Longest commercial nonstop may return (jet, Boeing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Newark to Singapore (SQ 21) a length of 9,535 statute miles, 18 hr 50 min was flown on an Airbus A340-500 from 28 June 2004 to 23 November 2013.
When the flight was retired the Dallas/Fort Worth-Sydney Qantas flight QF8 of 8,578 statute miles has been the longest. The Boeing 747 could only reliably do the Eastbound leg nonstop, and had to stop in Brisbane on the westbound return. Even then, bad weather could be a problem, and once the passengers had to forego their luggage as the predictions had them running out of fuel. Those problems were ended when SA put an Airbus A380-800 on the route on 29 September 2014.
Singapore Airlines still operates from New York JFK via Frankfurt. In a similar manner the nonstop from Singapore to LAX now stops in Tokyo. But Tokyo is virtually right on the great circle route to LAX, so the deviation is only the time to land and take off. Frankfurt is a considerable deviation from the great circle route.
So while it may not be profitable to remove the stop in Tokyo, there would be a considerable time advantage if the airline remove Frankfurt.
The A340 were originally outfitted with 181 seats, but were redesigned with an all business class with only 100 seats. That meant the jet took off with 10X the weight of the passengers and luggage in fuel.
I think it is a given that Singapore will try and recreate this route with an A380. When the airline discontinued the route in 2013 Airbus agreed to take back the five A340s, but only on condition that Singapore Airlines would purchase five new A380's starting in 2016 or 2017.
The question of returning to Newark instead of JFK is also open.
What do you think?
BTW: The London Sydney nonstop (10588 statute miles) will certainly happen after 2020 if it ever happens.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 06-26-2015 at 04:59 AM..
There are analysts who disagree with my assessment that this flight will be resurrected with an A380. They feel that it could only be done with a twin engine plane and be economical.
Singapore Airlines Fleet
Airbus A330 = 31+1 order
Airbus A380= 19+5 order
Boeing 777= 55+2 order
The flight may not be possible to do economically with any existing airframe.
Flying just 100 seats has got to cost more per passenger. How do people justify that? I would pay extra NOT to fly nonstop.
That was the problem. A round trip ticket cost $8000. While it is not a problem to sell some tickets for $8000 when you try and sell all your tickets for that price, then sometimes the company accountant says "do a layover -- you're time is not that valuable".
Thankfully I live in a central location in the world. I don't need to fly these crazy distances in to get to other countries.
The longest flights for most European airlines are to Buenos Aires.
Miles
5,083 Aer Lingus | Dublin to San Francisco | Airbus A330-200
6,252 Air Europa | Madrid to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Airbus A330-200
6,904 British Airways |London-Heathrow to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Boeing 747-400
6,919 Alitalia | Rome-Fiumicino to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Boeing 777-200ER
6,919 AerolÃneas Argentinas |Rome to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Airbus A340-300
7,107 KLM | Amsterdam to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Boeing 777-300ER
7,132 Lufthansa | Frankfurt to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Boeing 747-8I
7,240 Air France | Paris-Charles de Gaulle to Santiago de Chile| Boeing 777-200ER
The Madrid to Buenos Aires flight of 6252 miles was flown as long ago as 1967 on Boeing 707. So in a half century European airlines have only needed to expand by 1000 miles.
Europe is expected to make a quantum leap within the next decade as new airframes permit non stop flights to Sydney. Obviously British airways will be the first airline to establish this route.
My understanding is that they were pretty much breaking even on this flight overall.
You just have to carry such an insane amount of fuel that it's tough to get the numbers to work out economically. If it departs near its MGTOW and has an emergency that requires a return to the field, it'll be landing at nearly 300,000 lbs overweight!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sickandtiredofthis
Thankfully I live in a central location in the world. I don't need to fly these crazy distances in to get to other countries.
Everywhere is a central location in the world if you're using yourself as a reference point...
Location: Northern Ireland and temporarily England
7,668 posts, read 5,274,844 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
The longest flights for most European airlines are to Buenos Aires.
Miles
5,083 Aer Lingus | Dublin to San Francisco | Airbus A330-200
6,252 Air Europa | Madrid to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Airbus A330-200
6,904 British Airways |London-Heathrow to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Boeing 747-400
6,919 Alitalia | Rome-Fiumicino to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Boeing 777-200ER
6,919 AerolÃneas Argentinas |Rome to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Airbus A340-300
7,107 KLM | Amsterdam to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Boeing 777-300ER
7,132 Lufthansa | Frankfurt to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza | Boeing 747-8I
7,240 Air France | Paris-Charles de Gaulle to Santiago de Chile| Boeing 777-200ER
The Madrid to Buenos Aires flight of 6252 miles was flown as long ago as 1967 on Boeing 707. So in a half century European airlines have only needed to expand by 1000 miles.
Europe is expected to make a quantum leap within the next decade as new airframes permit non stop flights to Sydney. Obviously British airways will be the first airline to establish this route.
Even if British Airways were to offer a nonstop to Sydney I would not be on it. I have no interest in sitting on a plane any longer than 11 hours at the very most.
If I am going somewhere that requires a flight longer than that you can be sure it would be for a few weeks at least so a stop over or two will hardly eat into the holiday.
Some of these flights save minimal time, like 4 hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febtober
My understanding is that they were pretty much breaking even on this flight overall.
You just have to carry such an insane amount of fuel that it's tough to get the numbers to work out economically. If it departs near its MGTOW and has an emergency that requires a return to the field, it'll be landing at nearly 300,000 lbs overweight!
Everywhere is a central location in the world if you're using yourself as a reference point...
Well all the important points like America and Asia are within 12 hours.
Last edited by Sickandtiredofthis; 07-04-2015 at 01:28 PM..
Even if British Airways were to offer a nonstop to Sydney I would not be on it.
Well all the important points like America and Asia are within 12 hours.
The so called "land hemisphere" is the place on earth which has the greatest percentage of the world's land mass within a radius of 10,000 km (1/4 circumference of world). One determination places the centre of the land hemisphere at 47°13′N 1°32′W (in the city of Nantes, France). So effectively London, Dublin, Paris, and Amsterdam are very near the center of the land hemisphere.
So Aer Lingus does not go outside of the "land hemisphere" nonstop, and BA, and AF just barely go outside.
Aer Lingus (EI 147) Dublin to San Francisco is 8,181km (11 hr 00 min)
British Airways (BA 245) London-Heathrow to Buenos Aires-Ezeiza is 11,111km (13 hr 40 min)
Air France (AF 406) Paris-Charles de Gaulle to Santiago de Chile is 11,652km (14 hr 35 min)
Iberia (IB 6831) Madrid to Santiago de Chile 10,700 km (13 hr 30 min)
LHR-Singapore is 10,900 km.
BA does not fly London to Santiago, as they own Iberia you must fly London to Madrid and change planes
-------------
The B777-8X will be capable of traveling more than (17,200 km) with 350 passengers. The specifications were announced on November 2013 and the airframe is scheduled to enter service in 2020. It will make the nonstop from London to Sydney possible (but not to Auckland).
Those long flights really suck. Flying from Newark to New Delhi and Mumbai to Newark was between 16-17 hours each way (we must have been flying into a headwind as those times were 1-2 hours off from the pre-flight estimates). For me, even NYC to Los Angeles is too long, but I'm used to 10+ hours nonstop, even though I hate doing so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What airframe?
