Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Pacomartin

Aeromexico Connect flies Embraer's with 76 seats and 99 seats. In the USA scoping agreements mean that the regional divisions are restricted to planes with 76 or fewer seats.

But does that apply to foreign airlines? they're not allowed to fly regionally within the US anyway..

Quote:

But the Embraer jets have better fuel efficiency Bombardier Cseries over short hauls like Houston (1230 km) or LAX (2490 km)

really? That hardly seems possible given all the attention lavished on the CS100.

Quote: Nareed

But does that apply to foreign airlines? they're not allowed to fly regionally within the US anyway..

The 76 seat limit is purely a function of the pilot negotiations with major USA airlines that have regional divisions. I assume that there is some pilot unions in Mexico and some limitations on Aeromexico vs Aeromexico Connect. If there is no financial benefit, then why have two companies?

Prior to Bombardier introducing the regional jet in the mid 1990s there was little or no scoping issues as the regional airlines all flew turboprops which were radically different than jets. When the major airlines started flying regional jets the pilots at American Airlines went on strike because they felt that regional jets would keep getting bigger and bigger and airlines would use them as a way to undercut pilot salaries.

Scope limits varied from airline to airline, but eventually they all converged on the 76 seat limit.



The Bombardier CS100 seat limits are an issue with the USA airlines as they are too large for the regional airlines, but on the small size for the mainline airlines.

In the USA the largest regional airlines fly for two or three mainline companies.

Quote: Nareed

really? That hardly seems possible given all the attention lavished on the CS100.

You can read it yourself:

Quote: Leeham News

Our analysis shows that this works well for the segment that Embraer addresses, when the aircraft meets the real world of fluctuating passenger loads, which often hovers around or dips below 100 passengers. The E-Jet E2s operating economics matches the more advanced CSeries for normal load factors. When more passengers or cargo are transported over longer distances, the CSeries comes into its design window and leaves both the E-Jets behind in efficiency.
https://leehamnews.com/2014/01/13/embraer-continues-and-refines-its-strategy-at-the-low-end-of-100-149-seat-sector/

Sales of the CS100 before the Delta order were pretty poor. Only 48 were ordered, all in the Middle East in Europe without a single sale in Asia, Africa, or Latin America. I think the European airlines were looking at the advantages of using LCY airport. Odyssey airlines plans the TATL flights in LCY.

Embraer introduced the E-195 which increased their maximum of 122 seats to a maximum of 132 seats . But the CS300 has been configured with 145 seat primarily. While both planes are a threat to MAX-7 and A319neo sales, the CS300 (and the potential CS500) is more frightening.

Since the CS series is only five across seating, it is not imagined that it can be stretched much beyond 160 seats, but (as you pointed out) the cross section is much lower and fuel economy per pax is dramatically better.

As long as fuel prices remain low, it is more difficult to sell thousands of Bombardier C series. Obviously airlines are more interested in the MAX-8 or A320/A321 neo models. But I think they could sell thousands of CS-500s.

The gods are still not amused by hubris.

A short time ago, Delta informed investors only weather could snarl their operations. then this happened:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/17/us/atlanta-airport-power-outage/index.html

It's also things like this I like to point to when I hear Americans slander third-world companies.

Quote: Nareed

But does that apply to foreign airlines? they're not allowed to fly regionally within the US anyway..

They are allowed to in some cases but not on purely domestic itineraries. For example Qantas flys LAX-JFK but to get on that flight (QF11/12) you must also be flying them in or out of the country as well. That doesn’t have to be directly in or out but must be on the same ticket. Last year I flew JFK-LAX on QF12 then had a 24hr layover in LA before flying LAX-BNE on QF16.

Quote: Aussie

They are allowed to in some cases but not on purely domestic itineraries.

If the intermediate fuel stop was in another country, then the Australian airline could sell tickets for the intermediate range. Unfortunately, I don't think Tijuana or Vancouver would make much of a business case.

