Malaysian Jet

Quote: Tomspur

On a seperate note, do you guys feel more save in an aircraft with 4 engines as opposed to 2?

If engine failure is a real problem, doesn't it stand to reason that the less engines you have, the less likely your chances are of having a problem? =)

Engines have never concerned me while flying. Whether some 4 engined turbofan behemoth or a little prop driven buzz box, I never thought twice about it. I do like the prop driven ones better, just because I think it's neat. But I'm much more concerned with controls than power. Sometimes those landing flaps look like they're held on with bubble gum, if not just a hope and a prayer.

Precisely. Add an engine and its more weight, more parts, more possibilities to go wrong, more vibration, more to pay attention to. ... at some point you are adding complexity and danger, not safety.

Quote: Tomspur

I understand, there obviously needs to be more seats sold in order to make the flight profitable.

Air-Lingus uses a 757 (narrow body) to fly transatlantic Boston to Shannon Ireland (175 seats) (operated by Air Contractors). But at $1000 round trip it is normal price, not really economy fare. Icelandair only operates narrow body 757's , and they fly to 7 us destinations. So Reykjavik to Seattle is 3610 miles.

So there is narrow body flights across the Atlantic with 757. I don't know if they try it with a 737.

Southwest operates only 737's which are configured with 137-175 seats. They are specified to have a range well over 3000 miles, but they choose to fly no further than 2335 miles. It may not be profitable to fly longer distances.

PrivatAir operates a Boeing 737-800 from Frankfurt to Pune, India (4,159 miles) but it only has 92 seats, and it is expensive

2335 miles Baltimore-Washington to Seattle is the longest Southwest Airlines low cost flight
2410 miles Boston to Keflavik Intl Arpt, Reykjavik, IS (KEF)
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

Quote: Tomspur

I was once told that the Economy class ticket sales paid for the flight costs and the business and first class sales were the profit margins. Could it be quantified this easily?

Probably a good guess as a rough order of magnitude. Clearly on any given flight there will be differences in occupancy levels and ticket prices.

Paco, you are a veritable fountain of knowledge!!! Keep it up!

:)

Well, that's a lot of stuff to talk about.

There is a combination of equipment and crew training that goes with an ETOPS certification. The airframe is only one part of it. It was relatively recently that 2 engines were certificated for overwater operation, within the last 20 years or so, though the rulemaking was revised in 2007, there was some operation allowed before that. Before ETOPS, it was 3 or 4 engines (there are a few 6 and 8 engine aircraft out there, but not widely used in US commercial aviation; most notable the Russian Antonov series of heavy jets). The B707 and DC8 did lead the way, then the B747, then the Lockheed L1011 (best ever IMHO; sad that it's gone) and the DC10/DC11, both the latter as tri-engine. I know the B727 was operated overwater for cargo, but not sure anyone had it in pax service. The B757 (I'm going to have to disagree with Paco's source (or Paco if it was his phrasing) on this, BTW, at some risk; there are short-fuselaged B757's that are non-HEAVY, but not any "narrow-body" of that designation) in most but not all models are certificated for overwater, B767, B777 all are. Airbus has pretty much made all their aircraft overwater capable just because of the market they were designed to serve; some are widebody, some narrowbody. Then there's the B787 Dreamcruiser and the Airbus 380; monsters designed for huge pax loads and overseas operation.

The B737-800 has ETOPS certification, at least as used by Alaskan Airlines, and they're flying them from West Coast to the islands. B737's can also be partially-certificated for runs over the Gulf of Mexico and along the northern Pacific offshore, but again there is a strict requirement about how far out they can go. Hawaiian Airlines runs medium-sized jets between the islands and can go over water, but they have to remain a certain distance from shore; they use standard equipment for runs to the continental US. The small turboprops and such also have shoreline requirements.

There are also dozens of foreign-built and business-class jets that are certified for over-water. Similar but not identical requirements to US Air Carrier operations, most of the overlap is practical. The US bizjets fly under FAR part 135 or part 91 regs, depending on how they are owned or operated. Air Carriers are under FAR part 121 and part 61 regs (some of part 61 applies to all aircraft), and the requirements are, in general, stricter. Foreign operations are governed by ICAO regulations, which IMO (I have not done a comprehensive comparison) are slightly more lax than US regs, but well within a respectable safety margin. (I think the stricter US regs are due to the complexity and number of US flag carriers vs. traffic nearly everywhere else, but it's also a cost consideration; there is some room in ICAO regs to allow less-well-funded carriers in other countries operate without every expensive piece of equipment and training required here.) I'm also not trying to cover US military aircraft and regs; they have their own code, requirements, and risk factors they accept.

