Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Chugach wrote:Prepare to be inundated with uppity posts about the search function.
Chugach wrote:Prepare to be inundated with uppity posts about the search function.
konrad wrote:Who would want to clear US immigration at ANC in the middle of the night?
konrad wrote:Who would want to clear US immigration at ANC in the middle of the night?
NameOmitted wrote:Yes, if 2 conditions are met:
1) the politics surrounding global climate change becomes such that there is a significant (read crippling) tax on jet fuel.
2) the 797 has a kick-ass fuel burn optimized for a range of 4,500-5,000 miles.
konrad wrote:Who would want to clear US immigration at ANC in the middle of the night?
NameOmitted wrote:Yes, if 2 conditions are met:
1) the politics surrounding global climate change becomes such that there is a significant (read crippling) tax on jet fuel.
Rdh3e wrote:In what way would this advantage an ANC hub? This would exacerbate the issue. Flying a single segment long haul will burn less fuel per passenger than flying the same passengers via ANC. Nonstop = more efficient routing, one-stop = less time at cruise which is the most efficient phase of flight.
777PHX wrote:Chugach wrote:Prepare to be inundated with uppity posts about the search function.
To be fair, this brilliant idea comes up at least on a monthly basis.
It doesn't make much sense. Who wants to stopover in ANC on the way to Asia? Or stopover in the middle of the night eastbound?
ANC-NRT and maybe Seoul are about as far as you could get from ANC on a modern narrowbody. Anything else requires a widebody and is longhaul, which sort of defeats the purpose.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:More like Vu Jade, that feeling of not wanting to be here yet again.
gf
klakzky123 wrote:Aren't the Chinese carriers acting as the low cost Asian option (and by extension making Chinese airports the LCC hubs for Asia)? ANC lost its value once the Soviet Union opened up its airspace.
lostsound wrote:You have to remember that most Asian destinations are a lot further south from Alaska than European destinations are from Iceland. I don't think this model makes any sense here. It'd be better to run that model out of Hawaii... a lot closer to the majority of Asian cities.
incitatus wrote:Perfectly possible. It takes an airline that wants to do it. A330 or A330-neo might be the perfect aircraft. A hub in Anchorage could cover Asia entirely. Jakarta is 7000 miles away and Chennai is 6600 mi away. Everything else that matters is shorter.
paulduwon wrote:I know what you might be thinking - ANC was a transit hub during the Soviet era for Asian and European carriers.
I was thinking if it's possible for a new low-cost airline or even Alaska Airlines (even though AS focuses on the mainland services) to establish a transit hub for passengers traveling between Asia and North America?
WOW Air and Icelandair use Reykjavik as a transit hub for passengers flying between North America and Europe. I think if proper equipments are available, a low-cost market could emerge between Asia and North America.
Not to mention Alaska is also a tourist destination, so I think a fair amount of Asian tourists could take nonstop flights to Alaska as well.
I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions!
zakuivcustom wrote:klakzky123 wrote:Aren't the Chinese carriers acting as the low cost Asian option (and by extension making Chinese airports the LCC hubs for Asia)? ANC lost its value once the Soviet Union opened up its airspace.
Tell that to UPS or FedEx or the gajillion cargo operators there .lostsound wrote:You have to remember that most Asian destinations are a lot further south from Alaska than European destinations are from Iceland. I don't think this model makes any sense here. It'd be better to run that model out of Hawaii... a lot closer to the majority of Asian cities.
Which is not true. Some sample East/SE Asian Cities, first number is from ANC, second from HNL (All Great Circle Distance from GCMap)
NRT - 2984nmi vs. 3318nmi
ICN - 3300nmi vs. 3977nmi
PEK - 3442nmi vs. 4398nmi
PVG - 3744nmi vs. 4281nmi
HKG - 4415nmi vs. 4839nmi
MNL - 4617nmi vs. 4607nmi
HAN - 4694nmi vs. 5285nmi
SGN - 5128nmi vs. 5474nmi
BKK - 5227nmi vs. 5728nmi
SIN - 5791nmi vs. 5832nmi
CGK - 6109nmi vs. 5844nmi
Basically MNL or cities closer to equator like SIN or CGK are the only major cities that is closer to HNL than ANC. China/Japan/South Korea or even Thailand/Vietnam? All closer to ANC.
