[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by GoHuskies

I suspect these rates are available in Norway because a $69 flight into London would not be possible.

Looking up stats a couple lists point that Heathrow (LHR) is the third busiest airport in the world.

There have been attempts in the past to do it through Luton or Stanstead.

[in_newengland]

dh says that this would be possible because they are also buying old aircraft from other airlines. But they still have to pass inspection and be airworthy. They would be old planes. Not that it matters--or maybe it would?

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

dh says that this would be possible because they are also buying old aircraft from other airlines. But they still have to pass inspection and be airworthy. They would be old planes. Not that it matters--or maybe it would?

Norwegian Air flies a fleet of new 787's on long haul. There are no 787's more than 5 years old. Older aircraft are inefficient and more expensive to fly... The low cost model generally depends on newer, cheaper to operate aircraft.

jetBlue also started with all new A320's and E190's.

[EUPL]

Speculation And Hints Mount For An Aer Lingus-Bradley Flight - Hartford Courant

[mels]

Originally Posted by EUPL

Speculation And Hints Mount For An Aer Lingus-Bradley Flight - Hartford Courant

I can't read the article because I am not a Courant subscriber. However, going by the headline I think this route would be GREAT. I am assuming the flight would be to Dublin, not Shannon. Dublin is a great hub to pick up cheaper flights to the continent.

[CountryGirl2b=]

https://www.yahoo.com/travel/are-dir...100403200.html

This article was not on the Courant . .. There used to be a flight out of Bradley to Amsterdam . . there was a little building that they used for international flights. With maybe two benches for waiting family and a coke machine! I don't think it even lasted a year. This would be GREAT if it happened!

PS. It was the Fall of 2009

[Sigequinox]

If the cost of the flight is not enough to pay for the fuel, I'm gonna think twice about buying those tickets. Especially flying over oceans! Falling out of the sky is only fun when you have a parachute.

[papafox]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

If the cost of the flight is not enough to pay for the fuel, I'm gonna think twice about buying those tickets. Especially flying over oceans! Falling out of the sky is only fun when you have a parachute.

Seriously?

You are FAR more likely to die choking on food than in a commercial airline crash! Flying the airlines might as be as safe as sitting at home watching TV and is just about the SAFEST place you can be, as its farrrrr below your everyday baseline risk of death or serious injury.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by papafox

Seriously?

You are FAR more likely to die choking on food than in a commercial airline crash! Flying the airlines might as be as safe as sitting at home watching TV and is just about the SAFEST place you can be, as its farrrrr below your everyday baseline risk of death or serious injury.

FastStats - Deaths and Mortality

totally misread my post. I have no problem with planes. In fact I enjoy deliberately jumping out of them, but 69 dollars to cross the atlantic ocean? You can't possibly fill a 25,000 gallon fuel tank AND properly maintain an aircraft at that price. Every corner that can possibly be cut will be cut. I'll stick with shopping for the best sustainable rates for my...leisure flights.

Jet fuel = 5.21 / gal
boeing 767-300 fuel capacity = 24,000 gallons
total fuel cost =$125,000

number of passengers to pay fuel @ $69 =1,812

# of seats on above plane = 250.

1800-250 = 1,550 = the amount of people that cannot fit on the plane but would need to be on it to pay for only the fuel.

Obviously the burn rate isn't 100%, but as you can see, at max capacity we are still less than 14% of total--leaves plenty of room for error in oversimplified math. Those numbers don't seem viable for a SAFE airliner. I also didn't include a single additional cost variable. Something just doesn't jive. maybe I'm missing something.

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

totally misread my post. I have no problem with planes. In fact I enjoy deliberately jumping out of them, but 69 dollars to cross the atlantic ocean? You can't possibly fill a 25,000 gallon fuel tank AND properly maintain an aircraft at that price. Every corner that can possibly be cut will be cut. I'll stick with shopping for the best sustainable rates for my...leisure flights.

Jet fuel = 5.21 / gal
boeing 767-300 fuel capacity = 24,000 gallons
total fuel cost =$125,000

number of passengers to pay fuel @ $69 =1,812

# of seats on above plane = 250.

1800-250 = 1,550 = the amount of people that cannot fit on the plane but would need to be on it to pay for only the fuel.

Obviously the burn rate isn't 100%, but as you can see, at max capacity we are still less than 14% of total--leaves plenty of room for error in oversimplified math. Those numbers don't seem viable for a SAFE airliner. I also didn't include a single additional cost variable. Something just doesn't jive. maybe I'm missing something.

Looking at http://www.transtats.bts.gov/fuel.asp the average fuel cost per gallon of fuel is $1.98 for 2015 year to date. Using the same fuel capacity that's $47,520 worth of fuel to make the transatlantic trip.

Also budget airlines typically pad the ticket cost with many extras like baggage costs, food & alcohol sales, headphone rentals, etc.

I'm not sure it all adds up to a profitable flight but there might be other factors such as money being thrown the airlines way from European governments interested in US tourists.