more pounds of fuel than normal
Whereas a 757 normally holds 75000 lbs of fuel I’ve seen totals of 80000 pounds which made a big difference
That, along with weight restrictions, and a few other procedures allowed us to make it
non stop most of the time, at least I never had to stop !
Nice details there, very interesting.
But it shows that the 757 could operate profitably over that distance. And the route the OP asked for is about 30-60 minutes shorter than TXL-EWR. And also it should be less prone to strong winter headwinds.
BTW, any chance you flew TXL-EWR on March 18th 2008?
Re: Icelandair 757 question
CARST wrote:Max Q wrote:CARST wrote:
Yes CO and later UA flew TXL (Berlin) - EWR (Newark) for years using a 752, even in the winter. That route is 3,458 nm (for the people who never knew that there are different units, that's nautical miles).
Did they have to land for refueling in Newfoundland from time to time, especially in the winter? Yes. Was the route still a success? Yes. It's still flown until this day, but because of higher pax numbers now changing between 763ER and 764.
So Icelandair could fly to the Carribean for sure, if there would be money to make. I'm sure it's not worthwhile flying such routes year-round, but I could imagine a few charters when the Icelandic people have their main holiday time (school holidays etc.).
See: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=TXL-EWR%0D ... S=bm&DU=nm
Operated this Berlin to Newark on the 757
a few times and it was a challenge to make it non stop sometimes
It was right at the edge of the aircraft’s capability that by itself could be tricky but what made it worse was having to descend so far out to lower, inefficient altitudes on arrival into Boston, then NY center airspace
We had a whole list of techniques I used to get the best range performance on this and other challenging sectors
One of them was to fill the tanks ‘past capacity’ in the winter the fuel we loaded
in Europe was a lot colder and had a higher density, as fuel is measured in weight this meant the automatic volumetric shut off would not activate until we had a few thousand more pounds of fuel than normal
Whereas a 757 normally holds 75000 lbs of fuel I’ve seen totals of 80000 pounds which made a big difference
That, along with weight restrictions, and a few other procedures allowed us to make it
non stop most of the time, at least I never had to stop !
Nice details there, very interesting.
But it shows that the 757 could operate profitably over that distance. And the route the OP asked for is about 30-60 minutes shorter than TXL-EWR. And also it should be less prone to strong winter headwinds.
BTW, any chance you flew TXL-EWR on March 18th 2008?
I will check my log books and get back to you
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Max Q, thanks for sharing your 757 stories, good to read. What sorts of other techniques did you use to get better range?
-
- aemoreira1981
- Posts: 4264
- Joined:
Re: Icelandair 757 question
CARST wrote:WildcatYXU wrote:AirKevin wrote:3,829 statute miles and 3,327 nautical miles are one and the same. Slightly different units.
Guys, I realize it is the same distance. However, the 752's range should be around 3900nmi. Can she do it westbound with a reasonable load?
Yes CO and later UA flew TXL (Berlin) - EWR (Newark) for years using a 752, even in the winter. That route is 3,458 nm (for the people who never knew that there are different units, that's nautical miles).
Did they have to land for refueling in Newfoundland from time to time, especially in the winter? Yes. Was the route still a success? Yes. It's still flown until this day, but because of higher pax numbers now changing between 763ER and 764.
So Icelandair could fly to the Carribean for sure, if there would be money to make. I'm sure it's not worthwhile flying such routes year-round, but I could imagine a few charters when the Icelandic people have their main holiday time (school holidays etc.).
See: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=TXL-EWR%0D ... S=bm&DU=nm
During the winter, the route would often go to a B762...there was only a 5-seat difference between pmCO B752s and CO B762s. Today, UA still uses a pmCO narrow-body to and from LIS year-round.
As for the Caribbean, KEF to SDQ is about 3340 nmi. That should be doable in the summer, but is the traffic there or would FI be better transferring passengers to B6 and its immense Caribbean network?
Re: Icelandair 757 question
CARST wrote:Max Q wrote:CARST wrote:
Yes CO and later UA flew TXL (Berlin) - EWR (Newark) for years using a 752, even in the winter. That route is 3,458 nm (for the people who never knew that there are different units, that's nautical miles).
