Super cheap way to get to Europe

Page 9 of 11« First<67891011>
September 18th, 2016 at 6:13:35 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 704
Posts: 8124
Quote: Nareed
So about pilot pay, there were two almost identical notes in Airways:


See, I think that they are getting ready for the next round of negotiations. If the Envoy pilots are getting higher pay, they will be excited at the chance to fly even bigger jets and make even more money. They will divide the pilots on this issue.

There are no American Airlines hubs in Northwest CONUS, but here are the hubs with ranges of 500 nautical miles around each hub indicated.
December 9th, 2016 at 10:29:49 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 704
Posts: 8124
http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/270227/norwegian-set-to-open-up-to-four-737max-bases-for-2017-transatlantic-growth/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=the-hub&utm_campaign=the-hub-AME&utm_content=the-hub-20161209
Norwegian set to open up to four 737MAX bases for 2017 transatlantic growth Posted 5 December 2016 11:00

The US DOT ruling also finally allows Norwegian to launch its long-planned flights into the US from Cork Airport. Initially serving the Boston area and later also the New York area, these will operate at launch with 737-800 equipment before transitioning to the 737MAX at a later date.

Starting next year, Norwegian plans multiple routes using the new 737MAX. Plans are to concentrate on minor airports and avoid JFK and Boston.

Stewart International Airport in Orange County, New York
TF Green International Airport in Providence, Rhode Island
Portsmouth International Airport in Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
Bradley International Airport in Hartford, Connecticut
Edinburgh Airport in Scotland, UK,
Riga International Airport in Latvia
Shannon International Airport in Ireland
Dublin International Airport in Ireland
January 11th, 2017 at 2:42:02 PM permalink
Ayecarumba
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 82
Posts: 1344
WOW is promoting $69.99 flights from LAX and SFO to destinations in Denmark, Scotland and England.

Return fares are full price but still only ~$200.
July 5th, 2017 at 8:55:56 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 704
Posts: 8124
Quote: Pacomartin
Specified Design Range current/new engine options
ceoA321: 3,200 nmi (7,930 US gallons)
neoA321: 3,500 nmi (7,810 US gallons)
neoA321LR : 4,000 nmi (8,700 US gallons)


The B737-MAX jets have a 6,820 US gallon tanks with an option for an auxiliary 449 gallon center tank.

With the Norwegian configuration of 189 passengers 6820/189 is only 36 gallons per seat or $69 in fuel at $1.90 per gallon.

That is an impressively small amount of fuel to cross the Atlantic from (1) Stewart, NY (2) Providence RI and (3) Bradley International Airport in CT. I know the specifications predict 104 seat miles per gallon, and it is only 3500 miles to Bergen Norway, but it just feels like very little. I assume they have that auxiliary tank.

Norwegians 787 (-8 and -9) with 291 and 344 seats can carry 115 and 97 gallons per seat. I am quite sure they don't fill it up all the way for most transatlantic trips from the UK or Ireland, but it's comforting to think they can if the weather is bad.

July 6th, 2017 at 1:39:49 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 48
Posts: 4571
Are prevailing winds a sufficient factor to make fuel loads radically different for TO Europe as opposed to FROM Europe?
July 6th, 2017 at 4:12:23 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 704
Posts: 8124
Quote: Fleastiff
Are prevailing winds a sufficient factor to make fuel loads radically different for TO Europe as opposed to FROM Europe?


One would think so.

Airlines are understandably not transparent about precisely how much fuel they put in an aircraft for each trip. But some of the stories that are leaked to the press is that they are taking chances.

It's just the whole idea that they are flying from suburban NYC to Norway and the fuel tanks are only large enough to carry 36 gallons per seat. So even if they know before takeoff that the winds are horrific and they have a full load, there is no leeway to carry extra fuel.

The brand new narrowbody neoA321 which was just delivered to Virgin America will also be used by airlines like JetBlue to fly transatlantic. But the fuel tanks are 27% larger than the B737Max 8.
July 6th, 2017 at 6:35:59 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 48
Posts: 4571
Quote: Pacomartin
Airlines are understandably not transparent about precisely how much fuel they put in an aircraft for each trip. But some of the stories that are leaked to the press is that they are taking chances.
Ryan Air particularly which publishes a list of its pilots who fly fuel instead of paying passengers. ATC knows that most Ryan Air flights arrive in desperate fuel situations.
July 6th, 2017 at 2:50:51 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 704
Posts: 8124
Quote: Fleastiff
Ryan Air particularly which publishes a list of its pilots who fly fuel instead of paying passengers. ATC knows that most Ryan Air flights arrive in desperate fuel situations.


Precisely. I am sure flying a Boeing 737 Max 8 with 36 gallons of fuel per each of 189 seats from (SWF) Stewart NY to BGO Bergen, Norway (3,456 miles) is not riskier than taking a normal Ryan Air flight. But the idea of such a small fuel tank for a TransATL flight is just mind boggling..

You would take a low cost WOW narrowbody a A321neo with 220 seats from (EWR) Newark to (KEF) Iceland, and on to (CPH) Copenhagen thinking it is safer. The segments are shorter at 2,602 miles followed by 1,337 miles, and the tanks can carry 40 gallons of fuel per seat. But if you really wanted to hike in the Bergen region of Norway, you would have to travel overland for hours. But you don't know if WOW fills up their fuel tanks completely.



Mountains near Bergen
July 6th, 2017 at 3:21:12 PM permalink
Ayecarumba
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 82
Posts: 1344
There's got to be some rules about that somewhere. I thought a buffer for x mins. of holding time, or enough to get to an alternate landing strip had to be factored in. I recall stories of planes leaving baggage, passengers, or both behind for the next flight, in order to make the fuel calculation work. Is this only for U.S. based carriers?
July 6th, 2017 at 4:07:51 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 318
Posts: 10840
Quote: Pacomartin
But you don't know if WOW fills up their fuel tanks completely.


The golden rule in aviation is not to carry one more drop of fuel than that necessary to perform the flight, including reserves for holds, diversions and emergencies.

This means commercial aircraft lift off with full tanks only rarely.

From reading Coonts' novels involving naval aviation, and the author was a naval aviator, one can conclude combat aircraft do fill their tanks for every mission. This makes sense, as the unknowns in combat are a) much less certain and b) much more deadly than those in commercial aviation. A bombing mission may have a planned route, but changes due to unforeseen defenses, encounters with air patrols, etc., can't be ruled out.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
Page 9 of 11« First<67891011>