Boeing Jet Breaks Nonstop-flight Record

[britmaveric]

Boeing Jet Breaks Nonstop-Flight Record

LONDON - A Boeing Co. jet arrived in London from Hong Kong on Thursday, breaking the record for the longest nonstop flight by a commercial jet.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 777-200LR Worldliner — one of Boeing's newest planes — touched down shortly after 1 p.m. (8 a.m. EST) at London's Heathrow Airport after a journey of more than 11,664 miles. The previous record was set when a Boeing 747-400 flew 10,500 miles from London to Sydney in 1989.

A representative of Guinness World Records, which monitored the flight, presented Boeing's Lars Andersen with a certificate confirming it was for the longest nonstop commercial flight.

Captain Suzanna Darcy-Hennemann, was at the controls when the plane left Hong Kong, said the trip east across the Pacific had been bumpy.

"But we had a great ride across the United States ... and across the Atlantic we saw our second sunrise of the trip," she said.

The jet spent 22 hours and 43 minutes in the air.

Andersen said the Hong Kong-to-London flight showed the future of air travel.

"With the 777-200LR, we are changing the world," he said. "Passengers can fly commercially between just about any two cities nonstop."

The plane had four pilots and was carrying 35 passengers and crew, including Boeing representatives, journalists and customers.

The record-breaking attempt is part of Boeing's fierce competition with its European rival Airbus. The Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner was designed to compete directly with the popular Airbus 340-500, which has a flight range of 10,380 miles.

Boeing said that after leaving Hong Kong, the jet flew across the northern Pacific Ocean before reaching North America, where it flew over Los Angeles, then slightly south of Chicago and over New York before cruising over the Atlantic Ocean to London. Hong Kong-London flights usually fly over Russia.

-AP

By EMILY BEHLMANN

10 Nov 2005

[bartender100]

On two engines as well,amazing.

[cdnvic]

On two engines as well,amazing.

The newer engines have 115,000lbs of thrust each. Thats like two and a half of the older 747 engines all in one package.

cv

[Ricardo]

But wouldn't it have been shorter, and quicker, to fly West across asia & europe, instead ?

What major city-pair routes are there, that require this sort of range ? ? If it's longer even than London-Sydney ???

Apologies in advance - if I'm showing my ignorance

Edited November 11, 2005 by Ricardo

[Tywais]

But wouldn't it have been shorter, and quicker, to fly West across asia & europe, instead ?

What major city-pair routes are there, that require this sort of range ? ?  If it's longer even than London-Sydney ???

Apologies in advance  -  if I'm showing my ignorance 

It was a record breaking attempt and as such required the longest distance between two locations that fit their requirement to do it.

[Nordlys]

What major city-pair routes are there, that require this sort of range ? ?  If it's longer even than London-Sydney ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard Singapore - NYC is the longest scheduled flight route, operated by Singapore airlines. Is there a non-stop, direct service between London - Sydney?

[think_too_mut]

What major city-pair routes are there, that require this sort of range ? ?  If it's longer even than London-Sydney ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard Singapore - NYC is the longest scheduled flight route, operated by Singapore airlines. Is there a non-stop, direct service between London - Sydney?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there was one, don't know who would want it. Without any stops, 20 hours on the plane...brrr. Before 10 hours inflight you would wish to be elsewhere, no matter what class you are in.

[cdnvic]

The record attempt isn't a true indication of range. The actual range with a full load is about 9,500mi. The record attempt is just a publicity stunt.

cv

[britmaveric]

Wash DC to BKK prob close to Sydney- London.

[wilko]

I have to say that I think Boeing have goit it right with this plane as opposed to the Euro Super-Jumbo. I'd much rather be able to do my long hauls in one go in a quiet comfortable plane. I think the size of the new Jumbo will make it a "must" for terroists and who wants to fly with so many other people?

[Heng]

Would much rather fly the aforementioned 777 than the new A- 380 BigBus. When it does come out, will certainly check aircraft info before booking.

[papaya9]

The A380 is scary and I will never fly on it. There's something about it I feel is not stable. The Boeing 777 series are wonderful.

I can't wait for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner to come out. Airbus is attempting to develop something to compete with it, but they are really biting off more that they can chew by doing this.

