Yet another aviation thread.

United Airlines as of January 18th will have the three longest flights by US carrier. All three use Boeing 787-9. Delta's flight from ATL to Johannusburg SA was the previous record holder for seven years

8,770 mi LAX - Singapore UA #37 27 October 2017
8,596 mi IAH - Sydney UA #100 18 January 2018
8,446 mi SFO - Singapore UA#1 1 June 2016

Foreign Airlines to USA
8,574 mi Sydney - DFW QF#8 Airbus A380-800
8,446 mi Singapore - SFO SQ#31 Airbus A350-900

Auckland, NZ to Doha on Qatar Airways and to Dubai on Emirates are the two longest commercial flights in the world

Is the Zunum Aero electric plane possible? I know that those that follow the air industry on this site haven't put a lot of credence into the electric plane. It appears that Zunum is not that far away from a small hybrid plane and is talking a decade to a 50 seat commuter hybrid plane. Jet Blue and Boeing are both substantial investors and the company is based in Kirkland, Wa.

It appears that this is actually happening any thoughts from the aviation types on the forum.

Quote: kenarman

It appears that this is actually happening any thoughts from the aviation types on the forum.

AFAIK the initial plane is considered very likely.
On 5 October 2017, Zunum Aero formally launched the development of a six-to-12-seat aircraft aimed to fly in 2020 and be delivered in 2022. Controlled by fly-by-wire, the aircraft could also fly without a pilot. I should think it would be a popular business jet since it is prestigious for being low carbon footprint.

Wing batteries are supplemented by a 1MW gas turbine driving two 500kW generators to extend range to 700nm .

Range 700 nm from Frankfurt


Range 700 nm from San Francisco


Generators could be supplied by GE Aviation, Honeywell, Rolls-Royce plc or UTC Aerospace Systems.

The powertrain will be installed on a testbed and flown in 2019 from Zunum Aero facilities near Chicago.

Fuel savings from hybrid-electric propulsion and FAR Part 23 certification allowing single pilot operations for nine seats would lower operating costs by 40-80% to reach available seat miles (ASM) costs of a 78-seat Dash 8-Q400.

Consensus in the aviation blogosphere is that British Airways is intent on killing its brand.

The details boil down to: full service airline prices with ultra low-cost service on board.

Not that many ULCCs have a business or first class, of course. But in coach that seems to be what's happening.

But this is the trend in almost every airline in almost every country. There are exceptions like jet Blue and Southwest, but that's just what they are: exceptions. We can look forward to a future of reduced legroom, fees for everything besides a seat and air, and perhaps the disappearance of seat-back screens. In return we may get in-flight WiFi (for a fee), and power at every seat (thus far for free, but if they figure out how to charge for it, they will).

If we want this to change the remedy is to patronize the better airlines. This is easier done than said in places like MEX, where you can find a flight to almost anywhere by most airlines. It's nearly impossible in large hubs dominated by a single carrier, like Atlanta, where you have few options other than Delta.

I thought I'd beat the rush:

http://beta.latimes.com/business/la-fi-interjet-discount-mexican-airline-20180112-story.html

Based on things like this, I give Interjet no more than three years. By then it will either be gone, or more likely will have gone full ULCC.

Quote: Nareed

Based on things like this, I give Interjet no more than three years. By then it will either be gone, or more likely will have gone full ULCC.

As comfortable as it is to have empty middle seats, it is a killer for airline economics. I never understood how Interjet could fly with such low load factors.

Load : seats Airlines US-MX flights only
...LCC
84.4% : 190 Frontier Airlines Inc.
79.9% : 187 Spirit Air Lines
81.1% : 172 Volaris
...MAINLINE
80.8% : 165 Alaska Airlines Inc.
79.0% : 160 Aeromexico
84.2% : 159 United Air Lines Inc.
85.9% : 157 Delta Air Lines Inc.
81.4% : 157 American Airlines Inc.
81.2% : 144 Southwest Airlines Co.
81.9% : 142 JetBlue Airways
69.4% : 128 Interjet
...REGIONAL
75.5% : 86 Aerolitoral
73.2% : 77 Mesa Airlines Inc.
73.0% : 71 SkyWest Airlines Inc.
73.2% : 57 ExpressJet Airlines Inc.


Percent of passengers
17.9% American Airlines Inc.
15.3% United Air Lines Inc.
11.4% Aeromexico
10.3% Delta Air Lines Inc.
10.0% Volaris
5.7% Southwest Airlines Co.
5.5% Alaska Airlines Inc.
4.3% Interjet
3.4% Mesa Airlines Inc.
2.5% JetBlue Airways
2.4% SkyWest Airlines Inc.
2.1% Frontier Airlines Inc.
2.1% Aerolitoral
1.7% ExpressJet Airlines Inc.
1.6% Spirit Air Lines
96.3%

0.2% VivaAerobus

Quote: Pacomartin

As comfortable as it is to have empty middle seats, it is a killer for airline economics. I never understood how Interjet could fly with such low load factors.

I don't think they leave the middle seats empty on purpose.

Interjet and Volaris began flying in 2005. At the time in-flight meals and checked bags were complimentary in many airlines, including Aeromexico and Mexicana. Therefore doing away with galley ovens to heat food, by serving only complimentary packaged snacks, was a cost-cutting measure. They also flew from TLC rather than MEX, and sold passage from points in Mex City to TLC. That's another cost-cutting measure, plus ancillary revenue. They both also had a single-type fleet (if the range A319-321 for Volaris counts as a single type).

