Direct Flights Syd-DFW

[sweens]

I have heard talk of QF offering direct flights Syd -DFW when they obtain their new fleet of 777's. Can anyone confirm this & if so any idea as to how long before it would be until take off?

Imagine flying to the US & not having to fight your way through security at LAX!

 

[QF WP]

I'm sure with the new fleet plans that they'll be able to stretch to SYD or MEL/DFW. After all, from Mar 2006, they're doing SYD/SFO...also a slightly better place to clear C&I than LAX....I agree, anywhere else is better than LAX :roll:

Look forward to seeing if your comment becomes fruition.

 

[NM]

There had been no announcement from Qantas about acutllay doing this. That was a proposed route when they purchased the 747-400ER aircraft, but it never came off. It has been discussed in terms of capability of the hub-busting aircraft types. It could also be done with an A340-500.

Personally I believe that if they go for 777-200ULR, non-stop trans-Pacific flights to DFW are a real possibility, and would be great for me since it is my primary US destination. But it is also possible SYD won't be the source point. The original plan for DFW was AKL-DFW, but the 777-200LR/ULR has even more range than the 747-400ER so that would give a few more options.

 

[sweens]

From my understanding the 777 is the most fuel efficient aircraft there is, so does this open up futher possibilities i.e. SYD- MIA that would really open up the East Coast options for the US & also the Carribbean.
Or is that a bridge too far... may be AKL-MIA?

May be I am just dreaming!

 

[straitman]

There had been no announcement from Qantas about acutllay doing this. That was a proposed route when they purchased the 747-400ER aircraft, but it never came off. It has been discussed in terms of capability of the hub-busting aircraft types. It could also be done with an A340-500.

Personally I believe that if they go for 777-200ULR, non-stop trans-Pacific flights to DFW are a real possibility, and would be great for me since it is my primary US destination. But it is also possible SYD won't be the source point. The original plan for DFW was AKL-DFW, but the 777-200LR/ULR has even more range than the 747-400ER so that would give a few more options.

A consideration not discussed thus far is the requirement for ETOPS.

ETOPS is an acronym for Extended-Range Twin-Engine Operations. Without an ETOPS rating, an aircraft with only two engines must be able to get to an airport where it can safely land within 60 minutes if an engine fails in-flight. ETOPS extends this "rule time" to 90 minutes or more, up to a maximum of 180 minutes. Obtaining an ETOPS rating requires certification of the reliability of an airframe/engine combination as well as an airline's flight operations and maintenance. Usually extra equipment is required as well, such as additional backup systems for electrical power. ETOPS does not require over-water equipment (e.g., life rafts) or additional fuel tanks, though these are usually required for the typical missions of ETOPS-rated aircraft.

Some pilots claim ETOPS really means "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim."

I believe that the current "extended" ETOPS for the B777 is 207 minutes which for the DFW trip leaves AKL (7440 NM) and possibly MEL (8992 NM) as unsuitable. SYD (8518 NM) is borderline, however BNE (8303 NM) works just fine. (207 min is calculated by using 180 min plus 15% and is used primarily as an exception for 180-minute routes when key alternate airports are unavailable due to weather.)

 

[AlwaysUpThere]

Linking SYD & DFW was a significant aim of the 1w alliance: linking more of their key hubs with non-stop flights. The issue was very high on QF's agenda until 911. With AN falling over and so many other issue in flux globally (not just with QF), it was shelved (accouring to my sources).

One isse of the SYD-DFW flight is the actual flight path. A twin-engined plane must use ETOPS regulations and therefore must fly closer to alternate airports across the Pacific. It would be a real financial drain in that (could be worng...) no twin-engined aircraft could carry enough payload to pay for the flight and so would need to have signifiacnt surcharged for the privilege - will their be enough damand from pax and cargo?

The four engined A340-5/-6 series or the A380 won't be hamstrung in this way so could potentially be the better option.

 

[oz_mark]

ETOPS would make flights from Australia to JNB a bit awkward then.

 

[straitman]

ETOPS would make flights from Australia to JNB a bit awkward then.

240 min (if available) goes close BUT nothing less.

Personally I prefer 3 or 4 engines at Boeing speed NOT Scarebus speed.

 

[AlwaysUpThere]

ETOPS would make flights from Australia to JNB a bit awkward then.

It would - in fact, they can't.

Several commercial airline routes are still off-limits to twinjets because of ETOPS regulations. They are routes traversing the South Pacific, Southern Indian Ocean such as Perth, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa and Antarctica such as Auckland, New Zealand to Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Check out the map below...

