Much has been written about the maximum range of aircraft, but I can find nothing about a minimum range.  For example, you could take a 747 on a 40 mile hop, but it certainly wouldn't be practical.  So, is there any data on how short a flight is practical for various commercial aircraft?

I think Japan, at one time, used to run 747 domestic flights.

Not sure about the U.S.

747Fs fly short positioning flights all the time too.  747s / 777s will also do short hops for maintenance.

Naturally, they wouldn't have full fuel on board if it's just 40 NM.

Southwest flies 737s from Orlando, FL to Fort Lauderdale which is 156 nm and from Tampa to FLL at 166 nm.  I'm sure there are many other examples to be found.  18 years ago I flew on an American MD-11 from George Bush Houston to Dallas-Fort Worth which is about 195 nm. 

Bob

I'd think the main issue be the fuel. You'd have to have little amounts of fuel for short hops, because nobody likes hard landings which will either damage the aircraft, or cause it to fall off the runway. Unlike a car where you can fill it up to the brim and drive as far as you like, with an aircraft you'd have to fill it so that it can reach the next several pumps (with some reserve) because you don't want to exceed the landing weight limit.

So long as they have passengers, or some sort of income, which can mean they can afford those small flights... I think that's all that really matters.

As far as I know, jgf, the economics of air travel are broadly the same as any other form of transport. So long as you have a 'satisfactory load factor' (meaning the thing is reasonably full of passengers) the short trips tend to be more profitable than the long ones.

There are plenty of inter-city routes in Europe (and even here in Australia) of only about 200nm.-300nm. range which are flown by aeroplanes up to 737 size (sometimes even bigger). On most of them, the crews fly 'out-and-return' on the same day, meaning that the airline doesn't have to pay for overnight stays etc.; so the overhead is lower than, for example, that for trans-continental or inter-continental trips where the airline has to pay hotel bills and 'subsistence' for legally-required rest periods etc., and also organise additional crews for the return trips.......

As regards fuel, that's no problem. Not only do they not have to carry so much, there's usually no need to climb as high either; so the 'cost per mile' can often be somewhat lower than for longer trips.

machineman9 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 5:46pm:


That's why many heavy aircraft have maximum landing weights (based on structural limits) that are lower than their maximum takeoff weights... again, it's a matter of fuel. Such aircraft are intended to carry lots of fuel to go long distances; nobody's expecting them to take off with full tanks and land, say, less than an hour later.