Why do Large Planes Fly Long Distance?

Blisterman

And vice versa?

Without fail it seems that the length of the journey corresponds with the size of plane used, but is there anything stopping an airline from running a 747 between London and Dublin for example? Or a 737 between Ireland and America?

cuterob

nothing stopping it.. an a380 runs from paris to london.. also in japan they use 747's for short haul because of the amount of people using the service

View Profile

I imagine its because long haul operations are more difficult to make a profit on and so they need to carry more passengers.

Also longer flights need more fuel ,so bigger fuel tanks, hence bigger wings, ergo bigger aircraft.

Captain Chaos

Blisterman wrote: »

Or a 737 between Ireland and America?

Via Iceland for fuel? They don't have they sort of range. When they are delivered from Boeing they stop off in Iceland on the way over. Plus there is the ETOPS rating issue.

cuterob

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Via Iceland for fuel? They don't have they sort of range. When they are delivered from Boeing they stop off in Iceland on the way over. Plus there is the ETOPS rating issue.

they almost always fly direct from seattle to dublin

St. Leibowitz

Interesting point, but things aren't always as they seem.

Generally, larger aircraft fly longer distances because they can carry the fuel to go that far, but smaller aircraft can be configured to fly long distances also, albeit with smaller passenger numbers. That's where the economics come into play.

Currently, several airlines are flying transatlantic flights using A319 and Boeing 737 aircraft. The ones that spring straight to mind are the British Airways London City to JFK flight with an A319. It takes off from LCY and flies to Shannon, where it does US Customs and Immigration preclearence and uplifts a full fuel load for the transatlantic hop. On the return flight, it flies direct. Swiss also do a Zurich to Newark direct using a 737 BBJ. There are many others of this type. The catch is that they only carry about 40 passengers in an all first class configuration, and are VERY expensive.

On the flip side, Japan Airlines had a special version of the 747 built for them (the 747 SR (short range)) which had a huge passenger load (the original request for information request examining having the cargo hold fitted with seating to increase capacity further, which was rejected) and a short range. This was used for short hops between Japanese cities for commmuter flights. JA123 which crashed in August 1985 with the highest loss of life for a single aircraft crash (520 dead, 4 survivors) was one of these and was on a short hop between Tokyo and Osaka. JAL and ANA use 747s as commuters all the time.

Also, for specials such as sporting events, smaller aircraft will be replaced by larger ones due to the higher load factors required.

St. Leibowitz

Took too long to write my reply. When I started, there were no replies !!

nothing stopping it.. an a380 runs from paris to london..

Had forgotten Air France were doing that one. I think it was for flight crew training wasn't it ??

Lustrum

It's to do with the life cycle of the aircraft too as far as I know, they're designed with a particular purpose in mind taking into account the number of take offs, landings, flying hours etc that they do

ie. an A380 might only do one take off and landing a day, where as a Ryanair 737 could be doing 7 or 8, this has to be calculated into the life cycle of the aircraft structure

highlydebased

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Via Iceland for fuel? They don't have they sort of range. When they are delivered from Boeing they stop off in Iceland on the way over. Plus there is the ETOPS rating issue.

They do have the range- when there's nobody onboard

Mister Jingles

The BA flight from London City to New York is actually an A318 would you believe

But to answer the OP's question there are small sized aircraft that are capable of flying long range such as the A319LR/CJ and 737-700ER however none of these would have as good range as the A340-500 or 772LR.

Trevor451

Mister Jingles wrote: »

The BA flight from London City to New York is actually an A318 would you believe

But to answer the OP's question there are small sized aircraft that are capable of flying long range such as the A319LR/CJ and 737-700ER however none of these would have as good range as the A340-500 or 772LR.

Yeah but its in all business class layout Also it makes a stop over at Shannon for refueling.

BostonB

Theres also ETOPS

ETOPS[1] is an acronym for extended operations[2] as re-defined by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2007[3] . This rule allows twin-engined airliners (such as the Airbus A300, A310, A320, A330 and A350 , the Boeing 737, 757, 767, 777, 787, the Embraer E-Jets, ATR) to fly long-distance routes that were previously off-limits to twin-engined aircraft. ETOPS operation has no direct correlation to water nor distance over water. It refers to single-engine flight times between diversion airfields, regardless as to whether such fields are separated by water or land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
http://www.avsim.com/geoffschool/airlinecourse/etops.htm

There may also be more redundancy in systems, on the larger aircraft. Not sure about that.

pclancy

Its also way nicer on a plane like a 747, 777 or A380 to be able to get up and strech your legs and have a wander around or go up/downstairs. They feel a lot more spacious then a little 737, i'd hate to be couped up in one of them for 12 hours :eek:

FlutterinBantam

Blisterman wrote: »

And vice versa?

Without fail it seems that the length of the journey corresponds with the size of plane used, but is there anything stopping an airline from running a 747 between London and Dublin for example? Or a 737 between Ireland and America?

Nothing except economics, and common sense.

Always remember that there is a trade off between the amount of fuel that can be carried and the amount of 'payload'.

Hence as previously pointed out the fuel load limits the passenger load, which raises the price of the seat.

To use a 747 between Dublin and London would severely limit the departure time choices,cause total chaos if cancelled or delayed, spend the bulk of it's time on the ground being 'turned around' and end up returning to Dublin at say around 1100 dep from London....not an easy time to fill a plane on.


Not a runner I think you will agree.

el tel

Same question could

be asked of albertrosses and sparrers...

FlutterinBantam

el tel wrote: »

Same question could

be asked of albertrosses and sparrers...

