Air Tahiti Nui CEO Hints Nonstop Flights To Paris With 787-9

797 · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:02 pm

In an interview published by Airways Magazine, the airline's CEO said that with the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, nonstop flights between Papeete and Paris might happen soon.

https://airwaysmag.com/interview/air-tahiti-nui/

According to him, this flight would beat the current SIN-EWR flight as the longest in the world.

Woah.... currently the airline offers flights to Paris with the annoying stop in LAX.

How much really longer would this flight be versus SIN-EWR?

pabloeing · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:02 pm

Awesome news ¡¡¡¡

pabloeing · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:05 pm

Tahiti → Paris

Distance: 9,768.13 mi (15,720.28 km)

Gonzalo · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:26 pm

I know is slightly off topic, but I have to ask, could TN open a route to Santiago or Ezeiza in the foreseeable future? The Dreamliner has a much better fuel economy than the 343 and they could fly once a week like Latam does. I had a wonderful experience flying with them to PPT from AKL and I’m sure I will choose TN over LA if I have the chance....anyway...just wishful thinking : )

ikolkyo · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:34 pm

Even longer than PER-LHR which QF operates with 236pax and apparently a bit of cargo

NYPECO · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:34 pm

The 787-9 range listed on Boeing's website is not enough for the flight, so how are they going to get that extra bit of range?

trav777 · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:46 pm

797 wrote:
In an interview published by Airways Magazine, the airline's CEO said that with the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, nonstop flights between Papeete and Paris might happen soon.

https://airwaysmag.com/interview/air-tahiti-nui/

According to him, this flight would beat the current SIN-EWR flight as the longest in the world.

Woah.... currently the airline offers flights to Paris with the annoying stop in LAX.

How much really longer would this flight be versus SIN-EWR?

8485nm. 200nm more than SIN-EWR.

Phew that's...stretching it. I do not see how a 789 gets there. Real range of the 789 is 7635nm at 253pax. PER-LHR backs this up as they shed 2-ish t pax to get another couple hundred nm of range to do the 7829nm leg. They're burning right below 5.4t/hr, like it was 5.38 or so from one sheet. QF going out at .5t under MTOW, 236pax according to their website. Their DOW must be lower than UAL's bc the payload difference between PER-LHR which is doable and LAX-SIN which wasn't (UAL) doesn't account for the extra range. They'd only be shedding 1.7t of weight vs UAL, gaining 150nm at that burn rate. Winds I guess upwind to SIN must be way worse.

To get from QF's config at 7900 (optimistic) to 8485...that's more than another hour of flight time. At 488kts it's 1.2 hrs. At a 5.38 burn rate, they need 6.44 tons. They're gonna pull another 65 pax off? They'd be able to do it with like 170pax...i mean...o....k. Just not sure how this is doable. I mean at 5.38t/hr burn rate, the 789 couldn't do it with only 101t of fuel. They'd be down at the 2nd range kink.

Even longer than PER-LHR which QF operates with 236pax and apparently a bit of cargo

quite a bit longer, 660nm more. QF's config, I'd sure like to know about as they get quite a bit of extra performance for the minor amount lower pax vs UAL. If they're in fact taking even cargo + 236pax, it's very curious

stlgph · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:48 pm

Just curious - how are the loads to CDG on Air Tahiti Nui anyway? I imagine they're feeling a little bit more pressure with Delta coming on the route.

thepinkmachine · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:50 pm

I think it would be doable with <200 pax. The problem is, even at max load, they would max out fuel capacity, which is 101T. LHR-PER is pretty much at max fuel. To fly 600Nm extra, they would need another 5-6T of fuel. Maybe Boeing is able to increase max fuel like Airbus did with A350ULR?

FlyHappy · Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:51 pm

Technically, they can get this done. It just seems like a very uneconomical enterprise, though. Not just for the fuel, and airframe utilization, but also for crew expense.
Good luck to them, sounds like an unprofitable venture to me.

