4 ms·

> 4700nm would allows flights from say London to 49 states and all of Canada (as well as the middle east and most of Africa etc) Isn't that already possible? A

> 4700nm would allows flights from say London to 49 states and all of Canada (as well as the middle east and most of Africa etc) Isn't that already possible? An ancient 747 can do up to 5300.

walski 4y ago
Yes, but a 747 wide-body is a lot larger and hence needs a hub-and-spoke route network to fill these giant planes at a hub to make the flight viable economically. The narrow-body A321 can be filled with ~200 passengers (compared to almost 500 pax capacity for a 747-800) at many smaller airports, making long-distance point-to-point routes from these airports viable.
- masklinn 4y ago
  FWIW long-range widebodies are not necessarily jumbos, a 787-9 seats under 300, and an A350-900ULR has 315 passengers. Assuming the XLR can be configured like a regular 321neo, it can reach 244 passengers in single-class configuration, and 200 in dual-class.
  - nemetroid 4y ago
    A 787-9 can seat 400 in single-class configuration. It has more than twice the maximum take off weight of the A321XLR. It's a significantly larger plane. (the A350 is even larger)
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    A 787-9 seats "just" 300 because typically 30 seats are 'premium business' where your seat becomes a bed and you have a partition - basically first class but less service and a bit less cushy. 30 are business. 30 are premium cattle class. 200 are cattle class. https://thepointsguy.com/guide/tour-aa-boeing-787-9-dreamliner/ https://thepointsguy.com/guide/tour-aa-boeing-787-9-dreamlin...
masklinn 4y ago
That's a widebody, it's a completely different capability (and price, or purchase and operation) than the narrowbody A320 family. Long-range widebodies can fly more than 9000nm.
smachiz 4y ago
The issue is that a 747 is too big to fly from, say, London to St Louis profitably. This is a single aisle, small aircraft. It is a big unlock for more point to point, small market to big market flights (and even small market to small market flights). Flights like NY-FLR without having to transit somewhere in the EU will become an option, at least over the summer, might become an option (if FLR even has customs/immigration).
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  Are labor costs a significant percentage of the cost to run a route? A smaller airplane with less passengers will need less flight attendants but I'm guessing it'll need nearly the same number of pilots, co-pilots, and relief pilots. Given the ever-worsening pilot shortage, simple staff availability might be an issue regardless of labor costs.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    "767-300ER consumes 1,600 gallons of fuel for each hour in flight" according to one link, to give you some back-of-envelope math. Looks like in the US, Jet A costs roughly $4/gal (I'm sure airlines pay less, due to volume and such) but that means the plane is burning $6500/hr in fuel. Very rough guesses on labor: figure the two pilots are making $100k/year, that's $100-200/hour just for them. Cabin crew I'd guess are 50k/year, google says 7 of them, so that's $350-700/hour there (figures are doubled because I seem to recall the true cost of an employee is usually twice their salary?) So very very roughly, fuel costs are 10x labor costs
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Commercial pilots flying international routes should be making way more than $100k/year.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - 4y ago
flak48 4y ago
But a 747 or similarly large aircraft carries 400+ passengers and is not economically viable at 180-200 passengers like the A321. Smaller but longer range aircraft (like the 787) have enabled airlines to fly direct on long routes with lower demand (instead of having to make a stop, usually at the airline's hub eg. Dubai for Emirates)
sokoloff 4y ago
A modern twinjet has much better fuel specifics than an ancient, 4-engine 747.
msbarnett 4y ago
The thing is that a narrow-body like this can land at a much broader ranger of airports than a wide-body like a 747, which forces you to run people from regional airports to a hub and then transfer onto the wide-body. So this gives you the ability to run far more point-to-point routes with a couple of hundred passengers, with less of the scheduling complexities of point-hub-hub-point connections.
stephen_g 4y ago
In larger planes it's an easy range, yes. But it's not currently possible in any other commercial passenger plane this small.

> 4700nm would allows flights from say London to 49 states and all of Canada (as well as the middle east and most of Africa etc) Isn't that already possible? An ancient 747 can do up to 5300.

walski 4y ago

Yes, but a 747 wide-body is a lot larger and hence needs a hub-and-spoke route network to fill these giant planes at a hub to make the flight viable economically. The narrow-body A321 can be filled with ~200 passengers (compared to almost 500 pax capacity for a 747-800) at many smaller airports, making long-distance point-to-point routes from these airports viable.

masklinn 4y ago
FWIW long-range widebodies are not necessarily jumbos, a 787-9 seats under 300, and an A350-900ULR has 315 passengers. Assuming the XLR can be configured like a regular 321neo, it can reach 244 passengers in single-class configuration, and 200 in dual-class.
- nemetroid 4y ago
  A 787-9 can seat 400 in single-class configuration. It has more than twice the maximum take off weight of the A321XLR. It's a significantly larger plane. (the A350 is even larger)
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  A 787-9 seats "just" 300 because typically 30 seats are 'premium business' where your seat becomes a bed and you have a partition - basically first class but less service and a bit less cushy. 30 are business. 30 are premium cattle class. 200 are cattle class. https://thepointsguy.com/guide/tour-aa-boeing-787-9-dreamliner/ https://thepointsguy.com/guide/tour-aa-boeing-787-9-dreamlin...

masklinn 4y ago

That's a widebody, it's a completely different capability (and price, or purchase and operation) than the narrowbody A320 family. Long-range widebodies can fly more than 9000nm.

smachiz 4y ago

The issue is that a 747 is too big to fly from, say, London to St Louis profitably. This is a single aisle, small aircraft. It is a big unlock for more point to point, small market to big market flights (and even small market to small market flights). Flights like NY-FLR without having to transit somewhere in the EU will become an option, at least over the summer, might become an option (if FLR even has customs/immigration).

Mountain_Skies 4y ago
Are labor costs a significant percentage of the cost to run a route? A smaller airplane with less passengers will need less flight attendants but I'm guessing it'll need nearly the same number of pilots, co-pilots, and relief pilots. Given the ever-worsening pilot shortage, simple staff availability might be an issue regardless of labor costs.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  "767-300ER consumes 1,600 gallons of fuel for each hour in flight" according to one link, to give you some back-of-envelope math. Looks like in the US, Jet A costs roughly $4/gal (I'm sure airlines pay less, due to volume and such) but that means the plane is burning $6500/hr in fuel. Very rough guesses on labor: figure the two pilots are making $100k/year, that's $100-200/hour just for them. Cabin crew I'd guess are 50k/year, google says 7 of them, so that's $350-700/hour there (figures are doubled because I seem to recall the true cost of an employee is usually twice their salary?) So very very roughly, fuel costs are 10x labor costs
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Commercial pilots flying international routes should be making way more than $100k/year.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 4y ago

flak48 4y ago

But a 747 or similarly large aircraft carries 400+ passengers and is not economically viable at 180-200 passengers like the A321. Smaller but longer range aircraft (like the 787) have enabled airlines to fly direct on long routes with lower demand (instead of having to make a stop, usually at the airline's hub eg. Dubai for Emirates)

sokoloff 4y ago

A modern twinjet has much better fuel specifics than an ancient, 4-engine 747.

msbarnett 4y ago

The thing is that a narrow-body like this can land at a much broader ranger of airports than a wide-body like a 747, which forces you to run people from regional airports to a hub and then transfer onto the wide-body. So this gives you the ability to run far more point-to-point routes with a couple of hundred passengers, with less of the scheduling complexities of point-hub-hub-point connections.

stephen_g 4y ago

In larger planes it's an easy range, yes. But it's not currently possible in any other commercial passenger plane this small.