PER - EZE direct flights

[Daver6]

Probably made up given it's in The West World-first South American flight to boost WA tourism

 

[TomVexille]

Distance wise it's certainly possible. It's shorter than MEL-LAX, there's many more variables to take into consideration of course.

 

[Quickstatus]

Distance wise it's certainly possible. It's shorter than MEL-LAX, there's many more variables to take into consideration of course.

Slow news day? Will work if someone just gets on with building an airport on the South pole...

Like ETOPS. Only a quad can currently do this

Will work if someone can just build an airport at the South Pole. Wonder what its name could be?

 

[Daver6]

Article explains the route wouldn't be directly over the pole. PER to EZE tracks south past MEL and NZ and return well south of CPT to take advantage of the winds. Does that make any difference to the ETOPS issue?

 

[TomVexille]

Like ETOPS. Only a quad can currently do this

Will work if someone can just build an airport at the South Pole. Wonder what its name could be?

I'm curious as to just how different this would be to LAN's SCL-MEL flight. Assuming that the Argentinian government approves Norwegian for ETOPS 330, it's probably possible in a twin

Article explains the route wouldn't be directly over the pole. PER to EZE tracks south past MEL and NZ and return well south of CPT to take advantage of the winds. Does that make any difference to the ETOPS issue?

Possibly just enough.

 

[Quickstatus]

Article explains the route wouldn't be directly over the pole. PER to EZE tracks south past MEL and NZ and return well south of CPT to take advantage of the winds. Does that make any difference to the ETOPS issue?

Yes a route can be designed to stay within ETOPS eg ETOPS330. However the penalty is increased distance = time and fuel
Additionally I believe the ETOPS certification is not only for the aircraft itself but also the operator as well.

Taking advantage of prevailing winds only works in one direction.

Some years back VA tried to compete with QF on the SYD-JNB route. VA was using the twin 777 while QF used the quad 747. VA had to fly a longer more northerly route. Didn’t last for a variety of reasons but would not be surprised increased fuel and time played a part.

I think so long as the PER-EZE route is north of the Antarctic coastline it should be Ok though with a substantial fuel and time penalty especially on the return EZE-PER

 

[Daver6]

Yes a route can be designed to stay within ETOPS eg ETOPS330. However the penalty is increased distance = time and fuel
Additionally I believe the ETOPS certification is not only for the aircraft itself but also the operator as well.

Taking advantage of prevailing winds only works in one direction.

Some years back VA tried to compete with QF on the SYD-JNB route. VA was using the twin 777 while QF used the quad 747. VA had to fly a longer more northerly route. Didn’t last for a variety of reasons but would not be surprised increased fuel and time played a part.

I think so long as the PER-EZE route is north of the Antarctic coastline it should be Ok though with a substantial fuel and time penalty especially on the return EZE-PER

Hence different routes based on the direction so you have tail winds both ways.

 

[Quickstatus]

Hence different routes based on the direction so you have tail winds both ways.

Yes south of cape town possibly though the ETOPS330 blackhile juts out into the southern Indian Ocean for the EZE-PER so have to be much further north than PER-EZE

In which case the best seats on the aircraft will be the right side off the airplane.

 

[TomVexille]

Yes a route can be designed to stay within ETOPS eg ETOPS330. However the penalty is increased distance = time and fuel
Additionally I believe the ETOPS certification is not only for the aircraft itself but also the operator as well.

Taking advantage of prevailing winds only works in one direction.

Some years back VA tried to compete with QF on the SYD-JNB route. VA was using the twin 777 while QF used the quad 747. VA had to fly a longer more northerly route. Didn’t last for a variety of reasons but would not be surprised increased fuel and time played a part.

I think so long as the PER-EZE route is north of the Antarctic coastline it should be Ok though with a substantial fuel and time penalty especially on the return EZE-PER

Actually prevailing winds can be use in both directions on the polar routes, which I'm guessing is the most fuel efficient method. Take the old SQ SIN-EWR route for example. But I'm pretty sure you're right about the rest.

 

[Quickstatus]

Actually prevailing winds can be use in both directions on the polar routes, which I'm guessing is the most fuel efficient method. Take the old SQ SIN-EWR route for example. But I'm pretty sure you're right about the rest.

Yes in this case need to keep going east

 

[Diego Berazategui]

Like ETOPS. Only a quad can currently do this

Will work if someone can just build an airport at the South Pole. Wonder what its name could be?

Probably made up given it's in The West World-first South American flight to boost WA tourism

Are you sure?
Buenos Aires – Perth – Singapore

 

[Diego Berazategui]

Like ETOPS. Only a quad can currently do this

Will work if someone can just build an airport at the South Pole. Wonder what its name could be?

. Buenos Aires – Perth – Singapore

 

[Diego Berazategui]

Yes a route can be designed to stay within ETOPS eg ETOPS330. However the penalty is increased distance = time and fuel
Additionally I believe the ETOPS certification is not only for the aircraft itself but also the operator as well.

Taking advantage of prevailing winds only works in one direction.

Some years back VA tried to compete with QF on the SYD-JNB route. VA was using the twin 777 while QF used the quad 747. VA had to fly a longer more northerly route. Didn’t last for a variety of reasons but would not be surprised increased fuel and time played a part.

I think so long as the PER-EZE route is north of the Antarctic coastline it should be Ok though with a substantial fuel and time penalty especially on the return EZE-PER

There is not much penalty in EZE-

Like ETOPS. Only a quad can currently do this

Will work if someone can just build an airport at the South Pole. Wonder what its name could be?

 

[Quickstatus]

Because of twin engine ETOPS restrictions, twin engine aircraft cannot fly in the greyed out zones. The larger one is 240 min and the smaller is 330min. Nothing to stop someone flying outside of the grey zones. But then its the cost of extra fuel and extra time and therefore extra cost. I hear the A350XWB has 370min ETOPS certification but the operator needs to also have the same certificate

 

[Diego Berazategui]

View attachment 145712

Because of twin engine ETOPS restrictions, twin engine aircraft cannot fly in the greyed out zones. The larger one is 240 min and the smaller is 330min. Nothing to stop someone flying outside of the grey zones. But then its the cost of extra fuel and extra time and therefore extra cost. I hear the A350XWB has 370min ETOPS certification but the operator needs to also have the same certificate

The extra distance to avoid ETOPS330 or 370 is minimum and compensated by the tailwinds. The biggest technical constraint is the critical fuel that needs to be carried for EZE-PER but there are a couple or workarounds.

There are details in this link and you can click on the maps to open gcmap.
Buenos Aires – Perth – Singapore

 

[Diego Berazategui]