Since then Mexicana went bust, Aeromexico no longer serves meals on most flights, even international ones, and charges for the second checked bag. Interjet and Volaris abandoned TLC for MEX. So you can see costs went up and revenue didn't. Interjet also added a second type, in the form of the Sukhoi Superjet, which has issues of its own beyond commonality (I think they should have waited for the CS100, or gone with the E-175)

Except Volaris a) has kept a lower cost structure anyway and b) has increased revenue by checked bag fees, seat selection, buy on-board food and drink, and who knows what else. They also pack their planes tighter. So Volaris, damn them, is doing well and Interjet isn't.

Ergo Interjet will go broke or switch to ULCC.

They could try a really risky bet:

1) Copy Jet Blue's mint Class
2) Equip some A320s with Mint seats only
3) Fly them MEX-LHR and MEX-CDG viaNewburgh or some other nowhere East Coast airport. The stop would be for fuel only, no 5th freedom issues apply.
4) Promote this as a low cost business class
5) declare bankruptcy :)

Quote: Nareed

They could try a really risky bet:
3) Fly them MEX-LHR and MEX-CDG viaNewburgh or some other nowhere East Coast airport. The stop would be for fuel only.
4) Promote this as a low cost business class

The traditional airport for refueling only is Gander (YQX). From Mexico City to London stopping in Gander only increases the trip length by 0.04%. From Mexico City to Madrid stopping in Gander only increases the trip length by 1.37%

nautical miles
MTY- MEX -MAD 384 nm + 4903 nm = 5287 nm
MTY- YQX -MAD 2530 nm + 2197 nm = 4726 nm


Monterrey to Europe via Gander might be a hole in AeroMexico's route network that Interjet could exploit. To Madrid it is a 561 nm shorter flight distance, it probably takes a lot less time to refuel in Gander vs changing planes in Mexico city. The smaller 150 seat plane might be easier to fill than Aeromexico's Dreamliners with 243 and 274 seats.

Interjet is flying 3 Airbus A320neos with 32 more on order, they have a still air range of 3500 nmi.

==========================================

Frankly, I can't see Interjet competing with the existing 9 routes from Mexico City to Europe with a small plane that requires a refueling stop. Now possibly a Mexico City to Barcelona on a similar argument like above. You have to fly from Madrid to Barcelona anyway

MEX-MAD-BCN 4903 nm + 262 nm = 5165 nm
MEX-YQX-BCN 2773 nm + 2393 nm = 5165 nm
Works out to exactly the same number of miles.



Existing flights from MEX to 7 cities in Europe
Aeroméxico: Amsterdam, London–Heathrow, Madrid, Paris–Charles de Gaulle
Air France: Paris–Charles de Gaulle
Iberia: Madrid
KLM: Amsterdam
British Airways: London–Heathrow
Alitalia: Rome–Fiumicino
Lufthansa: Frankfurt, Munich

Quote: Pacomartin

Interjet also puts a lot fewer seats than Volaris on the same model airplanes.

They promote the most legroom available, 34" pitch.

This gives a very big disincentive towards paying extra for seats in the bulkhead or the overwing exits. I sat at an exit row once, and the legroom was just ridiculous.

What it boils down to is when they started, Interjet offered lower fares than the competition, even if you had to fly from TLC. Today that's just not the case anymore, and the levels of service in AM and Interjet are about the same.

The exception, sometimes, is if you get the lowest fare bundle. but then you don't get an assigned seat and can't check in online. you have to check in at the airport and get a seat assigned then. The problem with that is you lose more time out of your day having to get to the airport earlier. For early morning flights, this can be brutal.

Quote: Nareed

I don't think they leave the middle seats empty on purpose.

Like hotel rooms, airplane seats can almost always be filled if you drop the price low enough. But there is something known as "undermining your brand" where people become unwilling to pay the higher prices.

I had a friend who was an editor of a magazine and he spoke of "dropping their subscription numbers". At first I thought they would call people and tell them that they couldn't have the magazine anymore. But basically he said keeping subscription numbers high requires expenditures for free gifts and/or giving large discounts over rack rate.

Quote: Nareed

They promote the most legroom available, 34" pitch.

Well, that was my point. Interjet has far fewer seats than Volaris AND IN ADDITION they have a much lower load factor.

Interjet is sometimes labelled the Mexican JetBlue. Both airlines have 150 seats in their A320-200. They both have 25 rows of seats, but Interjet has a coffee bar in the rear of the plane, while JetBlue has 7 rows with 4" to 5" more leg room. Interjet seats are a little narrower, presumably so that passengers can more easily go to the coffee bar and rest rooms and squeeze past the serving cart.

Interjet
150 Economy 34" 17"

JetBlue
108 Economy 34" 17.8"
42 Economy 38-39" 17.8"

For USA-Mexico routes only and only on the A320, Interjet flies with an average of 44 empty seats, while JetBlue has an average of 28 empty seats.
=======================

SEATS
Interjet
150 Airbus A320-200/neo
192 Airbus A321-200

Volaris
174 Airbus A320-200
186 Airbus A320neo
220 Airbus A321-200/neo

Allegiant Air
186 Airbus A320-200

Spirit Airlines
178/182 Airbus A320-200
182 Airbus A320neo
228 Airbus A321-200

Frontier Airlines
180/186 Airbus A320-200
186 Airbus A320neo
230 Airbus A321-200
240 Airbus A321neo

JetBlue
150 Airbus A320-200
200 Airbus A321-200
159 Airbus A321-200 (Mint configuration)

Alaska Airlines
150 Airbus A320-200
190 Airbus A321neo

American Airlines
150 Airbus A320-200
190 Airbus A321-200 To be reconfigured with 190 seat configuration by 2021.
102 Airbus A321-200 17 aircraft in this configuration for transcontinental

Delta Airlines
157 Airbus A320-200 Standardization at 157 seats in progress.
192 Airbus A321-200
197 Airbus A321neo