Originally Posted by
Dr. HFH
You sure? A year or two ago, a 772-LR did HKG-LHR nonstop flying eastbound, 22 hours. Granted, it was with the prevailing winds. My understanding is that LHR-SYD would be no sweat, but the return might require a stop. Here's what Boeing has to say.
772-LR London Range Map. This assumes three "standard" Boeing installed auxiliary fuel tanks. Seems to me that there would be enough demand to support this flight on a 772 (but I have no hard data and am just guessing). The aircraft is smaller than the 744s and 773s. Eliminating the stop in HKG, SIN or BKK would save hours. Nonstop, cruising at Boeing's published cruise speed of Mach .84, flying time would be 19:05. Flying through either BKK or SIN, including time on the ground, total elapsed time is approximately 22:20.
This issue is not really about the range of the aircraft. The two main problems are economics and the human factor.
Ultra long hauls are very difficult to operate from an economics perspective. The reason for this is that the plane needs to carry tons of fuel for a very long time. It is much cheaper to land and re-fuel. This is the reason why some of those long flights (SIN-EWR) have gone all business class. It is just not financially viable. And if fuel prices would rise further then this would expose the company to a huge risk.
And of course a 20 hour flight is nothing you really want to experience in a 10 abreast 777. So nobody wants to be stuck in a plane for such a long time.
Luckily non of the most profitable airlines in the world operate any 777.
Originally Posted by
derek2010
why CX and QF can't do massive codesharing (like the case of CX and AA, for HKG to US routes) for flights from HKG to Australia, as well as those to European cities?
Because QF and CX really don't like each other? QF would rather codeshare with EK than get into bed with CX.