Commercial Airliner In-Flight Refuelling

[R8VXF]

Having just come back from Vietnam on a 14 hour flight from Ho Chi Minh to Heathrow, I don't think I could stand a longer flight to be honest.

[Dr Jekyll]

AER said:

They already take off with not enough fuel to complete their whole journey for some routes, I think. Melbourne-Perth is one route, I think, where they're cleared as far as Adelaide (or maybe further) and have to arrive at some mid-way point with a certain fuel load aboard for them to be cleared for the remainder of the journey. I thought it was something to do with the uncertainty in the headwinds.

(I may have this confused with an ETOPS requirement though - not an ATPL, only heard it in passing)

There is also the London City to New York route that lands at Shannon to refuel, although this also gives passengers a chance to clear US customs on certain flights.

[eharding]

R8VXF said:

Having just come back from Vietnam on a 14 hour flight from Ho Chi Minh to Heathrow, I don't think I could stand a longer flight to be honest.

That being said, given the choice of a non-stop Heathrow-Auckland, or the current joyful stopover in Los Angeles and being required to clear US Immigration for all of 10 minutes, aided by the cheerful, happy-go-lucky TSA staff....I'd go for the former.

[Condi]

Dr Jekyll said:

There is also the London City to New York route that lands at Shannon to refuel, although this also gives passengers a chance to clear US customs on certain flights.

Thats pretty deliberate though. The plane cant take off from City with enough fuel to get there as it has a steep accent and short runway.

[AlexIT]

Condi said:

Dr Jekyll said:

There is also the London City to New York route that lands at Shannon to refuel, although this also gives passengers a chance to clear US customs on certain flights.

Thats pretty deliberate though. The plane cant take off from City with enough fuel to get there as it has a steep accent and short runway.

Just out of curiosity, would the A319 be able to do a non-stop journey LCY -> JFK if it could take off with full tanks?

EDIT: it's an A319 or 318?

Edited by AlexIT on Thursday 9th April 12:33

[anonymous-user]

AlexIT said:

Just out of curiosity, would the A319 be able to do a non-stop journey LCY -> JFK if it could take off with full tanks?

Yes, theoretically for the A319 but not the A318 according to Airbus figures.
A319 range 3740nm
A318 range 3100nm
LCY - JFK 3017nm

Edited by el stovey on Thursday 9th April 12:41

Edited by el stovey on Thursday 9th April 12:47

[R8VXF]

eharding said:

R8VXF said:

Having just come back from Vietnam on a 14 hour flight from Ho Chi Minh to Heathrow, I don't think I could stand a longer flight to be honest.

That being said, given the choice of a non-stop Heathrow-Auckland, or the current joyful stopover in Los Angeles and being required to clear US Immigration for all of 10 minutes, aided by the cheerful, happy-go-lucky TSA staff....I'd go for the former.

Plenty of options for going the other way round the world, not sure if it is longer though.

[Dr Jekyll]

AlexIT said:

Just out of curiosity, would the A319 be able to do a non-stop journey LCY -> JFK if it could take off with full tanks?

EDIT: it's an A319 or 318?

Edited by AlexIT on Thursday 9th April 12:33

It does do the JFK -> LCY trip in one hit.

[Blaster72]

V41LEY said:

This is the feature I read in the paper.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/...

I was assuming that airlines wouldn't have to pay landing fees, buy kerosene at the cheapest price for their tankers etc which would make
it cheaper to fly long haul. Probably more cons than pros looking at the big picture.

Thanks for the link, I've removed my post suggesting its and April Fools joke as it clearly isn't!

I still don't get where they are getting the fuel savings from as surely the tanker itself is going to burn huge amounts of fuel getting its load off of the ground and flying about topping up airliners.

Some of the sums don't seem to add up.

[Blaster72]

Dr Jekyll said:

AlexIT said:

Just out of curiosity, would the A319 be able to do a non-stop journey LCY -> JFK if it could take off with full tanks?

EDIT: it's an A319 or 318?

Edited by AlexIT on Thursday 9th April 12:33

It does do the JFK -> LCY trip in one hit.

It's official range is 5700km and London City to JFK is 5600km on the great circle route. I guess without the prevailing winds on the westerly sector it wouldn't make it all the way.

