|
Ultra Long Range A350
Looks like Singapore to New York is soon to be viable...
Ultra Long Range A350 XWB completes first flight . |
The A350 sure is an impressive machine. I wonder what other airlines will order A350ULRs.
|
Looks like Singapore to New York is soon to be viable... |
Originally Posted by scifi
(Post 10129019)
Looks like Singapore to New York is soon to be viable...
Ultra Long Range A350 XWB completes first flight . From experience of both, ULH is sh1te and I cannot understand the attraction. |
Anyone remember Sabina, even their short-haul flights involved a stop at Brussels...
. |
jwrobbo
These changes include a modified fuel system that increases fuel carrying capacity by 24,000 litres, without the need for additional fuel tanks. |
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. |
Originally Posted by jwrobbo
(Post 10129210)
That's a big jump. I'm trying to get my head around such an increase without more tankage.
Boeing has had similar capability with the 777-200LR for about 15 years. It hasn't been a big seller - pretty much a niche aircraft. I looked into that LAX-Singapore non-stop several years ago - the entire aircraft was an enhanced business class, 100 seats if I recall correctly. It also carried a significant price premium relative to the normal one-stop - around $2,000 more than the one-stop business class ticket. I wasn't surprised when it was discontinued... |
Originally Posted by BewareOfTheSharklets
(Post 10129042)
wonder what other airlines will order A350ULRs.
|
17% is a fair bit of extra fuel, but this is how it is explained.
"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)" Seems these adjusted probes can be readjusted back to the standard if required - to reduce operation costs based on MTOW. |
The G650 went thru a similar mod to become the G650ER. GF |
20 hours in cattle class , no thanks. Even in J it would be a nightmare
|
//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 |
I have found that the long range aircraft, including B777-200LR work, provided they do what they were designed to do-Fly the furthest distance, 18 hours and more. They have a very low seat count (240) and weigh in the same as the B777-300ER (412) for landing fees, over flight fees. Unless it is flying a route that the the B777-300ER cannot, due range, then it doesn't pay to fly a 200LR. They didn't make many of these and neither did they produce many A340-500's.
No doubt the new ULR A350WB will use less gas than the A340-500 did SIN-JFK, but it would be wasting its heavy landing and overflight weights if it does anything else! |
I've endured 16 + hours SFO to HKG in economy. I sure wouldn't buy a Y class seat for a 20hr flight.
|
rather than SST maybe these ULH planes need air-to-air refuelling, save dragging all that gas round the globe
just saying.... G |
Seems these adjusted probes can be readjusted back to the standard if required - to reduce operation costs based on MTOW. |
There was the CEO of Boeing ( was it ? ) who about 15 years ago said that even if they produced an airliner that could fly half way round the world, airlines would still want it to have even more range.
|
Originally Posted by groundbum
(Post 10129549)
rather than SST maybe these ULH planes need air-to-air refuelling, save dragging all that gas round the globe
just saying.... G They can hold a bunch of gas, even more when not pressurised and gutted. Fill 3 or 4 ULH and head back to fill up. These ultra long flights the airlines need to adapt for the cattle class - bunk beds by the hour and paid shower even a lounge area paid per unit time. |
They interviewed some pax after the recent first direct LHR to Australia flight. These were quit positive when they compared the direct flight with one with stops. The direct flight for them was less disruptive. So when you compare you should probably compare the different trip options and not per se the long trip in isolation. Some technical solutions have been introduced. But the pax were not interviewed on the contribution of specific items. Pity they did not interview the flight crew. ... Which you dont expect around the introduction of a new route... But still. Would have been very interesting. Again not only the trip but also how they perceive effects on their overall schedule and disruptive effects of either a direct or stops included. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.