Polar Express – How Airlines are plotting a new-route to Asia
edition.cnn.com
edition.cnn.com
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-uses-airspace-restric...
The article adds nothing.
[1] https://airwaysmag.com/today-in-aviation/worlds-first-com-tr...
This is called "Intermediate Stop Operations". Of course, there are other costs beyond fuel (landing costs, staffing costs, etc.), but sometimes you can make this an advantage (e.g. staff always sleeps at home base each night).
> In some studies it was found that fuel savings are in the order of 13–23 % (the longer the mission, the more fuel could be saved) for missions with a single stopover if aircraft are used that are optimized for shorter ranges
https://elib.dlr.de/102479/1/metz__The_Implications_of_Inter...
First your generally going out of the way to stop at an airport which means a longer trip, plus you need to climb back to altitude which means lower efficiency. Landings and takeoffs are harder on many systems which means more maticance. Time a major factor as not only are aircraft doing fewer routes passengers are also waiting around. Safety is another issue for adding stops, landing and takeoffs are much higher risk. Etc
It can be a net benefit, but normally your much better served to make every stop a significant destination rather than just being for fuel.
That's where it can become more viable: When you go A->B->C instead of A->C, you have two more origin:destination pairs that you sell tickets for, depending on (?uhhhh, 5th?) freedom rights.
As much as people hate it (especially if someone else is paying the fare), I think long-haul’s days aren’t looking great. As fuel/biofuel becomes a bigger $ proportion of tickets, multiple medium-haul hops is going to become the way.
I think most expensive would still be gaining altitude - but I got down-voted so might be that my understanding of this is not that good.
In flight refueling might be the way to go, but then keeping the fuel plane up also takes fuel.
Anchorage is already one one of the busiest airports in the world for cargo. During the beginning of the pandemic, it became the busiest airport in the world for that reason (while people weren't flying, cargo still needed to be flown).
That video goes into a bit on the importance of its airport.
By using a stopover, they are able to cut down on total fuel needed to be carried which in turn raises the amount of freight that they can carry.
As others have mentioned, Anchorage is a big cargo airport, and the fuel savings are one of the reasons.
Flying from CPH to HND via Alaska adds almost 2300 miles vs flying direct over Russia:
[1] https://www.primidi.com/scandinavian_airlines/history/trans_...
Not to mention, historically people who don't have to often avoid connecting in the US because I think there is / was an extra visa burden, even if it's just for transit. I think many people might avoid a route that makes them enter the US, though mayb things have changed and it's less of hassle.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=cph-ist-gyd-ala-pek-hnd;+cph-an...
That route also goes through the PRC which was closed for a few decades to outside airplanes as well. And some of the other countries on the map were part of the USSR as well.
That's why KLM fitted its polar-route aircraft with "Polar survival kits", including rifles to shoot polar bears if needed (for defence or calories, it's not clear): https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-arvz6OHAQO0/UHxrLfdrLII/AAAAAAAAC...
https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/KLM-Arctic-Survival-Kit/12...
Also, I recall reading that for Easter Island, only one plane can be inbound during a given window, because it is remote enough that there is nowhere to divert to. But you'd have to check to make sure I'm remembering correctly
> The new Arctic route, however, flies over very remote areas, where airports are few and far between. As a result, the airline had to apply for an extension of that protocol to 300 minutes, meaning the Airbus A350-900s it uses to fly to Japan can now stray as far as five hours away from the nearest airport, while still meeting all international regulations and safety protocols.
A two banger today is safer than the queens of yore that did those routes.
I am a passenger in a car with a friend, carpooling to work. I say, "it looks like there is a wreck on the highway in a few miles, want me to find a new route to work?" That makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter if my friend and I have taken this alternate route before. It means we are changing our plan.
We had our direct flight from EWR-BOM cancelled due to the current issues.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ewr-bom,+ewr-ist-bom
(I know, I know, you may not actually be able to route "optimally" due to other airspace clearance requirements/costs/weather/etc)
Or maybe use a polyethylene layer?
But also, on the scale of things to worry about in life, this is way down there.
It only matters for very frequent flyers (i.e. people who put in almost as many hours as flight crew).
For your average Joe that barely flies much, it won't make any difference.
Yes it does, but you don't need to worry about that.
