14 ms·
Polar Express – How Airlines are plotting a new-route to Asia
- twoneurons 5y ago
- Merad 5y agoThe article contradicts its own title. This isn't a new route, the same polar route was used 35 years ago up until the cold war ended and they were allowed to overfly Russian airspace.
- eesmith 5y agoThey weren't flying ETOPS-300 35 years ago. > The new Arctic route, however, flies over very remote areas, where airports are few and far between. As a result, the airline had to apply for an extension of that protocol to 300 minutes, meaning the Airbus A350-900s it uses to fly to Japan can now stray as far as five hours away from the nearest airport, while still meeting all international regulations and safety protocols.
- yborg 5y agoThe route originally was flown by 3 or 4 engine aircraft so a single engine failure still left you with at least 2. They are now flying it with an A350 twin-engine. Worst case you are 5 hours from a landing site with one engine.
- skybrian 5y agoThe details are different enough that it's arguable. Before there was a stop in Anchorage, and they presumably didn't fly two-engine aircraft on this route before.
- humanistbot 5y agoTo me, "plotting a new route" means they are changing how they get from A to B. I am a passenger in a car with a friend, carpooling to work. I say, "it looks like there is a wreck on the highway in a few miles, want me to find a new route to work?" That makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter if my friend and I have taken this alternate route before. It means we are changing our plan.
- ck2 5y agoIs that going to stomp on the accelerator for climate change to have increased jet traffic burning fuel near/over the pole? This war might be going on for the rest of the decade, has there ever been that much traffic over the pole that we know for sure what will/won't happen?
- sokoloff 5y agoAviation emissions are around 2% of total emissions (but have a stronger effect on a per-ton basis, so might be 5% of total effect). These routes are a tiny, tiny slice of the aviation sector.
- vaylian 5y agoBut anyone taking such a plane trip will exceed their own carbon budget for that year. We really need to rethink aviation and we really need to reconsider how much of it is actually needed. I would not be surprised if 99% of all flights could be eliminated if we accepted living in a slower world.
- mantas 5y agoMy bet is on flying becoming much more expensive. Which will fix the carbon budget issue.
- rblatz 5y agoI’m unaware of a specific carbon budget that I am supposed to be following.
- vaylian 5y agoWelcome to planet earth. Please make sure to keep this place in a good condition, so that future visitors can also enjoy a healthy stay.
- nuccy 5y agoSince some European counties now considers recovery of nuclear power [1], the overall emissions will likely actually decrease, even despite this increase due to longer flightroutes. Fuel prices also rise, which yield less driving. 1. https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-delays-nuclear-phase-out-amid-war-worries/ https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-delays-nuclear-phase...
- mikeodds 5y agoFun fact you will also get a higher dose of radiation taking North Pole routes
- unnouinceput 5y agoPretty sure the airplane will, not the passengers inside.
- mikekij 5y agoThe people inside will absolutely receive a larger radiation dose. A thin metal shell does not block a large percentage of cosmic radiation.
- fosk 5y agoI wonder if planes could be built in such a way to include two sheets of outside layer, with a gas (can a gas be used to shield radiation?) in between those sheets to shield the passengers from outside radiation. Or maybe use a polyethylene layer?
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y agoThe bulk of the radiation are cosmic rays or things showered from them. Shielding isn't practical. But also, on the scale of things to worry about in life, this is way down there.
- roywiggins 5y agoCosmic radiation will penetrate anything that isn't, like, a good-size chunk of lead.
- traceroute66 5y ago> Fun fact you will also get a higher dose of radiation taking North Pole routes It only matters for very frequent flyers (i.e. people who put in almost as many hours as flight crew). For your average Joe that barely flies much, it won't make any difference.
- fortran77 5y agoA flight I took last week, TLV->SFO went within 20 miles of Ukraine -- it usually flew right over it. Today I'm on the flight back, and I've heard that they will be rerouting even further, and add about 25 minutes to the flight plan. (Here's the old route: https://onemileatatime.com/el-al-sfo-tel-aviv-flight/ https://onemileatatime.com/el-al-sfo-tel-aviv-flight/)
- trhway 5y agoStill too close. About a week ago a stray huge supersonic drone flew out of Ukraine over Romania and crashed in Slovakia if I'm not mistaken.
