Ultra Long Range A350

[scifi]

Looks like Singapore to New York is soon to be viable...


Ultra Long Range A350 XWB completes first flight (http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/04/ultra-long-range-a350-xwb-completes-first-flight-.html)
.

[BewareOfTheSharklets]

The A350 sure is an impressive machine. I wonder what other airlines will order A350ULRs.

[Groundloop]

Looks like Singapore to New York is soon to be viable...

But Singapore did this in the past with the A340-500.

[ZFT]

Looks like Singapore to New York is soon to be viable...


Ultra Long Range A350 XWB completes first flight (http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/04/ultra-long-range-a350-xwb-completes-first-flight-.html)
.

It was a few years ago with A340s. TG too out of BKK. Both failed and I wonder why SQ think ULH will work this time?

From experience of both, ULH is sh1te and I cannot understand the attraction.

[scifi]

Anyone remember Sabina, even their short-haul flights involved a stop at Brussels...


.

[jwrobbo]

These changes include a modified fuel system that increases fuel carrying capacity by 24,000 litres, without the need for additional fuel tanks.

That's a big jump. I'm trying to get my head around such an increase without more tankage.

[skol]

20 hours, that was illegal under my old contract. The maximum duty time was about 16 or 17 hours, and that's not flight time, that's from check-in to sign off.

A flight that length can be massively fatiguing for crew, esp. when you don't get any sleep due to turbulence, noise or whatever.

[tdracer]

That's a big jump. I'm trying to get my head around such an increase without more tankage.

I was thinking the same - I wonder if they're playing around with the definition of 'additional'.

Boeing has had similar capability with the 777-200LR for about 15 years.
It hasn't been a big seller - pretty much a niche aircraft.
I looked into that LAX-Singapore non-stop several years ago - the entire aircraft was an enhanced business class, 100 seats if I recall correctly. It also carried a significant price premium relative to the normal one-stop - around $2,000 more than the one-stop business class ticket.
I wasn't surprised when it was discontinued...

[CurtainTwitcher]

wonder what other airlines will order A350ULRs.
Qantas are always touting the East Coast Australia to London / New York direct as a winner. If you listen to the current and former CEO's they have bet the farm on Project Sunrise (https://web.archive.org/web/20180324023928/https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Project-Sunrise-Fact-Sheet.pdf) as the saviour for the international arm of the airline on the concept as an end of the line carrier. The latest advertorial A350-900ULR takes flight as Airbus looks towards Project Sunrise Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/04/a350-900ulr-takes-flight-as-airbus-looks-towards-project-sunrise/). More background Qantas seeks Holy Grail of nonstop Sydney to London, New York flights by 2022 (http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/08/qantas-seeks-holy-grail-of-nonstop-sydney-to-london-new-york-flights-by-2022/).

[Bend alot]

17% is a fair bit of extra fuel, but this is how it is explained.

"the aircraft had to be equipped with adjusted fuel cut-off probes in the tanks, to reach a total fuel load of 165,000 litres (standard is 141,000l)"

Seems these adjusted probes can be readjusted back to the standard if required - to reduce operation costs based on MTOW.

[galaxy flyer]

The G650 went thru a similar mod to become the G650ER.

GF

[Ex Cargo Clown]

20 hours in cattle class , no thanks. Even in J it would be a nightmare

[ImageGear]

//rant on...

It's 2018 and everything flying commercial is well sub-sonic. 12 hours in any ally tube is at least 8 hours too long for anybody. Is this a Big Bubba/Airslush strategy to keep more tubes in the air for longer, justifying higher prices and forcing people to upscale in comfort levels in order to avoid DVT or worse. (Think how many ambulances will be required to attend after pax have been incarcerated for 20 hours) Current aircraft are just all so last century. (Concorde excepted). I predict than the first manufacturer to get an economical SST to market will kill off the rest of the competition.

"Just stating the bleeding obvious but I feel better now"

//Rant off

IG

[Jetjock330]

I have found that the long range aircraft, including B777-200LR work, provided they do what they were designed to do-Fly the furthest distance, 18 hours and more. They have a very low seat count (240) and weigh in the same as the B777-300ER (412) for landing fees, over flight fees. Unless it is flying a route that the the B777-300ER cannot, due range, then it doesn't pay to fly a 200LR. They didn't make many of these and neither did they produce many A340-500's.

No doubt the new ULR A350WB will use less gas than the A340-500 did SIN-JFK, but it would be wasting its heavy landing and overflight weights if it does anything else!

[Fitter2]

I've endured 16 + hours SFO to HKG in economy. I sure wouldn't buy a Y class seat for a 20hr flight.

[groundbum]

rather than SST maybe these ULH planes need air-to-air refuelling, save dragging all that gas round the globe

just saying....

G

[Torquelink]

Seems these adjusted probes can be readjusted back to the standard if required - to reduce operation costs based on MTOW.

And there is a negligible OEW penalty so, subject to configuration, the ULR can operate as a standard -900.

[Hussar 54]

There was the CEO of Boeing ( was it ? ) who about 15 years ago said that even if they produced an airliner that could fly half way round the world, airlines would still want it to have even more range.

