Aviation Discussion

[najaB]

What proponents of long thin routes with narrow-body aircraft often forget is that many long-haul routes make their money on what is below the seats rather than in them!

 

[hotelmode]

Apologies.
Sometimes written text can make meaning a little more difficult to discern.

Still I think it's important to point out that 4700mi or 4000nm is quite unrealistic in real-world operations and 4000mi/ 3450nm is more realistic.

Hangon. The standard A321 NEO has a range of 7400km/4000nm. The A321-XLR is 8700km/4700nm (5400 Statute Miles if preferred).

A321 XLR has a 101t MTOW. Maximum fuel is 32t and the aircraft weighs 49t. That leaves a payload of around 20t at max range. That's plenty in a long haul config with 160 seats ish.

I don't think 4700nm is remotely unrealistic in the kind of seating configs these aircraft will be in. Even an 89t MTOW bog standard 321-NEO will happily fly 3000nm into a headwind with a decent load.

 

[TravelDream]

Hangon. The standard A321 NEO has a range of 7400km/4000nm. The A321-XLR is 8700km/4700nm (5400 Statute Miles if preferred).

A321 XLR has a 101t MTOW. Maximum fuel is 32t and the aircraft weighs 49t. That leaves a payload of around 20t at max range. That's plenty in a long haul config with 160 seats ish.

I don't think 4700nm is remotely unrealistic in the kind of seating configs these aircraft will be in. Even an 89t MTOW bog standard 321-NEO will happily fly 3000nm into a headwind with a decent load.

Oops. I must have clicked on the wrong page of the Airbus website. My mistake.

Published ranges never turn out to be operational ranges given the whole range of factors involved. The advertised ranges don't take into account winds (they use still air conditions - wind can be a postive and can be negative in terms of range dependent on if it's head or tail), realistic cargo payload, operational restrictions, chosen alternates etc. etc.

 

[najaB]

The advertised ranges don't take into account winds (they use still air conditions - wind can be a postive and can be negative in terms of range dependent on if it's head or tail)

That's exactly why they use still-air conditions, to avoid over or understating the range. Everyone knows to add (swag) 10% for tailwinds and take off 10% for headwinds.

 

[TravelDream]

That's exactly why they use still-air conditions, to avoid over or understating the range. Everyone knows to add (swag) 10% for tailwinds and take off 10% for headwinds.

But an airline has to be able to operate a route in the worst predictable wind conditions - and they can change radically. That means they can't plan a route for still-air conditions, but for worst predictable and that lowers actual range considerably.

You don't just add/ minus 10% either. These things are carefully calculated.

 

[najaB]

But an airline has to be able to operate a route in the worst predictable wind conditions - and they can change radically. That means they can't plan a route for still-air conditions, but for worst predictable and that lowers actual range considerably.

Of course. I think everyone here understands that.

By the way, being able to operate a route in the worst possible conditions isn't the same thing as being able to operate a route non-stop in the worst possible conditions. Many routes are planned on the assumption of a fuel stop and then divert to the destination if the burn is lower than expected.

You don't just add/ minus 10% either. These things are carefully calculated.

Hence the "swag" - scientific wild-assed guess - to illustrate the point that still-air distances are quoted as the conversion to real-world figures are well understood.

 

[Bald Rick]

What proponents of long thin routes with narrow-body aircraft often forget is that many long-haul routes make their money on what is below the seats rather than in them!

Indeed, but the A321neo does have a fair bit of space (and payload) for that.

 

[TravelDream]

The A320 family has the advantage that it can be containerised which the 737 family can't.

By the way, being able to operate a route in the worst possible conditions isn't the same thing as being able to operate a route non-stop in the worst possible conditions. Many routes are planned on the assumption of a fuel stop and then divert to the destination if the burn is lower than expected.

They absolutely are not. Diversions are *incredibly* expensive for airlines (think knock-on effects which can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds and not just the cost of the diversion itself) and are avoided unless in dire circumstances.
No jet route in the world is scheduled to have a potential fuel-stop. Not too long ago, it wasn't uncommon for Monarch and the like to run A300s/ 757s to Florida with a stop planned in Gander, but even scheduled stops don't happen now.
If a fuel diversion looks like a real possibility to planning due to winds, cargo/ people/ baggage (in order of financial importance usually) are off-loaded to get the weight down.
If you don't believe me, check how many fuel diversions there are each year. Very few.

Swag is certainly a new one for me too.

 

[najaB]

They absolutely are not. Diversions are *incredibly* expensive for airlines (think knock-on effects which can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds and not just the cost of the diversion itself) and are avoided unless in dire circumstances.

