World's Longest Commercial Flight Coming to an End

[TallFlyer]

Hey Big Iron Guys... In a Thunder Mustang I can turn off 6 of the 12 cylinders during cruise flight and save octane for when I need it. Do you guys have a similar option with a 4 engine A/C? BA 747 service LA to London notwithstanding, can you shut down two engines at FL to fly more efficiently?

If you recall that BA flight you mentioned they had to divert short of London because of fuel issues.

In short, between the increased fuel burning on the running engines, the drag of the shutdown engine, and the decreased airspeed means that you're not flying as efficiently.

At least that's my guess.

 

[scoobs]

12 hours on Aeroflot from Moscow to Lax in economy was more than enough for my first long haul experience. The food wasn't bad but long haul flights are horrible.

 

[derg]

Hey Big Iron Guys... In a Thunder Mustang I can turn off 6 of the 12 cylinders during cruise flight and save octane for when I need it. Do you guys have a similar option with a 4 engine A/C? BA 747 service LA to London notwithstanding, can you shut down two engines at FL to fly more efficiently?

Nope.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Umm. The worlds longest flight isn't going anywhere. It's just not going to be the same route. There will always be a worlds longest flight.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Umm. The worlds longest flight isn't going anywhere. It's just not going to be the same route. There will always be a worlds longest flight.

It's like trying to beat the low altitude record...right?

 

[ChasenSFO]

Umm. The worlds longest flight isn't going anywhere. It's just not going to be the same route. There will always be a worlds longest flight.

But it won't be 18 hours long anymore, so this flight, which is the world's longest, is going away. Yes.

 

[typhoonpilot]

I'm baffled that the latest generations of the A340, which came on line in the last decade are now perceived as outdated or inefficient.

There is some history here. When airlines like Emirates and Singapore were looking for a very long range airplane Airbus was the first to market with the A340-500. At the time jet fuel was much cheaper (oil at $35/barrel) so fuel economy was not as big of a decider as it is today. Airbus deciding to bring this aircraft to market really forced Boeing to improve on the B777-200ER and B777-300 so they became the improved B777-200LR and B777-300ER.

If we now compare the B777-200LR against the A340-500 the B777-200LR comes out the winner hands down. They both carry the same passenger load similar distances, but the B777 does it on about 50% less fuel burn. With oil now over $100/barrel that makes the A340-500 uneconomical to operate as compared to the B777.

If you match the B777-300ER against the A340-500 on sectors up to 13-14 hours the B777-300ER can carry 100 more passengers ( or freight equivalent ) for significantly less fuel burn than the A340-500.

So yea, the A340-500 is pretty much a dead airplane unless oil drops back down under $35/barrel.



Typhoonpilot

 

[ChasenSFO]

I know the deal with the -500, but is the -600 losing out the the 777-300ER? It's got such a huge capacity I find it strange that airlines can't seem to make a profit with it. Virgin is dumping the -600s, I think Lufthansa plans to keep their's though.

 

[swisspilot]

I know the deal with the -500, but is the -600 losing out the the 777-300ER? It's got such a huge capacity I find it strange that airlines can't seem to make a profit with it. Virgin is dumping the -600s, I think Lufthansa plans to keep their's though.

LH just ordered 777 to replace the A340s operated by Swiss, and they will replace theirs also with 777 . But LH changes his mind all the time, not long time ago they said they were already thinking at replacing the 747-8.

 

[swisspilot]

There is some history here. When airlines like Emirates and Singapore were looking for a very long range airplane Airbus was the first to market with the A340-500. At the time jet fuel was much cheaper (oil at $35/barrel) so fuel economy was not as big of a decider as it is today. Airbus deciding to bring this aircraft to market really forced Boeing to improve on the B777-200ER and B777-300 so they became the improved B777-200LR and B777-300ER.

If we now compare the B777-200LR against the A340-500 the B777-200LR comes out the winner hands down. They both carry the same passenger load similar distances, but the B777 does it on about 50% less fuel burn. With oil now over $100/barrel that makes the A340-500 uneconomical to operate as compared to the B777.

