Savannah's Gulfstream Aerospace flies jet over North Pole in record flight to Shanghai

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by mw1984

@PacoMartin, you're welcome and thank you for your informative post.

The SQ plane form 2004-2013 was the 4 engine A340-500 and from 2018 on is the 2 engine A350-900ULR. Airbus agreed to take back the five A340-500s that were only 9 years old in exchange for Singapore Airlines reviving their long dormant option to buy 5 more A380s.


The nonstop from LAX-SYD (6,507 nautical miles) was achieved in the mid 1970s with a 747SP which had a nominal range of 5,830 nmi. So presumably there was a limited payload. But since that range was broken so long ago, anything longer sort of informally began to be called ultra-long range.

Keep in mind that "specified ranges" are "still air range calculations" and real world ranges are often a lot less and are dependent on winds and business decisions. Your jet may work 98% of the time, but that 2% when it has to divert to some
intermediate airport is very bad publicity and results in angry customers.

An A340-500 had a range of 9,000 nmi and was certified on 3 December 2002. Only 34 were ever delivered. Singapore Airlines even added a special compartment for a corpse, if a passenger were to die during a flight.

The 777-200LR ("LR" for Longer Range), entered service in 2006 and had a range of 8,555 nautical miles, which is obviously less than the A340-500, but it was cheaper to operate and 59 were delivered.

The A350-900 (8,100 nmi range) now has 664 orders, but AFAIK only 6 have been the Ultra Long Range variant (9,700 nmi). The great circle distance from Sydney to London is 9,188 nmi, but Qantas is holding out because they would like to fly that route with a bigger payload which may have to be smaller than the (67 business class and 94 Executive Economy) that Singapore Airlines is using on their 8,285 nmi flight from Singapore to Newark.

Originally Posted by mw1984

Reading further down... "the capacity has been reduced from .97 tonnes / seat to .81 tonnes /seat." answers that question.

I guess what bothers me is that to read stories you would think that a two engine plane uses half as much fuel as a four engine plane. There is an improvement, but it is not so dramatic as 2:1. Fundamentally it is very fuel intensive to fly such long distances nonstop, because you simply are carrying several times the weight of the passengers and their luggage in fuel.

The most fuel efficient way to fly from Northeast USA to Britain is a B737 Max 8 which needs 0.11 tonnes of fuel per seat. Heck I weigh 0.107 tonnes (I'm a little fat). That's because the plane itself only weighs 0.24 tonnes per seat empty. Ultra long distance flying is inherently inefficient because of the requirement to carry so much fuel.

The same goes for supersonic flight. You can find endless articles about how efficient the new Boom Technology aircraft is compared to the Concorde, but they almost never mention that it still burns fuel at a rate far in excess of the original Boeing 707. Supersonic flight inherently requires a lot of energy. If you flew from JFK to London and shipped your luggage and had some kind of fast track through customs, you might save over 3 hours diddling around in the airport on both ends. That is the same time savings as you get flying supersonic vs subsonic. The new Bombardier C-Series may allow you to fly to London City Airport, saving you about an hour of fighting through London traffic from Heathrow during rush hour.

[mw1984]

@PacoMartin, thanks for knowledge sharing.


"Ultra long distance flying is inherently inefficient because of the requirement to carry so much fuel.",
then, in your opinion, why airliners like SQ go for such long flight?
(We understand they, businesses, exist to make money)

As a way to gain publicity for longer-term brand value specially when fuel price isn't that expensive?

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by mw1984

Then, in your opinion, why airliners like SQ go for such long flight?
(We understand they, businesses, exist to make money)

Inefficient IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO unprofitable.

Why spend money on premium travel at all? Premium travel is far more expensive than several days in a luxury hotel room, dining on excellent meals and drinking decent bottles of wine.

There are 20 different one stop routes from Singapore to JFK that take between 19:10 and 21:20 FLYING TIME. Singapore Airlines is beginning this flight in October and it is scheduled for 18:25. Of course, you must look for a connection with very little layover time.

Regardless of efficiency, many passengers will pony up the additional money.

A lot depends on what your CFO says. He is not likely to tell the CEO he shouldn't take the nonstop, but what will he tell the engineer if the ticket is $3000 more? He may very well tell him to fly economy and enjoy a day of vacation in Singapore to recover from the trip.

[mw1984]

True. My "We understand they, businesses, exist to make money" implies that such flight route decision would be based on business reason (profitability), but the statement wasn't clear enough.


A side note, Singapore is an interesting country.
A Simplistic overview:
* A country with many races and they seem to get along well
* Their economy seems doing well (qualify of life isn't a concern)
* People have freedom

But personally, I won't want to live there, too crowded and hot (but if you were born there you may not think this way... )

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by mw1984

True. My "We understand they, businesses, exist to make money" implies that such flight route decision would be based on business reason (profitability), but the statement wasn't clear enough.

Primer Air began flying single aisle jets from London (Stansted Airport) to Newark Airport. While Stansted is a little further from London than Heathrow, it also has a dedicated train called the Stansted Express which deposits you in the Liverpool Station in The City, unlike the Heathrow Express which deposits you at Paddington Train Station. It keeps economy fares reasonable.

So looking at next month in the height of tourist season a round trip starts at $910 on British Airway and business class starts at $3200. So that is $2400 for about 15 hours of your life (7 eastbound, and 8 westbound). You always think if I had to spend $2400 in a week how much pleasure could I get vs. spending it in 15 hours for a little more leg room, and better food and drinks.