Airport traffic

Quote: Nareed

That must have been a very expensive flight. Business class or not, 3 flight crews are a lot (yet what else can you do?)

For the current configuration Singapore Airlines usually has 97-98 first and business class seats in business and economy for the prices below. They are flying an A380 so they also have economy class seats.

Business $12,105/ First $16,625
SQ25 Singapore Airlines (Airbus Industrie A380-800) Business
Departs New York (JFK) 20:55 (19 Oct) Arrives Frankfurt (FRA) 10:45 (20 Oct)
Layover time 1hrs 50mins: Frankfurt (FRA) 12:35 (20 Oct) Singapore (SIN) 06:50 (21 Oct)
Total travel time 21hrs 55mins

SQ26 Singapore Airlines (Airbus Industrie A380-800) Business
Departs Singapore (SIN) 23:55 (22 Oct) Arrives Frankfurt (FRA) 06:40 (23 Oct)
Layover time 2hrs Frankfurt (FRA) 08:40 (23 Oct) New York (JFK) 11:10 (23 Oct)
Total travel time 23hrs 15mins

For the old configuration on the A340-500 Singapore Airlines had 100 business class seats and no first or economy seats. The total flight time was shorter by about 3 hours because of no layover. They would charge $16,000 for round trip.

It looks like comparing business to business in both planes, the price was 30% higher but flight was 3 hours shorter. But the airline has no opportunity to sell halfway tickets to Frankfurt or economy tickets which are easier to purchase. Generally speaking economy tickets don't make a profit, but they make it easier to meet basic costs like fuel.

Quote: Nareed

I wonder how much that could be reduced with inflight refueling.
Yes, I know we agreed it's not a practical idea for commercial travel, but consider how much fuel is used up on takeoff with a plane so heavily loaded, largely with fuel. If you could refuel after climbing to 15,000 ft, surely the fuel needed for takeoff would be much less. It's not practical, it won't ever happen, and the savings would be mostly, but not totally, offset by the fuel needed by the refueling tanker, but it's interesting to think about.

Max. fuel capacity
A340-500 (59,000 US gal)
A380 - (85,500 US gal)

Even without precise figures you can see that filling up the A340 for one trip for 100 business class passengers, vs filling up the A380 roughly halfway for roughly 100 business and first class passengers and 300-400 economy passengers is much more efficient.

I can't really estimate the cost of flying the A340-500 to Europe and having an inflight refuel done. But considering the cost of a layover is about 2 hours + 1 more hour for the landing and takeoff loss of speed, the inflight refuel must take some time. It would buy you very little.

Quote: Pacomartin

The flight was Newark to Singapore (SQ 21) 15,345km 18 hr 50 min on an Airbus A340-500 28 June 2004-23 November 2013

The A380 is promoted as having a 15,700 km range.

Singapore Airlines has one configuration with only 379 seats (the smallest number of any airline)
That is 12 first + 36 premium economy+245 economy on main deck or 293 seats (authorized for up to 538 seats by FAA)
and 86 business seats on upper deck )authorized for up to 315 seats by FAA)

You would think with such roomy seating it could fly the whole way without a layover.

The refuelling tanker still has to get off the ground, with the fuel to pass on to the plane in flight. I don't think you'll be saving any fuel that way. Now you got to get another airframe up, with fuel.

Quote: Pacomartin

It looks like comparing business to business in both planes, the price was 30% higher but flight was 3 hours shorter.

Dividing the difference in USD by the time saved, yields a cost of $1,298.33 per hour.

Your time had better be worth that much :)

Quote:

I can't really estimate the cost of flying the A340-500 to Europe and having an inflight refuel done. But considering the cost of a layover is about 2 hours + 1 more hour for the landing and takeoff loss of speed, the inflight refuel must take some time. It would buy you very little.

Well, the tanker would refuel several planes, not just one. Of course it does take time, with the planes flying in formation for, say 30 minutes at least, and then the tanker must get back and hook up with another customer. So you'd need several tankers per hub. Oh, it's quite a chore.

And that's why airlines don't do it.

Quote:

The A380 is promoted as having a 15,700 km range.

Singapore Airlines has one configuration with only 379 seats (the smallest number of any airline)
That is 12 first + 36 premium economy+245 economy on main deck or 293 seats (authorized for up to 538 seats by FAA)
and 86 business seats on upper deck )authorized for up to 315 seats by FAA)

You would think with such roomy seating it could fly the whole way without a layover.

A max range of 15,700 km is not enough for a 15,345 km flight. It hardly leaves you any margin for weather detours, or a holding pattern at a busy hub, or even a late diversion elsewhere.

Maybe the lighter load gives a bit more range, but maybe not enough

Clinton's visit to Africa in 1998 was one of the first modern presidential trips that resembles military invasions. As a result the Republicans ordered an audit which gives me some idea of the cost of refueling missions

The mission required about 100 missions of strategic lift aircraft and also 100 missions of aerial refueling . There was one hour of refueling for every 5-6 hours of strategic lift aircraft. Because the strategic lift planes costs 5X the cost of the strategic aircraft was 28X the cost of the refueling aircraft.

