Commercial Airliner In-Flight Refuelling

[MartG]

I guess the concept of refuelling ( ex ) airliners is well proven - but I can't see a commercial reason for doing it

[anonymous-user]

hairyben said:

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

Added to which, you won't be able to change the flight paths to make the most of "refuelling" for two main reasons:

1) air traffic control kinda likes planes all flying the same way, hence the pre-determined air corridors
2) you have to protect for being unable to refuel (tech issues (with either plane or tanker), bad weather, etc) and hence need to be able to land at a suitable airport in this case.

[mph1977]

Dr Jekyll said:

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.

the reduced take off weight enables them to be sure of getting out of london city ... the JFK - city return flight is flown as a single leg journey

[hairyben]

mph1977 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

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.

the reduced take off weight enables them to be sure of getting out of london city ... the JFK - city return flight is flown as a single leg journey

Just fit some waterski's...

As I typed that I probably realise it's one of the oldest jokes in fly people circles.