| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
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. A genuinely private business jet that flies when and where you want it to is one thing, but a shared, scheduled weekly service in a small, cramped business jet to Stansted is another, particularly at higher than first class fares. Someone wanting to fly in comfort from NYC to Canary Wharf or the City would be much better off flying on BA's daily direct flight from London City airport. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In article you write:
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. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
John Levine wrote:
In article you write: 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. I wondered if LGA's executive jet FBO could be used? http://www.talonairjets.com/laguardi...te-jet-charter After all, the service will be using executive jets. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
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. I wondered if LGA's executive jet FBO could be used? http://www.talonairjets.com/laguardi...te-jet-charter It said the Marine Air Terminal, which is the original airport building, used by flying boats taking off and landing on the water, with fabulous art deco details. It's had its ups and downs but was extensively refurbished about 20 years ago. It's currently used for the Delta shuttle and for private jets. Finding a place for two biz jets a week is not the problem, the problem is that there's nobody to clear incoming passengers through customs and immigration when they arrive. I suppose that for two flights a week with a dozen people they could pay to have some customs staff come up from JFK for an hour or so, but the whole thing seems dodgy. R's, John |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
John Levine wrote:
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. I wondered if LGA's executive jet FBO could be used? http://www.talonairjets.com/laguardi...te-jet-charter It said the Marine Air Terminal, which is the original airport building, used by flying boats taking off and landing on the water, with fabulous art deco details. It's had its ups and downs but was extensively refurbished about 20 years ago. It's currently used for the Delta shuttle and for private jets. Finding a place for two biz jets a week is not the problem, the problem is that there's nobody to clear incoming passengers through customs and immigration when they arrive. I suppose that for two flights a week with a dozen people they could pay to have some customs staff come up from JFK for an hour or so, but the whole thing seems dodgy. Presumably they'll use whatever arrangement is currently used with other private jets, which already use LGA for long haul flights. I notice their announcement mentions that customers will "Proceed rapidly through customs". |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
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? Perhaps they'll clear customs/immigration en-route, as BA does at Shannon for its flights from London City Airport. As for the business model - perhaps they have one (or two) customers who have commissioned a regular trip, and this is a way of selling a few more seats on the plane? -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
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, just as are available at many other small airports used by private jets. Just because they aren't provided for larger commercial jets doesn't stop them being available for small business jets carrying a handful of people, whose identities will already have been notified. Presumably they have to be pre-booked, to ensure that the staff are available. For example, I don't think the Harrods terminal at Luton is busy enough to have full-time customs and immigration staff, but they come over when needed. Also, many private jet flights are not physically checked. Like boats, they notify customs, but if the passengers say they have nothing to declare, customs may choose to accept their declaration without physically being present, just as most pax going through the green channel aren't stopped. Presumably they need, at most, one immigration officer, but perhaps even that may not be needed. As for the business model - perhaps they have one (or two) customers who have commissioned a regular trip, and this is a way of selling a few more seats on the plane? Unlikely, I'd have thought. Surely regular passengers would rather fly first class from Heathrow, or on the existing LCY JFK flights? And people who routinely use business jets won't want to share them with strangers. A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message
-septe mber.org, at 10:02:07 on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: As for the business model - perhaps they have one (or two) customers who have commissioned a regular trip, and this is a way of selling a few more seats on the plane? Unlikely, I'd have thought. Surely regular passengers would rather fly first class from Heathrow, or on the existing LCY JFK flights? And people who routinely use business jets won't want to share them with strangers. One of their USPs is reducing the "overhead" time at the airports both ends (and the NY end being closer to Manhattan). There's a lot of US-focussed hi-tech companies in the Cambridge area. A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight. I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business jet. -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
John Levine wrote:
In article you write: 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. They also seem to be confused, advertising Westchester-Biggin Hill in June. http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articl...w-york-service Does Westchester have customs and immigration? Oh sorry, Westchester and Stansted: http://media.wix.com/ugd/22fe6d_aa60...4d8325ba06.pdf Ooops, I mean La Guardia and Stansted: http://www.blissjet.com/where-we-fly Third time lucky? (links all from the Blissjet website) Theo |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:36:13 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message -septe mber.org, at 10:02:07 on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: As for the business model - perhaps they have one (or two) customers who have commissioned a regular trip, and this is a way of selling a few more seats on the plane? Unlikely, I'd have thought. Surely regular passengers would rather fly first class from Heathrow, or on the existing LCY JFK flights? And people who routinely use business jets won't want to share them with strangers. One of their USPs is reducing the "overhead" time at the airports both ends (and the NY end being closer to Manhattan). Yes There's a lot of US-focussed hi-tech companies in the Cambridge area. True A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight. I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business jet. Not compared to the significantly cheaper first class seats on a commercial flight. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