Air Canada do LHR-Canada in a 318 but I don't know what city they fly to with it or what they carry,

Edit - I just looked, they use an A319 and go to St Johns so only 3700 km

Edited by Blaster72 on Thursday 9th April 13:27

[AlexIT]

Thanks for the replies

[eharding]

R8VXF said:

eharding said:

R8VXF said:

Having just come back from Vietnam on a 14 hour flight from Ho Chi Minh to Heathrow, I don't think I could stand a longer flight to be honest.

That being said, given the choice of a non-stop Heathrow-Auckland, or the current joyful stopover in Los Angeles and being required to clear US Immigration for all of 10 minutes, aided by the cheerful, happy-go-lucky TSA staff....I'd go for the former.

Plenty of options for going the other way round the world, not sure if it is longer though.

Absolutely. Henceforth, east-bound only.

[croyde]

A bit of a collision alert situation. Makes a mockery of keeping aircraft far from each other.

Mind you it would pave the way for multiple aircraft to take off Lancaster bomber style and save on those queues whilst taxiing at Heathrow.

[anonymous-user]

I know.....sight-seeing flights to the South Atlantic, and back, in one go.
;-)

[jamiebae]

There are flights which are possible now, but are not run for commercial reasons due to the cost of carrying the fuel required to get to the destination. I don't remember the route but there are various routes which used to be run by A340s where they needed to be ofer 100% full to break even.

If you can halve the fuel at take off and refuel half way the cost saving will be huge on an ultra long haul route. All you have to do is get the fuel up there, pump it over and get down again, which is very different to having to carry it for 8 hours as dead weight.

I'm not surprised it could be viable, but the safety bit needs thought I'm sure...

[Simpo Two]

jamiebae said:

If you can halve the fuel at take off and refuel half way the cost saving will be huge on an ultra long haul route. All you have to do is get the fuel up there, pump it over and get down again, which is very different to having to carry it for 8 hours as dead weight.

Surely to get X tons of fuel to Y feet takes the same amount of energy whichever aeroplane it's in? If you don't spend it in the airliner you'll spend it in the tanker (and its crew and landing fees and maintenance yada)

[V41LEY]

jamiebae said:

There are flights which are possible now, but are not run for commercial reasons due to the cost of carrying the fuel required to get to the destination. I don't remember the route but there are various routes which used to be run by A340s where they needed to be ofer 100% full to break even.

If you can halve the fuel at take off and refuel half way the cost saving will be huge on an ultra long haul route. All you have to do is get the fuel up there, pump it over and get down again, which is very different to having to carry it for 8 hours as dead weight.

I'm not surprised it could be viable, but the safety bit needs thought I'm sure...

You might be refering to the Singapore Airlines flights direct to either Newark or San Fran which were the longest scheduled flights before being cancelled a couple of years ago - something like 18 hours depending on headwinds. Used the A340s which were slow and thirsty. Only viable as most seats were configured to business class. Ended up not viable as demand was not there.

[jamiebae]

Simpo Two said:

Surely to get X tons of fuel to Y feet takes the same amount of energy whichever aeroplane it's in? If you don't spend it in the airliner you'll spend it in the tanker (and its crew and landing fees and maintenance yada)

Absolutely, but if it's in the plane you're carrying it for 8 hours and burning extra fuel to do it, as well as reducing take off weight and therefore the fuel needed to get it up there in the first place.

[Simpo Two]

Hmm. It's a bit like working out pit stops in F1, only bigger and slower...

[hairyben]

Simpo Two said:

jamiebae said:

If you can halve the fuel at take off and refuel half way the cost saving will be huge on an ultra long haul route. All you have to do is get the fuel up there, pump it over and get down again, which is very different to having to carry it for 8 hours as dead weight.

Surely to get X tons of fuel to Y feet takes the same amount of energy whichever aeroplane it's in? If you don't spend it in the airliner you'll spend it in the tanker (and its crew and landing fees and maintenance yada)

^Thats what I'd have thought. It'd be a marginal "saving" before all the complexity not to mention safety issues of pumping fuel between aircraft- military kind of operate to different rules don't they...

I thought aircraft in service potentially have the range to go just about anywhere but it's more commercially viable to stop halfway on such longhaul trips eg london-sydney