Re: Fracturing the Pacific

Date:         18 Aug 97 02:22:18 
From:         k_ish <kenish@ix.netcom..com>
Organization: Netcom
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

m@bang.org wrote:
> The B767 did not fracture the Pacific, which is dominated by the B747-400.
> Part of the reason is that the B767 is slower than a B747. While this
> makes for US-Europe flight times 15-30 minutes longer, it make for
> trans-Pacific flight times of nearly an hour longer. Airlines offering a
> one hour shorter flight have a great advantage of over their slower
> competitors.

True for the East Coast and Midwest, but not the West Coast.  767's are
flown LAX-LHR but not LAX-NRT.  The distance is roughly the same.

 Another possible reason is that the B767 doesn't have
> sufficient range to fly many of the interesting trans-Pacific city
> pairs. But since the B767 is not used on even those trans-Pacific routes
> for which it does have range (with the exception of SEL-SEA), I reject
> this reason. From the US east coast to Asia requires a three or four
> engined plane because there are no suitable places for an ETOPS aircraft
> to land in the Arctic.

ETOPS could be the reason for LAX-LHR but not LAX-NRT.  The former route
is about 75% over land (although I still wouldn't want to go down over a
lot of it!).  The latter is mostly over water.

> But there are still many routes from SFO and LAX to Asia which are not now
> operated, either because the A340 and B747 are too big, or because these
> aircraft don't have enough range. Examples of the former include SHA and
> CAN.  Examples of the latter include BKK and SIN.

> There are many other possible routes for a small, fast, long-range
> widebody.  Is there any possibility for such a plane?

QF and NZ fly quite a few 767's into LAX.  I believe most stop in HNL.

Ken Ishiguro