Will it ever be profitable a non-stop flight between London Heathrow and Sydney?

I FEEL THE “NEED FOR SPEED”

I don’t know about the commercial viability, but this is intresting info about the SCRAMJET that your kids or grandkids may get to try one day:

From the BBC:
The US space’s experimental hypersonic research aircraft, the X-43A, could one day revolutionise long-distance travel.
The unpiloted 3.7m-long vehicle uses a scramjet to reach a design speed in excess of Mach 7, more than 8,000 km/h (5,000 mph).

Scramjets burn hydrogen but take their oxygen from the air which is forced into the engine at very high speed.

A scramjet operates by the supersonic combustion of fuel in a stream of air compressed by the high forward speed of the aircraft, as opposed to a normal jet engine, in which fan blades compress the air.

But scramjets only start to work at about Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound. And this means they first have to be boosted to their operational velocity.
In the case of the X-43A, this was done by a modified Pegasus rocket released from under the wing of a B-52 bomber.

The 1,300kg wedge-shaped research craft separated from its booster and accelerated away with the power from its scramjet.

The engine operated for just 10 seconds, after which the X-43A glided through the atmosphere conducting a series of aerodynamic manoeuvres for six minutes on its way to splashdown.

Saturday’s test marked the first time a non-rocket, air-breathing scramjet engine has powered a vehicle in flight at hypersonic speeds.

Engineering challenge

Scramjet technology was first proposed in the 1950s and 60s. Because they take their oxidant from the atmosphere, the weight of any aircraft is therefore substantially reduced.

Those weight savings could be used to increase payload capacity, increase range or reduce vehicle size for the same payload.

TOP SPEEDS
Concorde: 1350mph (2173km/h)
Japan’s bullet train: Record: 277mph (446km/h); scheduled service: 186mph (300km/h)
French TGV: World record (1990): 515.3km/h (320.3mph); scheduled service: 259.4km/h (161.1mph)
The scramjet attraction is obvious. If the many engineering challenges can be overcome, this propulsion technology could make it possible to fly, for example, from London to Sydney in just a couple of hours.
More likely in the first instance, they will find applications in the space delivery business – launching small payloads, such as communications satellites, into orbit.

The first-ever free flight of a scramjet was conducted by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) in 2001. Its engine was fired from a gun in an enclosed facility on the ground.

A year later, University of Queensland researchers flew their HyShot scramjet on a missile.

[B]BBC — HYPERSONIC Q&A [/B]

Very interesting topic.

Personally I think that such a route would be viable, provided it were technologically feasible (which it isn’t).

Don’t make the mistake of confusing “Australia” with “Sydney”. It is only one city and personally far from my favourite.

LHR-SYD and LHR-MEL are roughly the same distance, but flights to other cities (eg. Perth) are closer – LHR-PER may be possible. A routing LHR-PER-SYD would be handy.

As for Euro airlines pulling out…

1. Lauda still flies to Australia using the 772.

2. The service ethic of some Euro airlines in the 80’s was a bit dated, compared to QF anyway.

Thanks Elias. Your effort is above and beyond anything I would expect. I appreciate it.

Greekdude1

I promised that yesterday I would post a reply thread to your questions. I apologise for failing to do so. Despite the fact, I know more or less the answers to your questions, I need further research to support my arguments.

By the end of this week, I will place a new thread on the forum which will answer your questions to the best possible.

Once again, I apologise for the delay.

Kind Regards

Really it depends on the type of service offered, if you were going to operate a flight from LHR to SYD you wouldnt definitely make the cabin in a 3 class layout, i would probably offer a economy which has a spacious confirguration and upgraded seats similar to the SQ product and i would also install an upgraded business class product as first class isnt as profitable these days.

Lets see it this way….

> There is more traffic of Americans to Australia than Europeans. A direct flight from LHR into SYD could be directed to Europeans as well as Americans from the NY side. But if there is a direct flight people are more encouraged to travel as they dont have to stop over and wait for hours at hubs to get a flight to Australia as they have to do eventualy.

> I dont think Health can be an issue here. If a person is smart enough to take care of himself from the vain syndrome he can make any long flight well recieved. If a person is not he can even have troubles on a 6 hrs flight.

> It will be more wise to start such a service with an aircraft configured with just Executive Economy and Business Class. Very similar to SQ’s A345. If you see there flight to LA are almost 20 hours and people look pretty comfortable while doing the flight.

> Although this will be a high cost route even if an aircraft is operated on full capacity, the only problem will be that most poeple still would prefer a stop-over flight than a direct one. Businessmen would rather take the direct one to save time, and they are willing to spend on it.

> If a direct service is started it would be a good boost to relations between Aus and Europe, till now they are nearly cut off with each other because of the great distance.

People

Thanks for your replies. Well, I was absent for sometime and I decided to make a good comeback. I believe I achieved this! :):)

Please if you want to add or comment to the thread I posted on March 3rd please feel free to do so. Just for information purposes it was 4 pages long in word format! I first wrote it on Word and then I copy pasted it on the thread. This is why I couldnt get the tables right. If anyone wants a copy of it in word format please let me know.

Greekdude1 about your questions posed I had a look at them and I will reply to them tomorrow. Briefly, the route was non-profitable because of bad operations on behalf of Olympic Airways. The bad operations in terms of flight and cabin crew used made the route inefficient hence unprofitable. Dont forget that Olympic Airlways was commanded more by the trade unions and politicians rather than the Boards of Directors!

Kind Regards

Very interesting reply there Elias 🙂

Elias, this is very insightful research, and a great thread at that. You mentioned airlines such as Lufthansa, Alitalia, Air France, etc. pulling out of Australia due to ‘low demand.’ One Euro airline pulling out of Australia that still baffles me to this day is Olympic. Surely they did not pull out due to low demand. As I’ve mentioned on several other occassions in this forum, the first choice for Greeks in Australia flying back to the homeland was Olympic. When all those seats were booked, then they would book on the ‘better’ airlines such as Singapore, Emirates, and Thai. Demand was clearly not a problem here, unless you know something that I do not. For over 20 years this route was operated by the 742. For the last 2 or so years of operation, more fuel efficient, albeit less capacity, A343’s were used. A few months ago, OA signed an agreement with GulfAir and now funnel their pax onho their flights, with one additional stop in Bahrain. This is great and all, but I have several questions perhaps you can provide some insight on:

1) Why did they pull out of the market if load factors were high?
2) Was is more profitable to operate a 742 with say 420 seats in a 2 class configuration or more a fuel efficient 343 with say 280 seats in a 2 class configuration?
3) Would an airline discontinue a route if it was profitable?

I thank you in advance for your insight.

Wonderfull, very insightful :). You get 5 gold stars!

WOW! That must be the longest post ever on here!

Dear Friends

First, I would like to thank all those who expressed an interest to this thread I posted. Also, the replies were quite interesting and comprehensive. I promised yesterday that I would reply therefore here I am. This thread is divided to two sections. The first section will highlight the current trends, while the second section will host a small analysis of what the future holds. I did not go to exhaustive research regarding flight costs, demand for the route etc due to lack of resources and time available. As I wrote at the introductory thread, this is a thesis question and you need approximate 3 months the least to gain access to all information that will lead you to solid conclusions.

The Current trends…

Using a reliable website I managed to derive the block time (i.e. the time from the gate of the departing airport to the gate of the arrival airport) flight time (i.e. the time the aircraft is on air), the distance and the Equivalent Still Air Distance –ESAD- (i.e. if there is a headwind or a tailwind, it feels this long) for the routes London (Heathrow) – Sydney and Sydney – London (Heathrow). The findings are listed on Table 1. Also, I accessed the websites of the two aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus and recorded the maximum range and the passenger capacity of A340-500, A380 and B777-200LR. The findings are listed on Table 2. Note that flight time and block times are average figures and may vary pending of the aircraft type used!

Table 1: The Flight time, distance and ESAD of the routes London (Heathrow) – Sydney and Sydney – London (Heathrow)
Data LHR – SYD SYD – LHR
Block Time 23hrs 24 mins 20hrs 46 mins
Flight Time 23hrs 09 mins 20hrs 31mins
Distance 17,034km 17,034km
ESAD 18,537km 15,753km
(Source: www.airportcitycodes.com)

Table 2: The Maximum range and passenger capacity
Aircraft Maximum Range Passenger Capacity
A340-500 16,050km 555
A380 Approx. 15,000km 313
B747-400ER 14,205Km 301
B777-200LR 17,170km 416
(Sources: www.airbus.com and www.boeing.com)

The two tables above prove that none of the mentioned aircraft are in a position to operate a revenue flight between London Heathrow (LHR) and Sydney (SYD). One may claim that B777-200LR may be in a position to operate the service as its range surpasses the distance between LHR and SYD. However, the ESAD must be considered before coming to conclusions. The headwinds the B777-200LR or any other aircraft will face will limit the ability of the aircraft to cover the distance. However, quite interesting, the two tables do prove that A340-500 and to larger extend B777-200LR will be in a position to operate a revenue flight between Sydney and London (Heathrow). The tailwinds the aircraft will experience favour them to cover easily the distance.

At the reply threads it was mentioned about the airlines that operate the route London (Heathrow) – Sydney. It was correctly stated that Lufthansa Air France and Alitalia ceased operations to Sydney because they didn’t have the necessary demand. There are strong ties linking Great Britain and Australia, which suggests that apart rom Business traffic there is also Visiting Friends and Relatives and other leisure traffic available on the route; therefore making it profitable. Qantas and British Airways, the two airlines that operate “direct” flights on London (Heathrow) – Sydney and vice versa (“direct” is defined as without transfer at a hub airport) have co-ordinated their services through the ONEWORLD alliance to offer better services. Example, A Qantas flight number does not suggest that Qantas Airways will operate the flight and vice versa.

Also, it is interesting to note that Lufthansa and Air France belong to alliance groups (Star Alliance and Sky Team respectively). This helped them in co-ordinating services to Sydney without the need of them operating the flight. Lufthansa passengers can go up to Singapore and then get on board Singapore Airlines to conclude their journey. While Air France passengers can conclude their journey with Korean Air from Seoul (assuming the KoreanAir INDEED and TRULY arrives at Sydney – given the poor safety record the airline has)

I attempted to list the airlines that operating services between London (Heathrow) and Sydney either “direct” services or using a hub and spoke system. For simplicity purposes I did not consider any code-share agreements or joint flights (e.g.. fly to Frankfurt with BMI then on board Lufthansa or Singapore Airlines to Singapore Changi and then to Sydney). Overall, I counted 13 airlines that offer flights between London (Heathrow) – Sydney. The list although exhaustive is not final; therefore I anticipate that there might be another two airlines that operate flights on this route possibly Saudi Arabia or Qatar Airways. As mentioned previously only Qantas and British Airways operate “direct” services while all the rest offer a transfer at their hub airport. Emirates and Gulf Air are based in Middle East, United Airlines is located in USA and Air New Zealand in New Zealand. All the rest are located in Asia/Far East Asia. Table 3 below lists these airlines in alphabetical order and a brief description of the route.

Table 3: Airlines operating flights from London Heathrow to Sydney

Air New Zealand LHR-LAX-AKL(H)-SYD
British Airways LHR-SIN-SYD
Cathay Pacific LHR-HKG(H)-SYD
Emirates Airlines LHR-DUB(H)-SYD and LHR-DUB(H)-SIN-SYD
Gulf Air LHR-BAH(H)-SIN-SYD
JAL LHR-NRT(H)-SYD
Korean Airlines LHR-ICN(H)-SYD
Malaysia Airlines LHR-KUL(H)-SYD
Qantas LHR-SIN-SYD
Singapore Airlines LHR-SIN (H)-SYD
Thai Airways LHR-BKK(H)-SYD
United Airlines LHR-LAX(H)-SYD and LHR-SFO(H)-SYD
(Source: www.expedia.co.uk)

Note to the Table:

i. (H): A hub airport
ii. ICN = Seoul Airport, NRT = Tokyo Narita Airport

Conclusions, What the future holds…

It was stated by NON-STOP that in the future there are plans to design and develop a hypersonic aircraft that would cut the flying times between US and Japan by 5 hours. The cancellation of the SonicCruiser programme by Boeing mid-2003 and the lack of interest to develop a second generation of Concorde suggest that what NON-STOP stated may happen in the very distant future. What I have in my mind is the aircraft Boeing is developing – the Wing Blended Aircraft – that will appear in the market possibly at the end of the second decade of the 21st century (i.e. between 2015-2020). If you are wondering about this aircraft, you need to refer to the Supplement Magazine that Airline World dedicated to Boeing Industries.

We saw in the first section that there is no aircraft currently available that is in a position to offer revenue flights between London (Heathrow) and Sydney; therefore the answer to the question posed by the introductory thread if it was stated in the present tense is NO due to technical reasons.

The development of such an aircraft is needed. However, prior to develop and launch such an aircraft the aircraft manufacturer (whether this is Boeing or Airbus) must consider among others the following elements:

· Search for availability of demand for such aircraft i.e. which airlines more likely express an interest for such an aircraft and also predict the routes that may sustain profitable operations for such aircraft. Also the aircraft manufacturers will need to determine the aircraft size in terms of passenger capacity.

· Flight and Cabin Crew needs and requirements. According to international regulations flight and cabin crew should work for not more than 12 hours. This suggests that two set of cabin and flight crew must be on-board the aircraft; therefore the aircraft must provide adequate crew quarters and resting space for the off-duty crew.

· Passengers Comfort: As MARK_L stated the physiological and psychological factors must be examined. Passengers may not welcome staying on-board an aircraft for more than twenty hours, without having room to stretch or walk. However perfect the IFE (In-Flight Entertainment) system will be or however relaxing the seat might be, still the passenger need some space to walk and “stretch”.

· Consider the Economics and Operating Costs: The aircraft manufacturer must examine and calculate the economics and operating costs of the aircraft and make it attractive to prospective airliners. Specifically, the prospective aircraft needs to give “desirable” figures on the following flight-leg costs:

o Trip cost = variable Direct Operating Costs (DOC)+ variable Indirect Operating Cost (IOC) (e.g. agency commissions, catering etc) + an allocation of fixed DOC + an allocation of IOC.
o Hourly Costs = trip costs/block-time in hours
o Aircraft-mile costs = hourly cost/block-speed in miles per hour
o Seat-mile or Unit cost = Operating costs/ASM produced
o Revenue-mile cost = aircraft-mile costs/seats sold

The following is quoted from Holloway, 2003. “Generally, aircraft-mile and trip costs increase as aircraft size increases – although a modern aircraft might have better economics than a smaller but older type as a result of technological improvements. Conversely, unit costs tend to fall as aircraft size increases because the fixed portion of aircraft mile and trip costs does not generally grow proportionately with output, again, technological improvements can break this generalisation such that a relatively new type (e.g. B777) might on certain stage-lengths have better unit costs than an older type e.g. B747-400”.

Technological improvements are crucial in achieving low costs for this new aircraft. Better efficient engines and the creation of light yet stronger aluminium alloys or other composites play a crucial role to this.

Only when and if such an aircraft is introduced, we will attempt to answer the question I posed. Personally, I will agree with those who wrote “YES” despite the fact I don’t have efficient information to support my answer. However, as some stated, by introducing a non-stop flight will not mark the end of the transit flights or the “direct” flights already performing by the airlines. A mixture of both more likely will emerge. Passengers who want non-stop comfort may need to pay a bit more to be on board the flight. On the other hand, passengers who will look for something relatively cheaper will go for the transit or “direct” flights.

I hope I managed to earn your attention until the end of this long thread. If you have any further replies or comments please feel free to express them. Through exchanging opinions and views we gain knowledge previously unknown.

Kind Regards

This is all very interesting. But, there is really a matter of health in mostly just sitting for 20 hours.
In the future, there are plans to design and develop a hypersonic aircraft that would cut the flying time to around 5 hours from the US to Japan. Will this ever be developed on a London to Sydney scale….I don’t know.
While it will be physically possible to do many things, I don’t see how or why regular people would want to be “jumboed” , especially in coach, for 20 hours anywhere. But, perhaps there are people or cultures that will welcome that, and thereby make it viable.
In the early days of the Pan American Clipper flying boats, only the ultra-rich could afford to fly to China from the US. And those were “long” hauls. With 30+ hours segments. And, the passenger loads were reduced for those longest non-stop segments.

There is nothing as far as i know, that can fly London-Sydney nonstop with a full payload

Originally posted by A380!!
😀 I assure you no core research is neccesary in this case!, the Kangaroo route is not worthwhile, economically, unless you can travel the route in one single flight (instead of routing via SIN / BKK).

Based on this very argument of yours, the answer would be “yes,” yet you answered “no.” Interesting.

Originally posted by A380!!
😀 I assure you no core research is neccesary in this case!, the Kangaroo route is not worthwhile, economically, unless you can travel the route in one single flight (instead of routing via SIN / BKK). That is why AF, LH, Alitalia axed the route from their hub airports!

Sure thats why BA and QF operate the route many times daily.
There is a market to fly the route from Heathrow, many Brits flying to and from Oz to visit family and friends. also a lot of ex pats.

AF, LH and Alitalia axed their flights because THEY didn’t have the passengers.
For BA and QF the route at the moment makes money. A direct non stop flight might be an option in the future, perhaps a once daily flight and the rest being the normal stop overs.

So in actual fact the answer to the question posed is “yes” and you reckon that BA and Qantas + others operate the route unprofitably :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Bmused55
Oh goody, another insighful comment by A380!

Tell me old chap, you seem so very sure, what research have you done to support your answer?

😀 I assure you no core research is neccesary in this case!, the Kangaroo route is not worthwhile, economically, unless you can travel the route in one single flight (instead of routing via SIN / BKK). That is why AF, LH, Alitalia axed the route from their hub airports!

Originally posted by A380!!
No.

Oh goody, another insighful comment by A380!

Tell me old chap, you seem so very sure, what research have you done to support your answer?

No.