Dublin - Asia Flights

Khuitlio

Thought some people might be interested in this:

http:/ /ww w. irishtimes. com /business/sectors/transport-and-tourism/low-cost-airline-eyes-dublin-bangkok-flights-1.1845389
(Not allowed post links!)

Low-cost carrier Norwegian Air Shuttle is considering launching a Dublin to Bangkok service next year in a move that could make it the first airline to connect the Republic directly with the major tourist hub.
A spokesman for the company, whose long-haul operations are licensed and managed by a subsidiary based in the Republic, confirmed yesterday the airline is considering launching the Dublin-Bangkok service.
He pointed out there is no regular, direct link between the Republic’s capital and the Thai city, but said there does appear to be demand. He added that should the airline decide to go ahead, it is likely it would launch it next year.
Etihad to be content with 49% for now
Etihad to acquire 49% stake in Italian airline
Minister for Tourism Leo Varadkar recently said the Government is keen to see airlines developing services to eastern Asia. Norwegian began offering low-cost, long-haul services last year, pricing transatlantic flights at $300-$350 return.
The company is expanding and plans to link locations in the US such as New York and Fort Lauderdale, and Bangkok and other far eastern destinations with London and other centres in northern and western Europe.
Its chief executive, Bjorn Kjos, recently told The Irish Times that modern aircraft technology have made it possible to offer low-cost, long-haul services. Norwegian employs 40 people in offices close to Dublin Airport.

L1011

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/transport-and-tourism/low-cost-airline-eyes-dublin-bangkok-flights-1.1845389 for the lazy (I knew the thousands of wasted hours posting here were useful for something...)

There's an advantage to them running some LH flights out of here even if not completely viable to try justify the Irish AOC to foreign authorities.

Stinicker

MYOB wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/transport-and-tourism/low-cost-airline-eyes-dublin-bangkok-flights-1.1845389 for the lazy (I knew the thousands of wasted hours posting here were useful for something...)

There's an advantage to them running some LH flights out of here even if not completely viable to try justify the Irish AOC to foreign authorities.

While it would not be a premium heavy route, the demand is certainly there and it would be a major boon for all the Irish expats in Australia as you could connect in Bangkok to a multitude of Low Cost Carriers which would deliver you for e.g. to Perth relatively cheaply. Etihad and Emirates are not cheap and are only a fraction cheaper than European airlines unless you get a cheap fare in their rare enough sales.

I'd much rather make a single 12 hours direct flight to Bangkok with Norwegian on the 787 rather than 15hours with Etihad or Emirates and a 2 to 3 hour stopover in the UAE. And as for the Irish in Australia they often end up paying twice or triple the cost of Ireland > Australia when their are flying west Australia to Ireland as Australia has the highest airfares in the world, think Aer Lingus days of near Monopoly in the 1980's and £400 return to Heathrow.

If it loses money it won't lose much and will certainly justify the Irish AOC, the bigger question is can Norwegian or any European airline survive the onslaught of the ME3 (Etihad, Emirates and Qatar)?

dm09

Great news, would be even better if they would launch a DUB-LAX service:)

Idbatterim

Great news, would be even better if they would launch a DUB-LAX service

this route did operate up until a few years ago, I used it a few times! Dublin to vegas is my dream maybe Dublin wouldnt have the critical mass to make it profitable, but when you factor in the uk traffic that is transferring through Dublin...

It'll be interesting to see if the can do it off 10/28 and to see if the DAA extend the start of 28 by a few hundred feet to help out operators before they are allowed build the parallel runway.

ian_m

12 hours on a low cost airline? Did they say what type of aircraft they would use? I fly to Asia once a year with Emirates and couldn't imagine sitting for that long on a low cost carrier, I'd go bananas.

Tabnabs

ian_m wrote: »

12 hours on a low cost airline? Did they say what type of aircraft they would use? I fly to Asia once a year with Emirates and couldn't imagine sitting for that long on a low cost carrier, I'd go bananas.

Same as all the other Norwegian long haul fleet
https://www.norwegian.com/longdistancerevolution/

787 a new modern aircraft so not shabby in any way

BonkeyDonker

ian_m wrote: »

12 hours on a low cost airline? Did they say what type of aircraft they would use? I fly to Asia once a year with Emirates and couldn't imagine sitting for that long on a low cost carrier, I'd go bananas.

