Could civilian AAR ever happen?
IF those services were in the happy position of being able to sell profitably the very substantial increase of long-haul payload capability which AAR might offer to their fleet ..
As Beags has rightly said the modern big ETOPS twins have so much "grunt" that you rarely need to think about reducing payload or trading fuel for payload just to meet take-off perfomance requirements. Where I work we've got a reasonably modern ETOPS twin in a variety of variants. The only places on our route network (which includes SAN BTW
) where we routinely have to think about reducing or limiting payload for performance reasons are a handful which are "hot and high"...and even that isn't the case on our newer variants. In fact on many sectors the Zero Fuel Weight limit is going to cap payload before any performance limit - and AAR won't fix that!!. Now I'd agree that AAR would allow you to increase range and overfly the likes of (lucrative) BKK or SIN on the way between Europe and Oz ..but does that make economic sense?
Last edited by wiggy; 4th Nov 2013 at 14:06.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PESTLE analysis
Various points raised, I will try and answer a few. Range only interested in using boom transfer as the rates far superior and tanker availability way better.
The forerunner of BOAC ran Atlantic Trials just after WW2 to see if they could use AAR to run Lancastrians non stop to South America. Several non pax trial flights were run with a bracket off the Azores all bar one worked, see the book Range Unlimited for more detail. Jet speed and range made further trials pointless.
Dr Nangia's papers were subject to peer review and proved that in theory a small 757 sized aircraft could be tankered very long distances and save fuel in comparison to tech stops.
The big ETOP Twins are impressive but let's not forget that all long haul airliners burn a big chunk of their gas just lifting themselves off the deck and climbing to 30,000 feet. Being able to get airborne lighter and uplifting fuel en route from a civ/mil MRTT might offer both economies and an ability to offer unique products.
Air Force 1 uses and needs AAR to be able to fly into useful but small airports then go anywhere with the support of a tanker.
There are many drivers and obstacles for civil AAR. Why would Boeing and Airbus support it if suddenly an A330 could last longer and fly further than an A350? Same with Boeing and the 787, rather embarrassing if we figured a KC67 could do it better.
A world wide tanker network already exists courtesy of US defence spending but would they allow civil friends to access it? Probably not but ex USAAF tankers sat out in the desert and thousands of current commercial pilots have tanking experience.
Niche products. An A319 that launches from London City takes a few tonnes off a tanker just west of Brize and then flies non stop to JFK. A B757 that takes off from Aberdeen takes on a few tonnes and flies non stop to Houston.
The forerunner of BOAC ran Atlantic Trials just after WW2 to see if they could use AAR to run Lancastrians non stop to South America. Several non pax trial flights were run with a bracket off the Azores all bar one worked, see the book Range Unlimited for more detail. Jet speed and range made further trials pointless.
Dr Nangia's papers were subject to peer review and proved that in theory a small 757 sized aircraft could be tankered very long distances and save fuel in comparison to tech stops.
The big ETOP Twins are impressive but let's not forget that all long haul airliners burn a big chunk of their gas just lifting themselves off the deck and climbing to 30,000 feet. Being able to get airborne lighter and uplifting fuel en route from a civ/mil MRTT might offer both economies and an ability to offer unique products.
Air Force 1 uses and needs AAR to be able to fly into useful but small airports then go anywhere with the support of a tanker.
There are many drivers and obstacles for civil AAR. Why would Boeing and Airbus support it if suddenly an A330 could last longer and fly further than an A350? Same with Boeing and the 787, rather embarrassing if we figured a KC67 could do it better.
A world wide tanker network already exists courtesy of US defence spending but would they allow civil friends to access it? Probably not but ex USAAF tankers sat out in the desert and thousands of current commercial pilots have tanking experience.
Niche products. An A319 that launches from London City takes a few tonnes off a tanker just west of Brize and then flies non stop to JFK. A B757 that takes off from Aberdeen takes on a few tonnes and flies non stop to Houston.
"Dr Nangia's papers were subject to peer review and proved that in theory a small 757 sized aircraft could be tankered very long distances and save fuel in comparison to tech stops."