[Bend alot]

rather than SST maybe these ULH planes need air-to-air refuelling, save dragging all that gas round the globe

just saying....

G

A380 tanker conversions?

They can hold a bunch of gas, even more when not pressurised and gutted.
Fill 3 or 4 ULH and head back to fill up.

These ultra long flights the airlines need to adapt for the cattle class - bunk beds by the hour and paid shower even a lounge area paid per unit time.

[A0283]

They interviewed some pax after the recent first direct LHR to Australia flight. These were quit positive when they compared the direct flight with one with stops. The direct flight for them was less disruptive. So when you compare you should probably compare the different trip options and not per se the long trip in isolation.

Some technical solutions have been introduced. But the pax were not interviewed on the contribution of specific items.

Pity they did not interview the flight crew. ... Which you dont expect around the introduction of a new route... But still. Would have been very interesting. Again not only the trip but also how they perceive effects on their overall schedule and disruptive effects of either a direct or stops included.

[Jetjock330]

20 hours, that was illegal under my old contract. The maximum duty time was about 16 or 17 hours, and that's not flight time, that's from check-in to sign off.

A flight that length can be massively fatiguing for crew, esp. when you don't get any sleep due to turbulence, noise or whatever.

ULR flights operate under special provisions, beyond the flight and duty tables. Not every Company needs them, unlike those that have these aircraft. We have a maximum duty time of 22 hours, and no more discretion. The thing is, the company didn't say from when the discretion actually started! This is to allow a diversion enroute, refuel and get airborne and continue. It wouldn't help having 400 people stuck in Iceland for a night, if it could be helped.

[glofish]

"the aircraft had to be equipped with adjusted fuel cut-off probes in the tanks, to reach a total fuel load of 165,000 litres (standard is 141,000l)"

That sounds too good to be true. One possibility is that AB initially installed lousy cut-off probes. I however think that they try to sell another blunder with huge promises.
If you adjust the probes to fill the tank a little more, there are two apparent traps. First the overflow valves must be less trigger happy because i suspect that any shaking, banking, pitching would otherwise have them release too much of that precious superfill. This in itself could pose some problems with trapped gases. Second, it will be interesting to experience hot weather fuelling and subsequent mass vs. range problems. The tanks of the ME ULR aircraft pose some max fuelling problems above 36 degrees already, in the order of 2 to 5%, which leads right back to problem no1.
I know Singapore rarely gets over 33 degrees, but the targeted other big buyers airports for this new Wunderbus actually do.
As a second problem i see the MTOW. With two 4-wheel MLG there is no more increase possible (tires). The payload is already very small and thus not expandable, just as no additional aux tank. The much berated 777-200LR at least would have a comfortable margin to increase its MTOW, just as the newly offered 777X ULR.
I believe that the 350ULR will prove a tad inflexibel in daily ops when pushed to the desired range.

[pax britanica]

At the end of the day are there really enough ULR routes in the world that make these sort of 19-20 hour sectors viable. Maybe for Qantas because LHR and JFK are at the end of them but Australias not a very big place people wise and pretty insignificant globally . same with SIN-JFK, I mean Singapore the country isnt much bigger than JFK the airport.

If you have to upgrade Y -more pitch etc it means the aircraft is even more niche . So yes it means nowhere in the world is unreachable but how many really big city pairs are there longer than 12 hours ?

[ian16th]

rather than SST maybe these ULH planes need air-to-air refuelling, save dragging all that gas round the globe

just saying....

G

Sir Alan Cobham's inspiration for AAR was the idea of civilians flights around The Empire, not the military use to which it has been enthusiastically used.

[Capn Bloggs]

20 hours in cattle class , no thanks. Even in J it would be a nightmare
You must be pretty picky if you can't entertain yourself (and sleep and eat) for 20 hours in J.

[DaveReidUK]

At the end of the day are there really enough ULR routes in the world that make these sort of 19-20 hour sectors viable.

It's not rocket science. The airlines (and the manufacturers) know how many passengers currently fly between the ULR city pairs in question via hubs in Europe, ME3, Asia, etc.

By taking a view about the proportion of that traffic willing to pay a premium for direct, non-stop service on those routes, it's possible to derive the potential market for a ULR aircraft of a given size.

Of course whether that market is big enough to support one or two new types/variants remains to be seen.

[Bend alot]

That sounds too good to be true. One possibility is that AB initially installed lousy cut-off probes. I however think that they try to sell another blunder with huge promises.
If you adjust the probes to fill the tank a little more, there are two apparent traps. First the overflow valves must be less trigger happy because i suspect that any shaking, banking, pitching would otherwise have them release too much of that precious superfill. This in itself could pose some problems with trapped gases. Second, it will be interesting to experience hot weather fuelling and subsequent mass vs. range problems. The tanks of the ME ULR aircraft pose some max fuelling problems above 36 degrees already, in the order of 2 to 5%, which leads right back to problem no1.
I know Singapore rarely gets over 33 degrees, but the targeted other big buyers airports for this new Wunderbus actually do.
As a second problem i see the MTOW. With two 4-wheel MLG there is no more increase possible (tires). The payload is already very small and thus not expandable, just as no additional aux tank. The much berated 777-200LR at least would have a comfortable margin to increase its MTOW, just as the newly offered 777X ULR.
I believe that the 350ULR will prove a tad inflexibel in daily ops when pushed to the desired range.

https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/airbus-increases-a350-900-range-8100nm/

Maybe sent them a email to ask the difference in the probes and their source & design of surge tanks - as I don't know or claim to.