There are already procedures in place for "normal" operations.
It only needs a few tiny changes to take into account the arctic route, and I'm sure all the airlines have already done that.
Basically they only need to tweak shift rotas a little. For most airlines you won't even notice the impact on flight scheduling.
Well, you were very welcome to answer the question yourself with fewer words.
I note the distinct lack of an answer from you though.
I also wonder how much fuel is spent carrying fuel and if emissions wouldn't be lower if they would fly shorter legs on fumes and do frequent refueling stops.
Not to mention the size of aircraft carrier that would be required to land even a 737.
Though if you fitted a tail hook to a 747, probably some of that 747 could be said to have landed there. Maybe a few passengers too, and you could claim the fastest disembarkation speeds into the bargain. Turnaround times might suffer depending on the depth of the water.
* The final design of Habakkuk II gave the bergship, as it was called, a displacement of 2.2 million tons
* The small prototype built in 1944 on a Patricia Lake near Jasper, Alberta, confirmed the researchers' forecast that the full-size vessel would cost more money and machinery than a whole fleet of conventional aircraft carriers
* [Assistant Controller of Research and Development for the Admiralty during the Second World War] pointed out the large amount of wood pulp that would be required was enough to affect paper production significantly. He also claimed that each ship would require 40,000 tons of cork insulation, thousands of miles of steel tubing for brine circulation and four power stations, but that for all those resources (some of which could be used to manufacture conventional ships of more effective fighting power) Habakkuk would be capable of travelling at only 6 knots (11 km/h) of speed.
* the enormous amount of steel needed for the refrigeration plant that was to freeze the pykrete was greater than that needed to build the entire carrier of steel
* the crucial argument was that the rapidly increasing range of land-based aircraft rendered floating islands unnecessary
And that behemoth was required for a runway half as long as current civil airliners need.
Really, I have no idea if this comment was in jest or halfway serious but there isn't any way passenger planes will ever land on any of the existing aircraft carriers. Width, Runway length, arrestor strength, inability to do cat launches with something that heavy and so on. It isn't going to happen.
63 meter wingspan for a 777 vs 40 meters for a C130, flight deck width of an aircraft carrier is about 80 meters so in theory that is possible but it would be pretty scary, I don't know of any airport where there is an obstacle the size of an 8 floor building sitting right next to the runway.
And as for that test: there is a reason it was left at the 'test' stage, it was deemed too risky.
It is amazing that they managed to land a C130 on an aircraft carrier at all, even more amazing that they did it 30 times or so without mishap, but it is a very, very long stretch away from being able to land a passenger jet and take off again routinely, what is acceptable risk for the navy would never fly (pun intended) for passenger service.
The various Pacific Islands like Hawaii, Guam, Midway, the Aleutians are effectively those "carriers" for ETOPS.
(Here's the old route: https://onemileatatime.com/el-al-sfo-tel-aviv-flight/)
Certainly still stressful, but they don’t need to hand-fly it.
Of course it's always an issue if an engine does fail, but ETOPS as a certification is there to ensure that airplanes and pilots are not put under unreasonable amounts of stress or issue if and when an engine fails over-water.
https://www.finnair.com/en/bluewings/world-of-finnair/flying...
Crossing the date line is just an artifact of the singularity at the pole.
Can't they just ask like the US Government does?
I.E.: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/03/edsn-j03.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati...
This is still shocking to me. And no matter how dangerous this guy was, opening the door on killing your own citizens seems far more dangerous.
From a legal and societal position, huge.
Edit: To clarify, there wasn't any political refugee - I just mean it was forced to land.
Like the US doesn't do the same or worse ?
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/advantage-air-ind...
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/mar/17/it-is-sa...
If you are referring to the people doing the radio work, through the magic of HF radio they sit in a nice warm office in Ontario, Canada.
I doubt it will increase their workload much as its not a busy route and there's not much ATC to do given the sparse nature of the region. Its more of a monitoring service per-se.
P.S. They are not "new" routes. They've been around for decades, just lost popularity due to better options.
This war might be going on for the rest of the decade, has there ever been that much traffic over the pole that we know for sure what will/won't happen?
1. https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-delays-nuclear-phase...
Having an increased local greenhouse emission in that area could accelerate the loss of ice.