Why no aircraft for skinny, long routes?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why no aircraft for skinny, long routes?
In these days when air travel is the equivalent to having your teeth drilled, I, and many with me, simply refuse to fly hub-and spoke if we can avoid it. Surprisingly often one can't avoid it, especially here in the US. It can be a nightmare. Try to get from LA to New Orleans directly and you'll end up with a paltry two flights a day. Same kind of goes for any semi-big city in the US - always geared towards antiquated hub and spoke systems.
As a Swede, I used to remember our national carrier SAS flying directly from Stockholm to LAX. First with DC-8's, the 747's and finally with DC-10's. They shut that line in the mid 80's, because they couldn't fill these huge planes that were the only ones that could do the trip.
Times have moved on techically, so why hasn't someone made smaller, ETOPS, long range airliners that can serve skinnier routes? A smaller aircraft will burn less fuel and probably be close to the fuel burn/seat as the bigger ones. Sure you get some economics of scale with a thing like the A380, but skinnier routes that no one else serve could also probably take a slightly higher price. I sure as hell would much rather pay $100-200 more to go to Edinburgh directly from NY, than routing via London or Frankfurt. The environment would also benefit by more direct routings. I dream of the day when I can fly back for christmas to my mum in Sweden without changing planes two times.
So why aren't we seeing CRJ1000's with 4-5000nm range? Surely it's just as simple as chucking 20 seats out above the wing, and sticking a fuel tank there, no? I see huge market opportunities if such an aircraft existed.
LA to Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Copenhagen, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, Rome etc etc. One simply can't say there is no demand on these routes - it's the aircrafts that are too big. The list could be made endless.
As a Swede, I used to remember our national carrier SAS flying directly from Stockholm to LAX. First with DC-8's, the 747's and finally with DC-10's. They shut that line in the mid 80's, because they couldn't fill these huge planes that were the only ones that could do the trip.
Times have moved on techically, so why hasn't someone made smaller, ETOPS, long range airliners that can serve skinnier routes? A smaller aircraft will burn less fuel and probably be close to the fuel burn/seat as the bigger ones. Sure you get some economics of scale with a thing like the A380, but skinnier routes that no one else serve could also probably take a slightly higher price. I sure as hell would much rather pay $100-200 more to go to Edinburgh directly from NY, than routing via London or Frankfurt. The environment would also benefit by more direct routings. I dream of the day when I can fly back for christmas to my mum in Sweden without changing planes two times.
So why aren't we seeing CRJ1000's with 4-5000nm range? Surely it's just as simple as chucking 20 seats out above the wing, and sticking a fuel tank there, no? I see huge market opportunities if such an aircraft existed.
LA to Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Copenhagen, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, Rome etc etc. One simply can't say there is no demand on these routes - it's the aircrafts that are too big. The list could be made endless.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the CRJ is an uncomfortable plane for an hour's flight...for a dozen hours YIKES.
The 757 is etops in some configurations. Indeed, some places fly from the california coast to hawaii in 737's.
The 757 is etops in some configurations. Indeed, some places fly from the california coast to hawaii in 737's.
A340-500
Probably the most comfortable (and quietest...) long-haul aircraft is the A340-500. Singapore to NYK non-stop, 19 hours, easy-peasy.
Of course, if you are sure your passengers will be entirely comfortable sitting four or five hours from a suitable airport on one engine, the A330-200 shorty will do 7,250 nm.
The'll both carry 250 pax, or up to 350 in sardine-class.
Of course, if you are sure your passengers will be entirely comfortable sitting four or five hours from a suitable airport on one engine, the A330-200 shorty will do 7,250 nm.
The'll both carry 250 pax, or up to 350 in sardine-class.
Interesting you raised that John.
I was thinking of exactly the same route.
One of the problems with flying long skinny routes tho is that current range/payload capabilities make anything ultra long haul marginal in terms of economics.
A change in aircraft form factor is probably needed.
A blended wing body, powered by geared turbofans = 30% increase in fuel efficiency. Makes a 787 seem like a gas guzzler.
Quite why the airframers are worried about passenger objections to not having a window beats me. Most long haul flights are conducted with pax watching IFE or sleeping.
And I'm sure the problems of pressurizing non-cylindrical fuselages could be overcome.
