Malaysian Jet

Quote: chickenman

Australian PM swears on a stack of Bibles that they have pings from this plane and are within kilometers, so traingulating as best they can to narrow down and then send submersibles. Landed somewhere seems to be an excluded scenario if the former is true.

Yeah, I heard that too, chickenman...and he certainly has more information than I do, but pings can be very deceptive underwater. I guess we'll all have to wait and see.

paco touches on a good point, though I think the experts took what they knew into account on the calculations. The airlines generally only fuel enough for the trip plus an hour or so extra to avoid hauling dead weight (there are formulas for various scenarios), not to the max fuel load possible, and that information would have been on the manifest, so they should be able to be pretty accurate on range. However, they've made at least one major re-calculation based on changing their speed estimate during the search process. All guesswork without a radar return or telemetrics to work with.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The airlines generally only fuel enough for the trip plus an hour or so extra to avoid hauling dead weight (there are formulas for various scenarios), not to the max fuel load possible, and that information would have been on the manifest, so they should be able to be pretty accurate on range.

Singapore Airlines Flight 21 was the longest commercial flight in the world, from Newark Airport over the North Pole to Singapore. The plane was an Airbus A340-500 configured with only 100 seats. The nonstop flight would save little fuel due to the need to use more energy at the beginning of the flight to power its heavy load, and carried 400,000 pounds of fuel . As jet fuel can cost over $1 per pound, and allowing for some empty seats, you can see why a one way ticket cost $8000.

Basically, it isn't economical to try and fly jets to their maximum distance. When Singapore Airlines discontinued this 9,535 mile flight, the current distance record holder for the Airbus A340-500 is Abu Dhabi to São Paulo (7,532 miles).

Quote: Pacomartin

Basically, it isn't economical to try and fly jets to their maximum distance. When Singapore Airlines discontinued this 9,535 mile flight, the current distance record holder for the Airbus A340-500 is Abu Dhabi to São Paulo (7,532 miles).

If you think the fuel-payload ratio for airliners is bad, you should see what it's like for rockets. At some point you begin to add fuel just so you can carry fuel.

Your traditional busy long haul routes were:
5440 miles LHR-LAX London to Los Angeles
5440 miles NRT-LAX Tokyo to Los Angeles
5960 miles NRT-LHR Tokyo to London
round the world in three nonstop flights

Boeing 747SP introduced in 1976
6730 miles JFK-NRT New York city to Tokyo (April 1976 Pan Am started this service)
6760 miles LHR-SIN London to Singapore

The following route is one of the busiest, and is the traditional division between long haul and ultra long haul
7490 miles LAX-SYD Los Angeles to Sydney I think this flight was the longest in the world for almost 20 years.

Pan Am started SFO-SYD in December 1976, which is only a few miles shorter than to LAX. Gradually after 1976 LAX became the dominant California airport.

Mostly in the last decade have they began ULH flights, partly because of Middle East trying to take a dominant role in global flights. This table show the current selection.

First flight	Miles	From	To
Jun 15, 1996	7,793	Chicago	Hong Kong
Oct 31, 1999	7,921	Los Angeles	Melbourne
Mar 1, 2001	8,065	Newark	Hong Kong
Jul 1, 2004	8,072	New York	Hong Kong
Aug 1, 2004	7,810	Toronto	Hong Kong
Jun 23, 2006	7,556	Tel Aviv	Los Angeles
Mar 26, 2007	7,492	Sydney	Abu Dhabi
Jun 1, 2007	7,599	Dubai	Atlanta
Oct 1, 2007	7,807	Mumbai	Newark
Oct 1, 2007	7,592	Dubai	São Paulo
Dec 3, 2007	8,168	Dubai	Houston
Dec 14, 2007	7,757	Vancouver	Sydney
Jan 1, 2008	7,810	Toronto	Hong Kong
Oct 26, 2008	8,339	Dubai	Los Angeles
Dec 15, 2008	8,103	Dubai	San Francisco
Mar 31, 2009	8,047	Doha	Houston
Jun 3, 2009	8,439	Johannesburg	Atlanta
Dec 1, 2009	7,921	Los Angeles	Melbourne
Mar 29, 2010	7,520	Toronto	Taipei
Oct 31, 2010	7,807	Mumbai	Newark
Feb 24, 2011	7,492	Sydney	Abu Dhabi
May 1, 2011	7,969	Johannesburg	New York
May 16, 2011	8,578	Sydney	Dallas/Fort Worth
May 16, 2011	8,303	Dallas/Fort Worth	Brisbane
Sep 1, 2011	7,793	Chicago	Hong Kong
Oct 31, 2011	7,808	New York	Taipei
Feb 2, 2012	8,040	Dubai	Dallas/Fort Worth
Jun 1, 2013	7,532	Abu Dhabi	São Paulo
Mar 1, 2014	8,065	Newark	Hong Kong
Mar 31, 2014	8,332	Jeddah	Los Angeles

With the nonstop flights from the USA to Singapore now proven to be uneconomical, there may be no further push in that direction for the immediate future. The current distance leader is 8578 miles.

