Could be. Does USAir have the metal to do that flight? If not, that may make the trip overly expensive.FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
Rumor: Auckland and Abu Dhabi announcement
- Thread starter MAH4546
- Start date
I think the A330-200 could do it?
One reason I said PHL is because TLV is ending and that frees up a couple airplanes, which either could be used on PHL-AUH or free up the B777 from some other route.
One reason I said PHL is because TLV is ending and that frees up a couple airplanes, which either could be used on PHL-AUH or free up the B777 from some other route.
The rumour involves DFW but I mentioned JFK earlier because that would be 1,200 miles shorter than DFW, resulting in a slightly cheaper flight (due to less fuel burned to carry the fuel for that last 1,200 miles). On Flyertalk, I mentioned PHL as another alternative which is 1,100 miles shorter than DFW, and has lots of connectivity.FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
The A332s probably can't make it, however. The wildly successful "do no wrong" airline in Atlanta lists ranges on its website that are more conservative than anything shown on Airbus, Boeing or Wiki sites for most fleet types, and that airline says their A332s are good for just 6,536 miles, and that's with a premium heavy, low density cabin of 34J/200Y. The AA A332s are heavier when full with 20J/tons more Y (too lazy to look).
PHL-AUH is 6,959 miles, almost 1,200 miles farther than PHL-TLV (5,771 miles). I'm not positive, but I think that TLV was near the limit of the US A332s on occasion, and I think that employees here have previously mentioned occasional weight restrictions on TLV-PHL. I think the flight would require a 787, 777 or A350.
robbedagain
Veteran
i would think a 787 or an A350 would suit it better for the type of aircraft and it would probably be easier to make money on it compared to the 777?
FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
For much of the year, TLV-PHL is marginal for the A330-200. AUH-PHL would likely not be workable without a fuel stop, at least in the winter westbound. It just does not have the range. IOW, full tanks is still not enough, and that doesn't consider how many seats need to be blocked in order to fill those tanks and still stay under the Max Takeoff Weight.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
Thanks for the replies FWAA and busdriver.
I kind of thought that PHL- Middle East was at the max. limit of the A332, didn't know for sure.
I kind of thought that PHL- Middle East was at the max. limit of the A332, didn't know for sure.
AUH would be good because no american airline has any presence there...any EY doesn't have that big of a presence in the world...in my opinion
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,353
I wouldn't go by what Delta has for its 332s.FWAAA said:
The US birds are going to be more capable. (newer, possibly higher MTOW and 4K more thrust per engine)
And the Trent 772 is a much better hot engine than the PW4168s
having said that, not sure why AA would go with the 332 when they have 789s on the way.
topDawg said:
Not sure what WV Delta operates but IIRC the US birds are the 233T variants. If the Airbus range charts are any indication, the extra distance to AUH would knock about 20k off of the available payload compared to the TLV flight. My memory is a bit fuzzy on what those uploads look like so I'll leave it to someone else to speculate on what they'd have to leave behind to make AUH possible. It's definitely doable with full tanks (don't the 332s have the center tank from the 340 activated?) but of course it might not be able to carry any sort of meaningful payload.
Highly unlikely though that they'd be looking at it with the A332 anyhow.
Good points, but in this case, nycbusdriver confirmed my suspicions in post #35 above, and he should know - he flies the US A332s PHL-TLV a couple times each month. When I wrote my post doubting the ability of the A332s, I was remembering previous posts of his where he has explained the relatively short legs of the US A332s even though they're of recent vintage.topDawg said:
That's true of the -300s but I don't think US went the same way with the -200s. They're Trent-powered and at the time of delivery were, if I'm not mistaken, one of the highest MTOW variants available from Airbus.FWAAA said:
Here is exactly what nycbusdriver said about the A332s in post #35 above:strangiatotheme said:
I'm inclined to believe him, since he's nearing retirement age (IIRC, he's posted that he's about 64 years old) and he sits in the left seat of the pmUS A332s when commanding the TLV flights. He's got some first-hand experience on this issue.
Unless you're also a pmUS A332 Captain or First Officer, my guess is that nycbusdriver knows more on this precise subject than you or I. If he says the A332s are almost at their limit when flying 5,771 miles westbound from TLV in the winter, then it's pretty clear that 6,959 miles westbound from AUH is beyond their practical range year-round.
Recall back in 2007 when US applied for PHL-PEK and told the DOT that although it had no plane in the fleet that could fly the route, if it won the route case, it would acquire two used A340s for that route? After US won that route, the Great Recession intervened and US didn't bother to acquire any used A340s, despite their bargain price (they have no value as used aircraft).
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-airways-launches-bid-for-philadelphia-beijing-flights-52739632.html
PHL-PEK is 81 miles shorter than PHL-AUH, and if its A332s that began delivery in 2009 (around the start time of PHL-PEK) could not be counted on to fly PHL-PEK (hence the proposal to acquire used A340s), I'm inclined to believe US. And nycbusdriver. With management and an experienced US Captain on the same page, it's really beyond debate that the US A332s lack the range to consistently fly AUH-PHL nonstop. And with 65 777s in the fleet and a bunch of 787-9s on the way, and 20+ A350s on the way, all of which can reliably fly 7,000 miles nonstop into the westbound wind in the winter, it's clear that if AA begins PHL-AUH, the route will not be flown with an A332.
Similar threads
