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 1st May 2018, 11:57
  #61 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 69
Posts: 1,948
Originally Posted by Wannabe Flyer View Post
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
ZFT is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 13:25
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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.
procede is online now  
Old 2nd May 2018, 05:37
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,126
Originally Posted by ZFT View Post
I don't envy you
I do. I just dream to have a situation like that.
Rwy in Sight is online now  
Old 2nd May 2018, 06:43
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Posts: 717
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
Wannabe Flyer is offline  
Old 3rd May 2018, 23:03
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
By the way, did you read that link I gave you ?
Fine, I'll know not to bother next time ...
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 4th May 2018, 05:14
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Posts: 432
Link returned page not found. I would be interested in reading it.
20driver is offline  
Old 4th May 2018, 07:20
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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
”Page not found”
GXER is offline  
Old 4th May 2018, 07:22
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
ULH flights burn much more fuel
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 4th May 2018, 10:42
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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.
procede is online now  
Old 4th May 2018, 12:14
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 324
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.
oldchina is offline  
Old 4th May 2018, 12:31
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,809
Originally Posted by Procede
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.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 4th May 2018, 14:04
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
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.
procede is online now  
Old 4th May 2018, 14:12
  #73 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Broughton, UK
Posts: 71
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...
.
scifi is offline  
Old 5th May 2018, 03:13
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
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.
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 6th May 2018, 03:12
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Wannabe Flyer View Post
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.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 6th May 2018, 12:20
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,679
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?
TURIN is offline  
Old 6th May 2018, 13:43
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 7th May 2018, 18:30
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,679
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.
TURIN is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2018, 14:42
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 464
How can this plane be economic?

See this linked article. 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.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2018, 15:03
  #80 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,931
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.
swh 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.