San Francisco to Saigon, non-stop without a fueling stop?...

[AlexisDetroit]

United Flight 0869 from SFO to SGN (Ho Chi Minh City) in 17 hours and 19 minutes non-stop. Can a 744 fly that long with out a fuel stop? Do some flights stop in places like Anchorage, Alaska on such flights for fuel only? I thought around 15 hours was max flight time for any type of airliner today.

Anyone been on this San Francisco to Saigon flight?

[goudie]

UA 869 Flight Status

This flight has multiple segments. Please select a segment from the list.

UA 869 from (DEN) Denver to (SFO) San Francisco (http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?&id=213595127&airlineCode=UA&flightNumber=869)
UA 869 from (SFO) San Francisco to (HKG) Hong Kong (http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?&id=213595128&airlineCode=UA&flightNumber=869)
UA 869 from (HKG) Hong Kong to (SGN) Ho Chi Minh City (http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?&id=213595126&airlineCode=UA&flightNumber=869)

This is the route according to 'Flitestats website

[AlexisDetroit]

SFO to Tan Son Nhut (SGN). It will check Flight Stats that you mentioned. Thanks

[AlexisDetroit]

Flightstats apparently doesn't go that far in advance. This is flight UA 869 leaving SFO for SGN. Funny that there isn't a Hong Kong stop mentioned on my reservation print out. I wonder if this is a new non-stop to Saigon beginning this month.

[AlexisDetroit]

2.5 hour stop in Hong Kong then onto Saigon. HK wasn't mentioned on my print out. Found it on the United site.

[EISNN]

On your print out/booking confirmation it should have mentioned 'one stop' or something similar. I'm surprised it didn't. They're obliged to tell you as far as I'm aware.

[WHBM]

Did you book directly with United, or with a separate booking organisation ?

[PAXboy]

AD There was a thread recently about 'Tech Stops' which are fuel/pax stops or sometimes fuel only. Sometimes these involve a change of a/c as well BUT they run them under a single flight number. This is seen to be the creative hand of 'marketing'. But they HAVE to tell you about any stops. You might want to search the forum for it, as it was in Pax & SLF within (I think) the last six weeks.

[Capetonian]

UA 869 :

dep SFO 1151
arr HKG 1840 (EFT 14:49) IATA Mileage 6915
dep HKG 2040
arr SGN 2210 (EFT 2:00) IATA Mileage 929

Some other long non stops are :
NYC SIN 9529 EFT 18:45
BKK LAX 8256 EFT 14:50
HKG NYC 8055 EFT 15:50
JNB ATL 8429 EFT 17:15

[PAXboy]

As far as I know, the NYC SIN 9529 EFT 18:45 is on SQ's 340-500, very specifically equipped for the biz market and a premium service??

The longest sector I had was HKG~LHR but we had a large weather detour and it was 15hrs 25mins (wheels to wheels) and I made a note as it was unusual for that route and we were pretty full on a VS 340 (a -300 I think it was).

[TopBunk]

The longest sector I had was HKG~LHR but we had a large weather detour and it was 15hrs 25mins (wheels to wheels) and I made a note as it was unusual for that route and we were pretty full on a VS 340 (a -300 I think it was).

iirc, in the early days of VS operating to HKG, they did not have overflight rights for China, so had to route via a southerly routing, hence the added flight time. Bearing in mind that the normal HKG-LHR flight is about 13 hours, it is highly unlikely that the extra time was due weather deviation, but more likely due to a creative explanation from the flight deck due to the routing.

I cannot recall any weather deviation in my career that would account for more than about 10 minutes en route.

[PAXboy]

Hi TB, I take up your challenge and have explored my electronic diary records and travel log book (aka spreadsheet).

I think that you are correct that VS had to go 'South About' in their early days but this was North About over China.

I see that my first HKG~LHR was in a BA 74 (not noted whether a 3 or 400) late January 1991 (I do have the exact date because it's an electronic diary but I don't want to appear too anorak-y. :uhoh:) That was North About and was14 hrs wheels-to-wheels, rounded to 15 minutes (My anorak does not demand exact minutes. :hmm:) but I did note the following trip in question in detail as it was unusual.

Between June 94 and January 95, I made three trips there with VS. The last trip was out in 14hr 15m and back on 27-01-95 in 15hr 15m (correction from previously stated 25 mins from memory). We were told that, due to a large storm complex on our usual route, we had to go pretty far north almost as far as Beijing, before turning. It was the night before the Chinese New Year and we were very full.

Yes, as you can see, I don't have anything of importance to do this evening than to swap stories of long sectors. I would enter the lists for the shortest commercial flight at 11 minutes but I recall from a previous discussion in here, that someone had about 4 minutes.

Now, where's the brandy ... ;)

[ExXB]

My shortest commercial flight (distance and time) was from Vancouver Airport to Vancouver Coal Harbour on 28 December 1997. 13 km, 0:06 minutes.

