why don't long hauls (eg LAX-SYD) stop in middle to increase revenue?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: us
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why don't long hauls (eg LAX-SYD) stop in middle to increase revenue?
A question for those who are knowlegeable in flight planning calculations -- also thanks in advance for entertaining a question from a frequent flier but non pilot who reads these boards!
I'm curious why flights for example from LAX to SYD don't prefer to stop in HNL or somewhere else in the middle? My reasoning is that by adding an intermediate stop, the amount of fuel needed to be carried for the 2nd leg could be dramatically reduced, and that unnecessary weight replaced with valuable cargo, or just the fuel $$ savings alone. As it is, you are essentially using up payload just to carry around the fuel you need to make the trip. And my uninformed estimate is that making a stop would require perhaps an extra hour/1.5 hours to land, refuel and resume?
The arguments against this that I have been told are 1) customers really want non stops (but what if the savings in $$ could be passed on as lower ticket prices in exchange for 1 hr delay), 2) that added time in landing in the middle is quite a lot longer than 1-2hours, and 3) that it actually doesn't reap that much in fuel savings, given the need to reach altitude once again after refueling (ie, that descending and ascending back to cruise altitude cancel the savings in fuel).
I'm not qualified to answer #s 2 and 3, so I was hoping that someone here could shed light on why this strategy of a mid-point stop isn't taken? Or what exactly *are* the considerations that go into this choice?
Thanks!
I'm curious why flights for example from LAX to SYD don't prefer to stop in HNL or somewhere else in the middle? My reasoning is that by adding an intermediate stop, the amount of fuel needed to be carried for the 2nd leg could be dramatically reduced, and that unnecessary weight replaced with valuable cargo, or just the fuel $$ savings alone. As it is, you are essentially using up payload just to carry around the fuel you need to make the trip. And my uninformed estimate is that making a stop would require perhaps an extra hour/1.5 hours to land, refuel and resume?
The arguments against this that I have been told are 1) customers really want non stops (but what if the savings in $$ could be passed on as lower ticket prices in exchange for 1 hr delay), 2) that added time in landing in the middle is quite a lot longer than 1-2hours, and 3) that it actually doesn't reap that much in fuel savings, given the need to reach altitude once again after refueling (ie, that descending and ascending back to cruise altitude cancel the savings in fuel).
I'm not qualified to answer #s 2 and 3, so I was hoping that someone here could shed light on why this strategy of a mid-point stop isn't taken? Or what exactly *are* the considerations that go into this choice?
Thanks!
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern Long Haul aircraft are very rarely payload limited from major international airports you could fill all the holds and cabins and still get enough fuel on for sectors up to 12 hrs, and generally longer. The only places we ever get payload limited are Mexico City (7500ft up and high temps) and Singapore (Hot and 14hr sector). Also the deay for an enroute stop will be much longer than 1-1.5 hrs. The absolute minimum time on stand to refuel for a long haul would be 1 1/2 hrs. Then add 10 mins taxi in, 20 mins taxi out, 20 mins for the time flying slower than in the cruise and extra for not going on a direct track and you'll be nudging 2 1/2 to 3 hrs. Using your example the QF175 takes 2hrs 55 mins longer than the non stop QF11 for the same route, and thats just going via Brisbane.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: us
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for this informative reply -- I guess with a time difference of that many hours (I hadn't realized), you're also starting to figure that the aircraft could be usefully doing more routes/more revenue instead of making that extra stop and sitting idle...
On flights such as the LAX-SYD the aircraft is almost always payload limited. The new generation of aircraft such as the 777-200LR and the A340-500 are less so, but it means that airlines just try to fly the aircraft further - Singapore - New York for example.
In theory you could stuff 400 odd people into a 747-400 but you would splash into the water a couple of hours short of Sydney.
They don't stop in HNL because the punters don't want to stop in HNL.
He who gets the punters from A-B the fastest wins.
Adding a tech stop in the middle just pisses people off and wastes at least 2 hours by the time you approach land, taxi in and out, re-fuel, wait in the queue to get airborne again, climb back to cruise level etc.
In these 2 hours the punters can't get off, have a smoke or get a feed or drink, so they become rather unhappy.
Add to those issues the issues associated with costs such as airport handling fees, etc as Capt Claret has suggested and it becomes a costly exercise to add a few pax....
In theory you could stuff 400 odd people into a 747-400 but you would splash into the water a couple of hours short of Sydney.
They don't stop in HNL because the punters don't want to stop in HNL.
He who gets the punters from A-B the fastest wins.
Adding a tech stop in the middle just pisses people off and wastes at least 2 hours by the time you approach land, taxi in and out, re-fuel, wait in the queue to get airborne again, climb back to cruise level etc.
In these 2 hours the punters can't get off, have a smoke or get a feed or drink, so they become rather unhappy.
Add to those issues the issues associated with costs such as airport handling fees, etc as Capt Claret has suggested and it becomes a costly exercise to add a few pax....
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Age: 67
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegging the route to HNL in the middle also eliminates the savings that can be had by filing the route to take advantage of the winds... LAX-YSSY flexes nightly from almost over HNL to hundreds of NM southeast of Hilo depending on winds.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with all of the above, but furthermore you have one more take off and landing.
Brakes have a limited number of landings before needing replacement and likewise engine cycles can affect maintenance intervals.
The aircraft uses quite a bit of fuel just to get off the ground and cleaned up even before it is pointing in the right direction, so the saving isn't quite as big as you might expect, added to which it is unlikely that a suitable airfield is direcly in-line.
To take your example syd-lax is 7488 whereas syd-hnl-lax is 7622 according to great circle mapper at http://gc.kls2.com/
Brakes have a limited number of landings before needing replacement and likewise engine cycles can affect maintenance intervals.
The aircraft uses quite a bit of fuel just to get off the ground and cleaned up even before it is pointing in the right direction, so the saving isn't quite as big as you might expect, added to which it is unlikely that a suitable airfield is direcly in-line.
To take your example syd-lax is 7488 whereas syd-hnl-lax is 7622 according to great circle mapper at http://gc.kls2.com/
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on the nation that owns the airplane and in which nation it's flying, there are probably political restrictions on picking up and discharging pax/cargo at intermediate stops.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: us
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for all your replies. They make some sense.
I guess I was just thinking that in the ideal hypothetical case, with a stop exactly in the middle, or even 2/3 of the way there on a 12 hour flight, you could save having to carry 100,000 to 150,000 pounds of extra fuel (payload) on the first leg, thus saving more fuel at takeoff, cruise, etc.
But it sounds like the economics of extra time, passenger inconvenience, wear and tear of extra landings/takeoffs, negates the benefit. Maybe for cargo though, where you dont have passengers to worry about?
I guess I was just thinking that in the ideal hypothetical case, with a stop exactly in the middle, or even 2/3 of the way there on a 12 hour flight, you could save having to carry 100,000 to 150,000 pounds of extra fuel (payload) on the first leg, thus saving more fuel at takeoff, cruise, etc.
But it sounds like the economics of extra time, passenger inconvenience, wear and tear of extra landings/takeoffs, negates the benefit. Maybe for cargo though, where you dont have passengers to worry about?
