I spend a while flying for work, but usually top out at around 12 or 13 hours.

However, was reading this the other day;

Qantas wants to begin non-stop flights from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to London, New York, Paris and Rio by 2022 – provided it can convince Airbus or Boeing to develop an ultra-long range jet capable of conquering the 18 to 20-hour direct routes.

18 to 20 hours. Non-stop. In a plane.

Furthermore,

However, Qantas has set the bar high for both companies, specifying that the long-legged jets cannot be fitted with additional fuel tanks and must be capable of carrying “a full commercial payload” of passengers, with 300 seats said to be the target.

300 people, plus crew, in a tin can for 20 hours. Yes, it’s progress in terms of technology, but I can’t help thinking it’s a bad thing somehow.

Hybrid ?

Is it true that they give you more room on longer flights?

I’ve only flown to Australia once but whilst stopping broke the monotony it just added to the horrific amount of time. 14 hours to Japan, here’s a bleak departure lounge for 4 hours with nowhere to sleep, back on the plane for another 14 hours.

I think I’d rather have stayed on board.

It’s bad for you though, 20 hours of inactivity and recycled air. I think they can improve the air quality, I’m told they used to when they allowed smoking on them.

I used to fly direct for 12hr 30mins to far east then another 2hr 30mins connection to Borneo (sometimes another 3 hours waiting for the connecting flight). I like that sort of direct flight but since I no longer fly direct from London anymore, it’s fine too to stop at Dubai for a break … especially when I was a smoker. (I have given up smoking but still tempted to smoke … )

I think 20 hour might be just be okay so long as you are a non-smoker. 😀

Long way. The Middle East airlines are already nearing 18 hours max flight times down under and to the us coast, can’t be much fun even up front. The capability of doing it is there, it’s just whether the airlines can make it pay given the increase in ticket prices needed to make it happen. I wonder if there is any increase to risk of things like DVT with a 20 hour flight over 2 shorter ones?

BA031 to HK awaits me tomorrow night, I’m already not looking forward to it. I’d be hating the thought of an extra 8 hours on it.

molgrips – Member
Is it true that they give you more room on longer flights?

Mostly I think.

Typically the low-cost airlines and charter flights for package hols are worst, then short-haul scheduled flights and finally long haul. I don’t think there’s any difference between say London to NYC or London to Sydney though and I don’t think it’s a ‘rule’ either, I flew to Vancouver on a Thomas Cook package hol type Jet. It was hellish.

BA031 to HK awaits me tomorrow night,

I like 31 to HKG! A great arrival time. 53A/K are my pick on that one. 🙂

Have a beer at the Roundhouse, and dinner at Manchu, for me! Safe travels.

You are right, though. Even in the comfy part of the plane, tacking another 7 or 8 hours on to a flight like that would be hideous at best.

I never got to fly Concorde. 🙁 Not having Speedbird in the skies feels like a backward step to me. Cramming 300 people in to a long, slow flight seems worse than a hundred or so paying over the odds on a short, fast flight.

Too many people are flying. I know, I know, I’m one of the worst offenders, but it’s getting mad.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner is much more comfortable according to my niece and nephew for long haul. 😛

Used to do LHR to SFO quite regularly- about 10 1/2hrs. That was plenty..

Also did the Cook Islands once – that’s 20hrs with a stop at LAX. But 20 in one go? Oof- not for me!

They’d need to put a treadmill floor down the aisles for a bit of gentle exercise for those distances.

They are starting Perth to London which is 17 on the dreamliner. Just came off la to Melbourne which is 14.5 and it was dull but bearable. It would replace a 14 and a 7 hr flight with one missing out on an airport half way and 4hrs. Minimum faffing around in the middle.

Yep the most I fly is 12-13hrs as once but given that transfers can be crappy (security lines, finding way around, lounge for lucky ones or unfortable chair) I’d rather one hop.

Dreamliners have much better air quality – not so dry – designed that way, so I’d be OK with it for 17-18hrs

Replace your flights with video conferencing, Flash. Then you won’t lose as much sleep (worrying about your disproportionate contribution to climatic change).

Its not the longest scheduled flight there has ever been. Not so long ago Singapore Airlines were doing an A340-500 non stop flight to LAX at anywhere between 18 – 20 hours if the winds are unfavourable (as they often are in winter on the return leg) in all business class configuration and they made money hand over fist on it, until the fuel price went up as the A340-500 is not the most fuel efficient aircraft out there. They, probably prematurely, grounded the A340’s and took them out of service and when the fuel price came up they’re regretting it as they could have re-started the route. However they have started up the route again with the A350.

I think Qatar Airways currently operates the longest scheduled route Doha to Dallas I think – or might be Qantas with Sydney to Dallas, not sure, which is up around the 15 – 16 hours mark.