I'll be an old bloke by the time it happens, but I'm sure we'll see non-stop antipodean / north hemisphere city pairs by 2030 or so...
I was thinking of exactly the same route.
One of the problems with flying long skinny routes tho is that current range/payload capabilities make anything ultra long haul marginal in terms of economics.
A change in aircraft form factor is probably needed.
A blended wing body, powered by geared turbofans = 30% increase in fuel efficiency. Makes a 787 seem like a gas guzzler.
Quite why the airframers are worried about passenger objections to not having a window beats me. Most long haul flights are conducted with pax watching IFE or sleeping.
And I'm sure the problems of pressurizing non-cylindrical fuselages could be overcome.
I'll be an old bloke by the time it happens, but I'm sure we'll see non-stop antipodean / north hemisphere city pairs by 2030 or so...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A340-500 and -600, the 777-300ER are all fine aircraft, but they're too big for these missions. They can't sustain a LAX to Berlin or Stockholm route - they'd be half empty constantly.
And I have to disagree on the CRJ - it's the quietest aircraft I've ever flown in. I'd rather sit in that for 10hrs than stuck in the middle seat on a 747.
I recently did LAX to Cape Town, routing through Dubai. The LAX to Dubai bit is about 16,5hrs and then it's another 9hrs to CT. Just for fun I tracked it at 8700nm as a direct routing. That's on the very edge of what the 340-500 and 777-200ER can do. And certainly sucj aircraft would be even more unsuitable for such a skinny and extremly long route.
Time will tell. Maybe it's just not profitable, no matter what size, as someone said.
And I have to disagree on the CRJ - it's the quietest aircraft I've ever flown in. I'd rather sit in that for 10hrs than stuck in the middle seat on a 747.
I recently did LAX to Cape Town, routing through Dubai. The LAX to Dubai bit is about 16,5hrs and then it's another 9hrs to CT. Just for fun I tracked it at 8700nm as a direct routing. That's on the very edge of what the 340-500 and 777-200ER can do. And certainly sucj aircraft would be even more unsuitable for such a skinny and extremly long route.
Time will tell. Maybe it's just not profitable, no matter what size, as someone said.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A smaller aircraft will burn less fuel and probably be close to the fuel burn/seat as the bigger ones.
What you can alter, is as you say the size of the aircraft. However due to the 3-dimensional characters of construction, a halving of volume does not equate to a halving of the wetted area accountable for airframe drag, if you keep the same shape.
You can surely reduce the wetted area by creating a long, slender airframe, but that in turn requires more "stiffness", which is usually translated into more weight. Again, the penalties are rapidly eating into the benefits.
Of course, I'm not saying there's not a market for slim longhaul routes. I'm just saying that there's some very good reasons for why most longhaul routes is flown with large aircraft: they are indeed cheaper pr seat, and while many people say they would like to pay extra for this-that-and-the-other, not enough people are willing to put their money where their mouths are. If it's one thing companies understand, it's hard cash.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainly because unless you have a daily frequency you won't get the business passengers who require the flexibility and whose fares subsidise the lower yield fares.
As soon as you drop to 2 or 3 services weekly, you will fill them, but with mainly low yield traffic, hence the route won't pay.
As soon as you drop to 2 or 3 services weekly, you will fill them, but with mainly low yield traffic, hence the route won't pay.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You also have to account for "airline mentality." There are very few airlines that can envisage flights that neither start or end up at anywhere other than their main centre of operations. Also, such an operation might also fit into the "too difficult" category as labour agreements might have to be renegotiated. It would also be likely that such aircraft would be flown by 'Junior" pilots as the heros in the 747s/777s and such like wouldn't be able to lower their personal standards and fly something smaller what they currently fly. This would have to be done to get round scope clauses, night flying restrictions, days off etc. and that in turn might make the operation uneconomic. Then you have the "product offering." Would a "business class" passenger be prepared to sit in something like a Embraer 190 for five hours? The economy passenger might actually be better off if some IFE was fitted as the seats are a bit bigger but even then, the aircraft might get a bit claustrophobic.
The right aircraft might be a something like a 737-700 equipped in all business configuration (40-50 seats), with prices to match! Which is probably not what you wanted to hear.
