Is there a future for ultra long-haul aircraft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: N.O.Y.B.
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a future for ultra long-haul aircraft?
Presently, the demand for it doesn't appear to be there, with Singapore cancelling its direct route between Singapore and New York due to rising fuel costs and steep fares.I know that the introduction of the 787 and the A350 is meant to make this market look more promising, but is there a realistic future market? For my Masters of Engineering Final Year Project, I have considering conceptually designing a new aircraft that could deal with route, but is it worth carrying out such a project?
Last edited by EZY_FR; 26th Jul 2013 at 16:06.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It may sound banal, but I believe the limiting factor could be flight and duty time rules. The present rules, for Europe at least, are structured around what is flown currently, eg Tokyo, Singapore nonstops etc.
FTL rules are a battleground between airlines, pilot unions and regulators. The latest round of regulatory tweaking looks to be drawing to a close with heavy bruising on all sides. No way would the airlines want to reopen the debate for the sake of a questionable Europe-Australia capability.
FTL rules are a battleground between airlines, pilot unions and regulators. The latest round of regulatory tweaking looks to be drawing to a close with heavy bruising on all sides. No way would the airlines want to reopen the debate for the sake of a questionable Europe-Australia capability.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As airline travel and security becomes more and more like torture, and more time consuming, direct flights will have greater appeal. Emirates LAX-Dubai is full and a London-Sydney direct would also be full should it exists. I personally fly a lot for work and I will go to extreme lengths to avoid hubs or having to change plane. I will always chose the most direct route, even if that means riding on an airline I can't get airmiles on. I think there's a great future for ULH on the right routes.
16 hour flights such as JFK - HKG don't appear to be an issue and hardly any US West Coast to Oz flights stop at HNL. The problem seems to be the additional 2.5 hours.
There was discussion some time back suggesting that a lot of fuel could be saved if aircraft made additional stops as it would reduce the average weight of fuel carried. Obviously you need a suitable en route airport otherwise the total distance increases and the process of landing & taking off itself requires fuel. NYC - SIN is an interesting example as the prevailing jet streams mean that it is generally quickest to fly eastbound so obvious routings might be SIN - NRT - EWR and EWR - HEL - SIN but then again LHR might be more attractive than HEL as a stopover (although I've absolutely nothing against Finland).
A request I made on another forum for data as to savings by, for example stopping at Bahrain en route to Singapore met with little response. I would still welcome any data.
New technology makes longer flights more feasible. If fuel consumption reduces by 10% & you can obviously go 11% further. If you can reduce the empty weight of an aircraft you can carry more payload. A 777 200ER already has an endurance of 20hr. Reduce the BOW & fuel consumption and you could carry a useful payload for this amount of time. That's further than NYC - SIN which has the same economics as say MEL - LAX.
I'm not a pilot or an expert on FTL but would have thought that with four crew and good crew rest facilities a reasonable rest period of eight hours was shorter than the maximum duty time for an un-augmented crew so four crew could cope with a duty time in excess of twenty hours. That's just an observation on my part pilots may have their own views!
Which leaves us with passenger fatigue. The thought of flying London to Oz in Y without a stopover fills me with dread. Hanging around in a departure lounge without an exercise bile for a few minutes doesn't count. I'm told that 75% of pax on through fly the route without a break (although my data is 20 years old). Never amount about showers in flight (if you could only keep the temperature & humidity low on the ground who needs one anyway) what about some exercise bikes at the rear of the cabin? Maybe ULH only makes sense for premium - but as we have seen, SQ cannot fill its aircraft with just premium traffic.
Its interesting that the 787 & 350 came with a such a long range - and that some carriers, particularly in the Middle East want such range. I've often wondered if it might make sense to have separate medium and long range fleets. To some extent this is happening. The A330 is a very economical plane but lacks the legs for ultra long haul so airlines will operate it alongside 777s.