Qantas has no choice on this really – they’re their knees. They can’t compete with the gulf carriers on price or with BA and SIA on the traditional Kangaroo route. Their best option is to go direct. It’s a couple of hours longer than a quick 20 minute fuel stop at Singapore door to door, but far more efficient as they can route the aircraft much more efficiently and they don’t have the additional landing and take off en-route, so ticket prices should be very competitive.

The latest crop of aircraft out there – 787’s and A350’s are not far off the range now so wouldn’t be too hard for them to eek out another few percent of range out of the aircraft. Over the life of an aircraft the OEM’s manage to squeeze out more range anyway. When an aircraft is new there is conservatism layered on top of conservatism which affects the stated range the OEM’s state. Once the aircraft has been in service for a few years and they get to know it better and incorporate some efficiency improvements, then they can start eating into the layers of conservatism.

It is a long time on a plane though. I regularly fly with work too on flights upto 13 hours (the longest stated time the captain announced was 13hrs and 30 mins) and I am more than ready to get off the plane after that length of time. The thought of another 6 hours wouldn’t be too appealing.

Any Duty impinging on the period 0059 to 0459 LT to which the Pilot is (or was last) adjusted.

Urban legend (which QI unfortunately propagated). Anyone who’s flown on a plane with a smoking section can confidently tell you that the whole thing would stink from end to end.

They’d need to put a treadmill floor down the aisles for a bit of gentle exercise for those distances.

Great idea!

Cabin air on the new generation of “plastic jets” i.e. B787 & A350 is much better, but the 787 can be cramped down the back I’m led to understand.

Well cabin config is a matter for airlines and how much comfort they want to provide vs. Number of seats, but in almost all cases they look to cram in as many seats as they possibly can. Boeing and Airbus do have a difference in approach. Boing prefer to squeeze more people in along the width of the aircraft so market and sell the 10-abreast concept obviously leading to a narrower seat wih a bit more leg room, but airbus push a 9 abreast model with a wider seat, but a bit less legroom.

Personally I prefer the airbus approach as I’ve not got particularly long legs so legroom not usually and issue for me, but being broader in the shoulders I value more a wider seat.

I think the air quality thing is much overstated. Although the new aircraft are pressurised to 6000ft altitude instead on 8000 feet, I personally can’t really tell the difference at the end of the flight. It’s not as if i come off a 787/A350 after a long haul flight feeling fresh. I might feel slightly less crap but it’s small differences.

The best long haul plane I think is the A380. Despite the 8000 ft cabin altitude pressurisation the sense of space and ‘airiness’ you get from the sheer size of the thing, coupled with its quietness and smoothness especially in turbulence, makes for a much better flying experience in my experience. It’s a lovely thing to fly on.

I’ve done HKG-DFW (14h40) and DFW-HKG (16h30) this year (and one of those boarded on time and took off 2hrs late due to a technical problem). I seem to recall they were fairly long flights, but I tend to just disengage my brain on boarding. Going from 16h30 to 20h must just represent another cycle of eat-film-sleep…

I’ve done Brisbane-Dubai and Akl-Dubai a few times on emirates upstairs. That’s quite long circa 14h from memory, 12 is OK but the last couple are painful, even with a bed !
I see AirNZ are planning Akl-New York which would be good for me.

the 787 can be cramped down the back I’m led to understand.

Flew at (literally) the back of a Virgin one recently and it was certainly no more accommodating of a 6’5″ passenger than most cattle-class crates 😉 As with all flights, my first task is to wedge my legs in pointing straight ahead and wait until the person in the seat in front gives up trying to figure out why their seat doesn’t recline.

Nice enough plane, though (sooooo much nicer than a 777) and I did like the tinting windows. Nice to be able to look outside much more of the time than with sliding blinds.

sooooo much nicer than a 777

Are you dissing his ride?

🙂

Oddly, I’ve yet to fly a 787*, but the A350 is great. I was on one one the first flights Cathay did from HKG to SIN with it, still had that new plane smell. Talking to the CSD, they were having problems with sound. Things that would have been OK in another plane just aren’t, as the A350 is so quiet.

* I had a guided tour round the empty shell of one of the first on the production line before they were launched.

I’d be happy to do 20hrs, more time for movies innit. Plus, as already pointed out, it’ll cut loads of time out..

Yeah the 777 seems more common when I’m heading out. Still only managed one a380 too.

I am old enough to remember smoking on long haul flights, and trust me it was grim, and I used to smoke.

The air crew hated it. Nobody wanted to sit in the smoking section, so it was just the last unlucky few who got stuck there.

Then the smokers would all just stand around the smoking seats while the poor unlucky non-smokers sat there and suffered, then swan back to the less disgusting part of the plane when they had finished.

