Originally Posted by
mikethe1
With the recent inception of high bypass ratio engine airplanes (87, 50, NEO, MAX) we will see long haul LCC with narrow body airplanes flaying point 2 point low demand destinations. Essentially disrupting the Trans-Atlantic market.
Disrupting Trans-Atlantic
airways is a bit more apt.
Flying across the pond is done along specified tracks which change daily to take advantage of the prevailing winds. The tracks occupy the "best" airspace, and RVSM altitudes. Think of them as a Superhighway. You have to stay in your own lane, and there is a speed limit. Everybody on a given track at a given altitude must maintain that speed. Mach .83 to .86 is typical. This Superhighway is already filled to the brim with traffic. Because of traffic density, operating at optimum altitudes and speed or fuel burn is reserved for only a minority of the traffic.
737s and A320s have the range to operate across the pond - but not within the parameters of the organized track system. Mach .80 is the top speed of the 737. Mach .77 or .78 is better for fuel consumption. I've never flown the 320, but I would suspect it has similar performance. Fuel burn at other than optimal altitude will be increased. If you're not able to keep up with the flow of traffic, and can't climb above it, you're stuck below it. Burning a lot more gas, for a lot longer time.
Yes, you can
safely operate single aisle aircraft Trans-Atlantic. But can you do so
efficiently is the hurdle that hasn't been cleared. Yet.