[Lord Bracken]

Wouldn't be surprised if Airbus run a couple of demonstration flights LHR-SYD (and maybe back again, which is the challenge) with this aircraft just prior to delivery to SQ.

[Evanelpus]

But Singapore did this in the past with the A340-500.

Bang on Groundloop!

This is not news, lets put this in the nostalgia corner.

[TURIN]

The A340-500 is not economical to operate in the niche role. The idea behind this A350ULR is that there are no huge differences to a standard A350. Let's assume the cabin is no different. The aircraft can be used on any route without penalty.

If you think there aren't enough routes for this to succeed, think about this. A small regional airport in the UK operates 3 A380s, 2 B777s and 2 787s to the Gulf, every day. That's about 3000 passengers. Others take a trip to LHR, CDG or AMS. A significant number are transiting to Australia. Given the choice, how many would take a non-stop and avoid all that messing about in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Doha, Dubai or Abu Dhabi?
I know my answer.
Bring it on !

[DaveReidUK]

Bang on Groundloop!

This is not news, lets put this in the nostalgia corner.

If the aircraft was only capable of SIN-JFK, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But it isn't (only) and we are.

[Mr Mac]

Turin
I did the SIN - Newark once with SQ back in the day on the 340, and it was a long trip even when A/C as has been said was stripped to Business Class only. Not sure I would do it again unless really necessary, and as I recall there was a price premium. Also who ever said the world was getting smaller never did that hop, it seemed to go on for ever, and I have done a lot of flying in my time ! Will look forward to seeing fleet of ambulances meeting these ULH Economy passengers when they try to walk after 20hrs. I spoke with an EK cabin crew a while back about their experiences of LH economy, and they all claimed that they do have a number of people who do not move from their seat on the trips down to Aus /Nz and struggle to walk off .

Kind regards
Mr Mac

[albatross]

Years ago did the flight Singapore - Newark direct. Lot faster than multiple legs on other routes...LONG flight as we ran into some headwinds...however great service and the seating was great even in steerage..they later changed it to all business class I believe.. There was a massive storm in Eastern Canada /USA and it took me 3 days to get home from Newark via Boston..Toronto and eventualy Montreal....an adventure for sure with some high comedy and a 2 night stay in a Hilton in Boston along with other "Orphans of the Storm".

[Evanelpus]

If the aircraft was only capable of SIN-JFK, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But it isn't (only) and we are.


Oooooooooo!

[Pinkman]

It's 2018 and everything flying commercial is well sub-sonic. 12 hours in any ally tube is at least 8 hours too long for anybody. Is this a Big Bubba/Airslush strategy to keep more tubes in the air for longer, justifying higher prices and forcing people to upscale in comfort levels in order to avoid DVT or worse. (Think how many ambulances will be required to attend after pax have been incarcerated for 20 hours) Current aircraft are just all so last century. (Concorde excepted). I predict than the first manufacturer to get an economical SST to market will kill off the rest of the competition.
"Just stating the bleeding obvious but I feel better now"

There are dozens of DVT cases every year following long hauls. Nobody seemingly thinks seriously about it / wont happen to them....

One a month dies from DVT at Heathrow | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13881/One-month-dies-DVT-Heathrow.html)l
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1371389/Bride-to-be-killed-by-blood-clot-after-20-hour-flight.html

[patrickal]

There are dozens of DVT cases every year following long hauls. Nobody seemingly thinks seriously about it / wont happen to them....

One a month dies from DVT at Heathrow Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13881/One-month-dies-DVT-Heathrow.html)l
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1371389/Bride-to-be-killed-by-blood-clot-after-20-hour-flight.html

Here is a case that happened earlier this month on a flight from Hawaii to DFW, and that is only a 6.5 hour flight!
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/american-airlines-passenger-died-flight-182636107.htm (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/american-airlines-passenger-died-flight-182636107.html)
About 10 years ago, I had a friend die from a DVT about 12 hours after getting off one of the non-stop Singapore - NYC flights. He was 42. I always book an aisle seat, and get up at least every 2 hours. People who sit through an entire 6+hour flight are asking for trouble.

[Tango and Cash]

20 hours in cattle class , no thanks. Even in J it would be a nightmare

20 hours in any airplane is too much IMHO, regardless of class!

[ImageGear]

20 hours in any airplane is too much IMHO, regardless of class

...and what about the increased exposure to solar radiation?

IG

[wiedehopf]

...and what about the increased exposure to solar radiation?

IG
i really hope you are joking.

[layman]

wiedehopf

I think ImageGear is "deadly" serious - skin cancer is a much higher risk for pilots than ground based workers.

"The Risk of Melanoma in Pilots and Cabin Crew: UV Measurements in Flying Airplanes"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476387/

Location .........................Carcinogenic Effective Irradiance, mW/m .........Time to Receive the UV-A Dose of a Tanning Bed Session, 2940 J/m, minutes
Inside tanning bed ................................2.45 ............................................................ .....................20.00
In pilot seat at 30 000 ft ........................0.87 ............................................................ .....................56.60

While not claiming to be definitive research, it would seem that every roughly every hour of flight time is the equivalent of a 20 minute tanning bed session - which are banned in most states in Australia due to their cancer inducing outcomes.
.
If I was a pilot, I would using sunscreen, sunglasses and a cap (even for short haul)

regards
layman

[wiedehopf]

Yeah ok i need to make the point i thought was obvious.

UV as well as ionizing radiation are the same per hour no matter the total length of the flight.
So unless ultra long haul makes pilots sit in the cockpit longer PER MONTH it just has nothing to do with this thread.

Also i guess they should just be offering free Aspirin prior to these long flights might cut the DVT rates significantly.

[Bangkokian]

I flew the TG BKK-LAX route a couple of times on the A340-500, enjoyed it. My recollection is that the fuel costs were the problem. Are the fuel costs for the same number of people reduced for the same route with the A350 based on the magic of modern technology and number of engines? If so, I can imagine a non-stop out of Singapore or another hub making a lot more sense to people who just want to get it over with in one go.

[ImageGear]

Just Not Joking

The issue is around how long crews spend at higher cruise altitudes over the period of a month. With more 787's, etc. at FL410/430, exposure at that altitude has to be more than at FL350. Exposure on shorter sectors where the aircraft spends more time at lower levels or on the ground is not as serious..

IG

[DaveReidUK]

Does anyone know whether the A359ULR is planned to cruise at higher levels than the standard A359?

[Doors to Automatic]

I would think for this sort of sector length of 19-20 hours the minimum acceptable standard of seating would be 38 inch pitch and 8 across. Anything less would be unbearable.

[Bend alot]

I would think for this sort of sector length of 19-20 hours the minimum acceptable standard of seating would be 38 inch pitch and 8 across. Anything less would be unbearable.

Acceptable by management or paying passenger?

[TURIN]

I've done the Europe to Oz trip more times than I care to remember. Each trip I had to disembark go through the whole rigmarole of collecting my precious things and then after killing an hour doing nothing, get back on and reacquaint myself with all the silly nonsense I had the first time. Another cabin briefing, another crew telling me how delighted they are to have me on board, another enroute/destination weather report...etc, etc.
Just get me there please!!!
Bring it on I say again.

[Cpt. Underpants]

One of the (unintentionally funniest things I've seen on long distance travel was Richard Quest breathlessly and enthusiastically interviewing punters on the inaugural SQ A340-500 SIN-EWR flight ..
As the flight progressed they were less and less inclined to speak to RQ until at the end of the 18 hour ordeal, pax after pax hurriedly brushed past him, desperate to get off the flight. Quest was desperately trying to get someone to talk to him, a few words from a seasoned traveler...but no. Not a peep.

[scifi]

Quote from Bankokian..... . My recollection is that the fuel costs were the problem. Are the fuel costs for the same number of people reduced for the same route with the A350 based on the magic of modern technology and number of engines?

Does anyone know what the relative fuel costs are for one-stop vs. non-stop flights.? I can imagine that flying directly over an intermediate airfield at FL 400 will use less fuel than descending then climbing from that airfield... but... Obviously the non-stopper has to carry about twice as much fuel in the first place.
.

[DaveReidUK]

Does anyone know what the relative fuel costs are for one-stop vs. non-stop flights.? I can imagine that flying directly over an intermediate airfield at FL 400 will use less fuel than descending then climbing from that airfield... but... Obviously the non-stopper has to carry about twice as much fuel in the first place.

The tankering vs refuelling trade-off isn't straightforward, particularly where ultra long haul sectors are involved.

Have a read of this thread: ULH flights burn much more fuel (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/589287-ulh-flights-burn-much-more-fuel.html)

[oldchina]

Scifi

Once, long before I retired and still had the data, I calculated the fuel burn penalty of one 8000nm vs 2 x 4000nm as about 10%.

Take into account that posters suggest a seat needs to occupy 20% more floor space to be acceptable ....and all the ULH problem is there ...

[scifi]

Thanks Oldchina, so that is 10% more cost for the fuel, but a saving of chargeable time, and intermediate Landing Fees, which could be financially crippling if the intermediate airfield was London Heathrow.
.

[DaveReidUK]

Thanks Oldchina, so that is 10% more cost for the fuel, but a saving of chargeable time, and intermediate Landing Fees, which could be financially crippling if the intermediate airfield was London Heathrow..

Though of course cost is only one side of the equation.

Flying non-stop and having to carry all that extra fuel from the origin airport could result in being payload-limited.

[scifi]

Thinking on... there are so many other factors to be taken into account. If the direct flight takes about 20 hours, you can do the same schedule the very next day, but if the double flight takes over 24 hours then the following flights will not fit into a daily schedule. Aircraft only make money whilst they are flying, not whilst they are on the ramp or taxiing.
.

[DaveReidUK]

If the direct flight takes about 20 hours, you can do the same schedule the very next day, but if the double flight takes over 24 hours.