Then you consider this (I just listed some larger airports/cities out there, but you get the point)
YVR - 1156nmi vs. 2351nmi
SEA - 1259nmi vs. 2326nmi
SFO - 1746nmi vs. 2084nmi
LAS - 2002nmi vs. 2400nmi
LAX - 2038nmi vs. 2221nmi
DEN - 2090nmi vs. 2924nmi
ORD - 2473nmi vs. 3687nmi
YYZ - 2635nmi vs. 4040nmi
DFW - 2644nmi vs. 3288nmi
IAH - 2838nmi vs. 3392nmi
IAD - 2916nmi vs. 4186nmi
BOS - 2940nmi vs. 4427nmi
JFK - 2942nmi vs. 4330nmi
ATL - 2969nmi vs. 3912nmi
MIA - 3479nmi vs. 4225nmi
In fact, about the furthest east you can go from HNL to mainland US/Canada with a narrowbody is DEN, while airports as far south as IAH/DFW/ATL or as far east as JFK/BOS are perfectly doable on a modern narrowbody to/from ANC.incitatus wrote:Perfectly possible. It takes an airline that wants to do it. A330 or A330-neo might be the perfect aircraft. A hub in Anchorage could cover Asia entirely. Jakarta is 7000 miles away and Chennai is 6600 mi away. Everything else that matters is shorter.
Once you get to A330/A330neo, why bother with ANC? You can (theoretically) fly to every single major East/SE Asian cities (except CGK, and SIN is also cutting it close) with A339neo from SEA, along with pretty much everywhere in India (Although, again, Southern India is cutting things close, but DEL or BOM? No problem). Hack, throw in some A338neo and southern India or Jakarta is no longer a problem, either.
Conversely, you can based a long-haul LCC in Tokyo or Osaka and voila, you can reach Europe and the entire North America and Australia with some A330neos. Which is something that you can bet AirAsia X is going to try sooner or later (along with JL's "low-cost long-haul subsidary").
exFWAOONW wrote:zakuivcustom wrote:klakzky123 wrote:Aren't the Chinese carriers acting as the low cost Asian option (and by extension making Chinese airports the LCC hubs for Asia)? ANC lost its value once the Soviet Union opened up its airspace.
Tell that to UPS or FedEx or the gajillion cargo operators there .lostsound wrote:You have to remember that most Asian destinations are a lot further south from Alaska than European destinations are from Iceland. I don't think this model makes any sense here. It'd be better to run that model out of Hawaii... a lot closer to the majority of Asian cities.
Which is not true. Some sample East/SE Asian Cities, first number is from ANC, second from HNL (All Great Circle Distance from GCMap)
NRT - 2984nmi vs. 3318nmi
ICN - 3300nmi vs. 3977nmi
PEK - 3442nmi vs. 4398nmi
PVG - 3744nmi vs. 4281nmi
HKG - 4415nmi vs. 4839nmi
MNL - 4617nmi vs. 4607nmi
HAN - 4694nmi vs. 5285nmi
SGN - 5128nmi vs. 5474nmi
BKK - 5227nmi vs. 5728nmi
SIN - 5791nmi vs. 5832nmi
CGK - 6109nmi vs. 5844nmi
Basically MNL or cities closer to equator like SIN or CGK are the only major cities that is closer to HNL than ANC. China/Japan/South Korea or even Thailand/Vietnam? All closer to ANC.
Then you consider this (I just listed some larger airports/cities out there, but you get the point)
YVR - 1156nmi vs. 2351nmi
SEA - 1259nmi vs. 2326nmi
SFO - 1746nmi vs. 2084nmi
LAS - 2002nmi vs. 2400nmi
LAX - 2038nmi vs. 2221nmi
DEN - 2090nmi vs. 2924nmi
ORD - 2473nmi vs. 3687nmi
YYZ - 2635nmi vs. 4040nmi
DFW - 2644nmi vs. 3288nmi
IAH - 2838nmi vs. 3392nmi
IAD - 2916nmi vs. 4186nmi
BOS - 2940nmi vs. 4427nmi
JFK - 2942nmi vs. 4330nmi
ATL - 2969nmi vs. 3912nmi
MIA - 3479nmi vs. 4225nmi
In fact, about the furthest east you can go from HNL to mainland US/Canada with a narrowbody is DEN, while airports as far south as IAH/DFW/ATL or as far east as JFK/BOS are perfectly doable on a modern narrowbody to/from ANC.incitatus wrote:Perfectly possible. It takes an airline that wants to do it. A330 or A330-neo might be the perfect aircraft. A hub in Anchorage could cover Asia entirely. Jakarta is 7000 miles away and Chennai is 6600 mi away. Everything else that matters is shorter.
