Why no aircraft for skinny, long routes?
Genghis
The G V is a Part 25 plane, as are all business jets over 12,500, so no biz jet OEM is getting around FAR 25. Both Gulfstream and Bombardier AR selling north of 50 long-range business per year, EACH. There are over 400 Global Expresses, all FAR 25 certified. There is no 19 versus 20 seat distinction in FAR 25.
On point, the G8000, in development will be a 7900 nm plane which translates into 17+15, take-off to landing. Marketing press releases talk about HKG-NYC, non-stop.
The G V is a Part 25 plane, as are all business jets over 12,500, so no biz jet OEM is getting around FAR 25. Both Gulfstream and Bombardier AR selling north of 50 long-range business per year, EACH. There are over 400 Global Expresses, all FAR 25 certified. There is no 19 versus 20 seat distinction in FAR 25.
On point, the G8000, in development will be a 7900 nm plane which translates into 17+15, take-off to landing. Marketing press releases talk about HKG-NYC, non-stop.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already there?
Between those city pairs where there is enough passenger traffic willing to pay for it, there are already nonstop flights.
These cities are usually hubs.
Hubs are usually located, with some exceptions, in metro areas with enough population and enough wealth to make a wide range of destinations profitable.
In the US, major hubs for overseas flying are located in New York, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Los Angelos, San Francisco, Atlanta and the like.
Note that these are all large metro area, and have significant numbers of well off folks, as well as significant business operations which may require that employees travel far and wide.
Now, if I am an airline, I might find it economically desirable to operate an aircraft larger than what local demand requires, and fill it by bringing passengers in from the hinterlands on CRJs and ERJs and even turboprops.
This is, of course, a hub and spoke operation.
Our little home airport (DAY) offers one stop connections to a large slice of the world.
It will never offer the nonstop flights of a JFK, ORD or ATL, since the wealthy population base to support such service doesn't exist.
Those who wish to fly overseas and can afford to therefore have to connect somewhere, which I have never found to be a major issue in our travels.
The future began more than twenty-five years ago, and it is hub and spoke.
ULR nonstops will never be more than a curiousity.
I myself would not like to sit on a plane for more than eight hours at a stretch, but that's just my preference.
These cities are usually hubs.
Hubs are usually located, with some exceptions, in metro areas with enough population and enough wealth to make a wide range of destinations profitable.
In the US, major hubs for overseas flying are located in New York, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Los Angelos, San Francisco, Atlanta and the like.
Note that these are all large metro area, and have significant numbers of well off folks, as well as significant business operations which may require that employees travel far and wide.
Now, if I am an airline, I might find it economically desirable to operate an aircraft larger than what local demand requires, and fill it by bringing passengers in from the hinterlands on CRJs and ERJs and even turboprops.
This is, of course, a hub and spoke operation.
Our little home airport (DAY) offers one stop connections to a large slice of the world.
It will never offer the nonstop flights of a JFK, ORD or ATL, since the wealthy population base to support such service doesn't exist.
Those who wish to fly overseas and can afford to therefore have to connect somewhere, which I have never found to be a major issue in our travels.
The future began more than twenty-five years ago, and it is hub and spoke.
ULR nonstops will never be more than a curiousity.
I myself would not like to sit on a plane for more than eight hours at a stretch, but that's just my preference.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have always wondered why no long range on skinny long routes.
Example. Fly a 777-200LR in premium config (Business class + leg room economy) LHR to SYD
None-stop .
Surely the business traveler (not pax in business class seat) would jump at the opportunity to avoid the transit in Asia or the M.E. with shorter travel time etc
With 10 or so carriers on this route every day, I would have thought the demand would be there to fill a flight of this description
Two cents
Example. Fly a 777-200LR in premium config (Business class + leg room economy) LHR to SYD
None-stop .