Indeed it could.

Back in the day BEA British European airways had three versions of the Trident


Hawker-Siddely.

Trident 1

Trident 2

Trident 3

The T1 was a short haul high capacity machine
The T2 was a 'long range ' version of that.
And the T3 was the 'best' of both... booster engine:D


The joke was:

A T1 takes everybody nowhere
A T2 takes nobody everywhere
A T3 takes everybody anywhere.


Different times.

mayotom

Emirates also use the A380 on the Dubai - Jeddah route multiple times per day

Tabnabs

pclancy wrote: »

Its also way nicer on a plane like a 747, 777 or A380 to be able to get up and strech your legs and have a wander around or go up/downstairs. They feel a lot more spacious then a little 737, i'd hate to be couped up in one of them for 12 hours :eek:

I think it's more how they use the space, rather than how much space there actually is...

IAH to AMS in a 737?

http://www.flyingcritic.com/travel/2008/05/flying-houston.html

highlydebased

Air Canada fly Heathrow-St Johns (canada) with an A319 during the summer. It's stopped in dublin and Shannon a few times for fuel when there's been strong headwinds. For obvious reasons it doesnt operate during the winter

ResearchWill

mayotom wrote: »

Emirates also use the A380 on the Dubai - Jeddah route multiple times per day

Flew on Emirates A380 Hong Kong to Bangkok, only 2 hour 30 min flight, but it's a segment on the Aus flight I think. Got a great price companion fare of 350 euro each return, in first. My only problem was the flight for the first time in my life was way too short, but it's amazing how much Dom you can drink in just over 2 hours, and fit in a shower.

unattendedbag

Philippine airlines sometimes use an a330 between Manila and Cebu. About 55 mins for the flight. Takes AGES.for turnaround when waiting for the plane to b cleaned then queuing to get on and get off. That was the day I realized I took quick turnaround times for granted.

Tenger

ResearchWill wrote: »

Flew on Emirates A380 Hong Kong to Bangkok, only 2 hour 30 min flight............but it's amazing how much Dom you can drink in just over 2 hours, and fit in a shower.

You stashed cases of Dom in the shower?

ResearchWill

Tenger wrote: »

ResearchWill wrote: »

Flew on Emirates A380 Hong Kong to Bangkok, only 2 hour 30 min flight............but it's amazing how much Dom you can drink in just over 2 hours, and fit in a shower.

You stashed cases of Dom in the shower?

No lol, but I did drink Dom in the shower, well what else to at at 40k feet. The only issue I have after flying first on a A380 is that I can't afford to do it again. BTW only joshing about the Dom in the shower that would be a waste of Dom.

PapaQuebec

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Indeed it could.

Back in the day BEA British European airways had three versions of the Trident


Hawker-Siddely.

Trident 1

Trident 2

Trident 3

The T1 was a short haul high capacity machine
The T2 was a 'long range ' version of that.
And the T3 was the 'best' of both... booster engine


The joke was:

A T1 takes everybody nowhere
A T2 takes nobody everywhere
A T3 takes everybody anywhere.


Different times.

And the joke was that the Trident 3 was the only "5-engined" triple on earth!!

Tea 1000

Trevor451 wrote: »

Yeah but its in all business class layout Also it makes a stop over at Shannon for refueling.

As pointed out, its an A318. It makes that refuelling stop because of take-off weight from London City airport. It does have the range!

pclancy wrote: »

Its also way nicer on a plane like a 747, 777 or A380 to be able to get up and strech your legs and have a wander around or go up/downstairs. They feel a lot more spacious then a little 737, i'd hate to be couped up in one of them for 12 hours :eek:

I thought the same, until I was on a Delta 757 from Shannon to Atlanta. Same size cross-section as a 737. It felt fine because the seats were better than normal crap, and the cabin was segregated nicely. It's more to do with cabin layout than outright size, although all else being equal I'd also choose bigger!

Naked Lepper

pclancy wrote: »

Its also way nicer on a plane like a 747, 777 or A380 to be able to get up and strech your legs and have a wander around or go up/downstairs. They feel a lot more spacious then a little 737, i'd hate to be couped up in one of them for 12 hours :eek:

theres not much difference between cabin on a 737 and a 757, and the 757 is used regularly on transatlantic routes!

Beefy78

I remember flying back from Amsterdam to London Stansted a few years ago with Easyjet, the flight was delayed and then delayed and eventually Easyjet admitted that the plane was several hundred miles away so they chartered a plane to take us home. It was a 747 from another airline. It was ridiculous having 100 people on this massive jet doing a 45 minute flight.

It was a free bar for the duration as well as Easyjet were picking up the tab. It's amazing how much you can drink in a 45 minute hop across the English Channel in that situation.

BostonB

I always found the 757 very cramped on long haul. Especially on charters where they have the seat pitch quite tight.

tu2j2

It comes down to economics really. A 737 can do long distance, I remember a PrivatAir 737 being in work and the cargo holds mainly consisted of aux fuel tanks so you get feck all luggage space and not than many passengers making for a very expensive flight.

Large aircraft on short haul is the same, unless your filling it its not really worth your while using the fuel to get something that size into the air.

cml387

PapaQuebec wrote: »

And the joke was that the Trident 3 was the only "5-engined" triple on earth!!

AKA "The Gripper" or "Ground Gripper" which only made it into the air due to the curvature of the earth.

FlutterinBantam

cml387 wrote: »

AKA "The Gripper" or "Ground Gripper" which only made it into the air due to the curvature of the earth.

And the landings were 'controlled crashes:p