True but when you take the cost of the TANKER sortie into account the economic argument is reversed.
By the way I don't think the USAAF ever had any tankers-the USAF did (and does).
True but when you take the cost of the TANKER sortie into account the economic argument is reversed.
By the way I don't think the USAAF ever had any tankers-the USAF did (and does).
Dr Nangia's papers were subject to peer review...
The big ETOP Twins are impressive but let's not forget that all long haul airliners burn a big chunk of their gas just lifting themselves off the deck and climbing to 30,000 feet.
I've got some super snake oil for sale, if you're interested....
let's not forget that all long haul airliners burn a big chunk of their gas just lifting themselves off the deck and climbing to 30,000 feet.
Niche products. An A319 that launches from London City takes a few tonnes off a tanker just west of Brize and then flies non stop to JFK.
(How much should I charge for that advice??
)I hate to rain on peoples parades' but I do fear some are championing a solution in search of a problem.
Last edited by wiggy; 4th Nov 2013 at 21:30.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
whilst the aircraft is being refuelled at Shannon the passengers are being rapidly whisked through a special US customs and immigration set up. When they subsequently land at JFK they are treated as domestic passengers and are through and out of the (domestic) terminal in the blink of an eye.
You could achieve the same by moving CHI to London City.
You could achieve the same by moving CHI to London City.
Not sure about luggage - and in any event given the passenger profile on the route I'd doubt there would be much, if any.
Understood....
I'm not denying there might be "niche routes" where AAR might make a difference - e.g. routes where performance limits are always capping payloads with subsequent loss of significant revenue and/or the postulated ultra ultra longhaul routes (e.g. Europe - Oz). Problem is establishing how big that niche is and given the continuing advances in aircraft performance how long many of those niches will last.
IMHO I suspect the niche, if there really is one, is very very small and is only going to get smaller. Certainly anyone currently justifying such schemes or writing academic papers or business plans based on 757 or similar era aircraft need to go and re-run the figures using 787/A350 performance figures. I suspect the operators would rather re-equip with a modern type rather than spend money running a parallel AAR type/fleet or using a AAR provider..and the regulator is going to run a mile when it comes to passenger ops.
I'm not denying there might be "niche routes" where AAR might make a difference - e.g. routes where performance limits are always capping payloads with subsequent loss of significant revenue and/or the postulated ultra ultra longhaul routes (e.g. Europe - Oz). Problem is establishing how big that niche is and given the continuing advances in aircraft performance how long many of those niches will last.
IMHO I suspect the niche, if there really is one, is very very small and is only going to get smaller. Certainly anyone currently justifying such schemes or writing academic papers or business plans based on 757 or similar era aircraft need to go and re-run the figures using 787/A350 performance figures. I suspect the operators would rather re-equip with a modern type rather than spend money running a parallel AAR type/fleet or using a AAR provider..and the regulator is going to run a mile when it comes to passenger ops.
Last edited by wiggy; 5th Nov 2013 at 06:58.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
What record was this?
The reason I ask is that I was of the opinion that the already mentioned Qantas B747-400 that did the no pax flight from Heathrow to Sydney broke the speed record that was set by the Vulcan with a 617 Sqdn crew in 1961.
Its not often that I'm right, but I could be wrong again
When we did EX PUP in Apr 1987, supporting the London-Australia record attempt...............
.......But they did get the record!
.......But they did get the record!
The reason I ask is that I was of the opinion that the already mentioned Qantas B747-400 that did the no pax flight from Heathrow to Sydney broke the speed record that was set by the Vulcan with a 617 Sqdn crew in 1961.
Its not often that I'm right, but I could be wrong again
ian16th, the QANTAS London-Sydney flight on 16-17 Aug 1989 took just over 20 hours. Whereas the 101 Sqn London-Perth flight on 8 Apr 1987 took 16 hours, comfortably beating the previous 18 hr record (again achieved by 101 Sqn, not the 617th bombardment mob).
See http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Fastest...lia%201987.htm
The 101 Sqn record stands to this day.....
See http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Fastest...lia%201987.htm
The 101 Sqn record stands to this day.....
Last edited by BEagle; 5th Nov 2013 at 15:53.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
Thanks for that.