- tomaskafka 5y agoZagreb, Croatia: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60709952.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60709952.amp
- t0mas88 5y agoYour "huge supersonic drone" is in reality a subsonic one, that's smaller than an F16 and flies no higher than 19,700ft while a typical airliner cruises at 35,000 to 41,000ft
- trhway 5y agoIt is huge by drones standards. It shows that it is easy to miss a missile or a plane in the air there. Russia attacked targets 20 km from Poland border. It is just a bit more than a minute of flying of a transonic plane and even less for a high-speed missile. 60-80 km is inside a normal combat range for S-300 air-defense system. The point is that 45 miles from the border you can still easily happen to step into a combat zone and get into a path of a plane running and maneuvering away from a missile or a missile chasing or even lost/reacquired target. The next link illustrates dangers of flying even 300 kilometers away from firing air-defense systems even during the peace time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812
- 5y ago
- rconti 5y agoI thought Russia charged huge fees for airlines to fly through their airspace. Apparently that's not true anymore, but this BusinessInsider BlogPostThing has a lot of interesting history I wasn't aware of. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-uses-airspace-restrict-airliners-make-politic-moves-siberian-corridor-2021-12#for-the-most-part-only-one-airline-per-european-country-can-fly-over-russia-like-lufthansa-from-germany-30 https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-uses-airspace-restric...
- ciabattabread 5y agoHow do all these new polar routes affect the workload of the people staffing our Arctic radar stations, if at all?
- ptero 5y agoIf you mean en route radars, those should not be affected. Those are big rotators that work the same, 24x7, regardless of how many planes are in the area of the coverage.
- nabla9 5y agoNo. Civilian aircraft have transponders on. They can be identified easily.
- traceroute66 5y ago> How do all these new polar routes affect the workload of the people staffing our Arctic radar stations, if at all? If you are referring to the people doing the radio work, through the magic of HF radio they sit in a nice warm office in Ontario, Canada. I doubt it will increase their workload much as its not a busy route and there's not much ATC to do given the sparse nature of the region. Its more of a monitoring service per-se. P.S. They are not "new" routes. They've been around for decades, just lost popularity due to better options.
- Svip 5y agoSAS was the first airline to introduce a polar route in 1957 to avoid Soviet airspace, making a stop in Alaska on its way to Japan.[1] [1] https://airwaysmag.com/today-in-aviation/worlds-first-com-trans-polar/ https://airwaysmag.com/today-in-aviation/worlds-first-com-tr...
- acwan93 5y agoDoes this mean Anchorage's airport is going to get increased traffic again? I'd imagine planes today have the range to not need a stopover compared to the Cold War era.
- guipsp 5y agoWhile it isn't needed, I do imagine for western europe is might be worth it to stop over somewhere, in order to be more cost-efficient
- ozim 5y agoTo be cost efficient I bet it would be "not stopping".
- Scoundreller 5y agoAt long-haul distances, a refueling stop saves fuel, even taking into account the extra take-off and landing. Taking off with all the fuel to make it to your destination means taking off with a lot of weight. And a larger aircraft to fly with long-haul tanks that will eventually be empty is inefficient too. This is called "Intermediate Stop Operations". Of course, there are other costs beyond fuel (landing costs, staffing costs, etc.), but sometimes you can make this an advantage (e.g. staff always sleeps at home base each night). > In some studies it was found that fuel savings are in the order of 13–23 % (the longer the mission, the more fuel could be saved) for missions with a single stopover if aircraft are used that are optimized for shorter ranges https://elib.dlr.de/102479/1/metz__The_Implications_of_Intermediate_Stop_Operations_on_Aviation_Emissions_and_Climate_87337.pdf https://elib.dlr.de/102479/1/metz__The_Implications_of_Inter...
- supernova87a 5y agoI don't know if any others of you are of a certain age and remember having to fly through Anchorage in your youth... Back when DC10s either couldn't make it all the way nonstop, or for cost reasons a stopover in AK made it marginally profitable.
- reaperducer 5y agoI still use "borrowed" Northwest Orient flatware.
- filereaper 5y agoI wonder how many direct routes just aren't possible anymore as they can't fly over Russian airspace and can't fit within ETOPS safety margins. We had our direct flight from EWR-BOM cancelled due to the current issues.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y agoIt's been interesting to check the situation occasionally on sites like flightaware. Definitely a lot of traffic rerouting through Turkish airspace.
- leoedin 5y agoNewark to Mumbai, for those that don't memorise airport codes.
- dibujaron 5y agoI found this list useful for memorizing them: https://xkcd.com/1937/ https://xkcd.com/1937/
- megablast 5y agoOf course, ewr to bom. Everyone knows those codes.
- prawn 5y agoIt's been in the news over the last month. ;) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30747665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30747665
- Scoundreller 5y agoSounds like a lame excuse for your EWR-BOM flight. A routing over Turkey (bypassing UK/RU airspace), instead of direct, is only +2.7% distance. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ewr-bom,+ewr-ist-bom http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ewr-bom,+ewr-ist-bom (I know, I know, you may not actually be able to route "optimally" due to other airspace clearance requirements/costs/weather/etc)
- dcanelhas 5y agoI wonder if one could build a couple of aircraft carrier for commercial airliners and post them out in the Pacific somewhere to get shorter ETOPS-compliant flight paths. I also wonder how much fuel is spent carrying fuel and if emissions wouldn't be lower if they would fly shorter legs on fumes and do frequent refueling stops.
- iancmceachern 5y agoIt's not as if the navy airplanes that take off and land from carriers are standard issue planes. There are very specific, pretty risky tech that goes into each catapult launch, arrested landing, etc. Doing so in an airliner full of passengers would be too risky in my view. Not to mention the size of aircraft carrier that would be required to land even a 737.
- weberer 5y agoThere is no possible way that a commercial airliner can land on an aircraft carrier.
- adhesive_wombat 5y agoThey can definitely touch down on one. They just can't also come to a stop on the same one, or even get to the other end with both wings attached. Though if you fitted a tail hook to a 747, probably some of that 747 could be said to have landed there. Maybe a few passengers too, and you could claim the fastest disembarkation speeds into the bargain. Turnaround times might suffer depending on the depth of the water.
- jamiek88 5y agoIt’s humorous really. Such a massive misunderstanding of scale.
- jacquesm 5y agoIt's straight into 'how many programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?' territory.
- chinathrow 5y agoFlying Finnair, you even get a North Pole Flyover Certificate :) https://www.finnair.com/en/bluewings/world-of-finnair/flying-over-the-north-pole--well-planned-is-half-done--2557594 https://www.finnair.com/en/bluewings/world-of-finnair/flying...
- heikkilevanto 5y agoReminds me of a trick question from the time Finnair started to fly over the pole: Once there was so much demand, that they had to fly with two planes. They flew side by side, directly over the pole. So one of them crossed the international date line and the other did not. How come they landed on the same date?
- dmichulke 5y agoIf you fly over the pole you basically cover 180 degrees of longitude, and it matters little whether you take the 180 that cross the date line or the 180 degrees that don't. Crossing the date line is just an artifact of the singularity at the pole.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- scatters 5y agoThe IDL isn't the only line of longitude where the date changes; there is another, the line of midnight. Either one plane crossed each, putting both on the next day, or one crossed both, with opposite sense.
- sydthrowaway 5y agoI would just cancel the flight. Helsinki Tokyo seems like a very unpopular route
- MomoXenosaga 5y agoGood. Imagine you're a Russian political refugee. You don't want to fly over Russian airspace and have your plane forced to land by Russian MIGs.
- tormock 5y ago> You don't want to fly over Russian airspace and have your plane forced to land by Russian MIGs. Can't they just ask like the US Government does? I.E.: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/03/edsn-j03.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/03/edsn-j03.html
- danuker 5y agoI am appalled. Not very surprised, but still appalled.
- tormock 5y agoIt's one of the 3 things that Obama did (or didn't do) that disappointed me the most.
- Gustomaximus 5y agoI assume one of the others was ordering a drone strike on a US citizen with none of the usual due process in finding someone guilty. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati... This is still shocking to me. And no matter how dangerous this guy was, opening the door on killing your own citizens seems far more dangerous.
- trasz 5y agoHow is that different from killing somebody’s else’s citizens?
- 5y ago
- rwmj 5y agoShould we be concerned about ETOPS (colloquially "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim") being extended to 300 minutes? That's up to 5 hours of hand-flying a jet with a failed engine.
- turrican 5y agoIn most or all modern airliners, the autopilot can be re-engaged after an engine failure. Certainly still stressful, but they don’t need to hand-fly it.
- Idiot211 5y agoYou wouldn't need to hand-fly in most instances, Autopilot will remain on and is more than capable of dealing with single engine operations on dual engine aircaft. Of course it's always an issue if an engine does fail, but ETOPS as a certification is there to ensure that airplanes and pilots are not put under unreasonable amounts of stress or issue if and when an engine fails over-water.
- lenkite 5y agoSome carriers who aren't banned are now having an advantage https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/advantage-air-india-airspace-bans-on-russian-flights-could-give-the-indian-carrier-an-edge-8184701.html https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/advantage-air-ind... https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/mar/17/it-is-safe-air-indiacontinues-to-fly-over-russia-to-reach-london-2431049.html https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/mar/17/it-is-sa...
- 29athrowaway 5y agoAirlines should bring back the Concorde.
- wu_187 5y agoSo I am in this situation right now. My Father in law is flying here (Houston) from the Philippines, and one of the cheapest flights is with Qatar, which connects in Doha. The Doha to IAH flight happens to fly directly over Ukraine, however looking at flightaware, recent flights have been adjusted to fly just west of the Ukraine border.