Its as much about the seat as the airline. Emirates are starting to pack them in with 9 and 10 abreast T7 coming online. It will only be a matter of time until they do similar on all their fleet, as will other airlines. So unless you can afford to sit up front things will overall only get worse.

DubDani

So if they were really planning to fly the Dublin - Bangkok route from 2015, when would they normally announce it and publish details etc.?

Currently planning another trip with the Family, and a direct flight would be great with 2 small kids.

DubDani

DubDani wrote: »

So if they were really planning to fly the Dublin - Bangkok route from 2015, when would they normally announce it and publish details etc.?

Currently planning another trip with the Family, and a direct flight would be great with 2 small kids.

Usually several months in advance, depends on when they want to launch the route.

Tenger

DubDani wrote: »

So if they were really planning to fly the Dublin - Bangkok route from 2015, when would they normally announce it and publish details etc.?

Any flights starting Summer 2015 would be announced in the next 1-2 months. Airline Winter schedule starts usually starts in Oct/Nov. So they publish their Summer schedule before the end of the current Summer. Usually 6 month minimum lead in is required to gain forward bookings.

smurfjed

Has the 787 got the range to do that route non-stop? Especially considering winter winds?

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

Has the 787 got the range to do that route non-stop? Especially considering winter winds?

Take the runway out of the equation and I would say yes comfortably put it back in and say just about, it's 800nm further than San Francisco.

It'll be interesting to see if it can.

smurfjed

it's 800nm further than San Francisco

what type of miles?

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

what type of miles?

Nautical, 5500 v 4700 or thereabouts.

smurfjed

OK so you are talking about Nautical Ground Miles as opposed to Nautical Air Miles, with the prevailing westerly winds, the flights back from Bangkok will be a hard slog, especially if they are forced to avoid certain countries.

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

OK so you are talking about Nautical Ground Miles as opposed to Nautical Air Miles, with the prevailing westerly winds, the flights back from Bangkok will be a hard slog, especially if they are forced to avoid certain countries.

No Nautical AIR miles. I couldn't find any difference between a nautical air mile and a nautical ground mile, the only reference to ground mile is a Statute mile.

Thai/BA fly into London with the 747 (equal enough in range) I can't imagine the few extra miles will make it a no go. Although with the growing number of no overfly countries you could be right about it being pushed beyond its limits.

bikeman1

I think, and I am no expert on ranges, is that due to the relatively short length of the runway at DUB, you can't be fully laden with fuel at take off, which shortens the range available to an aircraft.

So if we had a long enough runway at DUB there would be no issue with flying to Thailand or China.

smurfjed

I couldn't find any difference between a nautical air mile and a nautical ground mile

The difference between them is the WIND.

Take a distance of 2000 NGM / Ground Speed of 500 Kts = 4 hours x 5,000 kgs/hr = 20,000 kgs fuel.
now if we apply a 100 knot wind, the Ground Speed will be 400 Kts
2000 NGM / Ground Speed 400 Kts = 5 hours x 5,000 kgs/hr = 25,000 kgs fuel.

So that means that you need another 5,000 kgs of fuel to fly the same route, that extra fuel has to come from somewhere, so its usually from the aircrafts range capabilities or payload.

So you can really compare 5500 miles versus 4700 miles, the wind plays a huge part in any route planning.

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

The difference between them is the WIND.

Take a distance of 2000 NGM / Ground Speed of 500 Kts = 4 hours x 5,000 kgs/hr = 20,000 kgs fuel.
now if we apply a 100 knot wind, the Ground Speed will be 400 Kts
2000 NGM / Ground Speed 400 Kts = 5 hours x 5,000 kgs/hr = 25,000 kgs fuel.

So that means that you need another 5,000 kgs of fuel to fly the same route, that extra fuel has to come from somewhere, so its usually from the aircrafts range capabilities or payload.

So you can really compare 5500 miles versus 4700 miles, the wind plays a huge part in any route planning.

I meant in physical distance, the rest I'm aware of.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2014/04/07/united-plans-worlds-longest-boeing-787-non-stop-routes/

Considerably longer than Dublin-Bangkok but both have very long runways.

smurfjed

Did you notice the difference in the seating arrangements for the two airlines mentioned in your link, the United aircraft has a much lower number, hence a smaller payload requirement. As i said above, to get the range, something must be sacrificed.