BTW, ANA is going from the 777-200 to the 777-300ER now, from the US to Narita!! (Longer(more leg room) and extended range (ER), and satellite internet (US$30 more)

Edited November 12, 2005 by papaya9

[lomatopo]

What major city-pair routes are there, that require this sort of range ? ?  If it's longer even than London-Sydney ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard Singapore - NYC is the longest scheduled flight route, operated by Singapore airlines. Is there a non-stop, direct service between London - Sydney?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AFAIK SIN-EWR, operated by Singapore Airlines with an Airbus A340-500, is currently the longest, direct, non-stop (flown in both directions, some long flights are non-stop in one direction, but must stop to re-fuel when going in the opposite direction due to prevailing winds) flight at ~ 9,535 (statute) miles. BKK-JFK, operated by Thai Airways as a direct, non-stop flight is ~ 8,660 miles.

LHR-SYD is ~ 10,570 miles and is not currently serviced with a direct, non-stop flight. I have heard that the A340-500 could do LHR-PER (Perth) direct, non-stop at ~ 9,000 miles.

The new Boeing 777-200LR is meant to compete with the Airbus A340-500. Balancing fuel load and consumption, flight routes, passengers and cargo to achieve these distances is challenging, and the market is somewhat limited as there are only so many city-pairs that are far enough apart, yet have enough high-yield traffic to make the route profitable.

[Gary A]

Bangkok to New York City non stop? I'll take it! Getting on and off the plane with 200 people is nightmare enough. 500 or so people would be as bad as the flight itself. No thanks, I think Boeing got it right by concentrating on economy and non stop flights. How many airports are going to be willing to make the investment in bigger gates and other things to accomodate the huge Airbus. The terrorists will be licking their lips trying to get one of those huge planes to crash.

[cdnvic]

Bangkok to New York City non stop? I'll take it! Getting on and off the plane with 200 people is nightmare enough. 500 or so people would be as bad as the flight itself. No thanks, I think Boeing got it right by concentrating on economy and non stop flights. How many airports are going to be willing to make the investment in bigger gates and other things to accomodate the huge Airbus. The terrorists will be licking their lips trying to get one of those huge planes to crash.

Most major airports have already started upgrading to take the new Airbus. It has twice the amount of loading doors, and only 25% more passengers than the 747 so it's actually faster to load and unload. This is what the upgrades at the airports will accomadate.

As for terrorists, thats just hyperbole. In the worst year of terrorism you were still more likely to die in a taxi on the way to the airport than in terrorist attacks, and plane crashes combined. I'm not letting them tell me what to fly in in any case.

This is exactly what everyone was fretting about when the 747 was first proposed. It's now, with the possible exception of the 737, the most successful airliner ever.

Besides... I like having 4 engines when I'm over water.

cv

[Axel]

TG for ex. is presently using the Airbus A340-500 for the non-stop flights between BKK and New York (NYC), nearly 17 hours non-stop.

The Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner was designed to compete directly with the popular Airbus 340-500, which has a flight range of 10,380 miles.

as the article said, Boeing is hitting back at the A340-500.

The Airbus A 380 is another subject, no real competition by Boeing, yet.

The latter is forcasting demand for smaller long-range planes on direct routes whereas the other banks on larger planes to support hubs.

I tend to say Airbus got the right idea for certain markets. Take BKK-London Heathrow or Frankfurt. There certainly is a demand between BKK and the two largest airports in Europe. But to change this to, let's say Chiang Mai to Glasgow or to Hamburg? I doubt there is enough demand for daily non-stops.

Boeing still, of course, has a plane with the dream liner but also those direct routes are limited.

As for the size, well people always feel uncomfortable with new technology.

[Ricardo]

There certainly seems to be a lot of hostility to Airbus out there !

Personally I think that they have got it right, with both the A380 super-jumbo for mid-range popular-routes and the A340-500 for super-long thin routes, and that Boeing will come to regret (may even already be doing so) their decision not to enter the super-jumbo market.

I also find the B777 a bit cramped - although have only flown on TG's seating-layout.

Twin-jets on long over-water flights, with their lack of emergency-landing runways, were tried-and-tested 15-20 years ago as the 767 came onto Europe-USA routes. They're perfectly OK, provided you have the right engineering practices, but I would be wary of a Poo-Air twin-jet

[cdnvic]

The twins lose an advantage when a large body of water, or arctic ice is factored in. A twin must stay within the ETOPS (extended twin operations) limits regarding time from the closest airport. The 777 currently has a 180min ETOPS certification, meaning it must never fly a route that takes it further than 180min from a sutible airport. This means that some twins must take a less direct flight path where a triple, or four engined aircraft can fly the most direct route with no restrictions. So there will be sime instances where the A340's four engines make its practical range further than the 777 which will be tracking close to airports.

*note - ETOPS used to be EROPS (extended range operations) but people kept calling the anagram "Engines Run Or Passengers Swim" *

cv

[billd766]

I remember a few years ago a very light plane travelling around the world with 2 (count them) 2 people on board.

They took the record.

Hot air baloons have gone around the world as well.

But this flight had the maximum fuel laod and only 39 people on board.

What will impress me is if it can do the same trip with a full load of passengers, crew, baggage and a fuel load of fuel in a good commercial time regularly.

Otherwise it is just another commercial advertising stunt and little else.

[Nordlys]

There certainly seems to be a lot of hostility to Airbus out there !

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if this occurs to any of you farangs particularly those from the former allied countries of WW2, but I sometimes find it disturbing to have to fly an aircraft of the company that profits from making strategic bombers like B-17, B-29 and B-52 that actually dropped bombs on people and flattened most of the large and medium sized cities of my homeland with incendiaries and atomic bombs (even though I don't particularly consider myself a pacifist). Although I don't really think about it when flying and do not choose the airline based on the type of aircraft they have in their fleet.

Boeing also never publicly apologized or offered any compensation for their faulty repair (nor accepted investigation by Japanese transportation safety board) of aft cabin pressure bulkhead of Boeing 747 (JAL 123) which blew up in mid-flight, caused all hydraulics to fail and resulted in the worst air disaster in history involving single aircraft, with the death of 520 crews and passengers, which occurred when JAL was the largest single customer for Boeing 747.

[chanchao]

> I sometimes find it disturbing to have to fly an aircraft of the company

> that profits from making strategic bombers like B-17, B-29 and B-52 that actually

> dropped bombs on people

Oh oh.. Say, let's not go that route shall we? The Boeing vs. Airbus thingy is already contentious enough as it is.

Besides, according to your logic there's quite a lot out there that I otherwise couldn't fly, ride or drive, including the BTS Skytrain! (Made by Siemens)

[xbusman]

There certainly seems to be a lot of hostility to Airbus out there !

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if this occurs to any of you farangs particularly those from the former allied countries of WW2, but I sometimes find it disturbing to have to fly an aircraft of the company that profits from making strategic bombers like B-17, B-29 and B-52 that actually dropped bombs on people and flattened most of the large and medium sized cities of my homeland with incendiaries and atomic bombs (even though I don't particularly consider myself a pacifist). Although I don't really think about it when flying and do not choose the airline based on the type of aircraft they have in their fleet.

Boeing also never publicly apologized or offered any compensation for their faulty repair (nor accepted investigation by Japanese transportation safety board) of aft cabin pressure bulkhead of Boeing 747 (JAL 123) which blew up in mid-flight, caused all hydraulics to fail and resulted in the worst air disaster in history involving single aircraft, with the death of 520 crews and passengers, which occurred when JAL was the largest single customer for Boeing 747.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, thats the beauty of peace and prosperity. We can buy products from Mitsubishi or Volkswagen and not have to harbor ancient hostilities over Pearl Harbor or Dachau. Thats all past and now the mortal enemies capable of such brutalities can be friends in business and building instead of death and destruction.

As far as Boeing publicly apologizing? governments find it hard to apologize for heinous atrocities committed under direct orders, you expect a company to apologize for a product?? Cars kill far more people than airplanes and I am not holding my breath for an apology from Honda or Ford.

Amazing how much angst a few airplane builders can generate in the general public. Congratulations Boeing for continuing to push the performance envelope. Congratulations airbus for pushing the design envelope.

[sierra01]

Shouldn't this be a seperate post? As far as I'm concerned it doesn't have much to do with breaking flight records. It might also open up a big can of worms regarding Japanese war atrocities and their unrepentence and denial of it.

If you decide to have a go at me Nordlys so be it, I won't bother answering anyway.

[Nordlys]

Besides, according to your logic there's quite a lot out there that I otherwise couldn't fly, ride or drive, including the BTS Skytrain! (Made by Siemens)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right.

But what is it that Siemens made that I should consider not riding BTS?

As far as Boeing publicly apologizing? governments find it hard to apologize for heinous atrocities committed under direct orders, you expect a company to apologize for a product?? Cars kill far more people than airplanes and I am not holding my breath for an apology from Honda or Ford.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know about farang companies but Japanese companies apologize, at least in Japan.

Anyway sorry for the off topic post.

[lomatopo]

But this flight had the maximum fuel laod and only 39 people on board.

What will impress me is if it can do the same trip with a full load of passengers, crew, baggage and a fuel load of fuel in a good commercial time regularly.

Otherwise it is just another commercial advertising stunt and little else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prepare to be unimpressed. It was clearly stated that this was a successful attempt to set a record, and that the certified maximum ETOPS operating range (accounts for MTOW) will be 9,420 nautical miles (17,445 kilometers).

The comments about Boeing's possible culpability, or responsibility, for actions inflicted by a government's use of their products during a declared war against enemies that initiated the conflict, misplace the blame in my opinion, if indeed there is any blame to be apportioned? Blame the U.S. government and it's leaders at the time, but not Boeing as a company, and not now. One could easily argue that the massive American and Allied bombing during WWII brought an end to that massive conflict more quickly than would have otherwise been possible fighting a more conventional land war? I daresay there are many Japanese (Mitsubishi?) and German companies that manufactured products used in WWII that are currently in existence. I doubt there are many people who think about this when using or buying one of those products? I do understand the ideas behind your comments and an not trying to sound insensitive to them.

I am unfamiliar with the referenced JAL incident so cannot comment.

[Nordlys]

The comments about Boeing's possible culpability, or responsibility, for actions inflicted by a government's use of their products during a declared war against enemies that initiated the conflict, misplace the blame in my opinion, if indeed there is any blame to be apportioned? Blame the U.S. government and it's leaders at the time, but not Boeing as a company, and not now. One could easily argue that the massive American and Allied bombing during WWII brought an end to that massive conflict more quickly than would have otherwise been possible fighting a more conventional land war? I daresay there are many Japanese (Mitsubishi?) and German companies that manufactured products used in WWII that are currently in existence. I doubt there are many people who think about this when using or buying one of those products? I do understand the ideas behind your comments and an not trying to sound insensitive to them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By no means did I mean to say Boeing itself is culpable of war atrocity. And no such company in defense industry dating back from the WW2 era in Japan was allowed to stay existant today except Mitsubishi Heavy Industry (technically a different company from Mitsubishi Motors) and perhaps Nakajima Aircraft, which has transformed itself to an engine/auto maker called Fuji Heavy Industry you might be familiar by the brand name of Subaru. Anyway I understand your point and I have no argument for that.

[lomatopo]

*note - ETOPS used to be EROPS (extended range operations) but people kept calling the anagram "Engines Run Or Passengers Swim"    *

cv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not much has changed, ETOPS, Extended Twin-engine Operations, AKA Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim.

[Axel]

We are talking about Boeing's flight record and planes to be used for the coming 20 years or so. What happened 60-70 years back is history and like with guns, guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Flight JL 123 I do remember if for one story, only. They found notes a father wrote to his son how to take care, and put into his socks, while the plane was uncontrollable flying before crashing some 45 minutes later.

Accidents do happen and I admit I never followed up JL 123 resp. final findings and blame, if any. To 'apologize' is a typical Japanese action, deap bow in front of the public, perhaps some tears in the eyes but no more feeling like a remark in a report to shareholders about last years' problems.

BTS and Siemens? Careful, we are talking about Siemens Austria, not Germany.

Back to the record. Not so sure what Boeing wanted to prove but noted the endurance. But everything comes back to the competition between Boeing (I did like the 747 for years) and Airbus produced by a consortium of European companies.

Let's wait and see who got the better strategy.

[cdnvic]

Lets keep it on topic without the ridiculous "atrocities" angle please. Maybe be happy that we can all fly over each other's countries without bombing or being shot at.

cv