All total the president's mission cost was $30 million in strategic lift and refueling aircraft. These transported MASH units, military vehicles for protection, helicopters, and tons of logistic equipment.

President Roosevelt went to Africa in the middle of WWII as there was no other way to get to Europe during wartime. President Carter had made a brief trip in the 1970s. But this was the first major presidential trip to show how much he cares about Africa. As a result in involved literally thousands of people and massive operations with heavy lift aircraft. It involved 2,765 of Heavy lift aircraft and 457 hours of aerieal refueling aircraft.
================================
Details of audit below
================================
Beginning March 22, 1998, through April 2, 1998, the President and his delegation visited Ghana, Uganda, Rwanda, South Africa, Botswana, and Senegal. According to the administration, the purpose of the trip was to (1) help reshape the way Americans think about Africa; (2) show U.S. support for emerging democracies; (3) promote U.S. investment, trade, and economic growth in Africa; (4) promote education; and (5) promote conflict resolution and human rights. White House officials stated that this was the most extensive trip by an American President to the African continent.

DOD-Provided Fixed-Wing Support to the President’s Trip to Africa

Missions flown / Flight hours/ Hourly rate / Mission cost
C-5 Strategic lift /66 /1,975.6 /$12,605 /$24,902,438
KC-135 Strategic lift /8 /104.4 /$4,051 /$422,924
C-141 Strategic lift /19 /568.4 /$5,349 /$3,040,372
C-17 Strategic lift /5 /116.4 /$7,025 /$817,710
KC-135 Aerial refueling /104 /456.9 /$2,075 /$948,068
KC-10 Aerial refueling /6 /35.8 /$2,692 /$96,374

a
Civilian aircraft variants of the passenger aircraft shown are as follows: (1) VC-25A (Boeing 747),
which is the President’s plane, and (2) C-137 (Boeing 707), C-20B (Gulfstream III), and C-9A and
C-9C (Douglas DC-9).

b
A mission may include one or more flight segments, such as a round trip flight to a foreign destination
and a return flight to home base. It may also include multiple flight segments. Also, the number of
missions does not necessarily reflect the number of aircraft used because a given aircraft may have
flown more than one mission.
c
According to Air Force officials, the flying hour rates for the KC-135 aircraft differ depending on the
type of mission due to differences in the accounting based on the type of mission.
Source: Air Mobility Command and the White House Airlift Operations Office.

Quote: Nareed

Dividing the difference in USD by the time saved, yields a cost of $1,298.33 per hour.
Your time had better be worth that much :)

Well in general the cost of business trips over oceans is usually well over $1000 per hour.

But Singapore Air wants $12K for business and $16K for business class and first suite with a layover in Frankfurt. It is not unreasonable to ask for $16K for an all business class nonstop.

The only reason I thought the A380 could potentially make the trip nonstop was because they had a 379 seat configuration (out of an FAA maximum of 853 seats).

Singapore Airlines plans to use Airbus's proposed A350-9000ULR and are scheduled to take delivery of the plane in 2018.

In August 1989 the first Qantas 747-438 was delivered from Boeing by setting a distance record for a commercial aircraft by flying 18,001 km non-stop between London and Sydney in 20 h 9 min. I wonder if that range will be doable with the A350-9000ULR ? Perhaps with an all business class configuration.

When the flight from EWR to SIN was cancelled articled stated that the price of a barrel of fuel stood at around $28.88 when the route first took off but was $107 when the flight was cancelled. As it is below $40 again, I wonder if the flight was cancelled prematurely.

Quote: Pacomartin

These transported MASH units, military vehicles for protection, helicopters, and tons of logistic equipment.

Those are usually not a consideration in commercial flights; though I hear Lufthansa can convert first or business sections to a mini-ICU for some reason.

In the military refueling has many uses, depending on the type of mission, craft, load, etc. One occasion is to allow a tactical bomber to take off with a bigger ordnance load than it could if it depended entirely on internal fuel. Once airborne, it gets refueled to make it all the way to the target and back.

That's also not a consideration in commercial flights...

Quote: Pacomartin

The only reason I thought the A380 could potentially make the trip nonstop was because they had a 379 seat configuration (out of an FAA maximum of 853 seats).

I suppose there is not enough demand to fill even that, or not enough reserve fuel, or the operating costs would be too high.

Quote:

In August 1989 the first Qantas 747-438 was delivered from Boeing by setting a distance record for a commercial aircraft by flying 18,001 km non-stop between London and Sydney in 20 h 9 min. I wonder if that range will be doable with the A350-9000ULR ? Perhaps with an all business class configuration.

London/Sydney is about the ultimate non-stop long haul flight from what I've read. I think Qantas has attempted it, but that in one direction it cannot be done with current types due to prevailing winds.