You can, as a commercial pilot, ferry nearly any aircraft over water. Generally, you can't have paying passengers on board, even the owners. Owners can fly themselves overwater, but they are usually unwise to do so unless they're experienced pilots. I have a good friend who has made a career out of it. There are many special requirements (again) and water-landing equipment required that can max out the gross weight of some small aircraft, so they have to be shipped. But almost anything that can carry enough fuel, the raft, and all the rest can be ferried safely if the pilot is good enough and responsible about his planning and execution.

I was going to try and tell a long joke about engines and overwater from back in the day, and I nodded off trying to type it all, so no comic relief. It was a long way to go for a punch line that would be funny only to pilots. :)

In general, overwater operators tend to put their best equipment and most experienced crew on those flights, rather than domestic. So you have every advantage possible, whichever carrier (can be relative), in being safe with them. Think I covered all the questions, but if not, please advise.

Quote:

Search crews sent the Bluefin 21 deep into the Indian Ocean on Monday to begin scouring the seabed for the missing Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 after failing for six days to detect any signals believed to be from its black boxes.

But after only six hours of its planned 16-hour mission on the sea bed, the autonomous underwater vehicle exceeded its maximum depth limit of 15,000 feet and its built-in safety feature returned it to the surface, the search coordination center said in a statement on Tuesday.

What if anything it might have discovered during the six-hour search was still being analyzed, the center said.

Quote:

The submarine takes 24 hours to complete each mission: two hours to dive to the bottom, 16 hours to search the seafloor, two hours to return to the surface, and four hours to download the data, Houston said.

Sheesh, 2 hours just diving.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/flight-370-search-area-is-too-deep-for-robotic-submarine/

Quote: beachbumbabs

Think I covered all the questions, but if not, please advise.

While there are economy seats in a Boeing 777, the $260-$380 million jet can only profitably flown by selling business class seats.

Using the Southwest model, we define an economy airline as one that flies narrow body jets that cost $60-$80 million and have up to 175 seats where 95%-100% are economy seats. Clearly this type of airline has moved out of strictly domestic flights to include flights to Mexico and the Caribbean.

For transatlantic flights, the only examples I could find using this business model were Air Lingus flying from Boston to Shannon (B757 configured for 175 seats with only 8 business class) and Icelandair also flying B757. These routes are relatively short, and despite being transatlantic, the Icelandic flights, are actually primarily over land. You can also clear American customs in Shannon airport.

According to Wikipedia, the 737 Next Generation (-600/-700/-800/-900ER) Maximum range, fully loaded will be (3,510–6,340 miles). Do you foresee a transatlantic economy airline developing along the lines of Southwest, Easyjet, Ryanair or Volaris?


There are probably more Irish Americans in eastern Mass. than Irish in Ireland.

I think simplicity may become a key concept.

Airlines that have a mix of planes won't do as well as those that fly one type of plane and have standardized maintenance. European lines want short haul quiet fuel savings at middle altitudes and then descend. Trans Atlantic airlines or other long haul airlines will want high altitude quiet fuel savings then descend to a quiet landing.

It will all focus on lack of any complexity for spare parts or maintenance.

Look at Southwestern's recent twelve year veteran landing at the wrong airport. Pilot mix will become more important. We will return to the days of longevity with airlines for the simple reason that anything else is too expensive in losses.

Quote: Fleastiff

I think simplicity may become a key concept.

Airlines that have a mix of planes won't do as well as those that fly one type of plane and have standardized maintenance. European lines want short haul quiet fuel savings at middle altitudes and then descend. Trans Atlantic airlines or other long haul airlines will want high altitude quiet fuel savings then descend to a quiet landing.

It will all focus on lack of any complexity for spare parts or maintenance.

Look at Southwestern's recent twelve year veteran landing at the wrong airport. Pilot mix will become more important. We will return to the days of longevity with airlines for the simple reason that anything else is too expensive in losses.

Speaking of losses, how will this incident (we cannot reliably call it an accident yet) affect Malaysian Airlines financially? I know they have insurance against such a disaster but what about economically? Will people still fly with them if, for instance it comes to light that it was pilot suicide? How did it affect Egypt Air? Problem is Egypt Air is nowhere near as big an airline as what MA is.

What other financial considerations is there to this incident?

The suicide by Egypt Air was never a problem in Egypt because it never took place. The whole thing was a concoction by US political interests to smear the Egyptian people. And as far as being fired for pawing a hotel maid's breasts without her consent, why that is simply utterly absurd: Just ask ANY Egyptian male how ridiculous such an American myth is.

Malay Air has already reacted: They changed the flight number and life will continue once the headlines die down.

Its always fortunate the insurance payout is a jolt to current income.