Looking at FAA database for USA to Australia in 2016 reveals the following percentages (all passengers of all countries)
63.75% Sydney
18.81% Melbourne
17.43% Brisbane

56.94% LAX
20.97% HNL
10.14% SFO
6.13% DFW
5.71% JFK (requires fuel stop in California)
0.11% LAS (no regularly scheduled flights)

Miles from Sydney
HNL 5066
SFO 7417
LAX 7487
LAS 7719
DFW 8569
JFK 9853

In January 2018 United will introduce nonstops from Sydney to Houston

The Boeing 777 - 8
List Price $360.5 million
Market Offerability May 2013
Program Launch November 2013
Seats (2-class) 350-375

is advertising a 10,000 mile range, but I assume that is still air range. It might be possible to fly nonstop from Sydney to New York, but with a fuel stop in LAX on the return. It is not clear if an airline will do that, as they may simply wait for a jet that can fly both directions.

I wonder if there would be enough demand for SYD-JFK non-stop.

Qantas run three flights per day which all arrive at LAX within around 45min of each other - QF11, 15 & 93. They all feed to QF11 on to JFK (flown by the same 747 that does QF15) and they never fill it. Most of the time they don’t even seat anyone in the upstairs business class section. Perhaps a lower capacity plane could be filled and make a non-stop flight viable. Or maybe a non-stop flight would see more people want to begin their holiday on the east coast instead of beginning in LA.

It's too bad nuclear power is too heavy and dangerous to use on aircraft (and fusion, if it ever comes, won't help matters). In theory you could have unlimited range with such a power source.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/24/news/companies/qantas-airbus-boeing-sydney-new-york/index.html
Qantas has issued a challenge to the world's largest plane makers: Build us a jet that can fly from Sydney to London or New York -- without stopping.

Airbus is developing a special ultra-long-haul version, the A350-900ULR, modified to carry extra fuel that it says is designed with a range of about 11,100 miles. Scheduled for first delivery next year, it’s unclear how many passengers it could carry on the Sydney-London route. Singapore Airlines intends to fly it between New York and Singapore with just 170 seats, all with business-class seats.
EWR- SIN: 9,535 mi
JFK- SYD: 9,950 mi
HEL- SYD: 9,439 mi (No one really talks about Helsinki as a hub, but Finnair and Qantas are both members of OneWorld Alliance). London is clearly the first choice in Europe, but if it is not possible, Qantas may want to break Emirates partnership in favor of a One World Alliance. Although London is by far the most common destination in Europe for Australians, the cumulative of the other European airports outweighs London.

Quote: Aussie

I wonder if there would be enough demand for SYD-JFK non-stop.

According to FAA stats, in 2016 Qantas carried an average of 220 daily passengers into and out of JFK. I assume all refueling is done at LAX, but the JFK passengers are split to SYD (55%), BNE (17%) and MEL (28%).

The raw numbers seem high enough, but the question is how much money will Australians pay to save a few hours?

When Singapore Airlines started their nonstop from SIN to EWR back in 2004 it was on a 4 engine jet. It turns out that most people can't get their accounting office to approve a nonstop that saves 2-3 hours at several times the price of a layover in Tokyo.

They are going to try again with the twinjet A350-900ULR. It will still be cheaper to fly via Tokyo, but the differential is not going to be as severe.

Personally non-stop to JFK would be too long for me. Even in a premium cabin, I’m happy to stop at LAX for a break. In fact, if I was ever going straight to NYC I would almost certainly spend the entire day in LA before getting an overnight flight. Either that or I’d take Cathay Pacific and transit in HKG for a few hours.

Quote: Aussie

Personally non-stop to JFK would be too long for me. Even in a premium cabin, I’m happy to stop at LAX for a break. In fact, if I was ever going straight to NYC I would almost certainly spend the entire day in LA before getting an overnight flight. Either that or I’d take Cathay Pacific and transit in HKG for a few hours.

Hawaiian Airlines is acquiring half a dozen A330-800neo starting in 2019. Since they fly to both Sydney and Brisbane and JFK they should be smart enough to coordinate flights so you can change planes in Honolulu. Then you are stopping halfway, and if you have to kill a day what better place than Waikiki.


You could theoretically do it today, but it is almost a 6 hour layover in HNL on you way to JFK, and an overnight in HNL on your return trip

09:40pm - 10:45 am SYD-HNL Duration 10h 05m (layover 5:45)
4:30pm - 6:55 am HNL-JFK Duration 9h 25m

10:00am - 4:30pm JFK -HNL Duration 11h 30m (layover 19:45)
12:15pm - 07:45pm HNL-SYD Duration 10h 30m

Personally, I've never been on an air leg over 6000 miles (LAX-ZRH).