Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Pacomartin

You are probably correct.

That's my impression as well.

I just don't see much of a market for such a plane. Unfortunately one cannot move Australia closer to the rest of the world. Air new Zealand seems ok with flying to London via LAX.

On other things, Cranky Flier had a blog post about the Big Front Seat on Spirit. Basically it's a domestic first class seat with nothing added. that is, the ticket is just for the seat. It doesn't include luggage, meals, drinks, snacks, entertainment, lounge access or even priority boarding.

Cranky suggests other airlines may want to copy this model. the argument is that all the extras included in, say, a business class ticket add a lot to the cost of the ticket, and that some passengers may not want or need such things. He suggests an airline might want to sell business class a la carte, in other words.

I love the idea.

I don't know how much less a business seat would cost on a regular legacy airline between, say, NYC/Newark-London without all the extras, but ti's conceivable some fliers don't need, or want, meals, luggage, lounge, IFE, etc. Especially on a red-eye flight, which means nearly a regular night's sleep of you skip the on board amenities.

I've read many reviews of trips on premium seats where the reviewer laments wanting or requiring sleep, as they feel they're losing out on the available amenities. And Lucky at One Mile At a Time reiterates in many business class reviews that this class it's "all about the seat." So this makes sense. Even priority boarding wouldn't be important, as you're certain to find bin space in the premium section due to the lower density and the abundance of in-seat storage options.

Of course, if you want a meal, or need to carry luggage, or priority boarding, or lounge access, etc. you can pay for all that separately. even better, you could choose between meal options.

Some may point out this starts a new race to the bottom, much as what has happened in economy over the past few years. this may be true but:

a) that's one more reason to love this idea
b) I bet the bottom looks pretty nice on a wide seat with a flat bed and lots of leg room.

Coming up next, as I'm supposed to be working, my take on the Cranky Flier idea.

Quote: Nareed

On other things, Cranky Flier had a blog post about the Big Front Seat on Spirit. Basically it's a domestic first class seat with nothing added. that is, the ticket is just for the seat. It doesn't include luggage, meals, drinks, snacks, entertainment, lounge access or even priority boarding.

Cranky suggests other airlines may want to copy this model. the argument is that all the extras included in, say, a business class ticket add a lot to the cost of the ticket, and that some passengers may not want or need such things. He suggests an airline might want to sell business class a la carte, in other words.

A few weeks ago I had a business trip where I ended up in Myrtle Beach, SC. The only flight home that worked with my schedule was Spirit. Since I was expensing it to the company I opted for The Big Front Seat. As Nareed mentioned it is typical first class sized seat in row one. No other perks, just more butt room. It was fine but I would prefer if it was in row two so I could store my bag under the seat in front of me. I hate getting up and down to retrieve items from my bag.

My take on Cranky's idea is to start with premium economy.

That's real premium economy, not economy plus, main cabin extra, even more room, etc. To be perfectly clear: a nicer seat than economy, wider, with leg or foot rests, with more legroom and more recline.

Usually these sets, mostly on non-US carriers, features some extra perks like better meals than coach (Singapore lets you order a specific meal beforehand), amenity kit, luggage allowance, priority boarding, etc. Few, as far as I know, include lounge access.

These aren't lie-flat seats, or even angled-flat seats, or even real reclining seats. See how much the price can stay the same (did you expect the price to come down? seriously?) by selling the extra perks separately.

And that's really the deal breaker. prices won't vary that much.

But if you're going to Lincoln and Jackson(*) premium passengers, you may start at the bottom.

(*) You don't nickel and dime in the front of the plane.


I still like the idea. let those snobs who complain about lack of privacy in business because they can see the person on the seat next to them (the horror!), especially those who fly with miles and points, pay extra for the privilege of luggage and meals :)

Quote: Nareed

I just don't see much of a market for such a plane. Unfortunately one cannot move Australia closer to the rest of the world. Air new Zealand seems ok with flying to London via LAX.

I misspoke earlier when I said that Sydney was the only TOP 50 airport in the Southern Hemisphere. Soekarno–Hatta International Airport in Indonesia is in the southern tropics, so Sydney is the only TOP 50 airport in the southern temperate zone. New Zealand and Brazil do not have a TOP 50 airport.

A TOP 50 airport has more than 37.3 MAP last year.

As I said earlier, Airbus and Boeing sold fewer than 100 ultra long range jets that they developed twenty years ago, but they couldn't reach Sydney and they were fuel pigs. However, in addition to Sydney some Southern Hemisphere airports in Brazil, Argentina, South Africa as well as New Zealand will expand spurring the desire for more ultra long distance routes.

There are so many variables with corporate specified ranges that it is not clear how many people that could be reliably carried from Sydney to LHR on an A350-900ULR. Singapore's decision to put only 170 seats may have much more to do with wanting to sell expensive seats for their nonstop to LAX and NYC. After all people can choose to add 20% to their time and fly through Tokyo or Frankfurt if they want to save money. But it is remarkably few seats if you consider that Southwest has 175 seats on their newer planes.

Quote: Pacomartin

But it is remarkably few seats if you consider that Southwest has 175 seats on their newer planes.

Perhaps someone will develop an ultra-long-range narrow body :)

Seriously. I mean, the 707 was a long-range narrow body, used in transatlantic flights. Boeing's early concepts for the 747 included a double deck narrow body. So imagine that, but with large fuel tanks in the lower deck. That might just be enough to fly 22 hours without refueling.

