4 ms·

Does 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

Does 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 ago
While 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 ago
  To be cost efficient I bet it would be "not stopping".
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    At 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...
    - Retric 5y ago
      There are a very long list of reasons it’s normally sub optimal. First your generally going out of the way to stop at an airport which means a longer trip, plus you need to climb back to altitude which means lower efficiency. Landings and takeoffs are harder on many systems which means more maticance. Time a major factor as not only are aircraft doing fewer routes passengers are also waiting around. Safety is another issue for adding stops, landing and takeoffs are much higher risk. Etc It can be a net benefit, but normally your much better served to make every stop a significant destination rather than just being for fuel.
      - Scoundreller 5y ago
        > make every stop a significant destination That's where it can become more viable: When you go A->B->C instead of A->C, you have two more origin:destination pairs that you sell tickets for, depending on (?uhhhh, 5th?) freedom rights.
        Retric 5y ago
        Exactly, you can also have exponentially more route options with shared intermediaries. UAE is perhaps the best long haul example of this.
        Scoundreller 5y ago
        I often use Iceland as my example, but same idea. I’m surprised WOW airlines failed though. As much as people hate it (especially if someone else is paying the fare), I think long-haul’s days aren’t looking great. As fuel/biofuel becomes a bigger $ proportion of tickets, multiple medium-haul hops is going to become the way.
      - ozim 5y ago
        Take into account service fee charged by airport, because landing and refueling cost is not just fuel cost but also bunch of operations by ground personnel. I think most expensive would still be gaining altitude - but I got down-voted so might be that my understanding of this is not that good.
  - 55555 5y ago
    The math is counterintuitive but planes fly with minimal fuel because fuel is so heavy that having more fuel requires even more fuel. Fuel is a primary expense. So airlines like to stop places even when not strictly required. They don’t fill the car all the way up like you and I might.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      The math isn’t counter intuitive at all. Also how rockets work (burn a lot of fuel at the beginning because you have to push a lot of fuel + cargo), also let’s drop some boosters while we are at it to get rid of even more weight. In flight refueling might be the way to go, but then keeping the fuel plane up also takes fuel.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> Does this mean Anchorage's airport is going to get increased traffic again? Anchorage is already one one of the busiest airports in the world for cargo. During the beginning of the pandemic, it became the busiest airport in the world for that reason (while people weren't flying, cargo still needed to be flown).
kortilla 5y ago
Anchorage still gets a lot of freight flights stopping for more fuel. It’s an interesting airport to plane spot at since it is quite busy with large planes despite having so few (relatively) passengers.
shagie 5y ago
Why Anchorage is America's Most OP City - https://youtu.be/UMNfagIz0hs https://youtu.be/UMNfagIz0hs That video goes into a bit on the importance of its airport. By using a stopover, they are able to cut down on total fuel needed to be carried which in turn raises the amount of freight that they can carry.
genocidicbunny 5y ago
For long-haul flights, it might still make economical sense to have a stopover point. A plane carrying all the fuel it needs for the full flight will burn more fuel in total than a plane that's only ever carrying the fuel it needs for only half the flight because of the weight difference. As others have mentioned, Anchorage is a big cargo airport, and the fuel savings are one of the reasons.

Does 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 ago

While 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 ago
To be cost efficient I bet it would be "not stopping".
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  At 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...
  - Retric 5y ago
    There are a very long list of reasons it’s normally sub optimal. First your generally going out of the way to stop at an airport which means a longer trip, plus you need to climb back to altitude which means lower efficiency. Landings and takeoffs are harder on many systems which means more maticance. Time a major factor as not only are aircraft doing fewer routes passengers are also waiting around. Safety is another issue for adding stops, landing and takeoffs are much higher risk. Etc It can be a net benefit, but normally your much better served to make every stop a significant destination rather than just being for fuel.
    - Scoundreller 5y ago
      > make every stop a significant destination That's where it can become more viable: When you go A->B->C instead of A->C, you have two more origin:destination pairs that you sell tickets for, depending on (?uhhhh, 5th?) freedom rights.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Exactly, you can also have exponentially more route options with shared intermediaries. UAE is perhaps the best long haul example of this.
        Scoundreller 5y ago
        I often use Iceland as my example, but same idea. I’m surprised WOW airlines failed though. As much as people hate it (especially if someone else is paying the fare), I think long-haul’s days aren’t looking great. As fuel/biofuel becomes a bigger $ proportion of tickets, multiple medium-haul hops is going to become the way.
    - ozim 5y ago
      Take into account service fee charged by airport, because landing and refueling cost is not just fuel cost but also bunch of operations by ground personnel. I think most expensive would still be gaining altitude - but I got down-voted so might be that my understanding of this is not that good.
- 55555 5y ago
  The math is counterintuitive but planes fly with minimal fuel because fuel is so heavy that having more fuel requires even more fuel. Fuel is a primary expense. So airlines like to stop places even when not strictly required. They don’t fill the car all the way up like you and I might.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    The math isn’t counter intuitive at all. Also how rockets work (burn a lot of fuel at the beginning because you have to push a lot of fuel + cargo), also let’s drop some boosters while we are at it to get rid of even more weight. In flight refueling might be the way to go, but then keeping the fuel plane up also takes fuel.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

> Does this mean Anchorage's airport is going to get increased traffic again? Anchorage is already one one of the busiest airports in the world for cargo. During the beginning of the pandemic, it became the busiest airport in the world for that reason (while people weren't flying, cargo still needed to be flown).

kortilla 5y ago

Anchorage still gets a lot of freight flights stopping for more fuel. It’s an interesting airport to plane spot at since it is quite busy with large planes despite having so few (relatively) passengers.

shagie 5y ago

Why Anchorage is America's Most OP City - https://youtu.be/UMNfagIz0hs https://youtu.be/UMNfagIz0hs That video goes into a bit on the importance of its airport. By using a stopover, they are able to cut down on total fuel needed to be carried which in turn raises the amount of freight that they can carry.

genocidicbunny 5y ago

For long-haul flights, it might still make economical sense to have a stopover point. A plane carrying all the fuel it needs for the full flight will burn more fuel in total than a plane that's only ever carrying the fuel it needs for only half the flight because of the weight difference. As others have mentioned, Anchorage is a big cargo airport, and the fuel savings are one of the reasons.