Sam,

thanks for your reply. As I was a student myself (not long ago), i understand what it means to find a cheap ticket. However, considering you wanted to travel somewhere and you had two options either RyanAir or Easyjet.. would you go for the cheapest price available or choose the airline simply because of its brand?

Kind Regards

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

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: http://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: http://www.airbus.com and http://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: http://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