Surely the business traveler (not pax in business class seat) would jump at the opportunity to avoid the transit in Asia or the M.E. with shorter travel time etc
With 10 or so carriers on this route every day, I would have thought the demand would be there to fill a flight of this description
Two cents
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Genghis
The G V is a Part 25 plane, as are all business jets over 12,500, so no biz jet OEM is getting around FAR 25. Both Gulfstream and Bombardier AR selling north of 50 long-range business per year, EACH. There are over 400 Global Expresses, all FAR 25 certified. There is no 19 versus 20 seat distinction in FAR 25.
On point, the G8000, in development will be a 7900 nm plane which translates into 17+15, take-off to landing. Marketing press releases talk about HKG-NYC, non-stop.
GF
The G V is a Part 25 plane, as are all business jets over 12,500, so no biz jet OEM is getting around FAR 25. Both Gulfstream and Bombardier AR selling north of 50 long-range business per year, EACH. There are over 400 Global Expresses, all FAR 25 certified. There is no 19 versus 20 seat distinction in FAR 25.
On point, the G8000, in development will be a 7900 nm plane which translates into 17+15, take-off to landing. Marketing press releases talk about HKG-NYC, non-stop.
GF
I wonder then why Gulfstream specifically limited themselves to 19 seats? I don't think there's any advantage in this number in part 25? Is it a licencing / single pilot ops issues?
G
Genghis
Not sure of the basis for 19 passengers, but the Global Express has the same 19 pax limit. The CL 604/605 have a 22 pax limit, IIRC.
Not sure of the basis for 19 passengers, but the Global Express has the same 19 pax limit. The CL 604/605 have a 22 pax limit, IIRC.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just don't understand some of the routings from airlines. Like trying to go to South America from LA. It's virtually impossible without routing through Miami (which is the worst airport in the world, btw). You can go as far as Mexico City, but then it's like the Berlin Wall. You can't get to Argentina, Chile or Brazil from the west coast without routing through something. It's bizarre.
Gulfstream seems a tad bit pricy for regular long haul. But a CRJ1000ER ETOPS could probably drum up some business.
Gulfstream seems a tad bit pricy for regular long haul. But a CRJ1000ER ETOPS could probably drum up some business.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIA-GRU 7.5-8 HRS, MIA-SCL 8 HRS, MIA-EZE 8.5-9HRS. LAX would make for a really long flight, pretty sure you could tag 4 hours onto those flights. Delta services those city pairings out of ATL. Lan offers direct flights from JFK to eze and scl all direct flights. The flight time/market is probably why you can not find the flight you desire. Miami and NYC both have large S.A. markets, Atlanta is just Delta's hub.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AdamFrisch raises a very good question (the first in this mail string). Airplanes optimized for skinny routes could eliminate unnecessary transit stops for passengers, reduce the total fossil fuel burn, help environment. Direct point-to-point operations is the most efficient way to go. Now that ETOPS is routine, it should allow manufacturers to design efficient ETOPS twins for such operations. I wonder if the big boys are fat and happy with their product line, may be some new scrappy manufacturer can make a mark by exploiting this niche!
Big is sometimes better
If you look at flying between two points on a long range operation then the cost per seat mile increases inversely to the aircraft available seats with current fleet types.
The aeroplane for long skinny routes would have to be a huge improvement over current types to keep down the cost per seat mile, which was what we saw with the B787 and explains why the airlines were so keen on it with Boeing projected 30% reduction in operating costs (if it fly's as advertised).
The aeroplane for long skinny routes would have to be a huge improvement over current types to keep down the cost per seat mile, which was what we saw with the B787 and explains why the airlines were so keen on it with Boeing projected 30% reduction in operating costs (if it fly's as advertised).
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bolty,
Qantas looked at just that a few years ago but couldn't guarantee non-payload-limited non-stop, year-round.
EK run Dubai-Houston with a 3-class and SQ run a daily A345 SIN-EWR non-stop, but the latter is all-business - only 100 seats. 19 hours.
Qantas looked at just that a few years ago but couldn't guarantee non-payload-limited non-stop, year-round.