The right aircraft might be a something like a 737-700 equipped in all business configuration (40-50 seats), with prices to match! Which is probably not what you wanted to hear.
N4790P
Having flown LAX - BKK a few times (in a decent seat on a good carrier), how anyone can state "19 hours, easy-peasy" or "Seriously though - the future is ultra long haul" either has never suffered the ordeal of an ultra long haul experience or must knock themselves out for the duration of the flight if they have.
It is an awful experience and I just cannot begin to imagine what it would be like in Y and I certainly have no intentions of ever finding out.
It is an awful experience and I just cannot begin to imagine what it would be like in Y and I certainly have no intentions of ever finding out.
I think BA's A318 LCY-JFK (via SNN) is as close as you will get. However it serves a particular market (bankers
). Whether a similar type of operation would work point to point throughout regional airports remains to be seen.
). Whether a similar type of operation would work point to point throughout regional airports remains to be seen.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''So why aren't we seeing CRJ1000's with 4-5000nm range? Surely it's just as simple as chucking 20 seats out above the wing, and sticking a fuel tank there, no? I see huge market opportunities if such an aircraft existed.''
Sure they exist. I've just flown one from Eastern Europe to New York. Global XRS. Actually the same tube as the CRJ, a lot more spacious because it doesn't have the overhead bins, mind.
Sure they exist. I've just flown one from Eastern Europe to New York. Global XRS. Actually the same tube as the CRJ, a lot more spacious because it doesn't have the overhead bins, mind.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A blended wing body, powered by geared turbofans = 30% increase in fuel efficiency. Makes a 787 seem like a gas guzzler.
Quite why the airframers are worried about passenger objections to not having a window beats me. Most long haul flights are conducted with pax watching IFE or sleeping.
And I'm sure the problems of pressurizing non-cylindrical fuselages could be overcome.
I'll be an old bloke by the time it happens, but I'm sure we'll see non-stop antipodean / north hemisphere city pairs by 2030 or so...
Quite why the airframers are worried about passenger objections to not having a window beats me. Most long haul flights are conducted with pax watching IFE or sleeping.
And I'm sure the problems of pressurizing non-cylindrical fuselages could be overcome.
I'll be an old bloke by the time it happens, but I'm sure we'll see non-stop antipodean / north hemisphere city pairs by 2030 or so...
One of the three logos on the side is Cranfield Aerospace.
Cranfield Aerospace - Show Latest News
NASA - NASA 360: A Look Ahead... X-48B
It's already being offered to a limited market with several ultra long-range biz-jets configured for corporate shuttle missions. If the fancy interiors were stripped out and a few other modifications done, some of these could probably be made to move 50 or so pax over 5000nm. Or you could probably cut something like a BBJ as a 90 seater, but it's still going to cost as much as a high-density B739 to run and is only moving half the bums in roughly the same flight time, albeit with fewer landings.
It's economy of scale that defeats this type of operation. Pilots need to be trained and paid near as much as their heavy-iron counterparts. ATC charges, airport handling etc may be (and probably should be) levied on occupancy times in the system rather than size. Also a high-tech small aeroplane consumes almost as many (sometimes more) man-hours maintenance per flight hour as a much bigger one because there is not much difference in the number of components or their complexity - only a size difference. For the beancounters, bigger is better.
It's economy of scale that defeats this type of operation. Pilots need to be trained and paid near as much as their heavy-iron counterparts. ATC charges, airport handling etc may be (and probably should be) levied on occupancy times in the system rather than size. Also a high-tech small aeroplane consumes almost as many (sometimes more) man-hours maintenance per flight hour as a much bigger one because there is not much difference in the number of components or their complexity - only a size difference. For the beancounters, bigger is better.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Answer to OT is simple, hub and spoke is the most profitable system and the flying public is a captive market. Sure an aircraft could be designed to fly "skinny routes" profitably but it would lower the load factors on the heavy very profitable hub to hub flights, would require more aircraft, more crews, more maintenance. Result in logistic issues like parts allocation, crew travel, larger infastructure, would need more spares$$$.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, when I'm traveling for work, I simply don't have the option to stay an extra day on some halfway destination. Therefore, even though a 19-hour flight is painful while it's taking place, it's far less painful than two 9,5hrs flights, with the rigmarole of twice the security, twice the check ins, layovers for hours the stress of missing connections and going through passport controls etc.
