Why Can CO98 fly direct & BR031 Cannot?
 

Any ideas on why EVA 31 stops in Anchorage using a longer range 777-300ER on their flight to Taipei when CO 98 using a shorter range 777-200ER can fly non-stop to HKG?

CO 98 (EWR-HKG) = 777-200ER (7700 nm range)
BR 31 (EWR-TPE) = 777-300ER (7930 nm range)

Do they pick up passengers in ANC?

I've done it and it's hard to tell. Couldn't see it being than many though as they have SFO and LAX-TPE flts

No, it's strictly a technical stop:

[KVS Availability Tool 3.5.9910/Diamond - Amadeus Operational Info: BR 31/01 Jul 2009]

EWR-TPE is only 300 miles shorter than EWR-HKG
It may have something to do with the routing,
EWR-HKG almost always takes the polar routing on the way to HKG and
the return is usually TPAC.

I also think CO weight restricts the cargo on certain days , while BR might stop to pick up cargo in ANC.
Im sure mr rkkwan might have some more info on this.

No Cabotage
 

No foreign owned carriiers are authorized to perform cabotage (the carriage of air traffic that originates and terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an air carrier of another country)
http://www.dot.gov/ost/ogc/subject/f...eCabotage.html

except, of course.......Virgin America ;)

Actually, they would be allowed to pick up passengers in Anchorage if they wanted to make it other than a tech stop, but they would not be allowed to disembark previously-boarded passengers thru CIQ. In other words, they cannot sell flights between two U.S. ports.

Exactly, if ANC was a regular stop , they could add passengers to the flight.
QF does this with JFK-LAX-SYD. Some passengers board at JFK and the rest board at LAX, There are also passengers who do JFK-LAX and change to the MEL or BNE fligth at LAX.

All of you are being too technical. Think political!

Two words: Chinese air space.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GI09Ad05.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_470025.htm

KL serves TPE-BKK-AMS.
And all BR flights going to Europe stop in BKK (except for the CDG-bound flights)
However, things are slowly changing.

Maybe it's a logisitic consideration. IIRC, there is crew change during the stop in ANC for both BR and CI flights.

Ahhhh....very interesting. Makes sense. Without the ability to fly polar, which involves flying through Chinese airspace, they'd have to come down over the North Pacific and Japan, and with the massive headwinds the flight couldn't make it nonstop.

On the return they can fly the same routing, but no problem with the tailwind.

On the 3 or 4 HKG->NYC nonstops I've flown, I think only one time did we take the polar route, even though the North Pacific routing adds about 1,000 miles.

You can thank the Communist regime in PRC (mainland China) for bringing convenience to your travels. Unsatisfied with merely oppressing their own citizens, the PRC makes a hobby of bullying Taiwan, Taiwanese businesses (BR is case in point) and Taiwanese citizens.

In a nutshell, the PRC will not allow BR to transit their airspace for polar routings. That creates the need for ANC technical stop and extra CO2 emissions, not that the PRC cares at all about environmental issues.

Sounds like a reasonable explanation however don't the articles in post # 9 indicate that the airspace is or was opened to Taiwan? Perhaps its just that BR chooses not to use China's airspace?

Only certain flights; only a limited number of slots.