| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:28:39 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, d remarked: I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What ****ty budget airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it. It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get from London to anywhere in the continental US. Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins. Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty meaningless. No, they always quote the range like that. Furthermore, it's usually the max fuel, rather than max payload, range that's quoted. It's a bit like the usually hopelessly optimistic ranges quoted for EVs or fuel consumption/pollution for IC-engined cars. So the real-world range for aircraft has to take into account the payload, headwinds, ETOPS, diversion airports, runway length, elevation and temperature of the departure airport, etc, and will always be much less than the nominal range. Occasionally a new aircraft delivery or test flight sets a new record distance when they've optimised everything for range, but normal flights can't do that. For example: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-11-...d-for-Distance One extreme example of real-world flight ranges being restricted is Easter Island's Mataveri airport. There are no useful diversion airports on flights from Santiago, so Santiago remains the diversion airport for the whole flight to Rapa Nui. If the single runway at Mataveri becomes unusable for any reason, the flight has to return to origin. As a result, only one aircraft at a time can be en-route to the island, and LAN uses long-haul aircraft on the route, even though a narrow-body could fly it in more normal circumstances. https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...57632333665535 |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message
-septe mber.org, at 10:35:45 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get from London to anywhere in the continental US. Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins. Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty meaningless. No, they always quote the range like that. Like what - with a typical safety margin included, or without? Furthermore, it's usually the max fuel, rather than max payload, range that's quoted. It's a bit like the usually hopelessly optimistic ranges quoted for EVs or fuel consumption/pollution for IC-engined cars. -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:27:27 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message -septe mber.org, at 10:35:45 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get from London to anywhere in the continental US. Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins. Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty meaningless. No, they always quote the range like that. Like what - with a typical safety margin included, or without? Without. They quote the maximum range with nothing in reserve. They normally also state whether it's the max fuel or max payload range (you can't normally have both at once). The airlines then have to factor in all the route/flight specific stuff when calculating the usable range. For example, you need different reserves for different routes (Easter Island being an example of an extreme case, where you need a huge reserve). As another example, Qantas is introducing a new non-stop flight between London and Perth. This will need to carry much larger reserves on its eastbound than its westbound flights, as a flight that can't quite make London has numerous diversion airports along its route, but there aren't such diversions available for a flight to Perth: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-PER...&EV=410&EU=kts |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:11:47 -0000 (UTC)
Clank wrote: FlyDubai. And yes, absolutely - avoid them like the plague; truly among the worst airlines I have ever had the misfortune of flying with (and I've flown Wizz & BlueAir.) That was the airline that had that as yet unexplained (from a pilot control input point of view) crash in Russia last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flydubai_Flight_981 -- Spud |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On 2017-01-19 20:05:19 +0000, tim... said:
who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that? Someone who basically has unlimited money. Affordability becomes moot, so they buy a flight like that just as you or I might be a bit peckish and buy a chocolate bar without much thought. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On 20/01/2017 12:56, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:27:27 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message -septe mber.org, at 10:35:45 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get from London to anywhere in the continental US. Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins. Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty meaningless. No, they always quote the range like that. Like what - with a typical safety margin included, or without? Without. They quote the maximum range with nothing in reserve. They normally also state whether it's the max fuel or max payload range (you can't normally have both at once). The airlines then have to factor in all the route/flight specific stuff when calculating the usable range. For example, you need different reserves for different routes (Easter Island being an example of an extreme case, where you need a huge reserve). As another example, Qantas is introducing a new non-stop flight between London and Perth. This will need to carry much larger reserves on its eastbound than its westbound flights, as a flight that can't quite make London has numerous diversion airports along its route, but there aren't such diversions available for a flight to Perth: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-PER...&EV=410&EU=kts When is that due to start flying? |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:52:51 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote: On 2017-01-19 20:05:19 +0000, tim... said: who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that? Someone who basically has unlimited money. Affordability becomes moot, so they buy a flight like that just as you or I might be a bit peckish and buy a chocolate bar without much thought. Someone that rich certainly wouldn't want to travel in a not-particularly-large business class seat along with up to 47 strangers (the only slightly -- by 2.4m -- smaller BA318s have just 32 business class seats). They might prefer, for example, to travel in The Residence, a private three-room suite in the sky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGQIgZAGGfE http://thepointsguy.com/2015/12/etih...idence-review/ Or they'd use their own, or a leased, truly private jet, not shared with dozens of strangers. For example, a former boss of mine has a whole fleet of private planes, and he chooses the right one for a particular journey). He is a qualified pilot, but of course also employs professional pilots for longer trips (eg, California to Cape town via London). This is one of the types he operates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G550 |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:09:04 +0000, "