There was discussion some time back suggesting that a lot of fuel could be saved if aircraft made additional stops as it would reduce the average weight of fuel carried. Obviously you need a suitable en route airport otherwise the total distance increases and the process of landing & taking off itself requires fuel. NYC - SIN is an interesting example as the prevailing jet streams mean that it is generally quickest to fly eastbound so obvious routings might be SIN - NRT - EWR and EWR - HEL - SIN but then again LHR might be more attractive than HEL as a stopover (although I've absolutely nothing against Finland).
A request I made on another forum for data as to savings by, for example stopping at Bahrain en route to Singapore met with little response. I would still welcome any data.
New technology makes longer flights more feasible. If fuel consumption reduces by 10% & you can obviously go 11% further. If you can reduce the empty weight of an aircraft you can carry more payload. A 777 200ER already has an endurance of 20hr. Reduce the BOW & fuel consumption and you could carry a useful payload for this amount of time. That's further than NYC - SIN which has the same economics as say MEL - LAX.
I'm not a pilot or an expert on FTL but would have thought that with four crew and good crew rest facilities a reasonable rest period of eight hours was shorter than the maximum duty time for an un-augmented crew so four crew could cope with a duty time in excess of twenty hours. That's just an observation on my part pilots may have their own views!
Which leaves us with passenger fatigue. The thought of flying London to Oz in Y without a stopover fills me with dread. Hanging around in a departure lounge without an exercise bile for a few minutes doesn't count. I'm told that 75% of pax on through fly the route without a break (although my data is 20 years old). Never amount about showers in flight (if you could only keep the temperature & humidity low on the ground who needs one anyway) what about some exercise bikes at the rear of the cabin? Maybe ULH only makes sense for premium - but as we have seen, SQ cannot fill its aircraft with just premium traffic.
Its interesting that the 787 & 350 came with a such a long range - and that some carriers, particularly in the Middle East want such range. I've often wondered if it might make sense to have separate medium and long range fleets. To some extent this is happening. The A330 is a very economical plane but lacks the legs for ultra long haul so airlines will operate it alongside 777s.
Have a look at A350-900R. Supposedly, BA want a version that will do LHR-SYD non stop.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Longing for the day when we can do AKL - LHR non-stop. More or less straight up the date line and over the pole.
Or SYD - LHR - against the wind.
Now that really would be an ETOPs busting great circle.
No stuffing around.
Stopover schmopover...
Or SYD - LHR - against the wind.
Now that really would be an ETOPs busting great circle.
No stuffing around.
Stopover schmopover...
Last edited by tartare; 29th Jul 2013 at 07:07.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm not a pilot or an expert on FTL but would have thought that with four crew and good crew rest facilities a reasonable rest period of eight hours was shorter than the maximum duty time for an un-augmented crew so four crew could cope with a duty time in excess of twenty hours. That's just an observation on my part pilots may have their own views!
Yes, of course, 20-hour sectors could be operated with augmented crew. But not with four pilots, my guess is that the airlines would say five, the unions would say six. Either way, that's a lot of capacity to set aside for bunk rest and a lot of hotel bills at the other end. But that's not the point. Current rules do not foresee this eventuality, nor can they be interpreted to accommodate it. it would require the rulebook to be reopened and revised, and the whole circus starts all over again. I really don't believe that's going to happen, for the sake of a business propostiion which is questionable at best.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: A free wi_fi near you
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason airline staff want ULH direct flights everywhere is so we don't get bumped off at the half way point!
Other than that who would want to sit in a tin tube or plastic fantastic for 16-18 hrs!
Not me. No matter how good the IFE is.
Can you imagine how cranky the trolley dollies would be by 18th hour of can i have a another XYZ thanks.
Or on the 4th time they will be asking the pax chicken or beef.
Happy days!
Other than that who would want to sit in a tin tube or plastic fantastic for 16-18 hrs!
Not me. No matter how good the IFE is.
Can you imagine how cranky the trolley dollies would be by 18th hour of can i have a another XYZ thanks.
Or on the 4th time they will be asking the pax chicken or beef.
Happy days!
