Ultra Long flights to Europe

SQ currently fly an A350-900 non-stop SIN-SFO in a 3 class configuration.

They also fly 777-300ER to/from LAX & SFO as well as the A380 to/from JFK. They all connect in various cities on the way (eg Frankfurt, Seoul, HK)


EDIT: They also fly the A350 to Houston via Manchester.

I think European airlines will choke the transatlantic corridors with lots of narrow bodies offering lots of frequencies and lower fares. US and Canadian airlines might follow suit. Even Mexican airlines could, if they're willing to make refueling stops in the US or Canada.

It's not now, nor will it be in the future, a good idea to spend 6-7 hours on a narrow body. But the fares are lower, and that seems to be all 95.6% of people care about.

Tourism aside, I can see these routes with these planes marketed to businesses based on frequencies alone.

BTW, how far is it from Cancun to Madrid?

In support I will cite Norwegian which is even now flying 737s, as noted elsewhere. Plus there's much Buzz that Jet Blue is planning to use the A321 neo to enter the JFK-LHR market, bringing along its lower cost Mint business class product along. Jet Blue has already done this in the US transcontinental market.

The thing here is all the new batch of narrow bodies (the 737 MAX and A319/20/21 neo) can do this, as can some older generation ones. the question is which airlines will try it.

Norwegian is a bit of an outlier, as it started low cost long haul with 787s. Jet Blue is also an outlier, as it remains lower cost than the legacy airlines, even in the business class product.

While ULCCs like Spirit and Ryanair would be well set up for long haul transatlantic ops, they may not want to. after all, in 6-7 hours a 737 MAX or A320 neo can make several flights within the US or Europe, rather than just one. And neither is in the business of offering or making connections. So they would see little value in bringing in large numbers of passengers from across the pond to feed their network, or conversely to bring large numbers of passengers toa hub to cross the ocean.

This leaves the legacy carriers. What do things look like for them?

aside from increased frequencies, there's not much else. true, a narrow body is inherently more efficient than a wide body (due to lower air resistance and drag). But two narrow bodies with 170 passengers each should burn more fuel than one 787 with 340 passengers. And in order to offer lower fares, they'd need to make it up in volume; meaning lots more frequencies. That is limited by the time difference across the Atlantic, though.

Still, it might pay for AA or Delta to add a narrow body or two daily to increase frequencies within the time windows that make sense. after all, adding 170 seats should work better than adding 340, at least in peak travel season. AA already has a few 3-class A321 ceo (designated internally as A321-T) for transcontinental trips. they could add more.

we'll see.

Quote: Nareed

BTW, how far is it from Cancun to Madrid?

Circles are radius 3500 miles around Stewart and Cancun


Mexico is not going to be flying B737s to Europe. Right now Mexican Airlines are flying to Canada and Peru with narrow body jets. I don't think the new generation of longer range narrow body jets will open up any new markets. The longer range just extends you further into north Canadian and further into the Amazon jungle.

Cancun to:
CUN MAD 4,955 mi Madrid
CUN SCL 3,891 mi Santiago Chile

Stewart to:
SWF SNN 3,058 mi Shannon
SWF EDI 3,227 mi Edinburgh
SWF BGO 3,456 mi Bergen


Note that
SWF MAD 3,580 mi Madrid
So it is possible that Norwegian may open up new narrowbody flights to Madrid to complement the widebody flights

Widebody flights from Madrid to USA
United Airlines Newark Seasonal: Washington–Dulles
Delta Air Lines Atlanta, New York–JFK
American Airlines Dallas/Fort Worth, Miami, New York–JFK, Philadelphia Seasonal: Charlotte
Iberia Chicago–O'Hare, Miami, New York–JFK, Seasonal: Boston, Los Angeles, San Juan,

Quote: Pacomartin

Mexico is not going to be flying B737s to Europe.

Mexico only flies one overvalued 787 :)

But I agree.

Mexican airlines would require a stop in the US to get a narrow body to Europe. I don't see them doing that even for frequencies. While Interjet, Volaris and Aeromexico do sell connections and wouldn't mind feeding Europeans to their networks, they have better options. AM already flies widebodies to Europe. Interjet and Volaris would do better to set up code shares or agreements with US and Canadian airlines, or even European ones. All of them operate flights to JFK, IAH, ORD and other hubs.

I guess it comes down to doing something because you can, and because others are doing it. As short as 20 years ago, few airlines would have dared to fly MEX-JFK, a 5+ hour flight, on a 727, DC-9 or A320. Now it's routine.

Quote: Nareed

I guess it comes down to doing something because you can, and because others are doing it. As short as 20 years ago, few airlines would have dared to fly MEX-JFK, a 5+ hour flight, on a 727, DC-9 or A320. Now it's routine.

Southwest only began transcontinental flights on the B737 in September 2002 (less than 15 years ago)

By this fall Southwest will retire 75 B737-300's and introduce the B737 Max 8.
The B737-300s in the Southwest fleet were delivered June 1992-March 1996 and need to be retired.
The oldest B737-700s in Southwest fleet will be from Dec 1997, and the oldest B737-800s will be from March 2012.

Quote: Pacomartin

Southwest only began transcontinental flights on the B737 in September 2002 (less than 15 years ago)

A transcontinental flight in the US or Canada is only a bit shorter that a typical transatlantic flight. That's why wide bodies were used for decades on such routes.

Now, here and there small airlines used small planes for long mid haul flights, but they were seen as cheap and, often, untrustworthy. Today the mid-size planes rule, and the small "regional" jets aren't too far behind. I'd argue the size increase in planes that pundits have been prophesying took place in mid-size jets. Compare the 727 to the A320, or the first iteration of the 737 to today's MAX.

Quote: Nareed

A transcontinental flight in the US or Canada is only a bit shorter that a typical transatlantic flight. That's why wide bodies were used for decades on such routes.

I don't think I did a transcontinental flight until the late 1980's, but there were 1800 727s produced from 1964 to 1984 . Most of them had the range.

2,250 nmi (4,170 km) 2590 miles 727-100
1,900 nmi (3,500 km) 2175 miles 727-200
2,550 nmi (4,720 km) 2933 miles 727-200 Advanced

I flew to Jamaica in 1974, Colombia in about 1974-75 and to London in 1976. Unfortunately I didn't write down the jet types.

Quote: Pacomartin

I don't think I did a transcontinental flight until the late 1980's, but there were 1800 727s produced from 1964 to 1984 . Most of them had the range.

I've never done a transcontinental flight.

The longest I flew on a 727 was Mexico City to Dallas to Toronto on Braniff in 1981. Well, it was two 727s.

The first transcontinental jets were the 707 and DC-8, both single aisle. Though photos from that era show a first class lounge on some airlines. And both were bigger than the 727 or DC-9, if my memory serves.

My first transatlantic flight was in 1967. I'm afraid my memories of it aren't that good. I have no idea what plane it was. It was likely Trans Canada Airlines (Air Canada's original English name). It was Montreal to Madrid and I think it was non-stop but it might have had a fuel stop in England. Spent the next few months kicking around Europe with a buddy. We were both 19 and he had never been out of BC before.