Regardless of the route, it's highly unlikely that a stop is going to add 4 hours to the overall journey time. Bear in mind also that it won't be just a tech stop, you are also likely to be carrying revenue traffic to/from the intermediate point.

You're probably wishing by now that you hadn't asked. :O

By the way, did you read that link I gave you ?

[Wannabe Flyer]

As a customer who does at least one long haul a month, if not more I personally prefer a non stop as it allows me to arrive with some semblance of rest. Get on board get comfortable ask not to be bothered & go to sleep. Arrive with at least a few hours of shut eye & it helps the jet lag both ways... Added bonus is if/when I get to fly business then it is really a beauty. I hate the one stop flights as each segment does not allow more than a 4 hour rest given all the service shenanigans on both side of departure & arrival. Actually a total waste of a business class fare where you just cannot get a full 8 hours of shuteye. I always opt for the Long Haul over the hopping flights...That said longest I have take is about 16 hours.

Price points in Economy tend to be about +25% Different & in Business about +18% or so (When comparing hopping to nonstop).

[ZFT]

As a customer who does at least one long haul a month, if not more I personally prefer a non stop as it allows me to arrive with some semblance of rest. Get on board get comfortable ask not to be bothered & go to sleep. Arrive with at least a few hours of shut eye & it helps the jet lag both ways... Added bonus is if/when I get to fly business then it is really a beauty. I hate the one stop flights as each segment does not allow more than a 4 hour rest given all the service shenanigans on both side of departure & arrival. Actually a total waste of a business class fare where you just cannot get a full 8 hours of shuteye. I always opt for the Long Haul over the hopping flights...That said longest I have take is about 16 hours.

Price points in Economy tend to be about +25% Different & in Business about +18% or so (When comparing hopping to nonstop).

Whist we will just have to agree to differ on the so called merits of ULH vs a stop, assuming your price analysis is correct, then this delta makes this company paid travel only?

[c_coder]

...and what about the increased exposure to solar radiation?

IG
On a single long flight, you will spend less time in the air than by breaking the flight into two legs.

Thus, less radiation.

[Wannabe Flyer]

Whist we will just have to agree to differ on the so called merits of ULH vs a stop, assuming your price analysis is correct, then this delta makes this company paid travel only?

I wish. Company pays for about 25% of the ULH (as that is the only travel I do on their behalf). I have to do a monthly commute paid from my pocket as the family stays a 14 hour plus flight away so it is a once a month trip. Company & personal is economy only & business is when I manage to grovel successfully. I leave the miles for the kids to use to come out to see me.

It is still worth paying the amount as it gives me an extra day with the family awake on each side.

Sounds crazy but yes there are paying people like me out there who lead such a commuting life in the quest of having the best of all worlds.

[DaveReidUK]

On a single long flight, you will spend less time in the air than by breaking the flight into two legs.

Thus, less radiation.

Not necessarily.

On a two-leg journey, a greater proportion of the overall flight time will be spent at lower altitude, in the climb and descent x 2, where the solar radiation effect is less. I think we need to see the sums.

[ZFT]

I wish. Company pays for about 25% of the ULH (as that is the only travel I do on their behalf). I have to do a monthly commute paid from my pocket as the family stays a 14 hour plus flight away so it is a once a month trip. Company & personal is economy only & business is when I manage to grovel successfully. I leave the miles for the kids to use to come out to see me.

It is still worth paying the amount as it gives me an extra day with the family awake on each side.

Sounds crazy but yes there are paying people like me out there who lead such a commuting life in the quest of having the best of all worlds.

I don't envy you

[procede]

Not necessarily.

On a two-leg journey, a greater proportion of the overall flight time will be spent at lower altitude, in the climb and descent x 2, where the solar radiation effect is less. I think we need to see the sums.

On a two leg journey, you will probably also be flying at a higher cost index, thus faster, as conserving fuel is less of an issue. Next to this ULH is more likely to go over the (north) pole, which has more ionic radiation.

[Rwy in Sight]

I don't envy you

I do. I just dream to have a situation like that.

[Wannabe Flyer]

It is good for a period of time. I am sure it will take a toll on me but thankfully it is not for an infinite period of time. When the end goal is in sight makes it easier to sit 14 hrs each way once a month

[DaveReidUK]

By the way, did you read that link I gave you ?

Fine, I'll know not to bother next time ...

[20driver]

Link returned page not found. I would be interested in reading it.

[GXER]

The tankering vs refuelling trade-off isn't straightforward, particularly where ultra long haul sectors are involved.

Have a read of this thread: ULH flights burn much more fuel (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/589287-ulh-flights-burn-much-more-fuel.html)
”Page not found”

[DaveReidUK]

ULH flights burn much more fuel (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/589287-ulh-flights-burn-much-more-fuel.html)

[procede]

ULH flights burn much more fuel (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/589287-ulh-flights-burn-much-more-fuel.html)

I think the main problem with ULH is not the extra fuel itself, but the payload reduction to take that extra fuel. Also the extra crew (at full pay, weight and needing rest areas) is another big cost driver.

[oldchina]

procede

I wouldn't worry too much about the payload side of the equation. Potential and actual customers such as SIA are past
masters at extracting the most watertight route performance guarantees from the manufacturers. They're in the sales contract.
No manufacturer wants the bad publicity and penalty payments that go with missing a guarantee. It has happened, but only rarely.