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

Did you notice the difference in the seating arrangements for the two airlines mentioned in your link, the United aircraft has a much lower number, hence a smaller payload requirement. As i said above, to get the range, something must be sacrificed.

Norwegians model will be the opposite to stuff them in, currently 291.

Yeah I'm just wondering whether they will route via Stockholm or Oslo a bit like Ethiopians routes. Not pretty adding an hour or more onto a 14 hr flight.

Idbatterim

How irish and pathetic is this issue! An airport that can now handle up to 35,000,000 passengers has a 2600 or whatever meter it is runway! Can they not throw a few hundred extra meters onto existing runway?

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

How irish and pathetic is this issue! An airport that can now handle up to 35,000,000 passengers has a 2600 or whatever meter it is runway! Can they not throw a few hundred extra meters onto existing runway?

The leash that is CAR is probably preventing them from doing it. Every cent of CAPEX needs to be preapproved by CAR.

While CAR has it's place in stopping silly spending they just seem intent on stopping most spending as if that's their remit.

Bring up the runway to 3000m would open the world up.

smurfjed

Where did you get your route distances from?

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dub-bkk&MS=wls&DU=mi

Gives DUB-BKK as 6144 NM's without wind. If they need to avoid Russia and route via the Middle East, that goes up to 7300 NM's, once again without wind. This chart is taken from the B788 Flight Crew Operations manual, if you look at 6200 miles and start applying winds, you can see that it starts to get beyond the capability of the aircraft, if you take the Middle Eastern route, then its definitely outside the range of the aircraft. Thats why you really need to know the probability wind for such long routes.



This also means that if they can't maximise the payload on the aircraft, they won't be able to offer cheap fares.

BTW, the -8 version should be able to take MTOW from the Dublin runway as it isn't a high airport and our summer temperatures are quite low during the night/morning periods.

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

Where did you get your route distances from?

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dub-bkk&MS=wls&DU=mi

Gives DUB-BKK as 6144 NM's without wind. If they need to avoid Russia and route via the Middle East, that goes up to 7300 NM's, once again without wind. This chart is taken from the B788 Flight Crew Operations manual, if you look at 6200 miles and start applying winds, you can see that it starts to get beyond the capability of the aircraft, if you take the Middle Eastern route, then its definitely outside the range of the aircraft. Thats why you really need to know the probability wind for such long routes.



This also means that if they can't maximise the payload on the aircraft, they won't be able to offer cheap fares.

BTW, the -8 version should be able to take MTOW from the Dublin runway as it isn't a high airport and our summer temperatures are quite low during the night/morning periods.

6144 is statue miles its 5339nms.

From To Initial
Heading Distance EIDW (53°25'17"N 6°16'12"W) VTBS (13°40'52"N 100°44'50"E) 68.2° (E) 6144 mi


From To Initial
Heading Distance EIDW (53°25'17"N 6°16'12"W) VTBS (13°40'52"N 100°44'50"E) 68.2° (E) 5339 nm

MoeJay

I remember once looking at BKK-DUB for an A332, the payload restriction was quite considerable; certainly pushed it out of the commercially viable range. I was surprised at how much!

*this was a while ago, I'm sure the range capabilities have increased on A330s since then - however most 12 hour sectors don't seem to use A330s...?*

smurfjed

You are so right, thanks....

My confusion stems from a Boeing sales presentation in 2007, they showed an almost identical route distance and showed a maximum payload of 19,000 kgs, or 190 passengers. Their range circles with maximum payload ended up off the coast of Newfoundland rather than New York. I lost track of the aircrafts development as my career path went in a different direction, but i am now curious as to how they have increased the payload/range so much.

Idbatterim

the below says that the A350 800 will only need 8000 ft runway at MTOW, would these new planes offer a solution quicker than this god knows when to be built longer runway? the second link says the a350 900 is also 8000 ft...

I believe the current runway is 2637m from wikipedia. (If so thats 8652ft)

http://planes.findthebest.com/compare/240-293/Airbus-A350-800-vs-Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner

http://planes.findthebest.com/q/241/7735/How-long-of-a-runway-does-the-Airbus-A350-900-Jet-need-to-take-off

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

You are so right, thanks....