I wonder if business class fliers could be persuaded to accept stops, if these were kept short enough. Say only to refuel, no one gets off and no one gets on. So you fly NYC to Frankfurt, park the plane at a remote position, bring the fuel truck over, refuel, and take off again within, say, 60-90 minutes. Of course, the need to approach, land, take off and climb out would add at least another 60 minutes, and by then you're at the 3 hour mark of the regular connecting flight...

Quote: Nareed

London/Sydney is about the ultimate non-stop long haul flight from what I've read. I think Qantas has attempted it, but that in one direction it cannot be done with current types due to prevailing winds.

The great circle distance is 17,100 km but when they flew it in 1989 with the Qantas delivery it took 18001 km. If the next generation goes to Sydney, I think ANZ hopes it will fly London to Auckland.

Quote: Nareed

I wonder if business class fliers could be persuaded to accept stops, if these were kept short enough. Say only to refuel, no one gets off and no one gets on. So you fly NYC to Frankfurt, park the plane at a remote position, bring the fuel truck over, refuel, and take off again within, say, 60-90 minutes. Of course, the need to approach, land, take off and climb out would add at least another 60 minutes, and by then you're at the 3 hour mark of the regular connecting flight...

Back in the day (and still today with the Mexican President's B757) the planes would refuel only at Gander Newfoundland. I think that the airlines feel that they have lost the psychological advantage of not having a nonstop. Once they've lost that they might as well increase revenue by selling halfway tickets.

Once you are at 19-20 hours then there is not that much disadvantage to flying 22-23 hours. I think it matters how flat your seat is configured.

Quote: Pacomartin

The great circle distance is 17,100 km but when they fle it in 1989 with the Qantas delivery it took 18001 km. If the next generation goes to Sydney, I think ANZ hopes it will fly London to Auckland.

I heard Qantas is planning a Perth-London non-stop. Perth is about one Australia-width closer to London than Sydney. I think with a 787-9. No word as yet on internal configuration.

Quote:

Back in the day (and still today with the Mexican President's B757) the planes would refuel only at Gander Newfoundland.

Is that enough on the way to Singapore? how about from LAX? I'd think you'd refuel in Alaska.

Quote:

I think that the airlines feel that they have lost the psychological advantage of not having a nonstop. Once they've lost that they might as well increase revenue by selling halfway tickets.

Way back when, layovers were an opportunity for leisure travelers to squeeze in another destination to their trip, especially when travelling in Europe. A layover in London or Paris on the way to Rome was sold as a feature in package tours, with the continuing flight scheduled one or two days later.

For business travelers these were always time wasters, nothing but. Although there were a few routes where taking a layover gave you a cheaper fare than a non-stop flight.

The last time I took a connecting flight was MEX-Atlanta-Orlando on Delta (my first and last time on an L-1011).

The two longest commercial B757 routes are:
6648 km Boeing 757-200 Pisa to New York-JFK Delta Air Lines DL 247
5254 km Boeing 757-300 Houston-Intercontinental to Anchorage United Airlines UA 1079

The President of Mexico must refuel in Gander, simply to get to Madrid. I am not sure if the US Secretary of State refuels in Shannon Ireland when flying to Madrid. He must certainly do so if flying to Eastern Europe.

9060 km Juarez Intl, Mexico City, MX (MEX) to Barajas Arpt, Madrid, ES (MAD)
9190 km Juarez Intl, Mexico City, MX (MEX) to Gander International, Gander, NF (YQX) to Barajas Arpt, Madrid, ES (MAD)

6080 km Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs, MD (ADW) to Barajas Arpt, Madrid, ES (MAD)
6700 km Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs, MD (ADW) to Shannon Arpt, Shannon, IE (SNN) to Barajas Arpt, Madrid, ES (MAD)

Quote: Nareed

I'd think you'd refuel in Alaska.

You are correct. The Mexican president flies to Anchorage if he is going to Asia
6070 km Juarez Intl, Mexico City, MX (MEX) to Anchorage Intl Arpt, Anchorage, AK (ANC)
11200 km Juarez Intl, Mexico City, MX (MEX) to Narita, Tokyo, JP (NRT}
11570 km Juarez Intl, Mexico City, MX (MEX) to Anchorage Intl Arpt, Anchorage, AK (ANC) to Narita, Tokyo, JP (NRT)

The President of Mexico's new Dreamliner will actually have a longer range than the POTUS VC-25 (and be much more expensive).

Quote: Nareed

Is that enough on the way to Singapore? how about from LAX?

The President of Mexico must refuel twice to get from Mexico City to singapore
16600 km Juarez Intl, Mexico City, MX (MEX) to Changi Intl Arpt, Singapore, SG (SIN)

The US Secretary of State has made 9 stop this year strictly for refueling
Shannon (Refueling) 7/31-8/1
Shannon (Refueling) 5/13
Shannon (Refueling) 5/11-12
Shannon (Refueling) 3/12
Stansted (Refueling) , 4/30-5/1
Panama City (Refueling), 10/4
Dakar (Refueling), 5/28-29
Yokota AFB (Refueling) 8/7-8
Yokota AFB (Refueling) 5/15-16