It's too bad for Qantas that mid-air refueling is so risky, expensive and uncomfortable. otherwise their regular wide bodies could just catch a tanker around the Persian Gulf on their way to London. I bet Boeing could rig that up rather than develop a new plane of uncertain future.

The point is there would need to be much more demand than just Qantas, or just the cities in the Southern Hemisphere likely to grow. And that's very tricky, see the A-380 and to a lesser extent the 747-8. Also, some of the difficulty may be a chicken-and-egg problem: there isn't more demand for ultra-long-long-long-haul aircraft because there aren't any planes with that range (what was the demand for microwave ovens in the 60s?)

Quote: Nareed

The point is there would need to be much more demand than just Qantas, or just the cities in the Southern Hemisphere likely to grow.

Qantas has never bought an ultra long range plane when they were risky. I think it is because they still couldn't service Sydney to Europe. Today they have ordered 8 Dreamliners (787-9) and they are planning to fly from the western city of Perth to London. But the range of the Dreamliner is now more or less standard as over 1200 have been ordered.

The 777-200LR ("LR" for Longer Range), nicknamed the Worldliner had it's initial order 20 years ago. Only 59 were made and none of them were purchased by Quantas or Singapore Air. The plane had a fuel capacity of 47,890 US gal (320,863 lb ) and Delta has 291 seats (36 Delta Comfort+37 Delta One 218 Economy) or 1100 lbs of fuel per seat. Delta uses this model most dramatically to fly nonstop to South Africa from Atlanta.

Emirates fits their 777-200LR with only 266 seats (42 Business 216 Economy 8 First) 1206 lbs fuel per seat
Qatar Airway fits their 777-200LR with only 259 seats (42 Business 217 Economy) 1240 lbs fuel per seat

So while the Worldliner has the longest flights in the world, it comes at a very high price in fuel.

Boeing 777-200 Long Range version
Number Airline Order | First Delivery
10 Delta Air Lines 13. Nov. 1997 | 28. Feb. 2008
10 Emirates 21. Nov. 2005 | 31. Aug. 2007
9 Qatar Airways 30. May. 2006 | 3. Feb. 2009
8 Air India 30. Dec. 2005 | 25. Jul. 2007
6 Air Canada 10. Nov. 2005 | 25. Jun. 2007
6 Ethiopian Airlines 27. Jul. 2009 | 17. Nov. 2010
3 Turkmenistan Airlines 4. Jan. 2008 | 31. Aug. 2010
2 Business Jet / VIP Customer(s) 18. May. 2009 | 1. Nov. 2010
2 Pakistan International Airline 14. Nov. 2002 | 24. Feb. 2006
1 Air Austral 11. May. 2010 | 25. Aug. 2011
1 Ceiba Intercontinental 18. Mar. 2009 | 17. Jun. 2011
1 Republic of Iraq 14. Dec. 2012 | 14. Dec. 2012
59

Quote: Pacomartin

Qantas has never bought an ultra long range plane when they were risky.

I didn't know that. but that right there is reason enough for manufacturers not to take Qantas' challenge seriously.

As to the rest, I'm realizing that ultra-long-range craft are rather a specialty item with a limited market. as I recall, the 747 SP didn't have many orders, either. Short of a development that turns some distant point int he globe into a high-demand destination(*), I see just incremental increases in range until they reach Qantas' magic number.


(*) say if someone discovers oil reserves in Australia or South Africa half the size of Saudi Arabia's.

I found an Australian Aviation website that spells it out in more detail

The A350-900ULR can fly the distance to London, but only in the direction from Sydney to London against the headwinds. The specification of 9700 nm is for "still air". It is speculated that the maximum number of possible seats is 250 (remember that Singapore Airlines is only putting in 170 seats for it's Ultra Long Haul flights, and 253 for normal use of the aircraft).

Qantas's Holy Grail is to be able to fly in both directions to London and NYC with 300 seats in five years. All of the B747s in Qantas's fleet will be retired by then.

The Airbus A350-900ULR is officially still in development, even though delivery is still a year away.

Quote: Nareed

I didn't know that. but that right there is reason enough for manufacturers not to take Qantas' challenge seriously.

Emirates flies to South America stopping in Rio de Janeiro with a continuing segment on to Buenos Aires EZE .



But that seems to be more of a business decision than one of range. Non stop to Buenos Aires would be 8,498 miles and Emirates already flies 8,818 miles to New Zealand.

It is true that flying to Santiago Chile would be 9,183 miles which would make it the new longest flight in the world by great circle distance, but once again it is not clear if the business case of flying nonstop to Chile is very pressing.

Bottom line is that if the Middle East carriers would show know interest in this variant, there is not as much incentive to develop it. Qantas may have to settle for nonstop in one direction and a refueling stop against the headwinds (adds 2 miles to total distance).




LHR SYD 10,574 miles nonstop

"Qantas may have to settle for nonstop in one direction and a refueling stop against the headwinds (adds 2 miles to total distance)."


This is what they used to do on the DFW route when it was a 747. It was SYD-DFW as QF7 eastbound and DFW-BNE-SYD as QF8 westbound. Even like this they had to carry a reduced number of PAX and QF8 was colloquially called QF-Late as it regularly had to divert elsewhere to refuel.



EDIT: If they had to have a stopover on the return journey from LHR it would be in DXB. The terms of the partnership agreement with Emirates won't allow them to stop anywhere but DXB on the way to Europe.