My confusion stems from a Boeing sales presentation in 2007, they showed an almost identical route distance and showed a maximum payload of 19,000 kgs, or 190 passengers. Their range circles with maximum payload ended up off the coast of Newfoundland rather than New York. I lost track of the aircrafts development as my career path went in a different direction, but i am now curious as to how they have increased the payload/range so much.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/startup/pdf/787_range.pdf

This is Boeings latest, but the 787-8s range is based 242 pax 50 short of what Norwegian are putting in and it's based on London.

smurfjed

I love USB memory chips, i looked at the Boeing presentation that i mentioned and it appears that they have increased the operational weights since they presented the aircraft to us

Maximum Takeoff weight (2007) 219,541 kgs / (2014) 228,000 = +8,459 kgs
Maximum Landing weight (2007) 167,831 kgs / (2014) 172,000 = +4,169 kgs
Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (2007) 156,941 kgs / (2014) 161000 = +4,059 kgs
Operational Empty Weight (2007) 116,288 kgs / (2014) 118,000 = +1,712 kgs

We will take our first -8 late next year for commercial service, and quite possibly a couple of BBJ versions prior to that

smurfjed

Thanks GVHOT, my issue with charts like that is that they are based on 85% probably ANNUAL WINDS, these are usually misleading as the light summer winds make the winter values a lot lower and therefore less penalising.

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

Thanks GVHOT, my issue with charts like that is that they are based on 85% probably ANNUAL WINDS, these are usually misleading as the light summer winds make the winter values a lot lower and therefore less penalising.

I agree, I can't one way or the other see them filling a 787 2-3-4 x a week myself, so I see them making a "technical stop enroute to pick up fuel and passengers.

Personally I would have thought there would have been more of a market ex-Dublin to the Caribbean than to Thailand, I am aware lots of people go to Phuket etc but the Caribbean seems like an untapped market from Dublin.

I don't understand why Norwegian aren't flying to Fort Lauderdale rather than Bangkok and picking up some cruise passenger trade.

Idbatterim

The leash that is CAR is probably preventing them from doing it. Every cent of CAPEX needs to be preapproved by CAR.

Does the regulator have the final say or can it be appealed?

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

Does the regulator have the final say or can it be appealed?

The Commission for Aviation Regulations principal function is to regulate passenger charges at Dublin airport and air traffic control charges at airports with over 1 million passengers per year. The Commission also has responsibility for slot allocation at Dublin airport, licensing of air carriers under EU regulations, the groundhandling market, licensing of travel agents and tour operators and for overseeing enforcement of EU regulations on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellation or long delays of flights

That's a quote from the CAR website, basically if you want to charge it to the passenger which the airports do then you need to have your CAPEX approved by CAR. All airports will look for cost recovery through charges so yes CAR have the final say but you can appeal their decision.

MiloDublin

If you do a great circle route Dublin -Sydney, the half way point is Beijing. Now that would be cool: fly the shortest route and get a stop over at the half way point.

NZ_2014

MiloDublin wrote: »

If you do a great circle route Dublin -Sydney, the half way point is Beijing. Now that would be cool: fly the shortest route and get a stop over at the half way point.

http://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper/route/EIDW-YSSY.html

NZ_2014

MiloDublin wrote: »

If you do a great circle route Dublin -Sydney, the half way point is Beijing. Now that would be cool: fly the shortest route and get a stop over at the half way point.

NZ_2014 wrote: »

http://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper/route/EIDW-YSSY.html

Almost:

http://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper/route/EIDW-ZBAA-YSSY.html

MiloDublin

NZ_2014 wrote: »

Almost:

http://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper/route/EIDW-ZBAA-YSSY.html

Thanks for that link. The great circle surprised me because most routes from NW Europe to Australia/NZ go via the Gulf which isn't the shortest.

MuffinsDa

Here's a good one: DUB - AKL http://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper/route/EIDW-NZAA.html

Irish Steve

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Here's a good one: DUB - AKL http://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper/route/EIDW-NZAA.html

I suspect that there would be some serious work to do in respect of ETOPS before that route could be flown, it's a LONG way over some very empty water. In theory, if the figures on that site are believed, it's within the non stop range of an A330-300, but I don't know what load that is with. A tech stop in Anchorage would seem a better option, the thought of being in a 330 for 20:32 does not greatly appeal. What could be interesting is the potential West Coast connections out of Anchorage, I had a quick look at their web site earlier, and there are some useful connections with several major carriers.

