Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Ultra Long Range A350

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Ultra Long Range A350

Old 25th Apr 2018, 09:27
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by skol View Post
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.
Jetjock330 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 09:33
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,041
"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.
glofish is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 09:54
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,133
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 ?
pax britanica is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 10:51
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 82
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by groundbum View Post
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.
ian16th is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 11:29
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,767
Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown View Post
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.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 12:17
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,647
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 12:29
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by glofish View Post
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/ai...-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.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 14:30
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 167
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.
Lord Bracken is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 14:43
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: on the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 2,022
Originally Posted by Groundloop View Post
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.
Evanelpus is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 16:06
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,659
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 !
TURIN is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 16:09
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,647
Originally Posted by Evanelpus View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 16:20
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 59
Posts: 682
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

Last edited by Mr Mac; 27th Apr 2018 at 11:43. Reason: Forgot it was Newark not JFK that we went into - only time I have been there !
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 13:54
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,052
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".
albatross is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 14:41
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: on the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 2,022
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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!
Evanelpus is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 15:01
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 263
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 Onlinel
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ur-flight.html
Pinkman is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2018, 02:08
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by Pinkman View Post
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 Onlinel
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ur-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
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.
patrickal is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2018, 18:01
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown View Post
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!
Tango and Cash is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2018, 18:25
  #38 (permalink)  
ImageGear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
20 hours in any airplane is too much IMHO, regardless of class
...and what about the increased exposure to solar radiation?

IG
 
Old 27th Apr 2018, 19:08
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by ImageGear View Post
...and what about the increased exposure to solar radiation?

IG
i really hope you are joking.
wiedehopf is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 01:41
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canberra
Posts: 121
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
layman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.