World's Longest Commercial Flight Coming to an End

[Polar742]

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.

Eh, there were other issues. A friend of mine shut one down in flight, I mean almost after takeoff, arrived on time & under-burned. 9 hour flight.

 

[rframe]

I still think some smart airline should offer a branch "Anesthesia Air" offering international service where shortly after clearing 10K you are put under and dont wake up until 30 minutes before landing.

 

[derg]

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.

I wonder if it has the center tanks.

At SouthernJets, the 330-300 has a shorter range than the -200 because the -300's don't have/weren't ordered with (??) center fuel cells.

 

[Cptnchia]

I still think some smart airline should offer a branch "Anesthesia Air" offering international service where shortly after clearing 10K you are put under and dont wake up until 30 minutes before landing.

"Welcome aboard, Mr Dallas!"

 

[Dan208B]

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.

Lufthansa has already announced long-term plans to specifically replace the 747-8 with the 777X. Seems awful quick to me.

 

[Dan208B]

I wonder if it has the center tanks.

At SouthernJets, the 330-300 has a shorter range than the -200 because the -300's don't have/weren't ordered with (??) center fuel cells.

I'd be curious to see if the new order includes the extra tanks.

 

[Cptnchia]

I'd be curious to see if the new order includes the extra tanks.

They are supposed to be replacing the 777LRs so that the 777s can be used to overfly NRT to China, so I hope they have em.

 

[Dan208B]

They are supposed to be replacing the 777LRs so that the 777s can be used to overfly NRT to China, so I hope they have em.

i.e. ATL-NRT, DTW-NRT? Seems like a good move.

 

[Cptnchia]

i.e. ATL-NRT, DTW-NRT? Seems like a good move.

O V E R F L Y NRT. As in, the 330s start flying what the 777s are doing, SYD, LHR etc and the 777s start flying west coast to China. Service to NRT gets reduced.

 

[Dan208B]

O V E R F L Y NRT. As in, the 330s start flying what the 777s are doing, SYD, LHR etc and the 777s start flying west coast to China. Service to NRT gets reduced.

OH I get it. Sorry, I'm a little slow today. I've heard that they want to reduce NRT in general and try to increase HND service. Seems like this whole business plan could be pretty good long-term. Especially given china's growth.

 

[ChasenSFO]

Lufthansa has already announced long-term plans to specifically replace the 747-8 with the 777X. Seems awful quick to me.

I'd guess if they can carry a similar pax load with great range and 2 engines, they're going to do it. The 747-8 is a hit as a freighter, won't be hard to find buyers quick. However, I guess this really will be the death of the pax 747. The other airlines ordered 747-8s in very small numbers, once LH dumps theirs, few will be left.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I wonder if it has the center tanks.

At SouthernJets, the 330-300 has a shorter range than the -200 because the -300's don't have/weren't ordered with (??) center fuel cells.

The 333IGWs that were just ordered will have the same fuel capacity as the -200.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

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.'

Like I said, the 345 does not burn 50% more gas than the 777L. It burns enough to where it is no longer viable, but that is on the order of 10 to maybe 20% on the high side. You would have beeen correct in stating that the 340 has 50% more maintenance costs, as it has twice the motors.

 

[derg]

I'd be curious to see if the new order includes the extra tanks.

I read it does.

Hopefully, fuel dump too. Why they didn't order it with it, who knows.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I read it does.

Hopefully, fuel dump too. Why they didn't order it with it, who knows.

French people don't have an anus. Therefore they have no clue what a dump is. By looking in their hotel rooms and the extra fixture in the bathroom, I believe they all have vaginas instead.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Like I said, the 345 does not burn 50% more gas than the 777L. It burns enough to where it is no longer viable, but that is on the order of 10 to maybe 20% on the high side. You would have beeen correct in stating that the 340 has 50% more maintenance costs, as it has twice the motors.

Okay since you challenged me on the numbers I did some research. Our A340-500s have been removed from ultra long haul flying for many years because they are unviable on those routes as compared to the B777-200LR ( a similar passenger complement size airplane ). They only do shorter haul flying to keep the fuel burn discrepancy to a minimum.

On a short sector of 6 hours they burn precisely 23% more fuel than a B777-200LR. On longer sectors when they are at max takeoff weight that difference increases, most likely to over 30%.

So I did exaggerate a little. In my defense that is because I have argued that the A380 burns 60% more fuel than a B777-300ER on ULR sectors so I have had that number in my head for some time.


TP

 

[Dan208B]

I read it does.

Hopefully, fuel dump too. Why they didn't order it with it, who knows.

That would be good. I understand a return to field right after takeoff in a 330 is currently a bit more of an event than it would be in airplane capable of fuel dump.

 

[derg]

That would be good. I understand a return to field right after takeoff in a 330 is currently a bit more of an event than it would be in airplane capable of fuel dump.

Lets just say one airline broke the record for block time between CDG and AMS a few weeks ago.

Roundy round they go...

 

[Dan208B]

Lets just say one airline broke the record for block time between CDG and AMS a few weeks ago.

Roundy round they go...

Something to look forward to!

 

[TallFlyer]

In my defense that is because I have argued that the A380 burns 60% more fuel than a B777-300ER on ULR sectors so I have had that number in my head for some time.

So what then is the business justification for the 380? Using numbers of the EK site (360 for the 773ER and 489 for the 380) the 380 is only carrying about 35% more people. Does the fact that the airplane can most that many people at one time make up for the higher fuel burn per passenger?