Why no JFK/EWR.......to SYD with the 777-200LR worldliner ?

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Since the 777-200LR worldliner can connect any 2 points in the world, why is there no non-stop service from NYC-SYD ?
Yes the 'basic' A/C (with a full load of pax. and cx) has a range of 9,380 miles) (SYD is 9,950 but the A/C has up to 3 optional fuel tanks that can be added before delivery), one has to wonder why QF (at Least) hasn't attempted to fly that route, as could DL out of JFK, or UA out of EWR.(speaking of UA, the 'basic' a/c HAS ORD-SYD Within its reach.)

Since the 200-LR-WL was built, this has always puzzled me.

WT..... ??????????

 

[WorldTraveler]

Not economically viable to carry that much fuel to fly that long.... the US-Australia market is served almost exclusively from the west coast which is a lot shorter.

there isn't even LHR-SYD which is a far larger market which BA or QF could have started if they thought was viable and if they bought the LR - but they didn't.

DL's LRs do not have the aux tanks.... they are essentially high gross weight, high performance versions of the 777ER which essentially means they can fly to the full limit of the standard tanks plus carry lots of cargo and take off from high-hot airports. On routes where the LR does fly like ATL-JNB (the first year round US-S. Africa route in both directions), ATL-DXB, and LAX-SYD, the LR proves its value in the fleet. When DL flew DTW-HKG, they still managed to carry 25K lbs of cargo on average per flight, far higher than CO did w/ an ER from EWR or UA did w/ a 744 from ORD. Same thing w/ SYD or DXB compared to other US carriers.

I'm sure Meto can provide more detail.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Not economically viable to carry that much fuel to fly that long.... the US-Australia market is served almost exclusively from the west coast which is a lot shorter.

there isn't even LHR-SYD which is a far larger market which BA or QF could have started if they thought was viable and if they bought the LR - but they didn't.

DL's LRs do not have the aux tanks.... they are essentially high gross weight, high performance versions of the 777ER which essentially means they can fly to the full limit of the standard tanks plus carry lots of cargo and take off from high-hot airports. On routes where the LR does fly like ATL-JNB (the first year round US-S. Africa route in both directions), ATL-DXB, and LAX-SYD, the LR proves its value in the fleet. When DL flew DTW-HKG, they still managed to carry 25K lbs of cargo on average per flight, far higher than CO did w/ an ER from EWR or UA did w/ a 744 from ORD. Same thing w/ SYD or DXB compared to other US carriers.

I'm sure Meto can provide more detail.

OK, I understand the 'west coast thing' to a degree.
Seeing there are aussies everywhere in the US, what about those folks anywhere north or east of DFW?
(QF is running from DFW to Melbourne)
UAL who I believe HAS the 200-LR via CO, could make the trip with the standard model and carrying a FULL load from ORD, and i'm going to check Boeings stat sheet on the a/c, which should reveal that ATL/SYD is just under the 9,380 mile MAX. (JFK/EWR is 9,950)

OK. ATL-SYD = 9,285 (a 17 hour 'jaunt)

 

[FWAAA]

OK. ATL-SYD = 9,285 (a 17 hour 'jaunt)

Couple of things, Bears. Australian tourists have zero interest in visiting Atlanta. The very small number of Australians who have business to conduct in Atlanta (like, say, Australian Coca-Cola or Westfield execs) can fly to LAX and then connect to ATL.

Westbound ATL-SYD would come in somewhere between 21 and 22 hours, depending on the wind. Even if jet fuel were cheap, that would be a very long flight that would appeal to nobody in the economy section. And since jet fuel is relatively costly, WT's point about the uneconomical nature of ultra-long-haul flights is completely correct. The fuel burned just to carry the huge quantity of fuel to fly over 9,000 miles isn't justified by the fares passengers are willing to pay. More fuel efficient to funnel people into LAX to fly to SYD, where those flights get better fuel economy per passenger mile (because they're shorter flights).

Same reasoning makes the DL buildup to Asia from Seattle look rather smart these days. SEA-Asia are shorter distances than LAX or SFO or the mid-continent super-hubs or the East Coast, and thus burn a lot less fuel. And because SEA is at the extreme northwestern edge of the US, the connections from nearly every US city are logical and efficient (no backtracking or circuity).

MAH4546 has been banging the drum for quite some time that AA will eventually fly MIA-NRT nonstop, and that's one area where I strongly disagree with him. From MIA, there are almost no domestic connections that make any sense, so that flight would have to survive almost solely on MIA O&D plus Caribbean/Latin American connecting traffic. And since it's the longest possible US-Tokyo flight, it will be the most fuel inefficient flight, and thus would have to command the highest average fares. Accordingly, I don't see MIA getting any Asian nonstops unless fuel prices become much lower on a relative basis.

In 1998 and 1999, AMR paid an average of $0.55/gal for jet fuel. Yes, just 55 cents a gallon. In 2012, AMR paid about $3.25/gal. That's almost SIX times more expensive. How much higher was AA's yield or PRASM? Barely higher at all. Fares have stagnated while fuel costs have skyrocketed. Boeing's gamble/prediction that long-thin routes would kill the hub/spoke system were undone by the jump in fuel prices. Airbus' gamble/prediction that airlines would all want super jumbo A380s for their hub/spoke system was also undermined by the huge jump in fuel prices, as airlines have demanded lighter large twin-engined jets like the A350 and 787-10 and have ordered lots of 772s and 773s.

