Ultra Long Range A350
N4790P
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Have a read of this thread: ULH flights burn much more fuel
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Procede
Also the extra crew (at full pay, weight and needing rest areas) is another big cost driver.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
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...
.
That's a first-former's mistake...
.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Price points in Economy tend to be about +25% Different & in Business about +18% or so (When comparing hopping to nonstop).
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.