wrote: On 20/01/2017 12:56, Recliner wrote: On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:27:27 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message -septe mber.org, at 10:35:45 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get from London to anywhere in the continental US. Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins. Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty meaningless. No, they always quote the range like that. Like what - with a typical safety margin included, or without? Without. They quote the maximum range with nothing in reserve. They normally also state whether it's the max fuel or max payload range (you can't normally have both at once). The airlines then have to factor in all the route/flight specific stuff when calculating the usable range. For example, you need different reserves for different routes (Easter Island being an example of an extreme case, where you need a huge reserve). As another example, Qantas is introducing a new non-stop flight between London and Perth. This will need to carry much larger reserves on its eastbound than its westbound flights, as a flight that can't quite make London has numerous diversion airports along its route, but there aren't such diversions available for a flight to Perth: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-PER...&EV=410&EU=kts When is that due to start flying? March 2018: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-11/qantas-to-fly-direct-perth-london-in-17-hours-with-dreamliner |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message , at 15:15:21 on
Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: On 2017-01-19 20:05:19 +0000, tim... said: who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that? Someone who basically has unlimited money. Affordability becomes moot, so they buy a flight like that just as you or I might be a bit peckish and buy a chocolate bar without much thought. Someone that rich certainly wouldn't want to travel in a not-particularly-large business class seat along with up to 47 strangers Nor would they be paying through the nose; about 2/3 the business class fare. And no scheduled airline flies that route direct. -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
John Levine wrote:
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What ****ty budget airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it. It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get from London to anywhere in the continental US. Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins. It depends on the wind and the loading. LHR-LAX is 4741 nm, so well within the nominal range, but if the 737 has max payload and there's the usual headwind, it may be insufficient. I suppose, but since the last third of the flight is over southern Canada and the US, there'd be plenty of places to land and refuel if need be. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
John Levine wrote:
John Levine wrote: I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What ****ty budget airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it. It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get from London to anywhere in the continental US. Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins. It depends on the wind and the loading. LHR-LAX is 4741 nm, so well within the nominal range, but if the 737 has max payload and there's the usual headwind, it may be insufficient. I suppose, but since the last third of the flight is over southern Canada and the US, there'd be plenty of places to land and refuel if need be. True, it wouldn't be unsafe, but if headwinds are going to add an hour to the flight, and if the plane is fully loaded (and therefore unable to carry max fuel), they might as well plan a tech stop. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 20:05:19 on Thu, 19 Jan 2017, tim... remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) tim |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message , at 22:35:29 on Fri, 20 Jan
2017, tim... remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day! They cost "only" $90m new. -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 11:58:30 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 22:35:29 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, tim... remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day! They cost "only" $90m new. Probably a lot less than that in reality: nobody pays the list price for planes. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message , at 12:10:52 on
Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day! They cost "only" $90m new. Probably a lot less than that in reality: nobody pays the list price for planes. I thought most were leased. -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 13:06:09 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 12:10:52 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day! They cost "only" $90m new. Probably a lot less than that in reality: nobody pays the list price for planes. I thought most were leased. Many are, but in which case the leasing company (quite possibly based in Ireland) paid much less than the list price. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 22:35:29 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, tim... remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day! I didn't really think about it and in any case didn't know how many seats it had it could have been 6 tim |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 13:41:38 -0000, "tim..."
wrote: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 22:35:29 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, tim... remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day! I didn't really think about it and in any case didn't know how many seats it had it could have been 6 The text you quoted said it had 48 seats. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 13:41:38 -0000, "tim..." wrote: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 22:35:29 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, tim... remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day! I didn't really think about it and in any case didn't know how many seats it had it could have been 6 The text you quoted said it had 48 seats. ok, i missed that as well :-( |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message , at 13:41:38 on Sat, 21 Jan
2017, tim... remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat ^^^^^^^ ||| **COUGH** A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day! I didn't really think about it and in any case didn't know how many seats it had it could have been 6 -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On 21/01/2017 13:11, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 13:06:09 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:10:52 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of EUR110,000. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. oh for the whole plane load I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this thread) Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day! They cost "only" $90m new. Probably a lot less than that in reality: nobody pays the list price for planes. I thought most were leased. Many are, but in which case the leasing company (quite possibly based in Ireland) paid much less than the list price. On what basis, that they ordered a bunch of them from the manufacturer? |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
|
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-01-21 17:21:42 +0000, said: On what basis, that they ordered a bunch of them from the manufacturer? On the same basis, presumably, that nobody pays list price for a car either. The dscounts for airliners are much steeper than even car hire companies get. For most Airbus and Boeing models, the *discount* on list price is in the 50-60% range: https://airinsight.com/2016/05/16/ai...ist-vs-market/ So that A319 will most likely have cost under $40m, rather than $90m. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk