Sorry if this has been discussed before… I’ve just noticed the latest press release from Airbus regarding Singapore Airlines’ new record-breaking non-stop flight 3 days ago. Their A345 flew for more than 18 hours covering a distance of 9,000 nm.
However the maximum range given for the A345 on Airbus’ own website is 8,650nm. Was the extra range achieved by SIA’s a/c gained through reduced weights/reduced seating? How many more seats could an airline reduce before the route becomes unprofitable? I was just thinking whether anyone has given serious thought to a non-stop London to Sydney flight- the A345 should theoretically do it with reduced weight…
Also, I could swear that in the past Airbus had listed the A345 range as 8,500 nm instead of 8,650 nm. I wonder if they’re gearing up for the launch of the B772LR…
By: Jeanske_SN - 2nd July 2004 at 17:47
The performance is only an estimation. Even the advanced computers can’t calculate that clearly. Therefore the performance might be better or worse than the calculated. This was the case with the 777-300ER, obviously this was the same with the A345.
It, of course depends on the operator, but with normal flag carriers can operate profitable when half of the plane is full. For example, SNBA is loaded for 55% and made a small profit. With ARJ’s not being the most efficient aircraft, this is a whole achievement.
However, SIA offers more service and has higher overall costs, so I’d say 60-70% for this airline.
Aircraft usually have excess cargo space. Therefore, other cargo not belonging to passengers is also taken. This is more with Long Range aircraft. If the airline chooses not to take other cargo, the aircraft can take off with a few tonnes less – reducing fuel consumption.
Sign In
July 2, 2004 at 1:45 pm