How many 772LRs were ordered? 59, and 10 of those went to DL. It wasn't a big seller. Fuel prices killed it. Or more accurately, radically changed the economics behind it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not sure that DL ever envisioned the 777LR as a 20 hour aircraft... it was and is a 16-17 hour aircraft with the ability to carry a healthy cargo load and/or still take off from high/hot airports.

There is still no other aircraft operating that can do the 16 hour plus flight SYD-ATL that DL does with the LR, and yes DL does carry cargo north/westbound.

Remember also like the A330-200 flight, an empty aircraft like the LR could still fly 18-20 hours even w/o aux tanks but that doesn't mean the flight would be economical as a revenue flight.

The local market such as ATL does have some influence, but honestly, the local market is not what is driving QF's DFW flight. That flight exists because it taps into a very large hub that is NOT on the west coast along w/ everything else to Australia so AA/QF create some connections that are much faster than they would be for the competition.

DL never entered Australia with the intention of being as large as QF which means DL doesn't have to operate routes that would not make any economic sense just to remain the largest..... QF's dominant position and their partnership with AA is what makes that route work. It is doubtful that there would be any other routes like it.

FWAAA is absolutely right about MIA-NRT.... and the other point is that AA would have no pricing power because every other carrier could easily undercut them and provide good connections based solely on geography. It takes a really large market like LAX-LHR to be able to operate w/o concern for what competitors do... other west coast-Europe routes rely heavily on the European hub to make them work.

 

[metopower]

Co does not have any LRs. I'm in syd getting ready to push and we are full and only 15000# of cargo and 218000# of fuel gross is only 625000# gross landing wt 432000#. Max landing wt is 492000# Beyond west coast makes no sense unless you have a tie in like Q has in dfw

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Co does not have any LRs. I'm in syd getting ready to push and we are full and only 15000# of cargo and 218000# of fuel gross is only 625000# gross landing wt 432000#. Max landing wt is 492000# Beyond west coast makes no sense unless you have a tie in like Q has in dfw

Thanx 'meto'

THAT explains why UA is Not flying ORD/SYD.

 

[WorldTraveler]

thanks for the numbers, Meto. I presume you are saying you could carry a lot more than you are on this particular flight... ?

Would you say that DL could operate this flight with a 777-200ER if they needed to?

According to DOT data, the routes on which the 777LR flies gives DL a cargo advantage over other carriers that use other aircraft... with the exception of VA who uses the 777-300ER who beats DL's cargo out of SYD by a couple thousand pounds... not surprising given that the 777-300ER has one of the highest cargo capacities.

In several markets where DL has used the LR, it outcarries other airlines in cargo other than Asian airlines who make one-stop flights to the US or use 777-300ERs or have multiple flights/day.

looks like you are a couple hours into the flight as I write... with lots of ocean in front and under you....

Bears,
I guess UA is still planning their IAH-AKL flight... not sure if that got canned w/ their WN temper tantrum or not.... but it is based on the same philosophy of a partner on both ends....

 

[robbedagain]

wasnt the iah-akl or iah syd supposed to be on a 787? if so would a 787 make more sense to use say btwn dfw n syd rather than the 744

 

[WorldTraveler]

IAH-AKL was supposed to be a 787 and is probably the right aircraft for that right... but I think it got canned in the name of the WN HOU int'l customs facility....

There are other aircraft that would probably be better suited for DFW-SYD but QF had the 744 available and is making it work... but there are reports that bags are frequently left behind and rerouted via the west coast.

 

[robbedagain]

if those reports are true regarding the bags being left behind that sure says a lot about qf really stretching the 744 close to its max id imagine given that they have to take soo much fuel plus enough for alternates

thats truly pathetic if ual had to give up iah to akl with 787 bc of wn if true

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not sure the economics really worked on IAH-AKL and UA used the WN expansion as excuse to cut a lot of things that wouldn't work given UA's new cost structure post-merger. There are things that CO flew and did that just won't work under the higher cost structure of the combined UA, which has paid labor increases in order to get the merger integrated.

AKL is also a much smaller local market than SYD even if NZ can connect passengers all over the S. Pacific.

 

[metopower]

Also the cargo on the syd leg is proity and overflow cargo. Contracts signed before the joint venture with VA . So according to the station manager in syd we get payed more to fly less weight .Also DL gets all the beyond stations of VA to forward cargo from US to Australia which include Figi and New Zealand

 

[metopower]

As far as I know DL never sent an ER to SYD. Does not have the legs. UA flew their ER from SFO. But had too many diverts VA can us their 300ER because of their access to more alternates. Foreign carriers can not use the close in airports. So they have to carry more fuel. That leads to catch 22 ..too heavy to land if weather clears. You can't dump fuel for no cause and you can't land over weight for no reason. Holding to burn off fuel is not economical ..so the best choice is the right airplane. Which is the 200LR. ( or 787 for now)