If you match the B777-300ER against the A340-500 on sectors up to 13-14 hours the B777-300ER can carry 100 more passengers ( or freight equivalent ) for significantly less fuel burn than the A340-500.

So yea, the A340-500 is pretty much a dead airplane unless oil drops back down under $35/barrel.



Typhoonpilot

What about the 340-600 vs the 777?

 

[ChasenSFO]

LH just ordered 777 to replace the A340s operated by Swiss, and they will replace theirs also with 777 . But LH changes his mind all the time, not long time ago they said they were already thinking at replacing the 747-8.

Yeah who knows with Lufthansa. They once said they'd never order another plane without a side-stick. Then they went with the 747-8 and 777. I know they want the A340-300s gone, but I didn't know the 777s were to replace A340-600s.

 

[RRPower]

I remember Delta running Mumbai to Atlanta and it was an 18.5hr flight. How would you like to be in the middle seat in coach on that one. Better yet, I the gate agent who opened the door to that plane about fell over. I wonder why they got rid of it

 

[typhoonpilot]

What about the 340-600 vs the 777?

Pretty much the same, the B777-300ER kills the 4 engine airplane on fuel consumption alone. It's done the same to the 747-400. That is why everybody with a brain is getting B777-300ERs for long haul.


TP

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Good thing it's a long trip, as I'm told a fully laden 340 requires the curvature of the earth to "climb".

Not the 340-500 and 600... much bigger motors on that sort.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I remember Delta running Mumbai to Atlanta and it was an 18.5hr flight. How would you like to be in the middle seat in coach on that one. Better yet, I the gate agent who opened the door to that plane about fell over. I wonder why they got rid of it

Safety issues related to the pax who insisted on riding on the roof, wings, having onto the leading edges, etc.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I remember Delta running Mumbai to Atlanta and it was an 18.5hr flight. How would you like to be in the middle seat in coach on that one. Better yet, I the gate agent who opened the door to that plane about fell over. I wonder why they got rid of it

Air India got their 777LRs at a huge discount on their lease via the Ex/Im bank. They were paying a million dollars less a year (or was it a month?) less in interest on theirs than DL. They had that advantage at ticket prices right out of the gate... we couldn't make US to India work and have the appropriate margins as a result.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

There is some history here. When airlines like Emirates and Singapore were looking for a very long range airplane Airbus was the first to market with the A340-500. At the time jet fuel was much cheaper (oil at $35/barrel) so fuel economy was not as big of a decider as it is today. Airbus deciding to bring this aircraft to market really forced Boeing to improve on the B777-200ER and B777-300 so they became the improved B777-200LR and B777-300ER.

If we now compare the B777-200LR against the A340-500 the B777-200LR comes out the winner hands down. They both carry the same passenger load similar distances, but the B777 does it on about 50% less fuel burn. With oil now over $100/barrel that makes the A340-500 uneconomical to operate as compared to the B777.

If you match the B777-300ER against the A340-500 on sectors up to 13-14 hours the B777-300ER can carry 100 more passengers ( or freight equivalent ) for significantly less fuel burn than the A340-500.

So yea, the A340-500 is pretty much a dead airplane unless oil drops back down under $35/barrel.



Typhoonpilot

50% less fuel burn? I highly doubt that. 15-20%? More likely and more than enough to label a plane a "gas guzzler."

 

[typhoonpilot]

50% less fuel burn? I highly doubt that. 15-20%? More likely and more than enough to label a plane a "gas guzzler."

Here is a rather timely article:


'Emirates has retired two of its 10 Airbus A340-500s, and is breaking one for spares, as sustained high fuel prices take their toll on operations of the four-engined aircraft.

The Dubai network carrier introduced the ultra-long range airliner in 2003, meaning that its oldest aircraft is only 10 years old. But the high cost of fuel makes the aircraft uneconomic to fly now, says Emirates Airline president Tim Clark.