The logistics of such long routes would be complex, crewing those sorts of distances would be "challenging", though I have to admit that Dublin- Sydney via Peking should be capable of attracting significant traffic, with another possible mid point that's not too far off the circle being Hong Kong, which should also offer some useful freight opportunities.

MuffinsDa

Irish Steve wrote: »

I suspect that there would be some serious work to do in respect of ETOPS before that route could be flown, it's a LONG way over some very empty water. In theory, if the figures on that site are believed, it's within the non stop range of an A330-300, but I don't know what load that is with. A tech stop in Anchorage would seem a better option, the thought of being in a 330 for 20:32 does not greatly appeal. What could be interesting is the potential West Coast connections out of Anchorage, I had a quick look at their web site earlier, and there are some useful connections with several major carriers.

The logistics of such long routes would be complex, crewing those sorts of distances would be "challenging", though I have to admit that Dublin- Sydney via Peking should be capable of attracting significant traffic, with another possible mid point that's not too far off the circle being Hong Kong, which should also offer some useful freight opportunities.

Oh I know it's not practical on so many level (ETOPS, economy etc), hence highlighting it as an "interesting" one!

IRLConor

On this hypothetical Dublin-(Some east asian airport)-Sydney route, who'd be the likely carriers?

If Norwegian were doing a DUB-BKK, that'd be great, but they've no partner airlines that I know of so you would need to separately book onto Thai, Qantas or Emirates and if I remember correctly they aren't particularly cheap on that route. I don't know if there are many people who'd fly that distance on unconnected flights and on different airlines when there are more conventional connections available. I could see DUB-BKK being interesting for the tourist trade to SE Asia but could it really lean on a connection to Australia?

The other options are either EI with a codeshare/partner agreement (Cathay in Hong Kong?) for the onward connections or an Asian carrier opening a new route from their hub into Dublin. That would seem to make more sense to me, but hey, I'm just a passenger.

MiloDublin

Does Aer Lingus have any plans to open a route to China?
Just thinking of all the Chinese living here or wanting to study here, the push to attract high spending Chinese tourists, the push to export more to a huge and growing market, not to mention the onward connection possibilities.
It seems like a no-brainer but I have the impression the company lacks confidence. They wouldn't open the route to San Francisco until they had commitments from the IT companies that the demand was there.

IRLConor

MiloDublin wrote: »

Does Aer Lingus have any plans to open a route to China?

I don't know.

MiloDublin wrote: »

Just thinking of all the Chinese living here or wanting to study here, the push to attract high spending Chinese tourists, the push to export more to a huge and growing market, not to mention the onward connection possibilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was enough demand, but it's a question of whether or not the route is as valuable as some of the easier, nearer routes.

MiloDublin wrote: »

It seems like a no-brainer but I have the impression the company lacks confidence. They wouldn't open the route to San Francisco until they had commitments from the IT companies that the demand was there.

I don't think it's necessarily a lack of confidence. EI has a relatively small long haul fleet. This means that routes which bring the aircraft far from home carry more risk in terms of crewing and maintenance than they do for bigger airlines with more crew and more aircraft.

If a BA 747 goes tech in SFO, there's two flights a day which gives them more flexibility in terms of getting another aircraft, more crew, spares, whatever over there. If an EI 330 goes tech in SFO there are only two other 332s in the fleet and they're busy as it is.

Remember that one aircraft sole revenue is that return flight, it can only make money for the airline from that flight as it's so long and can't be used on the side for a Malaga or Faro run. So they have to be certain there is enough premium and cargo revenue to self fund the route. BA is having issues with its Chengdu flight so china is not an absolute gold mine.

Aerlingus only launched SFO after big industry bought a certain amount of seats per flight. The people you would target for a china route may prefer to use their own airlines as it would cut out an internal transfer,language, food onboard, entertainment and like us prefer to fly with the flag carrier.

While it may seem like a good idea EI have said their expansion plans are West not East.

salmocab

How difficult is it operations wise to run say a DUB - LAX 4 times a week and say DUB - LAS 3 times with regard to crewing etc. I think a Vegas flight 3 times a week could potentially be a runner

L1011

salmocab wrote: »

How difficult is it operations wise to run say a DUB - LAX 4 times a week and say DUB - LAS 3 times with regard to crewing etc. I think a Vegas flight 3 times a week could potentially be a runner

Too much for one craft