harty236
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 974
|
Post by harty236 on Apr 22, 2013 19:21:27 GMT 1
Why is this? Weight of fuel that needs to be carried? Also surely it is more economical to have an aircraft fly one direct route rather than have to perform two sets of taxiing, take off, climbout, descent, and landing even if its per km fuel consumption is slightly higher? Totally true if you look at one passenger who wants from London to Sydney. But flights via hubs normally work better towards their capacity. So the price per person transported is higher on ULR. Right, but I thought that on BA's LHR-SYD route, all passengers continued onto SYD regardless of stopover point, so surely for operating the direct LHR-SYD route it would make more sense not to have a stopover. This is not to say that it would also replace flights that BA operate to SIN, BKK and HKG, and passengers could still connect to these flights having flown from other origin points including SYD on other airlines. So basically what I'm trying to say is wouldn't it still make economic sense to be able to operate a non-stop LHR-SYD flight?
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Apr 22, 2013 19:22:51 GMT 1
ULR routes are expensive to operate:
- you need more crew - more water and food - more weight, more fuel - etc
There is a reason why the SIA A340-500 aircraft are business class only. And even that is not profitable anymore, SIA will drops that route in the near future.
|
|
harty236
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 974
|
Post by harty236 on Apr 22, 2013 19:25:46 GMT 1
ULR routes are expensive to operate: - you need more crew - more water and food - more weight, more fuel - etc There is a reason why the SIA A340-500 aircraft are business class only. And even that is not profitable anymore, SIA will drops that route in the near future. True, but would this still be the case even with the savings gained from operating a much more efficient aircraft?
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Apr 26, 2013 16:27:34 GMT 1
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Apr 28, 2013 17:01:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Apr 30, 2013 9:44:09 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Apr 30, 2013 13:17:46 GMT 1
Interesting article where the managing director of the Paris Airshow predicts that the A350 will fly before Paris, however he also states the A350 is not scheduled to attend the show. www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/boeing-787-to-fly-at-paris-air-show-as-airbus-a350-debut-in-flux.htmlso far it's been almost a month since the MSN001 1st got its engines and I can't wait to see it painted and move on to the flight line. Maybe they'll take a page out of Boeing's book and reveal it on the 3rd of May. [ EDIT]Actually that will be unlikely unless the aircraft is already in the process of being painted
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Apr 30, 2013 13:28:06 GMT 1
There were multiple hints in the past that Airbus is internally aiming to fly before the air show. And while the A350 will not participate to a static nor flying display, nothing should prevent Airbus to do a fly over if the airplane is ready.
Here is a quote from the RR program manager:
|
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,230
|
Post by someone on May 1, 2013 12:52:18 GMT 1
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on May 1, 2013 12:59:28 GMT 1
That sounds reasonable.
|
|