Sorry, but they do. Refiling in flight is exceedingly common.

 

[hotelmode]

But whichever way you cut it the XLR can do around 4700nm even into wind. An A321 NEO can fly a 1500nm sector into a 50kt headwind and burn about 7500kg for the sector. An A321-XLR can take (full) 32t of fuel and still leave room for a 20t payload, which is plenty in a long haul config.

Unless you are talking about a solid headwind above 100kt for the entire sector (which never happens), 4700nm is totally realistic with 32t of fuel.

Sorry, but they do. Refiling in flight is exceedingly common.

Its not really done very often at all in the airlines anymore. Very few airliners are flying to the limit of their range these days. Bizjets yes.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry, but they do. Refiling in flight is exceedingly common.

I don’t know either way, but other than the (currently suspended) BA1, where does this happen? Leaving aside refuelling during scheduled stops for traffic.

 

[najaB]

I don’t know either way, but other than the (currently suspended) BA1, where does this happen? Leaving aside refuelling during scheduled stops for traffic.

It's pretty common when the jet stream is extra active, or where there's doubt about being able to land at the planned destination.

They'll file a flight plan with an intermediate airport as the destination and then, if conditions are better than expected, refile while airborne to their intended destination. As an example (though not for weather) during the recent volcanic eruption in St Vincent, BA255 (which is LHR-BGI) filed as LHR-ANU (with a ANU-BGI as a tag-on) as they weren't sure from hour to hour if the Barbados airspace would be open or not. An hour or so out from landing they 'diverted' to BGI.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's pretty common when the jet stream is extra active, or where there's doubt about being able to land at the planned destination.

They'll file a flight plan with an intermediate airport as the destination and then, if conditions are better than expected, refile while airborne to their intended destination. As an example (though not for weather) during the recent volcanic eruption in St Vincent, BA255 (which is LHR-BGI) filed as LHR-ANU (with a ANU-BGI as a tag-on) as they weren't sure from hour to hour if the Barbados airspace would be open or not. An hour or so out from landing they 'diverted' to BGI.

Fairly extreme circumstance that one though?

 

[najaB]

Fairly extreme circumstance that one though?

Extreme that it was a volcano, but not that unusual that they don't know for sure if the airport will be open. As an example, when I was flying down to Barbados last year the runway was being resurfaced which meant that my flight had to divert to ANU after holding for about 35 minutes. The problem was that the arrival time was just after sunset and the lighting wasn't fully serviceable. The ex-LGW flight before us also had to divert to ANU but was then able to fly down to BGI and got in about two hours late.

As a result of the mess (two unplanned diversions, one resulting in an overnight) the next day's flight was filed as LHR-ANU but 'diverted' to BGI as they got the lighting up and running.

 

[WestCoast]

It does make me smile reading some of the aviation blogs about the “groundbreaking” JetBlue narrow body service when you consider that 757s (and 707s before that!) ploughed transatlantic routes from the UK to the US and Canada for decades. We’ve come the full circle in some ways! Having said that the 757 was and is an amazing aircraft in my opinion, for me I don’t think an A321 can ever quite replicate it!

 

[najaB]

Having said that the 757 was and is an amazing aircraft in my opinion, for me I don’t think an A321 can ever quite replicate it!

Agreed. I haven't had many 757 flights but the ones that I had were excellent. Especially when it was lightly loaded - the phrase "homesick angel" is very apt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. I haven't had many 757 flights but the ones that I had were excellent. Especially when it was lightly loaded - the phrase "homesick angel" is very apt.

I've not been on a 757, but how does it differ (other than in seating style and layout, which can be changed on any aircraft) from a longer, more powerful 737 or 321? It basically just looks like a stretched 737 with bigger engines and longer landing gear?

 

[Chester1]

It does make me smile reading some of the aviation blogs about the “groundbreaking” JetBlue narrow body service when you consider that 757s (and 707s before that!) ploughed transatlantic routes from the UK to the US and Canada for decades. We’ve come the full circle in some ways! Having said that the 757 was and is an amazing aircraft in my opinion, for me I don’t think an A321 can ever quite replicate it!

Its not really full circle because we are talking about single aisle planes. Its a step different to twin aisle 757s. Personally I only care about cost if I am flying long haul. A transatlantic flight on a single aisle plane wouldn't bother me.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've not been on a 757, but how does it differ (other than in seating style and layout, which can be changed on any aircraft) from a longer, more powerful 737 or 321? It basically just looks like a stretched 737 with bigger engines and longer landing gear?

The A320 series is 200mm wider, which is noticeable on board.