[Capn Bloggs]

Also the extra crew (at full pay, weight and needing rest areas) is another big cost driver.
ULH would probably be cheaper: no single crew could do two 9 hour sectors, so would have to overnight a full crew prior (and after). Also, the ULH operation may only use 1 captain and 3 others, whereas if you did two sectors, you'd need two captains.

[procede]

ULH would probably be cheaper: no single crew could do two 9 hour sectors, so would have to overnight a full crew prior (and after). Also, the ULH operation may only use 1 captain and 3 others, whereas if you did two sectors, you'd need two captains.

I'm guessing this is really dependent on the regulation of the crew. I think some crews are allowed up to 9 hours with a two person flight crew and crew on an overnight gets paid a lot less than the crew on an aircraft. Another issue is the legal rest times between flights.

[scifi]

Thanks for all the links, don't you just hate it when they do not label the X and Y axis of the graphs they use..?
That's a first-former's mistake...
.

[Uncle Fred]

Not to be the pedant, but we need to be careful with the term direct versus non-stop. The former might actually involve a stop. Again, not to be picky but we just need to be aware of the difference.

[JammedStab]

As a customer who does at least one long haul a month, if not more I personally prefer a non stop as it allows me to arrive with some semblance of rest. Get on board get comfortable ask not to be bothered & go to sleep. Arrive with at least a few hours of shut eye & it helps the jet lag both ways... Added bonus is if/when I get to fly business then it is really a beauty. I hate the one stop flights as each segment does not allow more than a 4 hour rest given all the service shenanigans on both side of departure & arrival. Actually a total waste of a business class fare where you just cannot get a full 8 hours of shuteye. I always opt for the Long Haul over the hopping flights...That said longest I have take is about 16 hours.

Price points in Economy tend to be about +25% Different & in Business about +18% or so (When comparing hopping to nonstop).
As a crew member, I agree. Some crew I know say that they prefer the long-haul 10 your flight with only 3 crew. Not me. Why do a flight with 2:45 rest when you can do a 16 hour flight with 4 crew and 7 hours rest total split into two parts.... much better rest.

[TURIN]

Did we have these arguments when it first became possible to fly nonstop from say, London to Cape Town? At one time we had to stop at least once down the line. Nobody complains about that. Was a it so bad when it was suggested you would be spending 12 hrs in an aircraft without a break? Were the same fuel cost arguments used? What is the difference?

[DaveReidUK]

Were the same fuel cost arguments used? What is the difference?

The effect on fuel burn, fuel carried and payload is disproportionally higher on ultra-long sectors, as discussed above and in the linked threads.

[TURIN]

Interesting reading DRuk.
So all it needs is for the new aircraft to become fuel efficient enough to make it viable.
The A350ULR does this? I hope so.

[SeenItAll]

See this linked article. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a350-900ulr-will-have-inactive-forward-freight-hold-449495/ (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a350-900ulr-will-have-inactive-forward-freight-hold-449495/)

Not only will pax capacity be reduced to 173 seats (80J / 93PE) on a plane that ordinarily holds 315 in the regular -900 version, but the forward cargo compartment will also be blocked off. So no cargo revenue and necessarily very high pax ticket prices. Other than for some very, very high premium-demand niche markets, it seems hard to imagine that it will have many takers. Looks just like the A340-500 all over again.

[swh]

It is economic because it will only take 4-8 of the top premium passengers to pay the fuel bill.

The aircraft can still carry cargo in the rear hold. The forward hold is deactivated as it reduces weight and fuel burn, it can be reactivated again.

They have a system in place also fast cabin changes so the seating configuration in the rear can be changed relatively quickly for seasonal demand.

[Flap62]

It is economic because it will only take 4-8 of the top premium passengers to pay the fuel bill.

swh, If it’s configured with only J not F can you explain how only 4 J passengers will pay the fuel bill on a 20hr sector?

[DaveReidUK]

Other than for some very, very high premium-demand niche markets, it seems hard to imagine that it will have many takers.

It will likely have very few takers apart from SIA. But it probably still make sense from Airbus's point of view. If you read the article that you linked to, you will see that from the end of this year all A350-900s will be built to a common production standard (the -900ULR spec) and it will be up to customers if they want to pay to activate the ULR capability (clearly most won't).

Looks just like the A340-500 all over again.

Except that there will probably be fewer A350-900ULRs than the 34 A340-500s built. :O

[SeenItAll]

It is economic because it will only take 4-8 of the top premium passengers to pay the fuel bill.

The aircraft can still carry cargo in the rear hold. The forward hold is deactivated as it reduces weight and fuel burn, it can be reactivated again.

They have a system in place also fast cabin changes so the seating configuration in the rear can be changed relatively quickly for seasonal demand.

Fuel bill will be on the order of $100,000 per fill up (i.e., one-way sector).
Yes, can carry some cargo in rear hold -- but you aren't going to tell a pax paying $10,000 for a ticket that they can't carry any (or many) checked bags.
Maybe you can shuffle the PE seats in the rear to regular economy -- but you ain't moving around the 80J seats very quickly. And is demand seasonal on NYC-SIN?