TWFlyGuy · Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:07 pm

The problem with it I see is that Tahiti is primarily three groups of people: 1) Honeymoon, 2) Major Anniversary or 3) Retirement Celebration. All of these are leisure ventures and the first two groups generally have limited windows to travel because they are still working and therefore taking a specified amount of time off of work. While I enjoyed my time in Bora Bora, the trip from the East coast took so long that if we were going today, we might do the overwater huts in the Caribbean instead and get the time and jet lag out of the way. How big is the market from Europe truly? A one-stop makes most of Western Europe easier but can enough people spend that much time to go to one of the most expensive spots in the world?

stlgph · Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:11 pm

Not to be a smart ass but for some people going there - a time crunch isn't a worry or a concern to them. On the other hand, for those where a time crunch is a worry and concern, perhaps having a restriction on the time spent there so they aren't spending ALL their money there might be a help

Samrnpage · Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:24 pm

Wouldnt the 787-8 be a better plane for the trip?

thepinkmachine · Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:57 pm

[list=][/list]

Samrnpage wrote:
Wouldnt the 787-8 be a better plane for the trip?

Not at current MTOW

seabosdca · Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:05 pm

I don't see how they can possibly make it work. As mentioned, the 787-9 will be running into fuel volume limitations even at 2/3 of full passenger load. If they really wanted to fly the route, they needed a 280 t A350-900 and some very careful thinking about the lightest possible configuration.

Samrnpage wrote:
Wouldnt the 787-8 be a better plane for the trip?

No, the 787-8 has smaller and lighter main gear, requiring lower maximum weights. The 787-9 at 254 t MTOW has about one hour more real-world range, all else equal, than a 787-8 at 228 t MTOW.

TWFlyGuy · Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:08 pm

stlgph wrote:
Not to be a smart ass but for some people going there - a time crunch isn't a worry or a concern to them. On the other hand, for those where a time crunch is a worry and concern, perhaps having a restriction on the time spent there so they aren't spending ALL their money there might be a help

But you get to a commercial air travel demand issue. If you have enough money to not have time be an option, a private jet might be an option. If you work in a corporate gig or own your own business and make enough to go, you have a finite time frame you can escape. So, you have to consider how big the market is. It's not like there aren't closer exotic resort beaches. The Maldives for example. I just don't imagine there's this gigantic market. I certainly see a lot of French natives when I was there. Sample of 1 but...seems like a tough sell.

trav777 · Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:18 pm

seabosdca wrote:
I don't see how they can possibly make it work. As mentioned, the 787-9 will be running into fuel volume limitations even at 2/3 of full passenger load. If they really wanted to fly the route, they needed a 280 t A350-900 and some very careful thinking about the lightest possible configuration.

Samrnpage wrote:
Wouldnt the 787-8 be a better plane for the trip?

No, the 787-8 has smaller and lighter main gear, requiring lower maximum weights. The 787-9 at 254 t MTOW has about one hour more real-world range, all else equal, than a 787-8 at 228 t MTOW.

anyone have the link to the updated ACAPS p/r charts for the 787? Originally, the -8 would have had the superior range, but the -9 gained 24t vs only 12t for the -8 thus the difference. The -9 is rated in realistic config at +280nm to the -8.

drdisque · Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:25 pm

Lots of high end European tourists go to French Polynesia. It's sort of a badge of honor because it's such a long trip. There is also some government traffic between PPT and Paris.

If TN wanted to avoid CDG-PPT pax having to go through the US, they could always stop in PTY which has TWOV or CAY, which is also a French overseas department.

PPT-CDG is 1000 miles longer than LAX-SIN. I don't see how the route is possible with the 787-9.

Planeflyer · Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:26 pm

Not sure if it’ll work but just thinking about flying to Tahiti brightens the day.

