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 19.01.2017 12:02 PM, d wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:46:29 -0000 (UTC)
Clank wrote:
On 18.01.2017 5:15 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:04:59 on Wed, 18 Jan
2017, d remarked:

737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or
not.

Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?

Personally, I'd pay more for a smaller plane. Then again, I love a bit of
turbulence - reminds you you're flying. Of course, I used to be a glider
pilot, so my feelings may not be mainstream.

I imagine its different when you're the one in control.


I can confirm though that the 7 hours I didn't on a 737 a couple of weeks
ago were ****ing torture.

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.

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.)

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