Indonesian airlines cleared for US flights

geedee

Lots more American tourists possibly. Indonesian carriers cleared for US flights after nine-year ban - BBC News

davita

Lots more American tourists possibly. Indonesian carriers cleared for US flights after nine-year ban - BBC News

If the booze ban bill passes I think the flights may return....empty.

tel522

davita wroteIf the booze ban bill passes I think the flights may return....empty.

true ha ha !

Nydave

Does Indonesia have any wide body jets for such a route,i fly that route regularly and even on the a380 the journey is long and boring,can`t imagine doing it on those smaller planes,In fact I would never dream of doing it,also hard to figure out how they would make money from it,right now I can buy a return ticket from Ny to Surabaya with Singapore airlines for $900 taxes and everything included,how could another company hoping to fly to the Usa hope to compete with that price,

YPDN

Whether Garuda has a wide enough body is neither here nor there, IMO. It's whether you can wangle a spare seat next to you (if in ECON) that counts. Or take a g/fr. Same result. i.e. not a stranger. But that's a long haul no matter how you try to skin that cat. I once did JFK to SIN then on to Australia. I was a 36-hr zombie at home at the end of it all. I had been to OshKosh and had copped too much sun and was peeling like a brown onion in a Chef's kitchen. And, the flt out of JFK was delayed initially for hours (British Airways) because Heathrow was U/S for a while. Probably the most tiring 'flight' I have ever been on. Never again.

davita

Just imagine...if the Europeans and Americans had collaborated over supersonic flight (i.e. Concorde)......we passengers could possibly be flying those routes in a quarter of the current time. We now fly slower than we did in the 1970's.

Markit

Having done the long haul Europe Bali countless times, either via the Emirates with a 6/8 hour lay-over or not, I've developed a liking for the flights. You can't deny that it's really, really nice to have beautiful women bringing you free food and drinks for endless hours of bottomless video watching, farting, chatting to neighbors of any sex, drunken mumbling, farting and just wandering around looking at all the unhappy people. I find it inspirational and flatulent.

geedee

A 787 could easily do that flight US to Bali and its very fuel efficient. Just think lots of people like Markit arriving in Bali what a delight. When Qantas get their 787s next year there is talk of them going Perth to London non stop

geedee

davita wroteJust imagine...if the Europeans and Americans had collaborated over supersonic flight (i.e. Concorde)......we passengers could possibly be flying those routes in a quarter of the current time. We now fly slower than we did in the 1970's.

But a lot less fuel and a lot cheaper. Where you ever on the Concorde?

davita

geedee wroteA 787 could easily do that flight US to Bali and its very fuel efficient. Just think lots of people like Markit arriving in Bali what a delight. When Qantas get their 787s next year there is talk of them going Perth to London non stop

I don't know for a fact but I'd doubt a fully loaded B787 could take-off from Bali when temperature is +30 to +35 Deg as the runway is just under 3000 metre take-off length.

davita

Nydave wroteDoes Indonesia have any wide body jets for such a route,i fly that route regularly and even on the a380 the journey is long and boring,can`t imagine doing it on those smaller planes,In fact I would never dream of doing it,also hard to figure out how they would make money from it,right now I can buy a return ticket from Ny to Surabaya with Singapore airlines for $900 taxes and everything included,how could another company hoping to fly to the Usa hope to compete with that price,

Garuda announced its plan is to fly B777 from JKT-NRT-LAX and JKT-NRT-JFK .....about 3 times a week. No idea yet about pricing. JFK-SUB for US$900 return on Singapore (SQ) is incredibly cheap. I searched next month and the fastest (30 hours) is CX for about US$1300 with 1 stop in HKG for 8 hours. The cheapest was China airlines at US$1000. SQ didn't even compare unless you are talking about their co-share with Virgin and 2 stops...still in the range of US$1300.

Nydave

Davita the dates I researched on Singapore are for end of November,like the 27th or 28th whichever is a Wednesday,and returning middle of May 2017, I always select Wednesdays as my departure dates,seems to be cheaper,so im booking well in advance,not like looking one month ahead, However its quite a long flight,Ny to Frankfurt,stop over around 2 hours,,Frankfurt to Singapore,with only a 50 minute stop over,Singapore to Surabaya,,my time from my house here in Ny to house in Surabaya is approx. 32-34 hours,including the stop overs,and also having to be in Jfk 3 hours before flight departure, I have been using Singapore for most of 10 years, I see that starting next year they will be flying direct from Jfk to Singapore,no Frankfurt stop,this should shorten the flight time by several hours,seems they are introducing some new planes that can handle the the direct flights from the north easy coast,in September this year they will be flying direct to Singapore from the west coast, I always book my flights on the Singapore airlines website,not thru sites like Kayak,and Priceline.com,or the hundreds of other sites out there, Might be a different story when booking from Indonesia,i have never done it that way,

YPDN

davita wrote. . . as the runway is just under 3000 metre take-off length.

The 787-9 would have enough room, requiring 2900 metres, at sea level. But the 787-8 needs 3100 metres at sea level. I don't know how Mr Boeing would feel about a short field takeoff with the -8, cowboy style. Do a normal short field takeoff but at about the 2,000 metres mark, add on another 5-8 degrees of flap which should help in getting airborne. Then fly low, leveling off to pick up speed then climb out slowly. Not an elegant manoeuvre but would probably work out. We used to watch the JetStar airbuses almost run out of runway just for a spectator's sport. Some of them cut it too fine for my liking. LOL

davita

geedee wroteBut a lot less fuel and a lot cheaper. Where you ever on the Concorde?[/QUOTE As the SST concept was never developed we will not know how efficient or commercial it could have been. I never flew on one as crew or passenger but, whilst I was undergoing a hi-speed flight course at Bristol University, we would visit the factory at Filton and observe the manufacturing process. The cockpit was really small. Also, I witnessed the first British built Concorde land on the runway in front of my married quarter at RAF Fairford.....later I met with Mr. Trubshaw, a very affable man. BBC...."[I]On 9 April 1969, Brian Trubshaw made his first flight in the British-built prototype. The 22 minute flight left from a test runway at Filton near Bristol and landed at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.[/I]"

davita

I take it you're an aircraft and wiki enthusiast, as am I. You might wish to note that in the specs quoted in wiki it says under ISA conditions (International Standard Atmosphere)...that means +15 dec Celcius. Bali is never under ISA conditions and outside air temps (OAT's) of +30 to +35Deg negatively changes those take-off length parameters dramatically. Also, by building that Nusa Dua toll road, they've effectively killed any extension to R'way 09/27 or ability to add a second parallel runway out thru' Benoa Bay. IMO they could have considered running a tunnel near the airport for cars and have the aircraft taxy over the top...just like Changi in Singapore.

Markit

Get a room, you two!

YPDN

Markit wroteGet a room, you two!

At once, Your Fartyness. And if I ever catch that crying baby that has been following me around S-E Asia for the last 20 years it'll be wearing it's nappy for a beach hat.

davita

Re: post #22 The OAT being high wouldn't be a problem if the runway was long enough. Most international high OAT airports are in the 4000 metre length to accommodate this. Bali cannot be extended now so a new airport will be required for those heavy/long range A/C like B787 or A380 to operate efficiently.

davita

YPDN wrote1. The 787-9 would have enough room, requiring 2900 metres, at sea level. But the 787-8 needs 3100 metres at sea level. 2. I don't know how Mr Boeing would feel about a short field takeoff with the -8, cowboy style. Do a normal short field takeoff but at about the 2,000 metres mark, add on another 5-8 degrees of flap which should help in getting airborne. Then fly low, leveling off to pick up speed then climb out slowly. Not an elegant manoeuvre but would probably work out. 3. We used to watch the JetStar airbuses almost run out of runway just for a spectator's sport. Some of them cut it too fine for my liking. LOL

1. I was searching for the RTOW data for the B787's but couldn't find. Can you PM the link so I can run thru' ...I'd love to see if I can still measure that. 2. That's a maneuver for military and sometimes crop-dusters...hardly for large commercial aircraft unless there's a clean-up mechanism...and I mean from the passengers...:icon_e_surprised: 3. That is fun....at least it was when in Anderson AFB in Guam. We watched fully-loaded B52 bombers take-off to bomb Vietnam. The runway there drops over a cliff about 500 ft and this huge aircraft would disappear then re-appear a little later....we would sit drinking beer, laying bets, but I never saw black smoke. Talking later to some pilots (boy! they were young-uns) I inquired about this maneuver and they said we just do it to amuse spectators. Gotta have a sense of humor when you are looking into not returning...as Senator John McCain proved and consistently demonstrates.

YPDN

1. I was searching for the RTOW data for the B787's but couldn't find. Can you PM the link so I can run thru' ...I'd love to see if I can still measure that.

I googled 'B787 take off distance' and chose my perennial fav - wikipedia. A tad Q&D, yes, but it gets close. (I don't have any P-Charts for the B787, sorry.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner Scroll down to 8. Specifications.

2. That's a maneuver for military and sometimes crop-dusters...hardly for large commercial aircraft unless there's a clean-up mechanism...and I mean from the passengers...:icon_e_surprised:

Yes. But you wouldn't hesitate to pull that one off if it was absolutely necessary. Put yourself on auto-pilot, do it, and fill out the forms later. It's also a must-know technique for flying around in the bush, to allow you to get back out again. We used to talk about it over a pizza and Merlot, which was excellent for an informal re-briefing. You might have heard of Jon Johanson. He built an RV-4 and flew it to Oshkosh from Adelaide. And carried wings-full of fuel. Another pilot told me he had taken off with 1100 litres on board when the usual amount was around 120 litres. He said he would take off and fly in ground effect for miles (over the water) before climbing out. Now, that's extreme stuff. Absolutely zero room for error.

3. That is fun....at least it was when in Anderson AFB in Guam. We watched fully-loaded B52 bombers take-off to bomb Vietnam. The runway there drops over a cliff about 500 ft and this huge aircraft would disappear then re-appear a little later....we would sit drinking beer, laying bets, but I never saw black smoke. Talking later to some pilots (boy! they were young-uns) I inquired about this maneuver and they said we just do it to amuse spectators. Gotta have a sense of humor when you are looking into not returning...as Senator John McCain proved and consistently demonstrates.

I have PAXed in and out of Chimbu in the PNG highlands and it's a similar story. Short RWY cut into the side of the mountain and a BIG drop after leaving and, yes, a young, fresh-faced pilot. Plus, this one had power lines slung in exactly the wrong spot. We made it with a healthy clearance. Running up a C-47 and seeing a JetStar airbus doing this made for a great Sunday morning. "Clear on the right". "Clear on the left". But not clear for the airbus just yet. ha ha ha ha