The article refers to a Vulcan flight that I was unaware of, in 1964.
I was involved with the 1961 effort. I was on 214, we had Valiant's in Akrotiri, Mauripur and Singapore. Me, I was in Mauripur as usual
I did 5 visits to the place.
In my earlier post, I deliberately said a 617 CREW, as the Vulcans were on centralised sevicing at the time and the 'sqdns' didn't have any a/c. They were dolled out by the servicing organisation. By being 'different' we on 214 managed to avoid that fate.
I see that 101 carried Michael Cobham as a pax, his dad presented 214 with a trophy for our 1961 efforts!
Thanks for that.
The article refers to a Vulcan flight that I was unaware of, in 1964.
I was involved with the 1961 effort. I was on 214, we had Valiant's in Akrotiri, Mauripur and Singapore. Me, I was in Mauripur as usual
I did 5 visits to the place.In my earlier post, I deliberately said a 617 CREW, as the Vulcans were on centralised sevicing at the time and the 'sqdns' didn't have any a/c. They were dolled out by the servicing organisation. By being 'different' we on 214 managed to avoid that fate.
I see that 101 carried Michael Cobham as a pax, his dad presented 214 with a trophy for our 1961 efforts!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiggy
OK just for the record I flew for BA for 9 years on the Bus and you really are a patronising idiot mate.
Range wrote to EASA and received a positive response because we could statistically prove AAR is actually safer than an airliner flown non precision approach.
Neither Range or myself are selling anything although I do have one patent and four others under application which might come to something.
Now wiggy what's your story, impress me with your efforts or belt up.
Range wrote to EASA and received a positive response because we could statistically prove AAR is actually safer than an airliner flown non precision approach.
Neither Range or myself are selling anything although I do have one patent and four others under application which might come to something.
Now wiggy what's your story, impress me with your efforts or belt up.
Range wrote to EASA and received a positive response because we could statistically prove AAR is actually safer than an airliner flown non precision approach.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety comparisons absurd?
I am trying to put forward some points without being rude so will try again.
Re regulation and civil air to air Range looked at Omega in the US as a template for a civil organisation permitted by the FAA to operate aircraft as tankers.
We wrote to EASA not long after it had been created and used comparative data from military AAR missions against some well known high risk civil procedures like non precision to promote the safety case for AAR.
The drivers for civil AAR when Range was set up were Economic, Political and Environmental (PESTLE ANALYSIS). Specifically, I felt that the threat of an EU Emissions Trading Scheme and a tax on aviation fuel might provoke a trade dispute in which players like Russia and China could deny EU airlines access to their airspace.
Had the scheme progressed fuel in Europe would have been taxed so the idea that departing with min fuel and topping up over the Gulf or even Turkey might have been commercially viable.
Since the scheme did not progress because of external political pressure I have not attempted to promote the idea any further in recent years. However, times change and civil air to air may be looked at again in the future.
Re regulation and civil air to air Range looked at Omega in the US as a template for a civil organisation permitted by the FAA to operate aircraft as tankers.
We wrote to EASA not long after it had been created and used comparative data from military AAR missions against some well known high risk civil procedures like non precision to promote the safety case for AAR.
The drivers for civil AAR when Range was set up were Economic, Political and Environmental (PESTLE ANALYSIS). Specifically, I felt that the threat of an EU Emissions Trading Scheme and a tax on aviation fuel might provoke a trade dispute in which players like Russia and China could deny EU airlines access to their airspace.
Had the scheme progressed fuel in Europe would have been taxed so the idea that departing with min fuel and topping up over the Gulf or even Turkey might have been commercially viable.
Since the scheme did not progress because of external political pressure I have not attempted to promote the idea any further in recent years. However, times change and civil air to air may be looked at again in the future.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007
note "the enormous financial losses" Airspace denial by Russia an important lever for them and one they may use again.
DDP
A Lufthansa Cargo plane at Frankfurt Airport.
