Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FT Article on Ultra Long Haul

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FT Article on Ultra Long Haul

    An interesting feature article on ultra long haul in this weekend's Financial Times...

    Article title: "18 hours, five movies, 9,000 miles. Welcome to ultra-long-haul"

    https://t.co/nU5MDWpq01

    The writer was a guest of Qatar Airways and flew QR921, Auckland to Doha, in economy. This is a marginally shorter flight than the previous ULH Singapore to NY flights that SQ used to operate (Hopefully these flights will resume soon with SQ's newest ULR A350's).

    [Update: This article sits behind the FT paywall, with a paid digital subscription required. Sometimes, the first direct access to the article is permitted. Other times you need to answer a short 2 question survey. If you can't access it, you can try clearing your browser cookies first.]
    Last edited by yflyer; 18 March 2018, 03:08 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by yflyer View Post
    An interesting feature article on ultra long haul in this weekend's Financial Times...

    https://www.ft.com/content/b069e7c4-...e-cc62a39d57a0

    The writer was a guest of Qatar Airways and flew QR921, Doha to Auckland, in economy. This is a marginally shorter flight than the previous ULH Singapore to NY flights that SQ used to operate (Hopefully these flights will resume soon with SQ's newest ULR A350's).
    Possible to copy and paste the article here? Requires subscription to view.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by reddevil0728 View Post
      Possible to copy and paste the article here? Requires subscription to view.
      Hi reddevil0728! For copyright reasons, I am not able to do that, however occasionally, from some devices e.g. mobile devices, the first click will provide free access to the article. Also, from some locations, answering a short free survey will grant you one-time free access.

      Update: I have amended the link to the article. https://t.co/nU5MDWpq01. Try clearing your browser cookies before accessing the link.
      Last edited by yflyer; 18 March 2018, 03:09 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        “The Jumbo has a maximum take-off weight of 400 tonnes, but the fuel itself weighs 180 tonnes when full,” explains Dave Smith, a retired BA pilot. “For every 10 tonnes of fuel you load on, you will burn three tonnes just to carry it.”

        Wow, those numbers really tell you why the viability of ULH is so sensitive to fuel prices. The efficiency of newer generation planes will be a big help in sustaining these routes.

        Thanks for sharing yflyer!

        Comment


        • #5
          The rule is thumb is that you burn about 3-4% of fuel per hour to carry it. For a 16-19 hours flight. The number is probably closer to 50% than 30%.

          Comment


          • #6
            How do these figures compare, however, if we factor in one less take off?

            As an example, SQ32 leaves SIN loaded with enough fuel to reach SFO without stopping, and as is accepted, a portion of that fuel will carry the rest of the fuel. If we compare this to SQ2, it loads enough fuel to reach HKG, refuels and spends 85 minutes at HKG running the APU, before taking off again for SFO. In addition, the circling and ascent and descent required in and out of HKG, combined with the route deviation of flying via HKG being longer than the point to point directness of SQ32 must have some increased fuel requirements.

            I'm interested to know from any experts in these kind of calculations as to their opinion on which of these two flights might consume more fuel in total, leaving aside completely the passenger advantages of a non-stop flight.

            Comment

            Working...
            X