The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:43:14 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:04:59 on Wed, 18 Jan
2017, d remarked:

737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or
not.

Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?

Some business jets fly higher and faster than airliners.

Some storm clouds go up to 60K feet. The only civil aircraft that could go
over them would be concorde.


If they're flying above the normal air routes, they probably have more
freedom to pick/change their own route.

The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

On 18.01.2017 5:15 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:04:59 on Wed, 18 Jan
2017, d remarked:

737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or not.

Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?

Personally, I'd pay more for a smaller plane. Then again, I love a bit of
turbulence - reminds you you're flying. Of course, I used to be a glider
pilot, so my feelings may not be mainstream.

I can confirm though that the 7 hours I didn't on a 737 a couple of weeks
ago were ****ing torture.

The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

On 18.01.2017 8:46 PM, Clank wrote:
On 18.01.2017 5:15 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:04:59 on Wed, 18 Jan
2017, d remarked:

737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or not.

Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?

Personally, I'd pay more for a smaller plane. Then again, I love a bit of
turbulence - reminds you you're flying. Of course, I used to be a glider
pilot, so my feelings may not be mainstream.

I can confirm though that the 7 hours I didn't on a 737 a couple of weeks
ago were ****ing torture.

"Spent" not "didn't". Bloody swype.

The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight.

if that is the case I don't see the selling point

If they fly to Westchester and the actual goal is, say, IBM
headquarters, that's a 10 minute drive from Westchester, but a 60 to
90 minute slog from JFK.

If they go to LaGuardia, it's less pronounced but still significant.
To, say, the Citibank tower in Manhattan, it's 30 mins from LGA, an
hour from JFK.

R's,
John

The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

John Levine wrote:
A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight.

if that is the case I don't see the selling point

If they fly to Westchester and the actual goal is, say, IBM
headquarters, that's a 10 minute drive from Westchester, but a 60 to
90 minute slog from JFK.

If they go to LaGuardia, it's less pronounced but still significant.
To, say, the Citibank tower in Manhattan, it's 30 mins from LGA, an
hour from JFK.

Somewhere like Westchester sounds like a more sensible base for an exec jet
service than an existing large commercial airport, though LGA would
certainly beat JFK.

The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:16:01 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:43:14 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:04:59 on Wed, 18 Jan
2017, d remarked:

737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or
not.

Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?

Some business jets fly higher and faster than airliners.

Some storm clouds go up to 60K feet. The only civil aircraft that could go
over them would be concorde.


If they're flying above the normal air routes, they probably have more
freedom to pick/change their own route.

Does an executive jet have enough range to divert around a huge atlantic front,
some of which can span thousands of miles?

--
Spud

The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:46:29 -0000 (UTC)
Clank wrote:
On 18.01.2017 5:15 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:04:59 on Wed, 18 Jan
2017, d remarked:

737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or
not.

Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?

Personally, I'd pay more for a smaller plane. Then again, I love a bit of
turbulence - reminds you you're flying. Of course, I used to be a glider
pilot, so my feelings may not be mainstream.

I imagine its different when you're the one in control.


I can confirm though that the 7 hours I didn't on a 737 a couple of weeks
ago were ****ing torture.

I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What ****ty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.

--
Spud

The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

On 18/01/2017 10:02, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:58:54 on Tue, 17 Jan
2017, John Levine remarked:
https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january

This looks like the next dead cert failure.

This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.

But LaGuardia is a domestic airport. It has no customs or immigration
facilities and its only international flights are from Canada, where
flights are precleared. It seems rather unlikely that the US would set
up a preclearance station at Stansted.

Does it say the flights are non-stop?

I'm pretty sure they're non-stop.


Perhaps they'll clear customs/immigration en-route, as BA does at
Shannon for its flights from London City Airport.

No need. LGA already handles long haul business jets, providing customs and
immigration facilities,

Are you sure about that? Isn't there some law about LGA that it can't
have flights with longer than a sector length of 1500 miles which would
preclude anywhere but Canada (which has pre-clearance)?

The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What ****ty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.

It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.

The plane is a derivative of the BBJ, the biz jet version of the 737,
which has a range of 6200 nm with 8 passengers. Sounds like this
airline is more likely to fly the BBJ.

The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
 

John Levine wrote:
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.

The plane is a derivative of the BBJ, the biz jet version of the 737,
which has a range of 6200 nm with 8 passengers. Sounds like this
airline is more likely to fly the BBJ.

If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000. That's 9800nm so I assume there's a fuel stop in that.

Theo