FA9295 · Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:31 pm

I don't know too much about this route, so pardon the ignorance, but don't they heavily rely on pax from LAX to fill up their planes (going to either/both PPT or CDG from LAX)?

Obviously there are huge ties between Papeete and Paris, but is there really enough demand to fill the plane on a PPT-CDG nonstop/direct flight leg?

910A · Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:42 pm

Four airlines are already flying to Paris one-stop (1 ORY - 3 CDG), sounds like a great way for TN to lose money.

winginit · Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:54 pm

Pipe dream. SIN-EWR works because it's bankrolled by big banks in premium cabins. While French Polynesia is a relatively high yielding leisure destination, it's also popular for mileage redemption. The math simply doesn't add up here for profitability.

AsiaTravel · Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:55 pm

910A wrote:
Four airlines are already flying to Paris one-stop (1 ORY - 3 CDG), sounds like a great way for TN to lose money.

Exactly. You don't take this sort of risk when you need to dedicate 1/4 of your fleet for it. SQ and QF have some cushions in case ULH fails, TN, not so much.

airbazar · Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:22 pm

PPT->CDG, possibly. Tail wind all the way.
CDG->PPT, no way.

george77300 · Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:49 pm

I just think this is testament to how well the B789 is at long range. For TN to say that it’s doable for them with a B789 but an A350ULR didn’t have the range needed is very interesting. I’m sure they’ve crunched the numbers, (as did UA/QF/SQ), and it seems that TN have decided on the 789 and best for them. Clearly th more profitable option in their case.

Antarius · Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:02 pm

george77300 wrote:
I just think this is testament to how well the B789 is at long range. For TN to say that it’s doable for them with a B789 but an A350ULR didn’t have the range needed is very interesting. I’m sure they’ve crunched the numbers, (as did UA/QF/SQ), and it seems that TN have decided on the 789 and best for them. Clearly th more profitable option in their case.

The 789 is an excellent plane, but still this seems questionable. IIRC, UA cut LAX-SIN as they were having issues with payload on such a range. This is waaay further.

TC957 · Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:16 pm

I recall TN many many years ago were talking about getting an A345 to do PPT-CDG nonstop and wisely decided against it then.
I agree that routing the flight thru PTY instead of LAX could be an option.

thepinkmachine · Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:18 pm

Had a quick look into the FCOM flight planning data and it *almost* works in still air and ~150-170PAX. Any significant headwind makes it a non-starter.

To make this flight operationally viable, the 789 would need ~5T extra fuel capacity (ACT anyone?) and a 5T MTOW boost...

redroo · Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:10 am

trav777 wrote:
797 wrote:
In an interview published by Airways Magazine, the airline's CEO said that with the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, nonstop flights between Papeete and Paris might happen soon.

https://airwaysmag.com/interview/air-tahiti-nui/

According to him, this flight would beat the current SIN-EWR flight as the longest in the world.

Woah.... currently the airline offers flights to Paris with the annoying stop in LAX.

How much really longer would this flight be versus SIN-EWR?

8485nm. 200nm more than SIN-EWR.

Phew that's...stretching it. I do not see how a 789 gets there. Real range of the 789 is 7635nm at 253pax. PER-LHR backs this up as they shed 2-ish t pax to get another couple hundred nm of range to do the 7829nm leg. They're burning right below 5.4t/hr, like it was 5.38 or so from one sheet. QF going out at .5t under MTOW, 236pax according to their website. Their DOW must be lower than UAL's bc the payload difference between PER-LHR which is doable and LAX-SIN which wasn't (UAL) doesn't account for the extra range. They'd only be shedding 1.7t of weight vs UAL, gaining 150nm at that burn rate. Winds I guess upwind to SIN must be way worse.

To get from QF's config at 7900 (optimistic) to 8485...that's more than another hour of flight time. At 488kts it's 1.2 hrs. At a 5.38 burn rate, they need 6.44 tons. They're gonna pull another 65 pax off? They'd be able to do it with like 170pax...i mean...o....k. Just not sure how this is doable. I mean at 5.38t/hr burn rate, the 789 couldn't do it with only 101t of fuel. They'd be down at the 2nd range kink.