I'm sure that a direct London to Sydney route would do smashing business. It's better to just get there in the shortest possible time and not screw around with stopovers.
I think Tartare is right - ultra long haul is the future.
I'm sure that a direct London to Sydney route would do smashing business. It's better to just get there in the shortest possible time and not screw around with stopovers.
I think Tartare is right - ultra long haul is the future.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, when I'm traveling for work, I simply don't have the option to stay an extra day on some halfway destination. Therefore, even though a 19-hour flight is painful while it's taking place, it's far less painful than two 9,5hrs flights, with the rigmarole of twice the security, twice the check ins, layovers for hours the stress of missing connections and going through passport controls etc.
I'm sure that a direct London to Sydney route would do smashing business. It's better to just get there in the shortest possible time and not screw around with stopovers.
I think Tartare is right - ultra long haul is the future.
I'm sure that a direct London to Sydney route would do smashing business. It's better to just get there in the shortest possible time and not screw around with stopovers.
I think Tartare is right - ultra long haul is the future.
Last edited by grounded27; 2nd Apr 2011 at 20:56.
In these days when air travel is the equivalent to having your teeth drilled, I, and many with me, simply refuse to fly hub-and spoke if we can avoid it. Surprisingly often one can't avoid it, especially here in the US. It can be a nightmare. Try to get from LA to New Orleans directly and you'll end up with a paltry two flights a day. Same kind of goes for any semi-big city in the US - always geared towards antiquated hub and spoke systems.
As a Swede, I used to remember our national carrier SAS flying directly from Stockholm to LAX. First with DC-8's, the 747's and finally with DC-10's. They shut that line in the mid 80's, because they couldn't fill these huge planes that were the only ones that could do the trip.
Times have moved on techically, so why hasn't someone made smaller, ETOPS, long range airliners that can serve skinnier routes? A smaller aircraft will burn less fuel and probably be close to the fuel burn/seat as the bigger ones. Sure you get some economics of scale with a thing like the A380, but skinnier routes that no one else serve could also probably take a slightly higher price. I sure as hell would much rather pay $100-200 more to go to Edinburgh directly from NY, than routing via London or Frankfurt. The environment would also benefit by more direct routings. I dream of the day when I can fly back for christmas to my mum in Sweden without changing planes two times.
So why aren't we seeing CRJ1000's with 4-5000nm range? Surely it's just as simple as chucking 20 seats out above the wing, and sticking a fuel tank there, no? I see huge market opportunities if such an aircraft existed.
LA to Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Copenhagen, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, Rome etc etc. One simply can't say there is no demand on these routes - it's the aircrafts that are too big. The list could be made endless.
As a Swede, I used to remember our national carrier SAS flying directly from Stockholm to LAX. First with DC-8's, the 747's and finally with DC-10's. They shut that line in the mid 80's, because they couldn't fill these huge planes that were the only ones that could do the trip.
Times have moved on techically, so why hasn't someone made smaller, ETOPS, long range airliners that can serve skinnier routes? A smaller aircraft will burn less fuel and probably be close to the fuel burn/seat as the bigger ones. Sure you get some economics of scale with a thing like the A380, but skinnier routes that no one else serve could also probably take a slightly higher price. I sure as hell would much rather pay $100-200 more to go to Edinburgh directly from NY, than routing via London or Frankfurt. The environment would also benefit by more direct routings. I dream of the day when I can fly back for christmas to my mum in Sweden without changing planes two times.
So why aren't we seeing CRJ1000's with 4-5000nm range? Surely it's just as simple as chucking 20 seats out above the wing, and sticking a fuel tank there, no? I see huge market opportunities if such an aircraft existed.
LA to Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Copenhagen, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, Rome etc etc. One simply can't say there is no demand on these routes - it's the aircrafts that are too big. The list could be made endless.
That said, ultra-long-haul is probably heading for the past, when taxation and corporate image become increasingly related to environmental impact and a very long haul aeroplane burns so much fuel just to tanker fuel, rather than multiple 1000-3000 mile legs, which from a carbon footprint viewpoint, look a lot less bad.
G