ETOPS permitted area of operation. Light blue and lighter shade of beige are areas covered under ETOPS-120min rules. Darker shades of blue and gray are areas covered under ETOPS-180min rules. Dark blue and dark gray represents areas that are off-limits to ETOPS flights. Map generated by the Great Circle Mapper (http://gc.kls2.com/) copyright © 2004 Karl L. Swartz (http://www.kls2.com/~karl/).

 

[NM]

I believe that the current "extended" ETOPS for the B777 is 207 minutes which for the DFW trip leaves AKL (7440 NM) and possibly MEL (8992 NM) as unsuitable. SYD (8518 NM) is borderline, however BNE (8303 NM) works just fine. (207 min is calculated by using 180 min plus 15% and is used primarily as an exception for 180-minute routes when key alternate airports are unavailable due to weather.)

ETOPS 180 requirements between SYD and DFW require only a slight diviation north of the great circle route, and most westerly trans-Pacific flights take a northerly track at that point of the trip due to prevailing winds anyway, so it should not be an issue.

UA operated 777's SFO/LAX-AKL for quite some time, which the GC route would just touch on the ETOPS180 shadow area as well.

Of course, ETOPS certification requires the operator to be certified as well as the aircraft, so being a new type for QF will mean they take some time after entry to earn the specific ETOPS rating (will not be difficult for QF who already have it for other aircraft types).

Its interesting that the airport at Midway Island (MDY) is mostly funded by Boeing to keep it operational as an alternate for trans-Pacific services.

Also note that SYD-EZE and SYD-SCL are shorter flights than SYD-LAX, but are cannot be done via great circle routes via any ETOPS rating - they will remain the domain of the A340 and 747. I assume this will be a major point being made by Airbus in their proposal to Qantas.

 

[NM]

From my understanding the 777 is the most fuel efficient aircraft there is, so does this open up futher possibilities i.e. SYD- MIA that would really open up the East Coast options for the US & also the Carribbean.
Or is that a bridge too far... may be AKL-MIA?

May be I am just dreaming!

Actually, I think a Cessna 152 is more fuel efficient than a Boeing 777 . The 777-200LR is currently the longest range airliner. And Boeing are hinting they can make it even longer range by lightening the interior and adding additional fuel capacity in tanks in the cargo hold.

But if by fuel efficient you are referring to the fuel burn compared with weight/capacity, then the proposed 787 and A350 will be at the top of the list. But they still won't have the range of the 777-200LR unless they develop new variations with increased operating weight (to permit more fuel to be carried) .

As far as MIA and Carribbean, they start to have more problems with ETOPS as per other posts. But ORD, YVR, YYZ become good contenders.

 

[oz_mark]

Of course, ETOPS certification requires the operator to be certified as well as the aircraft, so being a new type for QF will mean they take some time after entry to earn the specific ETOPS rating (will not be difficult for QF who already have it for other aircraft types).

On a slight tangent, did Virgin Blue ever get its ETOPS approval back. I sort of assume they did, but I don't think I have ever seen it stated anywhere. A google search only turned up the original approval and then it being handed back.

 

[NM]

On a slight tangent, did Virgin Blue ever get its ETOPS approval back. I sort of assume they did, but I don't think I have ever seen it stated anywhere. A google search only turned up the original approval and then it being handed back.

Yes, I believe they did. It was affecting their PER flight and I believe they are now back to standard schedule without the need to fly the long way there.

 

[straitman]

OK, I guess I started this (quoting Great Circle Mapper), however I feel that I also need to set the record straight.

There is a lot more to ETOPS than quoting from “Great Circle Mapper” where the information contained is correct although somewhat simplistic. If people wish more information then they should research a lot further. I threw Item 11 in as it refers to the previous question about Virgin Blue.

A few suggested links (in no particular order) are as follows:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
2. http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/2x777diversions.html
3. http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/airbusEtops.html
4. http://www.dotrs.gov.au/avnapt/sepb/icao/plan4.aspx#APPENDIX 5-3
5. http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2002/jan/40-43.pdf
6. http://www.ozipilotsonline.com.au/forums/archive/etops-gets-extra-e-an-interesting-story-on-etops-anyway-long-10926_2.htm
7. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_07/etops.html
8. http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regulate/aocm/011r0619.pdf
9. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_04/fo/fo01/story.html
10. http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/asetops.htm
11. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/14/1065917400194.html