End of very long haul???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Whitehill, Hampshire, U.K.
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of very long haul???
Article in The Times today concerning possibility, in the future, of reducing sector lengths to save overall fuel consumption. Seems unlikely to me.
Note the insular nature of the article which suggests it could mean the end of direct flights to LAX and JNB - what, from anywhere?!
<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002027692,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002027692,00.html</a>
Meering
Note the insular nature of the article which suggests it could mean the end of direct flights to LAX and JNB - what, from anywhere?!
<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002027692,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002027692,00.html</a>
Meering
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the last paragraph that alarms me- BA even has a "Sustainable Business Unit"! In view of the rabid overstaffing there, it is obviously countered by the "Unsustainable Business Unit" and the "Possibly Sustainable Business Unit", all equipped with laptops, company cars and far too many mobile phones and pagers (and staff travel)!
What is amazing is that the papers take any notice of these daft ideas emanating from unreal, closeted academics with over-green philosophies. When we are all made to ride bikes instead of driving, I'll believe there is a problem.
[ 17 January 2002: Message edited by: Notso Fantastic ]</p>
What is amazing is that the papers take any notice of these daft ideas emanating from unreal, closeted academics with over-green philosophies. When we are all made to ride bikes instead of driving, I'll believe there is a problem.
[ 17 January 2002: Message edited by: Notso Fantastic ]</p>
Quite amazing reading this!
The study was sponsored by some major corporate names, who then proceed to contest the findings!
Two major principles of this study, are the need for more taxation to right the wrongs of the world (!?!!) and this wonderful notion of short hops to fly everywhere and anywhere.
There is no need to theorise on the effects this wil have on air travel, just ask anyone who travelled in the days before the current long range aircraft types; of the wonders of Shannon, Prestwick, Anchorage and Newfoundland (plus tons more).
Anyone involved with this project care to comment?
Anyone got a copy of the report?
Bring back the DC-6 I say!
The study was sponsored by some major corporate names, who then proceed to contest the findings!
Two major principles of this study, are the need for more taxation to right the wrongs of the world (!?!!) and this wonderful notion of short hops to fly everywhere and anywhere.
There is no need to theorise on the effects this wil have on air travel, just ask anyone who travelled in the days before the current long range aircraft types; of the wonders of Shannon, Prestwick, Anchorage and Newfoundland (plus tons more).
Anyone involved with this project care to comment?
Anyone got a copy of the report?
Bring back the DC-6 I say!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that a turbo fan engine is at it's most efficient in cruise, how can shortening sectors help? Take off and climb use by far more fuel than a continuous cruise given the same distance to cover. Not to mention the time factors. And people think it's a pain to go through security these days, once or twice for a given trip!!!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said 29351; another couple of points - most fuel is burned during the intial climb, so split a single sector in two = two climbs, which may be = nearly twice the fuel (OK so the gtw would be less!)
Likewise, safety, not may aircraft go down during cruise - take off and landing are the crucial phases, increasing these may increase the risk of more accidents. Add to that ATC delays and the wear and tear on the cycles of the airframe, engines, etc...
Likewise, safety, not may aircraft go down during cruise - take off and landing are the crucial phases, increasing these may increase the risk of more accidents. Add to that ATC delays and the wear and tear on the cycles of the airframe, engines, etc...
Well I guess Boeing and Airbus might like the new airframe orders that will be necessary to compensate for the lost equipment utilization with the extra stops. An enroute landing between Europe and JFK. Amazing.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I can gather in the article they are talking about medium haul aircraft doing the routes. Now those, even if they use less fuel can only hold half the pax of a 747-400 so they will be less efficent.
I did some calcultaions for a 747-400 Full Load on a rudimentary flight planning program. (Actually designed for 744 PS1.3 Precision Simulator) Not 100% accurate I know but illustrates a point.
The times map had London-Bahrain-Delhi-Singapore so I used that route.
London Bahrain- 57 Tons Trip Fuel
Bahrain Delhi 30 Tons
Delhi Singapore 47 Tons
Total of 134 Tons
Another one I tried was one stop
London Baharin 57
Bahrain Singapore 72
Total of 129
Now the Total direct, these are all Great Circle, No Airways / Winds etc, was 133 Tons so the only saving would be going one stop but even then 4 tons doesn't seem to be worth the effort.
If anyone has the time to work out any calculations on a real life flight planning system for a 747-400 to include winds etc, then it would be interesting to see whether the Times article would be valid for a 747-400
I did some calcultaions for a 747-400 Full Load on a rudimentary flight planning program. (Actually designed for 744 PS1.3 Precision Simulator) Not 100% accurate I know but illustrates a point.
The times map had London-Bahrain-Delhi-Singapore so I used that route.
London Bahrain- 57 Tons Trip Fuel
Bahrain Delhi 30 Tons
Delhi Singapore 47 Tons
Total of 134 Tons
Another one I tried was one stop
London Baharin 57
Bahrain Singapore 72
Total of 129
Now the Total direct, these are all Great Circle, No Airways / Winds etc, was 133 Tons so the only saving would be going one stop but even then 4 tons doesn't seem to be worth the effort.
If anyone has the time to work out any calculations on a real life flight planning system for a 747-400 to include winds etc, then it would be interesting to see whether the Times article would be valid for a 747-400
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zürich and Port Elizabeth SA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume that all the calculations are based on getting your planned level. Seems to me that with intermediate stops you have even less chance of getting the level you want because someone is already there. What about fuel consumption then!!