Lufthansa Cargo was shocked by the announcement: Since Sunday midnight, Lufthansa's cargo planes have been banned from entering Russian airspace. "We heard about the ban at the very last minute," said a Lufthansa Cargo spokesman. "This means enormous financial losses for us. Flights to Japan, China, South Korea and Singapore have to be re-directed. Normally they would go via Astana in Kazakhstan and Tashkent in Uzbekistan."
ANZEIGE
Lufthansa Cargo is hoping for a solution at the governmental level. "This is a political affair. We can't do anything other than wait for a political solution," a spokesman said, adding that if Moscow doesn't reverse its decision soon, there will have to be a reduction of cargo flights to Asia. He refused to comment on reports that the ban may have been prompted by the company's delayed payments for its flyover rights.
Reprints
Find out how you can reprint this SPIEGEL ONLINE article.
Berlin is annoyed by the Russian ban. A spokesman from the Transport Ministry said that the misunderstanding is expected to be cleared up quickly. "Having conferred with the Chancellery, and the foreign and economics ministries, we are conducting talks with the Russian side," he said. No mention was made of the possible cause of the ban. "Negotiations are ongoing, so we don't want to discuss that at the moment." Spokespersons for the Chancellery and other ministries likewise refused to comment.
Transport Committee Annoyed
Several members of the parliamentary committee on transport expressed their frustration over the ban. "The way Russia fleeces airlines is akin to modern highway robbery," one parliamentarian said. Another mentioned that the European Union and Russia are currently negotiating an air traffic treaty. "Moscow's decision to withdraw flyover rights at precisely this moment amounts to a unilateral termination of these negotiations," he said. He claimed to know nothing about Russia's motives. Committee chairman Klaus Lippold of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) likewise refused to comment.
Almost all countries levy fees for the right to fly over their territories. "These fees vary from country to country," says air traffic legal expert Ronald Schmid. "That's why, for instance, routes from Frankfurt sometimes take a zigzag course to Buenos Aires, Argentina, in order to avoid territories with high fees."
According to one EU report, European airlines pay roughly €300 million ($433 million) annually for the right to fly through Russian airspace. A debate between the EU and Russia over these fees has been dragging on for almost 20 years. In a compromise reached by both sides in 2006, but which Moscow has yet to ratify, Russia agreed to abolish the fee by the end of 2013. Legal experts say that fees levied for flyover rights can only be applied to flight safety and must not exceed these expenses.
"For decades, EU airlines have been required to pay fees to the Russian company Aeroflot for the right to use Russian airspace between the EU and Japan, China and South Korea. These are in addition to the standard flight navigation fees," states a European Union paper. Airlines from the EU are thus obliged to enter into a commercial contract with Aeroflot. According to the authorities in Brussels, this practice contravenes international law and, in particular, the Chicago Convention of 1944, which guarantees air carriers flyover rights at no or limited expense.
The European Commission made the abolition of the fees a pre-condition to Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). And, in May 2004, Moscow committed to eliminating the fee. Starting in 2010, the rate is to be steadily reduced and airlines will no longer be required to enter into contractual agreements with Aeroflot.
Moscow Blames an Expired Contract
Members of the parliamentary transport committee consider Russia's cooperative attitude to be a thing of the past. "Russia is an unreliable partner," said one politician, referring to the fact that a few days ago, Moscow denied a Hong Kong passenger jet bound for London the right to fly over its territory, meaning that the passengers had to wait for hours at the airport in Hong Kong.
A spokesman for the Russian Transport Ministry refused to accept any responsibility, saying that air traffic between Germany and Russia was in no way affected and that Lufthansa Cargo had simply neglected to extend a contract that expired on Oct. 27. "That is why Lufthansa Cargo flights are banned from Russian airspace. There's no reason other than the expiration of the contract," he said, adding that it was up to the Germans to begin negotiating and to renew their contract.
On Monday, Germany responded to the Russian ban by prohibiting Aeroflot flights from using German airspace. According to a spokeswoman for Frankurt Airport, the German ban was lifted on Tuesday. But in the meantime, Aeroflot had to divert some flights -- to Luxemburg.
With additional reporting by Olga Zasuhina
DDP
A Lufthansa Cargo plane at Frankfurt Airport.