EK run Dubai-Houston with a 3-class and SQ run a daily A345 SIN-EWR non-stop, but the latter is all-business - only 100 seats. 19 hours.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
avgenie
AdamFrisch raises a very good question (the first in this mail string). Airplanes optimized for skinny routes could eliminate unnecessary transit stops for passengers, reduce the total fossil fuel burn, help environment. Direct point-to-point operations is the most efficient way to go. Now that ETOPS is routine, it should allow manufacturers to design efficient ETOPS twins for such operations. I wonder if the big boys are fat and happy with their product line, may be some new scrappy manufacturer can make a mark by exploiting this niche!
AdamFrisch raises a very good question (the first in this mail string). Airplanes optimized for skinny routes could eliminate unnecessary transit stops for passengers, reduce the total fossil fuel burn, help environment. Direct point-to-point operations is the most efficient way to go. Now that ETOPS is routine, it should allow manufacturers to design efficient ETOPS twins for such operations. I wonder if the big boys are fat and happy with their product line, may be some new scrappy manufacturer can make a mark by exploiting this niche!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So by limiting themselves to 19 seats they make that extra trained crewmember optional.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grounded27
grounded27, have difficulty agreeing with you. Until the early 1980s, airlines operated big airplanes like the 747 on hub-spoke, when the manufacturers introduced the 767, A330, and ETOPS became a reality, airlines opened many point to point operations between US and Europe. Same thing happened in the Pacific with the 777. Airlines have to make money to survive, there's nothing wrong with that. If the manufacturers have super smart designs and can convince the airlines with facts and data that their new cutting edge designs can cater to certain market and show the airlines can make money at reasonable fare levels, the airlines will go for it.
Despite all the negative news in the media, airlines do their best to serve their customers. Often the disconnect is when the passengers want to pay the cheapest coach fare and expect the first class service.
oceancrosser
oceancrosser, you're right if you compare same routing waypoints with transit vs no transit but typically when you use connecting flights, one often ends up flying few hundred extra miles to find the connecting flights compared to point-to-point operations.
Read the whole thread and you will better understand why this will never happen. Bottom line is that the airlines make more money with the current system, if you gave them a more efficient aircraft they would just utilize it on the most suitable hub and spoke route. The manufacturer's design aircraft for their customers needs, the airline not the passenger.
Despite all the negative news in the media, airlines do their best to serve their customers. Often the disconnect is when the passengers want to pay the cheapest coach fare and expect the first class service.
oceancrosser
Er, no actually quite the opposite. Flying e.g. 19 hrs instead of two 9,5 hr legs in any kind of airplane (given it has the range) means the non-stop flight will burn more because of the weight of carrying the fuel. Simple.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
avgenie
If the manufacturers have super smart designs and can convince the airlines with facts and data that their new cutting edge designs can cater to certain market and show the airlines can make money at reasonable fare levels, the airlines will go for it.
Despite all the negative news in the media, airlines do their best to serve their customers. Often the disconnect is when the passengers want to pay the cheapest coach fare and expect the first class service.
Despite all the negative news in the media, airlines do their best to serve their customers. Often the disconnect is when the passengers want to pay the cheapest coach fare and expect the first class service.
To say it again, if an airline was to take an ultra modern long haul aircraft and operate it on a direct flight that bucked the system the competition would become fierce and that airline would have a hell of a time making their required load factor and probably be pushed out of business.
The spoke end of a hub and spoke system is often a burden on an airline, this is why we use commuters and low cost carriers are allowed to operate. They have much lower overhead (often pay crap, or in some cases pilots are learning to fly on these flights). The smaller the aircraft the less efficient per pax it is in most cases. An airline can not be troubled with a business that is completely different than it's own. Think of the liability of labor, maintenance, training, CAA safety record etc..
I understand your ideals and think they are great, I just fear it is a much more difficult business out there than you comprehend at this moment.