Flight was a Helijet Scheduled flight from Vancouver International to Whistler with an intermediate stop at Coal Harbour. Flight didn't even make it to Whistler - we diverted to Squamish due weather.

[WHBM]

Going back to the original posting about whether San Francisco to Saigon would be beyond the capabilities of a United 747-400.

This United 747 flight in question UA869 operates San Francisco to Hong Kong (6,019 nm), and then continues to Ho Chi Minh (Saigon). Arriving in parallel with it at Hong Kong is United 747 flight UA895 from Chicago to Hong Kong (6,772 nm), which continues to Singapore. The two flights stand on adjacent gates at Hong Kong and exchange connecting passengers Chicago-Ho Chi Mih and San Francisco-Singapore. In addition to the through passengers, and those disembarking at Hong Kong, United also market the local 5th freedom sectors within Asia to attain a full aircraft on all legs, as they have always done with such flights in the region.

If a nonstop San Francisco to Ho Chi Minh were commercially desirable that is 6,811 nm, which is effectively the same as 6,772 nm the aircraft from Chicago to Hong Kong is achieving every day.

[TopBunk]

Hi TB, I take up your challenge and have explored my electronic diary records and travel log book (aka spreadsheet).

I think that you are correct that VS had to go 'South About' in their early days but this was North About over China.

I see that my first HKG~LHR was in a BA 74 (not noted whether a 3 or 400) late January 1991 (I do have the exact date because it's an electronic diary but I don't want to appear too anorak-y. ) That was North About and was14 hrs wheels-to-wheels, rounded to 15 minutes (My anorak does not demand exact minutes. ) but I did note the following trip in question in detail as it was unusual.

Between June 94 and January 95, I made three trips there with VS. The last trip was out in 14hr 15m and back on 27-01-95 in 15hr 15m (correction from previously stated 25 mins from memory). We were told that, due to a large storm complex on our usual route, we had to go pretty far north almost as far as Beijing, before turning. It was the night before the Chinese New Year and we were very full.

Yes, as you can see, I don't have anything of importance to do this evening than to swap stories of long sectors. I would enter the lists for the shortest commercial flight at 11 minutes but I recall from a previous discussion in here, that someone had about 4 minutes.

Now, where's the brandy ...

Without wishing to creep the thread too much!

1. BA have not operated 747-300's, the -400's entered service in late 1989, so most likely a -400.

2.My logbook reveals over about 20 events, all 747-400 cos that is what I flew!:

LHR-HKG: average 11:48 (pushback to brake set), lowest 11:28, max 12:16.

HKG-LHR: average 13:12, min 12.43, max 13:55

This includes both Kai Tak and Chek Lap Kok.

Now I know the A340-200/300 is slow, but an extra 2:00 on the LHR-HKG sector and an extra 1:20 inbound sounds excessive, especially the former!

3. Routing up to Beijing is pretty routine on that flight. Having said that I think there are about 2 routings HKG to LHR. One of which routes close to Beijing and over Ulan Bator and the other slighty further southwest, and that given flight numbers usualy follow the same routes every day, so it could be that VS followed an abnormal (for them) route that say, but I would say that because of the prevailing winds the Beijing route is shorter in time, usually.

[PAXboy]

Well, thank you TB for the detailed answers and I have updated my log book to show a 744 on 24th January 1991 - HECK!! That's nigh on 20 years ago. :ooh:

To continue the merry diversion of this thread ;)
It was a grand sector as we were on the flight deck over Ulan Bator and watched the blast furnaces of that city at night. Another reason that I recall that sector is:

Departing after dark on 13 (the one that went straight out over the harbour) we had, what I took to be, a compressor stall on the No 3. I was in the 'K' seat in Club and at the leading edge of the wing so heard the big bang and felt the big shake! Naturally, we got away just fine but it remains the only such example that I have noticed in 45 years of paxing. When on the flight deck, I asked about this but it was not answered and they went on to some other point of interest.

Interesting about the times on the route and I have no idea if it was 342 or 343, both are noted for their (ahem) fuel economy (aka being slow!) but I gather that slowness is good on the fuel burn. I'm pretty sure about sector times as I use the timer function in my wristwatch, not least so that I know how far we are into the run. Of course, the Skymaps now show that - but they didn't have them fancy new techhy things when I wuz a lad. Didn't have cheap electronic watches with timers either!

[Binman62]

Pax boy...you are quite right HKG LHR in the early 90's, up to 93 infact, did regularly take 15 hours. The reason was that BA could not operate all their services via China and instead used the Da Nang route flying south before turning North. If you started in Taiwan on Bristish Asia Airways then this flight almost always went south. I used the route regularly as based in Seoul at the time, fortunately in the pointy end almost all the time but even then found the flight a real drag. BA had to weight restrict the flight in order to operate
Once the Chinese route via Beijing opened the flight time came down to what it is now.