Ultra Long Range A350
It is economic because it will only take 4-8 of the top premium passengers to pay the fuel bill.
Looks just like the A340-500 all over again.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Yes, can carry some cargo in rear hold -- but you aren't going to tell a pax paying $10,000 for a ticket that they can't carry any (or many) checked bags.
Maybe you can shuffle the PE seats in the rear to regular economy -- but you ain't moving around the 80J seats very quickly. And is demand seasonal on NYC-SIN?
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: thailand
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
The top ticket prices will be well above 10k.
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
The top ticket prices will be well above 10k.
The number of routes is surely limited, but I can imagine that there are some where you could even offer the direct flight cheaper than your competitors doing a stopover. It all depends on the actual demand for that city pair, whether you need to fill the aircraft with transit passenger, or whether you can fill it with point-to-point passengers.
Having one model of an aircraft type for this relatively small market probably makes sense.
So when you compare you should probably compare the different trip options and not per se the long trip in isolation.
Which of course would be acceptable, if the 20 hour flight is 10K, and the 30 hour trip is 4K...
For sure the direct flight would be significantly less than twice as expensive to operate (maybe even cheaper), so you should not try to sell it at twice the price.
Maybe by doing so, you would just kill it.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
//rant on...
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"
//Rant off
IG
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"
//Rant off
IG
You would need to save 40k$ (which is the cost of the flight hour of the cargo airplane) worth of fuel for it to be worth the trouble. Not taking into account the development of a civil air to air system from design to crew training.
Unheard of to ‘de activate the front cargo hold’
That certainly limits flexibility, is the weight savings from not installing cargo handling
equipment that critical?
Seems like a show stopper for some airlines
That certainly limits flexibility, is the weight savings from not installing cargo handling
equipment that critical?
Seems like a show stopper for some airlines
Many 777s fly around with next to nothing in their cargo holds when flying a ULH, and it is costing fuel to have that sitting there empty.
Most airlines do not have city pairs they want to serve that far apart, that is the limiting factor. Probably only a dozen airlines in the world that would have the need for it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick fuel and crew change stop, keeping the passengers onboard, would be a much more economical option. This would probably add 1 - 1.5 hours to the trip.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dublin
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Also happened at Sal Island for many years during the embargo on South Africa, JNB to JFK in those days 18.5 hours, with a wife and two babies, not funny.
Understood in regard to current technology, but within a relatively short space of time, the capability should arrive unless the vested interests step heavily on any future development cycle....and yes, under every rock is a critter with your name on it.
IG
I'll state the obvious : SST is way too expensive for it be economical and kill off the competition.
IG
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even new technology cannot go against the laws of physics. Parasitic drag rises a lot after Mach 0.8 and decreases again slowly after Mach 1, but still stays higher than below Mach 0.8. The only solution to this is to go (sub) orbital, but then a lot of energy is needed to get there, which must be dissipated getting back. Plus you need to bring oxygen for the passengers to breathe and air breathing engines will not work.
Since no other aircraft can fly that sort of time and distance with a comparable payload that efficiently, it is not a show stopper.
Many 777s fly around with next to nothing in their cargo holds when flying a ULH, and it is costing fuel to have that sitting there empty.
Most airlines do not have city pairs they want to serve that far apart, that is the limiting factor. Probably only a dozen airlines in the world that would have the need for it.
Between ULH routes those 777’s can use those cargo holds profitably on shorter flights
As many airlines do, it gives the operator the
flexibility to use an expensive asset productively in the manner they choose and not have it sitting around for hours between ULH sectors
There is no time between 19-20 hr ULR sectors for another 2 sectors and have time to complete routine maintenance. There is no 777 flying that sort of distance.
Deactivated does not mean removed, it can be re-activated.
Deactivated does not mean removed, it can be re-activated.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
For the EK 380 F-class luxury we heard the same arguments over and over. As a frequent visitor to the F-class i can assure you that less than 1/3 of customers pay the desired premium fare. Passengers smartly exploit over-bookings, upgrades through miles and more or ff programs. Such luxury has not payed and this can surely be extrapolated to a superduper ULR offer.
Fast cabin / cargo configuration changes have been offered in many other aircraft before. EK had additional tanks on their 77L, deactivated, offloaded, but never used as flexible fast changer. I remember Swissair tried seats that could be changed in width by FAs with a hand-drill, to enable C / Y configuration change between flights. It was quickly abolished.
The quick turn around times, the restricted time for maintenance simply does not favour such configuration changes, too much time to lose and too many blunders while changing (never touch working mechanics!). Why is the 77W, and most probably the 359 such a success? Because they are so versatile without touching anything. Sure enough a 380 carries more into slot restricted LHR, sure enough that torture version of the 350 might fly from Mongolia to Fireland, but its all niche. Niche was never economical, only viable if there was really no alternative. There is however an alternative to 18 hour travel: Split it. Its cheaper and after first-hand experience more comfortable.
The very few hard pressed business gurus might use superduper ULR, but there are not that many and they rarely pay premium.
I predict a few spectacular routes for such aircraft, it has been tried before and they all silently disappeared after some time.
Last edited by glofish; 5th Jul 2018 at 07:23.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that conversion of an A350-900 between ULR and non-ULR configuration would be a turnround process. If done at all, it would be more likely something done on a seasonal basis. If at all.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But routes that are seasonal tend to be leisure-oriented. Business-heavy routes (the only ones that could possibly support ULR) tend not to be seasonal. Thus, I doubt that this A350-900 "flexibility" will be used -- except when converting ULR -900s back to regular once their previously flown ULR routes are discontinued due to impossible economics.