Its a step different to twin aisle 757s.

757s are single aisle. You might be thinking of 767s

 

[Chester1]

The A320 series is 200mm wider, which is noticeable on board.




757s are single aisle. You might be thinking of 767s

Yes I must have been!

I stand by my other point, when flying long haul price is most important factor. I think that will be the case for the majority of passengers. My second priority would be avoiding a change. If that means sitting in a single aisle plane for 9 hours then so be it!

 

[Speed43125]

It does make me smile reading some of the aviation blogs about the “groundbreaking” JetBlue narrow body service when you consider that 757s (and 707s before that!) ploughed transatlantic routes from the UK to the US and Canada for decades. We’ve come the full circle in some ways! Having said that the 757 was and is an amazing aircraft in my opinion, for me I don’t think an A321 can ever quite replicate it!

In fairness the United ones have only been doing it since 2007 ish, ETOPS isn't that old yet!

 

[najaB]

I've not been on a 757, but how does it differ (other than in seating style and layout, which can be changed on any aircraft) from a longer, more powerful 737 or 321? It basically just looks like a stretched 737 with bigger engines and longer landing gear?

It's not about the interior which, as you note, can be changed very easily. The main differences are the engines which compared to modern twins are over-powered and the wing - which is also "too big", to the point that the 757 is classed as a heavy. The combination means that it takes off like a rocket and it doesn't get bumped around as much in turbulence.

 

[Butts]

Flew up from LHR to NCL this Morning, Airport fairly quiet but Galleries South Lounge busy and Flight surprisingly well loaded.

Weird hot breakfast offering in Lounge of Bacon & Hash Brown Roll - looked like 1st Lounge had the "full works"

Still Bucks Fizz, Roll, Cappo and Singleton Malt went down well. A couple of JW Black Labels onboard.

Sad to see the eviscerated BA Newcastle Lounge bereft of any life, won't be reopening.

On Flyertalk a lot of people are moaning BA are not handing out vouchers for patrons to use where they have closed facilities and an alternative is not available.

 

[221129]

Weird hot breakfast offering in Lounge of Bacon & Hash Brown Roll

That roll is amazing though!

 

[Butts]

That roll is amazing though!

Not as amazing I as an Oliver Twist could see peering into the 1st Class Lounge !!

It was better than the croissant dished out onboard to be fair.

 

[221129]

It was better than the croissant dished out onboard to be fair.

I quite like them as well to be honest.

 

[hotel_mode]

Extreme that it was a volcano, but not that unusual that they don't know for sure if the airport will be open. As an example, when I was flying down to Barbados last year the runway was being resurfaced which meant that my flight had to divert to ANU after holding for about 35 minutes. The problem was that the arrival time was just after sunset and the lighting wasn't fully serviceable. The ex-LGW flight before us also had to divert to ANU but was then able to fly down to BGI and got in about two hours late.

As a result of the mess (two unplanned diversions, one resulting in an overnight) the next day's flight was filed as LHR-ANU but 'diverted' to BGI as they got the lighting up and running.

That’s not a fuel re-clearance operation though so doesn’t have much to do with whether marginal range flights are in any way common. Modern flight planning and FMC accuracy means you hardly ever gain fuel on the plan en-route anyway.

 

[Jamesrob637]

I've not been on a 757, but how does it differ (other than in seating style and layout, which can be changed on any aircraft) from a longer, more powerful 737 or 321? It basically just looks like a stretched 737 with bigger engines and longer landing gear?

The sound of the Rolls Royce engines is amazing on takeoff!

 

[TravelDream]

I've not been on a 757, but how does it differ (other than in seating style and layout, which can be changed on any aircraft) from a longer, more powerful 737 or 321? It basically just looks like a stretched 737 with bigger engines and longer landing gear?

The 757 is a totally different aircraft to the 737 and wasn't developed from or with it. It was developed alongside the twin-aisle 767 and they share avionics amongst other things. Though the 757 and 737 both share the 707's airframe width.

The 757 certainly is powerful, but that comes at a price. Literally!
It practically drinks fuel in comparison to the previous generation A320/ 737NG families, never-mind the newer MAX and NEOs.

 

[najaB]

Modern flight planning and FMC accuracy means you hardly ever gain fuel on the plan en-route anyway.

That's exactly the point. They load the fuel that should be enough for the planned destination but file for an alternate airport that's a bit closer. 99% of the time they are able to refile to the planned destination, but it means that in the 1% where they aren't able to because the winds aloft are stronger than expected they don't have to try and figure out where they're going to divert to as it's already planned and in the FMS.