[ThaiTastic]

That's a big jump. I'm trying to get my head around such an increase without more tankage.
Less fuel burn from the new engines, I think that they said 25% less burn

[swh]

The top ticket prices will be well above 10k, no issue with checked baggage, it isn’t a 787.

[Volume]

It's not rocket science. The airlines (and the manufacturers) know how many passengers currently fly between the ULR city pairs in question via hubs in Europe, ME3, Asia, etc.
By taking a view about the proportion of that traffic willing to pay a premium for direct, non-stop service on those routes, it's possible to derive the potential market for a ULR aircraft of a given size

The top ticket prices will be well above 10k.
The big question is: If you really have enough pax demanding an ULR city pair, is it really more expensive to do it with an ULR aircraft model, compared to do it with a slightly cheaper conventional aircraft type, but do the stopover (requiring two cycles on the airframe, additional airport fees, two crews etc. potentially more time so that you need twice the number of aircraft to serve the route parking them for quite some hours)? Do you really have to charge a premium / 10K?

The number of routes is surely limited, but I can imagine that there are some where you could even offer the direct flight cheaper than your competitors doing a stopover. It all depends on the actual demand for that city pair, whether you need to fill the aircraft with transit passenger, or whether you can fill it with point-to-point passengers.
Having one model of an aircraft type for this relatively small market probably makes sense.

So when you compare you should probably compare the different trip options and not per se the long trip in isolation.
Exactly. The alternative to a 20 hour flight might be a 30 hour trip...
Which of course would be acceptable, if the 20 hour flight is 10K, and the 30 hour trip is 4K...

For sure the direct flight would be significantly less than twice as expensive to operate (maybe even cheaper), so you should not try to sell it at twice the price.
Maybe by doing so, you would just kill it.

[JayMatlock]

//rant on...

It's 2018 and everything flying commercial is well sub-sonic. 12 hours in any ally tube is at least 8 hours too long for anybody. Is this a Big Bubba/Airslush strategy to keep more tubes in the air for longer, justifying higher prices and forcing people to upscale in comfort levels in order to avoid DVT or worse. (Think how many ambulances will be required to attend after pax have been incarcerated for 20 hours) Current aircraft are just all so last century. (Concorde excepted). I predict than the first manufacturer to get an economical SST to market will kill off the rest of the competition.

"Just stating the bleeding obvious but I feel better now"

//Rant off

IG
I'll state the obvious : SST is way too expensive for it be economical and kill off the competition.
rather than SST maybe these ULH planes need air-to-air refuelling, save dragging all that gas round the globe

just saying....

G

I'm not sure it would be economical as well.
You would need to save 40k$ (which is the cost of the flight hour of the cargo airplane) worth of fuel for it to be worth the trouble. Not taking into account the development of a civil air to air system from design to crew training.

[stilton]

Unheard of to ‘de activate the front cargo hold’


That certainly limits flexibility, is the weight savings from not installing cargo handling
equipment that critical?


Seems like a show stopper for some airlines

[swh]

Unheard of to ‘de activate the front cargo hold’


That certainly limits flexibility, is the weight savings from not installing cargo handling
equipment that critical?


Seems like a show stopper for some airlines

Since no other aircraft can fly that sort of time and distance with a comparable payload that efficiently, it is not a show stopper.

Many 777s fly around with next to nothing in their cargo holds when flying a ULH, and it is costing fuel to have that sitting there empty.

Most airlines do not have city pairs they want to serve that far apart, that is the limiting factor. Probably only a dozen airlines in the world that would have the need for it.

[procede]

You would need to save 40k$ (which is the cost of the flight hour of the cargo airplane) worth of fuel for it to be worth the trouble. Not taking into account the development of a civil air to air system from design to crew training.
A quick fuel and crew change stop, keeping the passengers onboard, would be a much more economical option. This would probably add 1 - 1.5 hours to the trip.

[Noxegon]

A quick fuel and crew change stop, keeping the passengers onboard, would be a much more economical option. This would probably add 1 - 1.5 hours to the trip.

Done today by Ethiopian on several North American routes.

[ImageGear]

Also happened at Sal Island for many years during the embargo on South Africa, JNB to JFK in those days 18.5 hours, with a wife and two babies, not funny.

I'll state the obvious : SST is way too expensive for it be economical and kill off the competition.

Understood in regard to current technology, but within a relatively short space of time, the capability should arrive unless the vested interests step heavily on any future development cycle....and yes, under every rock is a critter with your name on it.

IG

[procede]

Understood in regard to current technology, but within a relatively short space of time, the capability should arrive unless the vested interests step heavily on any future development cycle....and yes, under every rock is a critter with your name on it.

Even new technology cannot go against the laws of physics. Parasitic drag rises a lot after Mach 0.8 and decreases again slowly after Mach 1, but still stays higher than below Mach 0.8. The only solution to this is to go (sub) orbital, but then a lot of energy is needed to get there, which must be dissipated getting back. Plus you need to bring oxygen for the passengers to breathe and air breathing engines will not work.