So the aircrew were constantly telling people off for it, and reading messages over the PA to tell people they weren’t allowed to smoke unless they had a seat. Then you got hassled by people asking you to swap seats for ten minutes (no chance, but I don’t mind swapping permanently ??)

Nobody got any sleep in the smoking section.

So glad that is all over.

i only ever did the previously “quick route” from perth to manchester once through qatar with only 1hr 45 transfer.

wouldnt do that again – but then different if i was traveling at weekends etc or holidays i may change my tune… i always try to schedule travel on companies time rather than weekends.

I quite enjoy my leg stretch at the airport after ive been sat or stood with limited movement for 13hrs – and a couple of laps of the aisles doesnt really cut it

Maybe different for those of you sitting up front mind.

Maybe different for those of you sitting up front mind

Not necessarily. If you do it long enough, once you’ve watched all their movies, sampled all their wines and menu’s you’re still sat in a tin foil tube for hours on end instead of riding a nice trail, or spending time with the family.

I look forward to the days where you turn up to the airport, they lie you down in a capsule, inject you with something to put you to sleep then slide you into the aircraft and wake you up at the other end.

I’m not joining in the “I’ve flown longer flights that yao” but I’d much rather stay on a plane than have to disembark, fanny around, get back on and get going again any day. Without doing calcs it must save a fair amount of fuel (and time!!) even though you have to fly with that additional fuel to start with.

I’m equally sure that other would prefer to get off and fanny around instead though 😉

Not necessarily. If you do it long enough, once you’ve watched all their movies, sampled all their wines and menu’s you’re still sat in a tin foil tube for hours on end instead of riding a nice trail, or spending time with the family.

Correct.

I suppose one plus point is being able to have a quick shower in the lounge during a stop (Singapore or HK en route to Oz, for example) as well as a bit of a leg stretch.

Good point about longer flights saving fuel, I think. Would be interesting to see the numbers!

In 1986, I flew to Tenerife on a Dan Air Boeing 737 (they’d only just got round to retiring the Mk4 Comet). Four and a half hours I sat in the middle of the smoking area, whilst everyone puffed away around me and the plane stank like Ivor the Engine’s chimney.

You lot don’t know that you’re alive.

Can’t imagine that kind of length flight with a toddler in tow…. fly twice a year Calgary to LHR with sweajnr (3 now) and even those 10 (ish) hours seems painful by the end. The escape of being able to get off and run (literally) though an airport is huge.

They’d need to put a treadmill floor down the aisles for a bit of gentle exercise for those distances.

Airbus are already looking at that!

So… if the passengers are on conveyor belt does that make it more or less likely the plane will take off?

Comments about noise problems on ‘quiet’ planes are definitely true. With less background noise on the 787/A350/A380 passenger noise is significantly more noticeable (and annoying).

I seem to remember when I flew to aus in the late 70s it was best part of 24 hours on a plane with just one brief refuelling stop. Grim unless you do a David Boone ( drink 52 cans of beer)

wobbliscott – Member
The best long haul plane I think is the A380. Despite the 8000 ft cabin altitude pressurisation the sense of space and ‘airiness’ you get from the sheer size of the thing, coupled with its quietness and smoothness especially in turbulence, makes for a much better flying experience in my experience. It’s a lovely thing to fly on.

Yes, A380 is nice but it is scary to see so many people flying in it. 😮 I wonder if the experience is similar to flying in an Antonov An-225. 😆

They (Emirates) upgraded me to Business Class once and it was superb … 😆

The first stage of my flight is usually Boeing 777-300ER to Dubai then from there A380 to far east then 737-400 to Borneo.

I have never flown on 787 or A350(I might have but not sure).

Comments about noise problems on ‘quiet’ planes are definitely true. With less background noise on the 787/A350/A380 passenger noise is significantly more noticeable (and annoying).

Better make sure your noise-cancelling earphones have a decent battery life! (Obvs those not travelling in pleb-class will be issued with them anyway)

Better make sure your noise-cancelling earphones have a decent battery life! (Obvs those not travelling in pleb-class will be issued with them anyway)

As always, it’s noise isolating for the win.

-m- – Member

Better make sure your noise-cancelling earphones have a decent battery life! (Obvs those not travelling in pleb-class will be issued with them anyway)

As always, it’s noise isolating for the win. [/quote]
I always watch movies so I don’t really hear others apart from when I am asleep. 😀

edit: Never flown on A350. 😛

Not flown in an A350 yet. I generally don’t like Airbus’ aircraft – piddly little windows and communist HVAC, but flying on a new plane is always nice.

From a practicality point of view, 20hrs in cattle class is going to be interesting. The bogs on the LAX-AMS route I usually fly can get pretty desperate towards the end of the flight.