Lufthansa Cargo was shocked by the announcement: Since Sunday midnight, Lufthansa's cargo planes have been banned from entering Russian airspace. "We heard about the ban at the very last minute," said a Lufthansa Cargo spokesman. "This means enormous financial losses for us. Flights to Japan, China, South Korea and Singapore have to be re-directed. Normally they would go via Astana in Kazakhstan and Tashkent in Uzbekistan."
ANZEIGE
Lufthansa Cargo is hoping for a solution at the governmental level. "This is a political affair. We can't do anything other than wait for a political solution," a spokesman said, adding that if Moscow doesn't reverse its decision soon, there will have to be a reduction of cargo flights to Asia. He refused to comment on reports that the ban may have been prompted by the company's delayed payments for its flyover rights.
Reprints
Find out how you can reprint this SPIEGEL ONLINE article.
Berlin is annoyed by the Russian ban. A spokesman from the Transport Ministry said that the misunderstanding is expected to be cleared up quickly. "Having conferred with the Chancellery, and the foreign and economics ministries, we are conducting talks with the Russian side," he said. No mention was made of the possible cause of the ban. "Negotiations are ongoing, so we don't want to discuss that at the moment." Spokespersons for the Chancellery and other ministries likewise refused to comment.
Transport Committee Annoyed
Several members of the parliamentary committee on transport expressed their frustration over the ban. "The way Russia fleeces airlines is akin to modern highway robbery," one parliamentarian said. Another mentioned that the European Union and Russia are currently negotiating an air traffic treaty. "Moscow's decision to withdraw flyover rights at precisely this moment amounts to a unilateral termination of these negotiations," he said. He claimed to know nothing about Russia's motives. Committee chairman Klaus Lippold of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) likewise refused to comment.
Almost all countries levy fees for the right to fly over their territories. "These fees vary from country to country," says air traffic legal expert Ronald Schmid. "That's why, for instance, routes from Frankfurt sometimes take a zigzag course to Buenos Aires, Argentina, in order to avoid territories with high fees."
According to one EU report, European airlines pay roughly €300 million ($433 million) annually for the right to fly through Russian airspace. A debate between the EU and Russia over these fees has been dragging on for almost 20 years. In a compromise reached by both sides in 2006, but which Moscow has yet to ratify, Russia agreed to abolish the fee by the end of 2013. Legal experts say that fees levied for flyover rights can only be applied to flight safety and must not exceed these expenses.
"For decades, EU airlines have been required to pay fees to the Russian company Aeroflot for the right to use Russian airspace between the EU and Japan, China and South Korea. These are in addition to the standard flight navigation fees," states a European Union paper. Airlines from the EU are thus obliged to enter into a commercial contract with Aeroflot. According to the authorities in Brussels, this practice contravenes international law and, in particular, the Chicago Convention of 1944, which guarantees air carriers flyover rights at no or limited expense.
The European Commission made the abolition of the fees a pre-condition to Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). And, in May 2004, Moscow committed to eliminating the fee. Starting in 2010, the rate is to be steadily reduced and airlines will no longer be required to enter into contractual agreements with Aeroflot.
Moscow Blames an Expired Contract
Members of the parliamentary transport committee consider Russia's cooperative attitude to be a thing of the past. "Russia is an unreliable partner," said one politician, referring to the fact that a few days ago, Moscow denied a Hong Kong passenger jet bound for London the right to fly over its territory, meaning that the passengers had to wait for hours at the airport in Hong Kong.
A spokesman for the Russian Transport Ministry refused to accept any responsibility, saying that air traffic between Germany and Russia was in no way affected and that Lufthansa Cargo had simply neglected to extend a contract that expired on Oct. 27. "That is why Lufthansa Cargo flights are banned from Russian airspace. There's no reason other than the expiration of the contract," he said, adding that it was up to the Germans to begin negotiating and to renew their contract.
On Monday, Germany responded to the Russian ban by prohibiting Aeroflot flights from using German airspace. According to a spokeswoman for Frankurt Airport, the German ban was lifted on Tuesday. But in the meantime, Aeroflot had to divert some flights -- to Luxemburg.
With additional reporting by Olga Zasuhina