[Bend alot]

A quick fuel and crew change stop, keeping the passengers onboard, would be a much more economical option. This would probably add 1 - 1.5 hours to the trip.

I'm right Jack - but you pax stay in your seat and suffer.

[stilton]

Since no other aircraft can fly that sort of time and distance with a comparable payload that efficiently, it is not a show stopper.

Many 777s fly around with next to nothing in their cargo holds when flying a ULH, and it is costing fuel to have that sitting there empty.

Most airlines do not have city pairs they want to serve that far apart, that is the limiting factor. Probably only a dozen airlines in the world that would have the need for it.



Between ULH routes those 777’s can use those cargo holds profitably on shorter flights


As many airlines do, it gives the operator the
flexibility to use an expensive asset productively in the manner they choose and not have it sitting around for hours between ULH sectors

[swh]

There is no time between 19-20 hr ULR sectors for another 2 sectors and have time to complete routine maintenance. There is no 777 flying that sort of distance.

Deactivated does not mean removed, it can be re-activated.

[glofish]

It is economic because it will only take 4-8 of the top premium passengers to pay the fuel bill.

The aircraft can still carry cargo in the rear hold. The forward hold is deactivated as it reduces weight and fuel burn, it can be reactivated again.

They have a system in place also fast cabin changes so the seating configuration in the rear can be changed relatively quickly for seasonal demand.






Just a little bit of experience in that matter:
For the EK 380 F-class luxury we heard the same arguments over and over. As a frequent visitor to the F-class i can assure you that less than 1/3 of customers pay the desired premium fare. Passengers smartly exploit over-bookings, upgrades through miles and more or ff programs. Such luxury has not payed and this can surely be extrapolated to a superduper ULR offer.
Fast cabin / cargo configuration changes have been offered in many other aircraft before. EK had additional tanks on their 77L, deactivated, offloaded, but never used as flexible fast changer. I remember Swissair tried seats that could be changed in width by FAs with a hand-drill, to enable C / Y configuration change between flights. It was quickly abolished.
The quick turn around times, the restricted time for maintenance simply does not favour such configuration changes, too much time to lose and too many blunders while changing (never touch working mechanics!). Why is the 77W, and most probably the 359 such a success? Because they are so versatile without touching anything. Sure enough a 380 carries more into slot restricted LHR, sure enough that torture version of the 350 might fly from Mongolia to Fireland, but its all niche. Niche was never economical, only viable if there was really no alternative. There is however an alternative to 18 hour travel: Split it. Its cheaper and after first-hand experience more comfortable.
The very few hard pressed business gurus might use superduper ULR, but there are not that many and they rarely pay premium.

I predict a few spectacular routes for such aircraft, it has been tried before and they all silently disappeared after some time.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that conversion of an A350-900 between ULR and non-ULR configuration would be a turnround process. If done at all, it would be more likely something done on a seasonal basis. If at all.

[SeenItAll]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that conversion of an A350-900 between ULR and non-ULR configuration would be a turnround process. If done at all, it would be more likely something done on a seasonal basis. If at all.

But routes that are seasonal tend to be leisure-oriented. Business-heavy routes (the only ones that could possibly support ULR) tend not to be seasonal. Thus, I doubt that this A350-900 "flexibility" will be used -- except when converting ULR -900s back to regular once their previously flown ULR routes are discontinued due to impossible economics.

[DaveReidUK]

Thus, I doubt that this A350-900 "flexibility" will be used -- except when converting ULR -900s back to regular once their previously flown ULR routes are discontinued due to impossible economics.

Or they might make so much money on SIN/EWR that they keep it in ULR configuration for ever. :O

[tdracer]

Or they might make so much money on SIN/EWR that they keep it in ULR configuration for ever. :O

That certainly wasn't the case when the tried it with the A340 (or the similar SIN/LAX service). I somewhat seriously looked at the LAX/SIN non-stop option one time - it was a massive premium over the similar business class service with a one and a half hour fuel stop thrown in (as in almost 2x).
Not to many people are willing to pay that much of a premium to save a couple hours, and many of those already have access to a private jet...

[Peter47]

I've just been looking at average freight per flight on ULH routes (from US BTS T-100 data) for 2017 and not surprisingly it is not too high westbound and the forward hold will likely be empty:

UA LAX - SIN (789) 2.7 tonnes, average flight duration 17:07
AA DFW - HKG (77W) 2.3 tonnes, average flight duration 16:04

The results will obviously vary by season and indeed day depending upon the jetstream, route taken, holding, etc. However consider the eastbound route:

UA SIN - LAX 9.4 tonnes, avg flt dur 14:34
AA HKG - DFW 12.3 tonnes, avg flt dur 13:54

So you may well want to use the forward hold in one direction. Also what if the aircraft finds itself on a west coast to Tokyo rotation? You could dedicate an aircraft to ULH routes but that would reduce flexibility. I believe that Pan Am (and doubtless other operators) switched 727 QC between passenger & cargo configuration in a matter of hours but doubtless there was a weight penalty which negates one of the reasons d'etre for deactivating it.

My solution... It's already been discussed in another thread, but I believe that there is a lot of scope for utilising the forward hold with suites, toilets, galleys, etc releasing a lot of space for pax, although of course it will add weight.