Quote: Pacomartin

Mostly in the last decade have they began ULH flights, partly because of Middle East trying to take a dominant role in global flights.

That, and the simple fact that the range for aircraft have increased along with the use of lighter materials and more fuel efficient engines. But also the forebearance of passengers to take ever longer flights in smaller planes, along with more demand for direct flights.

For instance, Mex City to NYC takes about 5:30 hours. In the old days this route was served by wide-body jets, like DC-10s and L-1011s. Today Aeromexico flies it with B-737s and Interjet with A-320s.

How long do you suppose it will take for some enterprising low-cost airline to offer transatlantic flights in single-aisle planes?

Of course today it's not quite possible, though I think an A-320 or B-737 can easily make it from NYC to London. You can cram as many as 150 passengers on these types, if you make the cabin single class. Or you could go the other way and get, say, 60-80 business class passengers in one of these planes, and charge a premium for the all-business class flight.

Quote: Nareed

How long do you suppose it will take for some enterprising low-cost airline to offer transatlantic flights in single-aisle planes?

Of course today it's not quite possible, though I think an A-320 or B-737 can easily make it from NYC to London. You can cram as many as 150 passengers on these types, if you make the cabin single class. Or you could go the other way and get, say, 60-80 business class passengers in one of these planes, and charge a premium for the all-business class flight.

British Airways Limited operates two Airbus A318-100 with 32 business class seats. They operate an executive service from JFK to London City airport (a small executive airport in the heart of the city of London). Price is $14,000 round trip.

Sometimes the plane stops in Ireland on the return trip. The advantage is the plane refuels while the executives clear customs. There is an agreement where people can clear customs at Shannon Airport in Ireland, and they don't have to wait in line at JFK.

But I don't think that low cost flights, narrow body jets, and trans-Atlantic flights go together. The longer ranges of narrow body jets that allows them to cross the Atlantic is all geared at executive travel as far as I know.

Quote: Pacomartin

Your traditional busy long haul routes were:
5440 miles LHR-LAX London to Los Angeles
5440 miles NRT-LAX Tokyo to Los Angeles
5960 miles NRT-LHR Tokyo to London
round the world in three nonstop flights

Curious, I've done two of those three. I'll have to find a way to do the third if get back to Tokyo...

There was nothing special about the airlines or this particular flight. No passenger of any great note aboard and no profession overly represented. A crew member who was a willing hijacker might exist but it provides no particular benefit to just gly somewhere and get tv courage about your demands on behalf of the golden triad

Some see an evasive maneuver, I see a sudden turn towards an emergency field with a straight in approach.

After that its all rumor and denial and "no comment".

Straight line flight can mean too a destination or can simply be absences of any control inputs.

Something happened to the crew to immobiiize them: a lone gunman? a toxic gas? something.

Quote: Pacomartin

But I don't think that low cost flights, narrow body jets, and trans-Atlantic flights go together.

I don't either. I don't think a nearly 4 hour flight should happen without meal service, or that luggage should be limited to less than 50 kg or charged separately. It happens anyway.

So an airline offering a popular transatlantic route and charging a low enough fare could get away with it.

Quote: TheCesspit

Quote: Pacomartin

Your traditional busy long haul routes were:
5440 miles LHR-LAX London to Los Angeles
5440 miles NRT-LAX Tokyo to Los Angeles
5960 miles NRT-LHR Tokyo to London
round the world in three nonstop flights

Curious, I've done two of those three. I'll have to find a way to do the third if get back to Tokyo...

The 707's could do some long distances, but only with reduced payloads. I suspect that they only did east coast to Europe, and west coast to Hawaii to Japan. The original 747's could go 6100 miles, but it wasn't until the 747-SP in 1976 that they started the California to Australia flights.

The longer flights weren't until the late 1990's.

Quote: Nareed

I don't either. I don't think a nearly 4 hour flight should happen without meal service, or that luggage should be limited to less than 50 kg or charged separately. It happens anyway.

So an airline offering a popular transatlantic route and charging a low enough fare could get away with it.

2335 miles Baltimore-Washington to Seattle is the longest Southwest Airlines low cost flight
2700 miles Boston to San Francisco is the longest transcontinental flight between two large US cities
2890 miles Boston to Shannon Ireland is the shortest transoceanic flight other than Iceland
3070 miles JFK to Shannon Ireland was first commercial transatlantic flight 24 October 1945 that didn't land on water (DC-4)
3440 miles JFK to London Heathrow is most popular transatlantic flight
3840 miles JFK to Frankfurt

It seems like the low cost domestic flights are mostly flown via narrow body aircraft while the low cost transoceanic flights are done with very large wide body aircraft where they can minimize the cost of the fuel and personnel.

You could be correct that someday narrow body jets will run low cost flights over the Atlantic, but I don't think they are at that point yet.