Polar routes

[The Lawspeaker]

Until the 1990s, planes from Western Europe and North America used to avoid Chinese and Eastern European air space. This was known as the Polar route. I was wondering what the implications would be if airliners began using this air routes again (combined, in the case of Western European airliners) with using the routes via the Middle East. Would it work today ? And how long would trips be ? Would they be much more expensive ?

This is a 1969 example of one such flight on the London-Tokyo route via Anchorage. Today these flights can be carried out without an intermediate stop as ranges have improved:

[Smaug]

Due to ETOPS, the Arctic is off limits for all twin-engine aircraft. A few companies operate polar flights between Asia and North America using quad-engine aircraft such as the A-380 or the 747. As for Antarctica, due to ETOPS most of the continent is off limits even for quad-engine aircraft.

[The Lawspeaker]

Due to ETOPS, the Arctic is off limits for all twin-engine aircraft. A few companies operate polar flights between Asia and North America using quad-engine aircraft such as the A-380 or the 747. As for Antarctica, due to ETOPS most of the continent is off limits even for quad-engine aircraft.

That means that KLM should use 747's on the Asian leg or start buying A380's and use planes like the Airbus A330 and the 777 and 787 (all currently serving with KLM) on when flying on North America or on flights via the Middle East. It would reorient KLM's focus towards the America's. In case of a A380 acquisition, Schiphol would need to make some adjustments and it would only make sense to use the polar routes when flying on North East Asia. For other routes the ME route might be more useful.

[Smaug]

That means that KLM should use 747's on the Asian leg or start buying A380's and use planes like the Airbus A330 and the 777 and 787 (all currently serving with KLM) on when flying on North America or on flights via the Middle East. It would reorient KLM's focus towards the America's. In case of a A380 acquisition, Schiphol would need to make some adjustments and it would only make sense to use the polar routes when flying on North East Asia. For other routes the ME route might be more useful.

Well, nowadays for European-North American flights it is more interesting to use the North Atlantic. In the past ETOPS limitations were more severe due to the lower reliability of turbofan engines, so twin-engined aircraft were not allowed to perfrom ETOPS flights over the Atlantic. They had to follow the coastline, for example: UK > Iceland > Greenland > Canada > USA. That's why the 1970's were the golden age for tri-engined aircraft such as the DC-10 or the Lockheed Tri-Star: that extra engine located on the tail allowed them for ETOPS, so these aircraft could dive deep into the Atlantic and follow a straight line between London and NY for example, which meant a shorter flight.

Nowadays turbofans are way more reliable than they were in the past, so the chance of a multiple engine failure is very small. With that in mind, ETOPS nowadays allows for twin-engined aircraft to perform transatlantic flights without the need to follow the coastline. A good modern aircraft would be more than capable to perform a Polar flight, the only problem really is that IF things went wrong there would be nowhere for the aircraft to land safely, and ice landings are always VERY dangerous.

[The Lawspeaker]

Well, nowadays for European-North American flights it is more interesting to use the North Atlantic. In the past ETOPS limitations were more severe due to the lower reliability of turbofan engines, so twin-engined were not allowed to perfrom ETOPS flights over the Atlantic, they had to follow the coastline, for example: UK > Iceland > Greenland > Canada > USA. That's why the 1970's were the golden age for tri-engied aircraft such as the DC-10 or the Lockheed Tri-Star: that extra engine located on the tail allowed them for ETOPS, so these aircraft could dive deep into the Atlantic and follow a straight line, which meant a shorter flight.

Nowadays turbofans are way more reliable than they were in the past, so the chance of a multiple engine failure is very small. With that in mind, ETOPS nowadays allows for twin-engined aircraft to perform transatlantic flights without the need to follow the coastline. A good modern aircraft would be more than capable to perform a Polar flight, the only problem really is that IF things went wrong there would be nowhere for the aircraft to land safely, and ice landings are always VERY dangerous.

In other words: either we should use 747's an interim until we can use A380's for good measure (when we have adapted runways and other infrastructure) or bring back tri-engined aircraft. Better don't take too many risks.

[Smaug]

In other words: either we should use 747's an interim until we can use A380's for good measure (when we have adapted runways and other infrastructure) or bring back tri-engined aircraft. Better don't take too many risks.

Yes, but it would also be necessary to take into account the demand for such flights. For example, a KLM flight from Amsterdan to New York would not need to go over the Pole, so a transatlantic flight is better suited which means twin-engined aircraft can be used.

[The Lawspeaker]

Yes, but it would also be necessary to take into account the demand for such flights. For example, a KLM flight from Amsterdan to New York would not need to go over the Pole, so a transatlantic flight is better suited which means twin-engined aircraft can be used.

Indeed: from Amsterdam to New York could just be done by 787's and one could actually increase the volume of flying Transatlantic by flying airport to airport instead of hub to hub (f.i from Newark to Eindhoven or Dulles to Lyons) . But for O'Hare or LAX there would be the polar route and for Eastern Asia even more so.

[Smaug]

Indeed: from Amsterdam to New York could just be done by 787's and one could actually increase the volume of flying Transatlantic by flying airport to airport instead of hub to hub (f.i from Newark to Eindhoven or Dulles to Lyons) . But for O'Hare or LAX there would be the polar route and for Eastern Asia even more so.

This airport-to-airport vs hub-to-hub thing is exactly where Boeing and Airbus diverge. That's why the former came up with the 787 and the latter with the A380. So indeed, an Amsterdan-Tokyo or Amsterdan-Los Angeles flight would demand a quad-engined or tri-engined aircraft. It's the same thing in the South Pole, for example, there are no direct flights between Sydney and São Paulo because such flight would cross exactly through the heart of Antarctica. Imagine having to make an emergency landing on the Antarctic Plateau! Help would never come.

[The Lawspeaker]

This airport-to-airport vs hub-to-hub thing is exactly where Boeing and Airbus diverge. That's why the former came up with the 787 and the latter with the A380. So indeed, an Amsterdan-Tokyo or Amsterdan-Los Angeles flight would demand a quad-engined or tri-engined aircraft. It's the same thing in the South Pole, for example, there are no direct flights between Sydney and São Paulo because such flight would cross exactly through the heart of Antarctica. Imagine having to make an emergency landing on the Antarctic Plateau! Help would never come.

In other words: it would still be technically possible for us to avoid Russian or Chinese airspace. I wonder whether it would have a real impact on flight costs and duration. Also on whether it would have an inpact on South East Asia's tourism industry ? It would be like going back to the 1980s.

[Smaug]

In other words: it would still be technically possible for us to avoid Russian or Chinese airspace. I wonder whether it would have a real impact on flight costs and duration. Also on whether it would have an inpact on South East Asia's tourism industry ? It would be like going back to the 1980s.

Well, technically yes, specially for North America-Europe routes, but all routes to Asia would still have to go over Russia and China.