Low-cost Ryanair planning transatlantic flights
 

(Throwing this tidbit in here. Mods can move as necessary)

Low-cost Ryanair planning transatlantic flights

Quote:
“European consumers want lower-cost travel to the USA and the same for Americans coming to Europe," the statement said. "We see it as a logical development in the European market."

http://mashable.com/2015/03/16/ryanair-transatlantic/

(just need to work out that little detail of can't fly the 737s across the pond, as the article notes)

I'm no expect by any means, but a 737 can cross the Atlantic on certain routes.

Neither am I. Here is the wording from the same article

"Destinations would include New York City, Boston, Chicago and Miami, from London Stansted, Dublin and Berlin, according to the statement.

One big challenge to launching the routes is securing long haul aircraft: Ryanair currently operates only Boeing 737-800s, which have a shorter range compared to craft often used to fly transatlantic routes, like the 767. The airline is already speaking with aircraft manufacturers, according to the Irish Independent."

That's true, but not for FR's 75 ton 738's.

Their version of the 737's can't cross the Atlantic? Not even with a stop in St. Johns to get fuel?

Either way, I hope this happens soon. The more competition the better.

I don't think they could do it with a meaningful load due to the decreased MTOW. While the MTOW is decreased only on paper, I don't know what would they need to do to increase the MTOW and how much would it cost.
On top of it, I'm not sure if FR 738's are ETOPS certified (or the airline as a whole). That's another problem they'll have to solve.

Thus the quoted line
"The airline is already speaking with aircraft manufacturers"

STN-EWR is 5610 km. BOS is 5300 km.

Source -
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=stn-ewr

The 737-MAX is supposed to have a range of 7000 km.

Source -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX

Not sure what fuel reserves etc. are required, but sounds like with ETOPS certification it could cross the Atlantic.

TATL ops into USA (NY/CHI etc) are not viable with 737, MAX or not.

If this thing gets off the ground, I'd imagine they will source some used 767s and cram them 8*wide or go the TS route w/ 9*wide A330s

Could you explain why?

The ranges you mention upthread are still-air, no cargo, less densely configured a/c than FR will configure.
TATL winds, a/c cabin density, ATC holds into NYC, WX reserves will each eat into payload on w/b TATL sectors on MAX8. We just had a winter full of w/b TATL 757 diversions.

Are they going to block seats? Are they going to configure less densely? I just don't think that's the Ryanair way.

So basically, what you are saying is that advertised "range" on manufacturer websites for aircraft is the same as L/100km advertised for cars?

No, what he is saying is that in the airplane world, distance has nothing to do with range. Time is everything.

It's marketing fluff, unrelated to real-world deployment.
Boeing lists range of 77L at ~ 10,000nm.
LHRSYD is under 9,200nm.
You can bet if the 77L could reliably fly LHR-SYD-LHR non-stop with meaningful payload, BA would have ordered them and made it happen a long time ago.

I'm not sure how much more convenient an LHRSYD nonstop would honestly be due to the timing of the current flight (the stop in SIN itself is only 90 minutes, and I would not want to leave LON at 2325 or arrive SYD at 0530-the latter which is not allowed due to flight curfew at SYD. Even among the best scenario where the 90 minutes time are split, leaving LON 2255 and arriving SYD at 0600 is not ideal.)
On the way back to LON this may only be somewhat more useful (presumably to get some more time in SYD), but the nonstop would make it more difficult to adjust to LON time (at least on the current flight, it's easy to stay awake until you board the flight from SIN to LON and sleep for a good 8 hours, and have a day in LON 5-6 hours longer.)