“We’ve taken a big hit to retire them, but [their poor economics means] there’s no point in flying them,” says Clark. “They were designed in the late 1990s with fuel at $25-30. They fell over at $60 and at $120 they haven’t got a hope in hell.”

Clark says that Emirates is looking to accelerate the phase-out of its remaining eight A340-500s, and if it cannot find any buyers, “they’re going to the knacker’s yard”.

One A340-500 has been ferried to Ras al-Khaimah for parting out, while a second is stored in Dubai, where it may be retained as a back-up aircraft. “I’m thinking about that,” says Clark, who adds that Emirates has “zeroed” the aircraft’s book value.'

 

[typhoonpilot]

Air India got their 777LRs at a huge discount on their lease via the Ex/Im bank. They were paying a million dollars less a year (or was it a month?) less in interest on theirs than DL. They had that advantage at ticket prices right out of the gate... we couldn't make US to India work and have the appropriate margins as a result.

Ex/Im doesn't do leases, they provide financing for purchase. It is a program designed to help U.S. manufacturers ( read U.S. labor ). While it is true that the rates are less than what U.S. carriers get, the rather short sighted protectionist agenda of ALPA would rather see the orders for these large aircraft go to Airbus. Then all those out of work employees at the manufacturers in the USA would have lots of time to travel on the airlines, sadly they wouldn't have any money to do so. Kind of a lose/lose for America and the U.S. Airlines.

In any event, the cheaper argument doesn't fly when U.S. carriers use bankruptcy reorganization to eliminate their debt thus making them a rather interesting competitor.

We could also go down the road of state subsidized, cheap oil, etc, etc.

They are all arguments designed by the airline executives in the USA to cover up their complete and total incompetence at running airlines.



Typhoonpilot

 

[jynxyjoe]

Its a shame the A340-500s are going bye bye. What's really interesting is how SIN-EWR takes about 2 hours more than SIN-LAX. Always blew my mind.

First of all I'd burn the -500. That flight should be done by a 777 or the -600. SIA got that -500 on the cheap and it's a nightmare for W+B thanks to moronic restrictive shell loads on positions iterating from the wing. Plus the airplane didn't have the range for the flight, thank God for re-dispatching overwater. You are essentially ignoring the alternate (Jakarta every time) because you've only got about 18 minutes of gas when you get there. At the time the TAF didn't go out for your time of arrival, *shrug*, sorry boys, SIA dispatch will get you on the way.

EWR-SIN we used to just plan the center of the Jetstream, and only if it was faster would we go Polar (5%) of the time. I never paid much attention to the SIN-EWR route, but I imagine they are doing the same thing. Once you ride that Jetstream life is good, polar routes are for suckers -plus the -500 was so underpowered and overloaded (with half the seats ripped out) it couldn't make the altitude on the entry fix. Thankfully since polar routes are for suckers, no one is up there and Canada doesn't care-eh.

I'm baffled that the latest generations of the A340, which came on line in the last decade are now perceived as outdated or inefficient.

On the -500 for instance there's no bulk load, it's turned into a crew area, so you have to throw everything that doesn't fit in the overheads in it's own can last minute. I've reviewed the W+B in the past, the -500 is worse than the MD-11 for shell limits, which doesn't sound terrible at first until you actually do a W+B. The range on it blows. Oh, and you'll never carry the 3tons of cargo to SIN every day (300 kilos average) like was originally planned. But that VP of cargo was fired years ago during the onset of the 340-500 disaster and the EWR rep who was hired went back to SIA because it turned out he didn't have a 'YAB when we are only pushing one half loaded pallet.

Good thing it's a long trip, as I'm told a fully laden 340 requires the curvature of the earth to "climb".

Underpowered, and overengineered. Oh, and don't load the nose too much or the front end will tip down and overstress in anything above light turb.

I've still got a signed flight plan from the first day. Both crews signed it, it's still in mint condition, and it's the full 128pages of the LIDO system. Starting the bid at 100 wing-wangs.