Even longer than PER-LHR which QF operates with 236pax and apparently a bit of cargo

quite a bit longer, 660nm more. QF's config, I'd sure like to know about as they get quite a bit of extra performance for the minor amount lower pax vs UAL. If they're in fact taking even cargo + 236pax, it's very curious

QF definitely taking cargo. Not all the time and not very much. They planned with no cargo but the route performs well when the wind plays right.

Aesma · Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:34 am

If that was the goal all along then they bought the wrong plastic plane.

Would probably be the longest domestic route.

French people have mandatory 5 weeks vacations (and often more, at least for the people likely to fly to PPT) so the time to get there is not really an issue, staying that long in an airplane is something else.

9252fly · Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:01 am

airbazar wrote:
PPT->CDG, possibly. Tail wind all the way.
CDG->PPT, no way.

Would it work flying eastbound for both sectors in the attempt to ride the jet-streams as much as possible?

Mortyman · Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:39 am

So I am guessing 19-20 hour flight ?

alan3 · Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:40 am

He acts like the stop in LAX is just a tiresome and annoying refueling stop.

Do they not capture fifth freedom traffic from CDG-LAX and LAX-PPT? Or is the overwhelming majority of pax CDG-PPT through pax?

B8887 · Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:16 am

This is very interesting.

A few thoughts. The kind of traffic it attracts is not high yielding. It's very high yielding. One word. Honeymooners.

The kind of people and the circumstances that specifically want to avoid that unpleasant lounge in LAX.

And they're prepared to pay for it.

Routing? Very curious about that. More over Mexico or British Columbia?...

This is not SIN-EWR or PER-LHR.These people don't want to spend hours behind a spreadsheet.

And yes, gov traffic, a few business links and VFRs will help.

787 at its best. Long and thin.

Regards.

B8887

RJMAZ · Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:33 am

Samrnpage wrote:
Wouldnt the 787-8 be a better plane for the trip?

Yes it would.

With 25,000lb payload the 787-8 can fly 400nm further than the larger 787-9 according to the ACAPs. 9200nm versus 8800nm.

The 787-8 could actually do the route with 40-50 more passengers as a result. Which would mean the 787-8 has a fairly normal low density cabin where as the 787-9 would need a stupid full business class cabin with 100 seats.

The 787-9 hits max fuel before MTOW on routes such as this.

Is there an aftermarket LD3 fuel tank that can be installed into the 787? A single LD3 tank wouod allow the 787-9 to do this route with 200 passengers.

RJMAZ · Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:38 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
To make this flight operationally viable, the 789 would need ~5T extra fuel capacity (ACT anyone?)...

Are there any companies that make LD3 sized fuel tanks. I know the 777-200LR had them available. If one of these could fit the 787-9 it could easily do this route.

qf002 · Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:09 am

If they don't rely on LAX to fill seats then maybe TN should consider shifting the fuel stop to Canada instead. A stop at YUL (or even YOW/YQB or is that a stretch too far?) would be far more pleasant for passengers and could establish a new French-speaking market for them to tap into.

RWA380 · Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:31 am

alan3 wrote:
He acts like the stop in LAX is just a tiresome and annoying refueling stop.

Do they not capture fifth freedom traffic from CDG-LAX and LAX-PPT? Or is the overwhelming majority of pax CDG-PPT through pax?

Much like the NZ flight AKL via LAX to LHR, the majority of traffic is LAX centric. While there are certainly some through passengers, it’s not a large percentage. I seriously doubt a non-stop flight could fill enough seats regularly to even break even. TN would have to charge a premium vs the one stop option, as they would be fools to give up on LAX-CDG, unless they could easily get it back.

thepinkmachine · Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:13 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Yes it would.