Did they have to land for refueling in Newfoundland from time to time, especially in the winter? Yes. Was the route still a success? Yes. It's still flown until this day, but because of higher pax numbers now changing between 763ER and 764.
So Icelandair could fly to the Carribean for sure, if there would be money to make. I'm sure it's not worthwhile flying such routes year-round, but I could imagine a few charters when the Icelandic people have their main holiday time (school holidays etc.).
See: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=TXL-EWR%0D ... S=bm&DU=nm
Operated this Berlin to Newark on the 757
a few times and it was a challenge to make it non stop sometimes
It was right at the edge of the aircraft’s capability that by itself could be tricky but what made it worse was having to descend so far out to lower, inefficient altitudes on arrival into Boston, then NY center airspace
We had a whole list of techniques I used to get the best range performance on this and other challenging sectors
One of them was to fill the tanks ‘past capacity’ in the winter the fuel we loaded
in Europe was a lot colder and had a higher density, as fuel is measured in weight this meant the automatic volumetric shut off would not activate until we had a few thousand more pounds of fuel than normal
Whereas a 757 normally holds 75000 lbs of fuel I’ve seen totals of 80000 pounds which made a big difference
That, along with weight restrictions, and a few other procedures allowed us to make it
non stop most of the time, at least I never had to stop !
Nice details there, very interesting.
But it shows that the 757 could operate profitably over that distance. And the route the OP asked for is about 30-60 minutes shorter than TXL-EWR. And also it should be less prone to strong winter headwinds.
BTW, any chance you flew TXL-EWR on March 18th 2008?
I checked and I was not flying that day
On March 14th I flew EWR-CDG and returned on the 16th, both legs were in a 752
Re: Icelandair 757 question
LH707330 wrote:Max Q, thanks for sharing your 757 stories, good to read. What sorts of other techniques did you use to get better range?
A few things, some Company recommended procedures and
some were personal techniques:
Probably most significant is to operate
in ‘Econ’ mode using a cost index of zero,
this is selected in the FMC which then indicates speed / Mach number to fly and controlled in VNAV through the autothrottles. This mode gives you the most possible nautical air miles per gallon and best range, these speeds / Mach numbers will vary depending on gross weight (heavier is faster) and winds (faster into a headwind, slower with a tailwind) amongst other variables
While on the North Atlantic track system however you do have to fly a fixed Mach though so we would override ‘Econ’ for that
portion of the flight, not an issue as it usually recommended a .8 / .81 cruise
Few other things, as mentioned, gross weight allowing make sure you have maximum fuel
‘topping off the tanks’
If air temperature allows minimize APU
operation, starting just before push back
Shut down immediately after engines started
Attempt to obtain shortest taxi route to the runway
If possible, use a runway that is aligned with your direction of flight ‘point towards
destination ! ‘
Minimum permissible flap setting for take off reducing drag
Full power take off, while this may use more fuel in the short term it’s all part of obtaining maximum climb performance and getting to your initial level in the shortest time where you will burn less fuel
Climb at maximum climb power with no derates, once again to get to cruise level
as soon as possible
Once level, ensure aircraft is in trim with no
spoiler deflection and fuel balanced
Attempt to stay as close as possible to ‘recommended’ flight levels as shown in the FMC and attempt to obtain every direct
routing possible from ATC when this saves fuel, sometimes It doesn’t, flying further
but with less headwind is a common procedure to save time and fuel
Ensure en route winds are updated regularly, monitor weather at destination and alternates
An idle descent all the way from cruise altitude to 1500’ Agl is ideal for fuel saving
is ideal but going into any of the NY airports that’s never going to happen so you can attempt to negotiate with ATC to leave you as high as long as possible but
there’s never been much flexibility there
In the final stages of the flight if fuel wais tight we might declare ‘minimum fuel’ with ATC but that doesn’t oblige the controller
to give you priority, just makes them aware
you can’t accept undue delay / holding without having to divert to your alternate or
even having to declare an emergency due
to low fuel but this is rare, I’ve never had to do that
In EWR, traffic and winds allowing you can sometimes get approval to land 11 which saves a few miles
Delay flap and gear extension as long as possible to minimize drag and fuel burn
There’s other things you can do to save fuel but it starts to get extreme when you’re loading less potable water to save weight
These techniques and others I may have omitted all help and accumulate in the objective of safely making it to your destination non stop when at the limits of your aircraft capability, as has fairly often been the case on some of the routes flown by the 752
Personally I’ve always found it very satisfying to make that work when it can
but given my preference I’d just as soon take a 767 and not have any fuel concerns
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Seems like its stretching it beyond capability. There's zero margin of safety built in. Max q gave a wonderful list of fuel saving techniques but I would think those would be implemented due to weather or other unforeseen deviations of the route. Not from gate to gate. And while its happened, pax aren't going to be generally pleased with being late having to stop for fuel when the flight was billed non stop. And as max q also said, smarter to just use an aircraft that will get you to your destination comfortably. I take it icelander hasn't got anything longer in range than a 757.
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Max Q wrote:I checked and I was not flying that day
On March 14th I flew EWR-CDG and returned on the 16th, both legs were in a 752
Haha, it would have been too big of a coincidence anyway. But thanks for checking!
Max Q wrote:A few things, some Company recommended procedures and
some were personal techniques:
...
Very cool list! Thanks for sharing. Seems like it made work a bit more interesting... ^^
timh4000 wrote:Seems like its stretching it beyond capability. There's zero margin of safety built in. Max q gave a wonderful list of fuel saving techniques but I would think those would be implemented due to weather or other unforeseen deviations of the route. Not from gate to gate. And while its happened, pax aren't going to be generally pleased with being late having to stop for fuel when the flight was billed non stop. And as max q also said, smarter to just use an aircraft that will get you to your destination comfortably. I take it icelander hasn't got anything longer in range than a 757.
I don't see what you see as "unsafe" in this operation?! The pilots have a list of alternate airports along the whole flight path and around their final destination. Should the aircraft use more fuel than expected, they just land somewhere. There's Iceland in the middle of the Ocean (but fuel would never run out that early), there's Northeast Canada with Goosebay or St. Johns on Newfoundland, further down there's New England, with Boston etc.
It's not like they could fall accidentally out of the air because fuel ran out. Also there is a minimum fuel reserve they have to land with. Below that minimum reserve the FAA would fine the airline with quite a high penalty payment.
Re: Icelandair 757 question
The last part, about minimum requirements is what I'm talking about. Let's say they make it to their destination but are on fumes. Would their be enough fuel for a go around? I'm fairly certain the FAA expects airlines who file flight plans do so with the required amount of contingency fuel. The posts above it is unclear the 757 has that to get to the Caribbean
Re: Icelandair 757 question
timh4000 wrote:Seems like its stretching it beyond capability. There's zero margin of safety built in. Max q gave a wonderful list of fuel saving techniques but I would think those would be implemented due to weather or other unforeseen deviations of the route. Not from gate to gate. And while its happened, pax aren't going to be generally pleased with being late having to stop for fuel when the flight was billed non stop. And as max q also said, smarter to just use an aircraft that will get you to your destination comfortably. I take it icelander hasn't got anything longer in range than a 757.
That’s just not the case, perhaps I wasnt clear, all normal alternate, reserve and contingency fuel is carried, it’s not remotely planned as a ‘zero margin of safety’ operation
There are plenty of diversion airports along the way you can stop at and that’s all planned for prior to departure
At the limit of the aircrafts capability means
with normal, legal reserves, it wouldn’t even be legal by the standards you imply
Re: Icelandair 757 question
timh4000 wrote:The last part, about minimum requirements is what I'm talking about. Let's say they make it to their destination but are on fumes. Would their be enough fuel for a go around? I'm fairly certain the FAA expects airlines who file flight plans do so with the required amount of contingency fuel. The posts above it is unclear the 757 has that to get to the Caribbean
To reiterate, arriving with ‘fumes’ is unthinkable and just not done, planning before and monitoring during the flight is continuous to ensure adequate fuel reserves are maintained, a go around, return for another approach and / or diversion to another airport is all within that planning
You imply a ‘roll of the dice’ mentality, nothing could be further from the truth in most airlines and certainly in the one I work for
Re: Icelandair 757 question
CARST wrote:Max Q wrote:I checked and I was not flying that day
On March 14th I flew EWR-CDG and returned on the 16th, both legs were in a 752
Haha, it would have been too big of a coincidence anyway. But thanks for checking!Max Q wrote:A few things, some Company recommended procedures and
some were personal techniques:
...
Very cool list! Thanks for sharing. Seems like it made work a bit more interesting... ^^timh4000 wrote:Seems like its stretching it beyond capability. There's zero margin of safety built in. Max q gave a wonderful list of fuel saving techniques but I would think those would be implemented due to weather or other unforeseen deviations of the route. Not from gate to gate. And while its happened, pax aren't going to be generally pleased with being late having to stop for fuel when the flight was billed non stop. And as max q also said, smarter to just use an aircraft that will get you to your destination comfortably. I take it icelander hasn't got anything longer in range than a 757.
I don't see what you see as "unsafe" in this operation?! The pilots have a list of alternate airports along the whole flight path and around their final destination. Should the aircraft use more fuel than expected, they just land somewhere. There's Iceland in the middle of the Ocean (but fuel would never run out that early), there's Northeast Canada with Goosebay or St. Johns on Newfoundland, further down there's New England, with Boston etc.
It's not like they could fall accidentally out of the air because fuel ran out. Also there is a minimum fuel reserve they have to land with. Below that minimum reserve the FAA would fine the airline with quite a high penalty payment.
Well said and you never know, it was worth
looking back
Best wishes!
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Max Q wrote:timh4000 wrote:The last part, about minimum requirements is what I'm talking about. Let's say they make it to their destination but are on fumes. Would their be enough fuel for a go around? I'm fairly certain the FAA expects airlines who file flight plans do so with the required amount of contingency fuel. The posts above it is unclear the 757 has that to get to the Caribbean
To reiterate, arriving with ‘fumes’ is unthinkable and just not done, planning before and monitoring during the flight is continuous to ensure adequate fuel reserves are maintained, holding, a go around, return for another approach and / or diversion to another airport is all within that planning
You imply a ‘roll of the dice’ mentality, nothing could be further from the truth in most airlines and certainly in the one I work for
Re: Icelandair 757 question
I'm not implying anything. If anything only agreeing with you. I understand there are alternate airports to land at as part of a flight plan. But, some are saying its 3900nm to the Caribbean and that's the max range of the 757. If that is the case there is no room for contingency fuel which is required to file a flight plan. Many pilots ask for more than the minimum.
Re: Icelandair 757 question
timh4000 wrote:I'm not implying anything. If anything only agreeing with you. I understand there are alternate airports to land at as part of a flight plan. But, some are saying its 3900nm to the Caribbean and that's the max range of the 757. If that is the case there is no room for contingency fuel which is required to file a flight plan. Many pilots ask for more than the minimum.
You again are messing up nautimal miles used in aviation and statute miles used in the USA. (Just change to the metric system FFS!)
Statute Miles:
KEF - PUJ > 3,787 mi
TXL - EWR > 3,980 mi
Nautical Miles:
KEF - PUJ > 3,291 nm
TXL - EWR > 3,458 nm
The Carribean is well within the range of the 752 from KEF. It's about 30 minutes less flying time than TXL-EWR and also has less wind.
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Someone above quoted the Caribbean at 3900nm. Wasn't me and I do understand nautical miles and the metric system. If its within its range then they choose not to go there because they don't see a profit in it.
Re: Icelandair 757 question
Yikes! wrote:
~3,900 n.m. BIKF to Santo Domingo. Tight but possible. Probably not economical due to reduced payload to take the extra fuel required. Tech stop in CYYT would greatly improve viability of routes to all Caribbean destinations.
I was going by this post.
~3,900 n.m. BIKF to Santo Domingo. Tight but possible. Probably not economical due to reduced payload to take the extra fuel required. Tech stop in CYYT would greatly improve viability of routes to all Caribbean destinations.
I was going by this post.
-
- arcticcruiser
- Posts: 600
- Joined:
Re: Icelandair 757 question
KEF- Varadero and Havana have been done a few times, just under 3400nm. Marginal in winter winds.