PER-UK Non stop?

[bambbbam2]

Sounds good if it can be done..

From
16-hour flights to London loom - The West Australian

"
V Australia, the international arm of Virgin Blue, is understood to be about to announce a new 16-hour, non-stop Perth to London service in 2011 that will be the world's second longest air route and will shave up to five hours off today's journey.


Chief executive Brett Godfrey is in final negotiations with Boeing for up to 70 aircraft that will include six of those with the world's longest range, the 300-seat Boeing 777-200LR, which can fly to virtually anywhere in the world non-stop."

 

[ejb]

Sounds good if it can be done..

From
16-hour flights to London loom - The West Australian

"
V Australia, the international arm of Virgin Blue, is understood to be about to announce a new 16-hour, non-stop Perth to London service in 2011 that will be the world's second longest air route and will shave up to five hours off today's journey.


Chief executive Brett Godfrey is in final negotiations with Boeing for up to 70 aircraft that will include six of those with the world's longest range, the 300-seat Boeing 777-200LR, which can fly to virtually anywhere in the world non-stop."

16 hours non stop in whY:shock:

The time saving would be good if you are in Perth but from the east coast no real benefit.

ejb

 

[Mal]

16 hours non stop in whY:shock:

Not that much longer than other routes like HKG-LHR, or JFK-NRT etc.

I'm always interested in what V Australia announces next. It's like they have a wish list of things they want to do, and then work out they can't.

 

[serfty]

16 hours non stop in whY:shock: ...

Consider SIN-EWR on SQ ... (9,535 miles, 18½ hours on SQ22)

 

[ejb]

Consider SIN-EWR on SQ ... (9,535 miles, 18½ hours on SQ22)

That is a long flight.

ejb

 

[haydensydney]

Sounds like a novel way to get to the US - I would be keen to take up the offer... although from what I hear, Perth airport is a bit of a hole...

 

[haydensydney]

Also, the article mentions SYD-JFK - is this even possible?

 

[drewbles]

Sounds like a novel way to get to the US - I would be keen to take up the offer... although from what I hear, Perth airport is a bit of a hole...

Yup. It is. Fortunately, the Master Plan has been approved, and things are in the woodwork to make it better. PER has been so maligned for so long (ever since they broke up the international and domestic terminals back in the 80's). I remember spending sunday afternoons out there occasionally with my parents watching them build the new terminal. Seeing the control tower go up was pretty cool when you're a little kid

The old AN Terminal (Now DJ) was the only terminal. They even had an outdoor pond with black swans in it (The pond is still there last time I checked, swans long gone).

When the 80's "improvements" were complete, the 10km drive from one terminal to the other started. It's a bit of a joke really so bringing them back makes a lot of sense. That, and the International terminal really is shocking.

 

[Dave Noble]

16 hours non stop in whY:shock:

The time saving would be good if you are in Perth but from the east coast no real benefit.

ejb

It would have the benefit that at the 1 connection point that would be able to use that time to clear customs and immigration and then only have a domestic arrival at the onward domestic point

Dave

 

[serfty]

SYD-JFK is just under 10,000 miles as the crow flys.

Note that over the USA they would need to travel specific air "Highway" paths so the distance is likely to be longer.

 

[dajop]

Not that much longer than other routes like HKG-LHR, or JFK-NRT etc.

At least according to Wikipedia - the longest route (other than the all J SQ routes), is JNB-ATL coming in at 8439 miles. PER-LHR is 9009 miles. JFK-NRT is actually (marginally) shorter than SIN-LHR!

Wonder if this would also mean better (intl standard) product from east to PER to connect.

 

[NM]

While LHR-PER may be achievable, the reverse is the problem. Qantas looked into the viability of that router and the capability of the 777-200LR and came to teh conclusion that it was not commercially viable for them to make the investment. Apparently it was close, but the number just did not work for them. But that was a few years ago and while the geography does not change, other commercial input to the equation do change over time.

If V-Australia can make it work then good on them. Their inputs to the equation will differ from QF's inputs which may produce a different result.

 

[StevePER]

That is a long flight.

But being J only, SIN-EWR is not so bad.

 

[Dave Noble]

But being J only, SIN-EWR is not so bad.

SIN-JFK is basically the same distance and that has economy

Dave

 

[dajop]

SIN-JFK is basically the same distance and that has economy

But the SIN-JFK service go via FRA.

 

[AviationNZ]

Are there any limitations for these long flights with regards to pilot/flight crew hours?

 

[Sethor]

While LHR-PER may be achievable, the reverse is the problem. Qantas looked into the viability of that router and the capability of the 777-200LR and came to teh conclusion that it was not commercially viable for them to make the investment. Apparently it was close, but the number just did not work for them. But that was a few years ago and while the geography does not change, other commercial input to the equation do change over time.

If V-Australia can make it work then good on them. Their inputs to the equation will differ from QF's inputs which may produce a different result.

Qantas was only ever interested in doing SYD-LHR-SYD (9188 NM). Qantas most likely gave up because they could not justify bringing in a new fleet type for only about six planes & one route, if they ended up with the 777-200LR's it would be pushing it's 9380 NM range imposing weight/freight restrictions. PER-LHR-PER (7829 NM) is a much easier for V Australia to achieve because they already have the Boeing 777's in their fleet & the 777-200LR has the range to fly the route without significant weight/freight restrictions, On paper even the 777-300ER's 7930 NM range could do PER-LHR-PER but in reality only a possibility with heavy weight/freight restrictions. I am sure V Australia could steal away a fair chunk of F & J business travel from QF,SQ,CX,EK etc with this non stop route, in Y they will have traffic feeding in from from both directions through VS & DJ, I could see this being viable route even without traffic feeding to/from east coast (which I doubt would be much).

 

[oz_mark]

I would have thought that they would be running up the numbers on a number of possible routes. Bear in mind, that the 777 will likely have to fly from the east coast anyway to get to Perth, which may open some options.

 

[Sethor]

I would have thought that they would be running up the numbers on a number of possible routes. Bear in mind, that the 777 will likely have to fly from the east coast anyway to get to Perth, which may open some options.

I would say they would base the planes in PER, the PER-LHR & LHR-PER flight would be 16-18 hours with a about a 2 hour turn around at each end so the planes would be utilized for 20-22 hours per day just on the one route. It would take 38 hours for the one plane to do a return trip, I can't see them utilizing the plane more on a Short/Medium haul route to SIN, MEL or SYD but with the scheduling & routes V Australia do now it would not surprise me.

 

[russianrob]

When the 777-200lr was announced I was one of many westcoasters who begged QF to buy some and fly PER-LHR direct. Rather than hub in PER from the east coast, they wrote they were very happy with their arrangements in Asia (read cheaper options).
Different age I know. Hope Virgin does give it a go, and I would certainly try it.