With 25,000lb payload the 787-8 can fly 400nm further than the larger 787-9 according to the ACAPs. 9200nm versus 8800nm.

The 788 burns less fuel, so in theory it has better range than the 789 - but it maxes out on MTOW too early.

Technically, it could do the flight, but with 100-150 PAX at best.

Again, we’re almost there - Boeing would have to give it an MTOW boost to make it viable, but with both -8 and -9 we are just a couple of tones short...

Another operational issue is see is possibly lack of convenient nearby alternate airport for PPT, which means higher fuel reserves would have to be carried. Not a problem on the other side, as there are plenty of suitable airports around Paris.

BTW - does anyone what reserves does QF LHR-PER flight carry? IIRC, PER used to be regarded as ‘island’/isolated airport by some carriers, which necessitates at least 2 hrs worth of fuel upon landing (at least according to EASA regulations)

a350lover · Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:42 am

It is right that the political & administration links between Tahiti and France are remarkable.
However, if Hawaiian hasn't ever considered (seriously) a non-stop link from HNL to Europe.
Would this PPT-CDG work?
Hawaiian obviously relies on connections through US mainland, so they don't need as much a non-stop link to Europe, but just talking about the market size, PPT-CDG non-stop probably isn't a huge one.

StudiodeKadent · Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:47 am

I simply don't see this as truly happening.

QF needed specially designed cabin EVERYTHING (even the cutlery) alongside a high-premium LOPA to perform a shorter route.

French Polynesia has quite a bit of high end tourism and a little bit of government traffic, but unlikely to be enough to sustain this flight.

If they were using an A350-900ULR with a special configuration, I could see it happening. But a 787-9 with what looks like a standard 3 class configuration? Not viable.

The 787-9 is a fantastic jet and has very impressive range. But CDG - PPT? That's A350-900ULR or 777-8 territory.

tommy1808 · Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:48 am

TWFlyGuy wrote:
The problem with it I see is that Tahiti is primarily three groups of people: 1) Honeymoon, 2) Major Anniversary or 3) Retirement Celebration. All of these are leisure ventures and the first two groups generally have limited windows to travel because they are still working and therefore taking a specified amount of time off of work.

Europeans have at least 4 weeks paid vacation/year, so on a Paris flight that is non-issue.

Best regards
Thomas

Motorhussy · Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:53 am

Should have ordered the A350 ULR. This is not going to happen. Kind of embarrassing if he thinks it could.

readytotaxi · Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:01 am

Would have thought someone might have offered a nonstop Europe - HNL before PPT, if there was a market for it, clearly not.

george77300 · Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:16 am

Motorhussy wrote:
Should have ordered the A350 ULR. This is not going to happen. Kind of embarrassing if he thinks it could.

Not according to the airline. They said the A350ULR won’t work. The B789 is better for them apparently. The A350ULR is not magically better. It too will have large payload restrictions on the route. Not to mention a larger and heavier airframe.

I’m sure TN have crouched the numbers. They preferred the B789 to the A350 for the range. I have to add I don’t think it makes a whole lot of sense either way due to the restrictions, but clearly they have looked and the B789 has the better trade off for that range.

qf789 · Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:44 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
Another operational issue is see is possibly lack of convenient nearby alternate airport for PPT, which means higher fuel reserves would have to be carried. Not a problem on the other side, as there are plenty of suitable airports around Paris.

BTW - does anyone what reserves does QF LHR-PER flight carry? IIRC, PER used to be regarded as ‘island’/isolated airport by some carriers, which necessitates at least 2 hrs worth of fuel upon landing (at least according to EASA regulations)

I agree that an alternate airport nearby is going to be an issue, I wonder if they are looking at operating PPT-CDG-LAX-PPT

The other issue is their 789 is configured at 294 seats compared with QF who is 236 and I would throw in UA at 252 seats as well. For QF the overall LF on PER-LHR has been 91% so around an average of 215 seats. QF CEO said on radio only a couple of days ago also stated that the uptake on business from PER is 95% and that by the time SYD-LHR starts that there is a high feasibility that PER-LHR will be upgraded to the same aircraft. Another thing AJ mentioned is when they designed the cabin for the 789 it was designed for long haul travel or what most what would refer to ULH here. PER-LHR has the highest customer satisfaction of any of QF routes. Taking that into mind if Air Tahiti Nui were going to operate such a route the configuration either needs to changed or they will have to take a penalty, Im also not sure they have enough business demand that other routes such as PER-LHR, SIN-EWR, SIN-SFO have.

From what I have heard PER-LHR when it arrives into LHR has enough fuel left for 1 hour of cruise plus reserves, very little cargo is on PER-LHR. On LHR-PER while I don't know exactly how much fuel it has on landing I would say it would be at least around 2 hours. LHR-PER typically carries around 2 tonnes of cargo (according to the BITRE), cargo carried is mostly flowers so the weight of the cargo is not a true reflection as they take up a lot of space in the hold. The last widebody I can remember flying to PER that had to divert was due to fog and that was before the CATIII was installed and was prior to PER-LHR starting. Prior to that ADL was the preferred alternative for widebodies though LEA and PHE have taken diversions in the past and there has been a rare landing at the Pearce RAAF base just north of PER

qf789 · Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:07 pm

910A wrote:
Four airlines are already flying to Paris one-stop (1 ORY - 3 CDG), sounds like a great way for TN to lose money.

I disagree on that. As already proven with PER-LHR it opens up more competition. While there may not be as much competition as PER-LHR via a stop or SIN-SFO via multiple airlines in Asia a non stop flight will offer some unique that the other airlines cant offer. In the case of PER-LHR we are starting to hear from QF that by the time the Project Sunrise aircraft arrive in 2022-2023 that due to the huge demand for the flight it will be upgraded to so potentially a non-stop PPT-CDG could work. Additionally with PER-LHR as someone who works at the airport I have noticed a change in travel patterns between PER and major European centres, we have seen EY leave, EK is cutting back and there is more a shift to travel via Asia again with several airlines either adding capacity or considering it. A PPT-CDG may see travel patterns change via other carriers as well, a non stop has the potential to change the dynamics of people travelling between 2 city pairs. This is probably one of the greatest positives of the 787 family as worldwide we have seen similar routes started which are much shorter which werent on the radar 5 or 10 years ago.

Pyrex · Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:19 pm

Why not? It is not like TN operates to make money, so might as well burn some more on a French colonial vanity project while the government tap is open.

TWFlyGuy · Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:20 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
TWFlyGuy wrote:
The problem with it I see is that Tahiti is primarily three groups of people: 1) Honeymoon, 2) Major Anniversary or 3) Retirement Celebration. All of these are leisure ventures and the first two groups generally have limited windows to travel because they are still working and therefore taking a specified amount of time off of work.

Europeans have at least 4 weeks paid vacation/year, so on a Paris flight that is non-issue.

Best regards
Thomas

It's not just having four weeks vacation. I have that. It's having four weeks that you can burn that much time on a couples vacation most likely, and the money to do it. Is it worth is when you have places half the distance that are as nice. Once you start slicing the population by all the parameters, it dwindles pretty quickly. Look at HI as a good example, it's less expensive than Tahiti but yet you still have less demand from the US East Coast. It simply makes more sense to go to comparable places in the Caribbean and not spend the time on a plane.

B8887 · Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:35 pm

The interview is pretty extensive.

A few stats that he mentions.

40 pc of TN's traffic originates in the US. LAX is "easily" their biggest market of those 40.

20 pc of pax are local French Polynesia residents. The rest as I understand it is mostly Paris.

He sounds really cautious. If it doesn't work, he will probably pull the plug or not start at all.

Regards.

B8887

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net