Once you get to A330/A330neo, why bother with ANC? You can (theoretically) fly to every single major East/SE Asian cities (except CGK, and SIN is also cutting it close) with A339neo from SEA, along with pretty much everywhere in India (Although, again, Southern India is cutting things close, but DEL or BOM? No problem). Hack, throw in some A338neo and southern India or Jakarta is no longer a problem, either.
Conversely, you can based a long-haul LCC in Tokyo or Osaka and voila, you can reach Europe and the entire North America and Australia with some A330neos. Which is something that you can bet AirAsia X is going to try sooner or later (along with JL's "low-cost long-haul subsidary").
Your research only confirms the old adage that Hawaii is the remotest place on the Earth.
twicearound wrote:Round and around we go... In related news the 757 line is being restarted
Cunard wrote:twicearound wrote:Round and around we go... In related news the 757 line is being restarted
Exactly and I am definitely under the impression that those that post threads such as this do not use the SEARCH function before starting their own threads.
Perhaps those that do so are under the impression that by starting yet another tedious thread regarding the same topic that's been discussed on a.net numerous times before might get different responses from posters to previous threads regarding the same subject or that they want to feel ''special'' by opening their very own thread!
There has been a lot of threads started on a.net recently regarding topics that have been recently discussed or threads that are more or less duplicates of others that are or were being discussed! The Mods should be more proactive regarding this sort of thing in my opinion.
Newbiepilot wrote:Hubs require O/D in addition to connecting traffic. So far there are no sustainable Alaska to Asia markets
FA9295 wrote:Cunard wrote:twicearound wrote:Round and around we go... In related news the 757 line is being restarted
Exactly and I am definitely under the impression that those that post threads such as this do not use the SEARCH function before starting their own threads.
Perhaps those that do so are under the impression that by starting yet another tedious thread regarding the same topic that's been discussed on a.net numerous times before might get different responses from posters to previous threads regarding the same subject or that they want to feel ''special'' by opening their very own thread!
There has been a lot of threads started on a.net recently regarding topics that have been recently discussed or threads that are more or less duplicates of others that are or were being discussed! The Mods should be more proactive regarding this sort of thing in my opinion.
To be fair though, the "search" function on this website has always been broken. If I'm looking for a specific thread I'll just type it in to google, followed by "airliners.net" and it usually comes right up!
PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
An interesting idea!
One thing to remember about transit hubs is virtually all airports depend on a significant amount of O&D to drive demand. ANC would have virtually none to supplement what's going on in the model you proposed. The small populations Anchorage and Alaska coupled with the significant distances
WkndWanderer wrote:PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
An interesting idea!
One thing to remember about transit hubs is virtually all airports depend on a significant amount of O&D to drive demand. ANC would have virtually none to supplement what's going on in the model you proposed. The small populations Anchorage and Alaska coupled with the significant distances
The Anchorage area is more populous than KEF (the entire country of Iceland for that matter) and the Icelandic airlines have successful transfer operations, so local population isn't necessarily determinative on its own. Icelandair has used the 72 hour stopover option to mitigate this some and promote people taking a pit stop on their way to wherever they had originally planned on going.
SEAflyer97 wrote:First of all, you can't open any flights to PRC mainland due to the slot restrictions.
paulduwon wrote:Not to mention Alaska is also a tourist destination, so I think a fair amount of Asian tourists could take nonstop flights to Alaska as well.
NameOmitted wrote:Fuel is heavy, and there comes a point where transporting the the fuel needed for long range costs more fuel than a stop-over.
Rdh3e wrote:NameOmitted wrote:Fuel is heavy, and there comes a point where transporting the the fuel needed for long range costs more fuel than a stop-over.
What you're talking about is closer to 8K+mi routes which would be further than you can go on two narrows anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraftFor long-haul flights, the airplane needs to carry additional fuel, leading to higher fuel consumption. Above a certain distance it becomes more fuel-efficient to make a halfway stop to refuel despite the energy losses in descent and climb. For example, a Boeing 777-300 reaches the tipping point at 3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km). It is more fuel-efficient to make a non-stop flight below this distance and to make a stop when covering a longer total distance.[
Rdh3e wrote:I do not have public information I can share with you. That example on Wikipedia is about a single airframe (a 30 year old aircraft none the less), not a comparison between two aircraft.
Fuel is also not the only expense.
mdavies06 wrote:
An advantage possessed by KEF is the ability to fly narrow body to smaller towns on both side of the ocean. There are barely any destination in Asian side of the Pacific reachable from ANC on a fully loaded narrowbody.