4 ms·

The 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

by Merad 5y ago

The 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 ago
They 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.
- yardstick 5y ago
  35 years ago the 747 and DC-10 were flying the route with 4 and 3 engines respectively. ETOPS only applies to 2 engines.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Indeed! Thanks for the correction!
yborg 5y ago
The 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.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Which is at least as safe and probably much safer.
- kortilla 5y ago
  The probability of one of the old engines on a 747 failing was significantly higher than a single engine on an A350 or a 777. A two banger today is safer than the queens of yore that did those routes.
skybrian 5y ago
The 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 ago
To 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.

by Merad 5y ago

The 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 ago

They 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.

yardstick 5y ago
35 years ago the 747 and DC-10 were flying the route with 4 and 3 engines respectively. ETOPS only applies to 2 engines.
- eesmith 5y ago
  Indeed! Thanks for the correction!

yborg 5y ago

The 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.

jacquesm 5y ago
Which is at least as safe and probably much safer.
kortilla 5y ago
The probability of one of the old engines on a 747 failing was significantly higher than a single engine on an A350 or a 777. A two banger today is safer than the queens of yore that did those routes.

skybrian 5y ago

The 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 ago

To 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.