"Recliner" wrote in message ... A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight. if that is the case I don't see the selling point tim |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message , at 13:45:51 on
Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business jet. Not compared to the significantly cheaper first class seats on a commercial flight. Regular business class is sufficiently comfortable for most people. And: "Bliss Jet will limit seat sales well below the maximum aircraft’s capacity for extra comfort..." -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message , at 13:50:11 on Wed, 18 Jan
2017, tim... remarked: A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight. if that is the case I don't see the selling point It's only been mentioned several times (convenience to/from/at the airport). -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:05:41 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:50:11 on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, tim... remarked: A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight. if that is the case I don't see the selling point It's only been mentioned several times (convenience to/from/at the airport). 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. -- Spud |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:45:51 on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business jet. Not compared to the significantly cheaper first class seats on a commercial flight. Regular business class is sufficiently comfortable for most people. Yes, and a lot cheaper, with a choice of dozens of flights a day on the NYC-LON route. Bliss will have just one flight a week, so most pax will need to use another airline for one leg of a return trip. They might as well use scheduled airlines for both legs, as they will need to do for any trips that don't fit with Bliss's once a week service. And most corporate execs will work for companies that have arrangements with preferred airlines. I'd have thought Bliss would do better to aim at a less well-served route. And: "Bliss Jet will limit seat sales well below the maximum aircraft’s capacity for extra comfort..." They must have be reacting to feedback, but that makes the business model trickier still. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
|
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
Theo wrote:
John Levine wrote: In article you write: 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. They also seem to be confused, advertising Westchester-Biggin Hill in June. http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articl...w-york-service Does Westchester have customs and immigration? Oh sorry, Westchester and Stansted: http://media.wix.com/ugd/22fe6d_aa60...4d8325ba06.pdf Ooops, I mean La Guardia and Stansted: http://www.blissjet.com/where-we-fly Third time lucky? (links all from the Blissjet website) I suppose they're struggling to find an exec jet field that will welcome them. In principle, they could use more than one such airport if there's the demand. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message
-septe mber.org, at 15:13:17 on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Recliner remarked: I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business jet. Not compared to the significantly cheaper first class seats on a commercial flight. Regular business class is sufficiently comfortable for most people. Yes, and a lot cheaper, with a choice of dozens of flights a day on the NYC-LON route. Bliss will have just one flight a week, so most pax will need to use another airline for one leg of a return trip. They might as well use scheduled airlines for both legs, as they will need to do for any trips that don't fit with Bliss's once a week service. And most corporate execs will work for companies that have arrangements with preferred airlines. I'd have thought Bliss would do better to aim at a less well-served route. And: "Bliss Jet will limit seat sales well below the maximum aircraft’s capacity for extra comfort..." They must have be reacting to feedback, but that makes the business model trickier still. In both cases, not if they are already operating the flight for a few specific weekly commuters, and want to fill a few empty seats (maybe even giving a discount to the regulars). -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
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. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
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. -- Spud |
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 |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
"Theo" wrote in message ... 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. so a full price of close to half a million who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that? tim |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
Someone Somewhere wrote:
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)? That restriction only applies to scheduled commercial flights. Biz jets can and do fly long haul to/from LGA and other small airfields. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
Theo wrote:
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. I wonder what the attraction would be? Scheduled first class would be much more comfortable and private, at a fraction of the price. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On 19/01/2017 18:44, Theo wrote:
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 Flight number? |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
In message , at 20:05:19 on Thu, 19 Jan
2017, tim... remarked: 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. I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost. so a full price of close to half a million Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction. who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that? Even at full price, if you need all 48 seats it's cheaper than business class. -- Roland Perry |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:31:40 +0000 (UTC)
John Levine wrote: 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. Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins. -- Spud |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:37:08 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Theo wrote: 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. I wonder what the attraction would be? Scheduled first class would be much more comfortable and private, at a fraction of the price. There are a lot of rich gullible people in the world. -- Spud |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
|
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:31:40 +0000 (UTC) John Levine wrote: 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. Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins. It depends on the wind and the loading. LHR-LAX is 4741 nm, so well within the nominal range, but if the 737 has max payload and there's the usual headwind, it may be insufficient. |
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:16 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk