How Far do you Really want to fly non-stop?

[Rollingthunder]

So the Blairs fly Brussels - Melbourne in just under 19 hours, non-stop.
How many folks really want to spend that amount of time cooped up in an aircraft cabin with no respite? Will we see a rise in DVT, air rage?
Personally would rather break the journey but we will see more and more of these kinds of flights as time goes by.

[chornedsnorkack]

So the Blairs fly Brussels - Melbourne in just under 19 hours, non-stop.
How many folks really want to spend that amount of time cooped up in an aircraft cabin with no respite? Will we see a rise in DVT, air rage?
Personally would rather break the journey but we will see more and more of these kinds of flights as time goes by.
Do you think it is going to depend on what the interior is?

I think that at least some royal 777 charters have the first class cabin ripped out and replaced with even more luxurious interior kept for such occasions... like two real beds, table... but the very rear end of plane stays unchanged cattle class for the servants.

Also, what causes DVT? Is it being in economy class, or being strapped down in whatever class of aircraft including First?

Does anyone know what the interior of the PIA Worldliners is like? They have been in service for over a month now...

[MichaelJP59]

Personally I'd rather not do any leg over 12 hours even in FC, but it might be different if I was Abramovitch able to stroll around in my personalised 777.

[apaddyinuk]

Im with you Michael. I work sectors of up to 15 hours on a regular basis but atleast when we are crew we are walking around and when we are on rest we have proper bunks so it takes the pain out of it!

[HandyAndy]

I've just done CEB/HKG/LHR/GRU and I would not liked to have done it non-stop even if it were operationally possible (which it isn't). It was all in J class with the exception of HKG/LHR which I used some miles to upgrade to F.

It was all ontime except LHR/GRU where we had just under a 2 hour delay due to the aircraft being "stranded" at the other side of Heathrow last night.

Frankly, ULH is hard work for pax and crew and I thought these two back to backs would be a killer but I slept quite well on both of them. I haven't travelled with BA for many years but the whole crew was great and that beef last night was delicious.

[Globaliser]

I have a very simple wish. I'd like to fly from London to Sydney non-stop, and back again. The present stop is a pain. It takes time, and it interrupts my sleep.

Unfortunately, I think I'm in a small minority.

[daedalus]

Globaliser,

Reminds me of the (I think Cathay Pacific) advert some years ago which said:

"The only airline to fly from Heathrow to Hong-Kong and back - non-stop."

Can't see the point meself!:D

[Pax Vobiscum]

In principle, I agree with Globaliser, but I wonder how many hours would be saved by flying (say) LHR-SYD nonstop. Obviously there's the 75-90 minutes on the ground and then 2 x 30 minutes (N.B. wild guess, any pros like to help out here?) extra descending and ascending, but would a more direct route (i.e. not flying over BKK, SIN, wherever) save more than a few minutes?? It sounds like the Dear Leader saved no more than 3 hours on the Qantas LHR-MEL time of 22:35.

I also imagine that, since the airline would be sacrificing traffic to/from the intermediate stop, they'd need to charge more for the ticket, which would deter even more travellers ...

[chornedsnorkack]

Just how comfortable are the crew rest bunks, anyway?

OK, fully flat... somewhat over 80 inches long... sounds similar to many, though not all, FC seat pitch numbers. Width... I have seen numbers like 30 inches, 40 inches.

So, 75-100 cm width. 777 interior is 586 cm. Substract 2 aisles 50 cm each... yes they can be wider in FC, but do not have to be. In 480 cm, you could have 4 beds abreast each 120 cm wide, or 6 beds abreast, each 80 cm wide.

Are the FCC seats much harder or lumpier than crew rest bunks because of the need to be able to fold them to seats?

Also, what do you think is more important on a long trip - speed, or comfort from uninterrupted sleep?

Is it more comfortable to fly from London to Singapore for 13 hours nonstop, or for 9 hours, but with a fuel stop in Bahrein?
And how would you like to fly from London to Australia - 19 hours nonstop, or 23 hours with a stop in Singapore, or 14 hours, but with 2 stops - Bahrein and Singapore?

[apaddyinuk]

Chorned, You raise some very good questions there.
I must admit, I personally even as a passenger would rather take a crew rest bunk over a first class seat with my airline. Your point about the breaks in the "mattress" of a FC or Club seat are definately a problem for some people. Our crew rest bunks mattress' are a single smooth piece and are probably about 2 1/2 ft to 3ft wide throughout the length which can only be a benefit also. Not to mention that the rest areas have curtains usually (except on some of the older designs) and you generally dont have anyone walking up and down the aisles beside you except when its wakey wakey time.

[Globaliser]

It sounds like the Dear Leader saved no more than 3 hours on the Qantas LHR-MEL time of 22:35.

I also imagine that, since the airline would be sacrificing traffic to/from the intermediate stop, they'd need to charge more for the ticket, which would deter even more travellers ...If I could save 3 hours each way, that would be a great boon to me on top of the uninterrupted nap. :)

I think the question of revenue must be route-specific. As it happens, I suspect that a LON-SYD proposition suffers from the low yield of the route compared to, say, that on LON-SIN. The long sectors on the Australia flights are reportedly rather busier than the short sectors, reflecting this. But it would not necessarily be true of all potential non-stop ultra-long haul sectors of this length.

There is one thing which would definitely tend to push up prices, though, and that's the cost of the fuel burned simply in order to carry the extra fuel needed for the ultra-long haul.

These are all reasons why, much as I'd like to see LON-SYD-LON nonstop, I am not holding my breath.

[apaddyinuk]

Globaliser, were Qantas not evaluating the 777LR for nonstop LHR-SYD routes? I remember hearing something about it not being able to make SYD-LHR nonstop due to the winds but what was the overall end result/excuse from Qantas for not going ahead with it did you hear?

[HandyAndy]

Along with what apaddyinuk says, I honestly thought that LHR/SYD and/or vv was not possible non-stop (with a full load). I always thought LHR/HKG vv was about the max (again with a full load).

Perhaps someone with a deeper knowledge could advise what aircraft type and with what load could manage this.

[Globaliser]

I'm not up on the technical detail, but QF were definitely evaluating this. They concluded that they could not make the money numbers work, IIRC particularly because SYD-LHR is a bit of a problem for a full payload. (As already mentioned, LHR-SYD is not a problem.)

It reminded me that SQ's premium economy on their SIN-NYC service was not put there out of love of their passengers.

After QF's announcement, there was a report that Boeing is going back to look again at the aircraft to see if they can tweak it a bit. Some commentators looked at the proposal and suggested that with a few things done to the aircraft, it might be able to do SYD-LHR with a full conventional payload after all. But I haven't heard any more.

[Jordan D]

IIRC it was said LON-SYD was possible non-stop with load, but SYD-LON wasn't.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken.

Jordan

[Bangkokeasy]

Personally, I would rather fly direct, regardless of the distance. Various reasons for this.

IMHO, the subjective time perception of the difference between 13 and 19 hours is minor. It is a long time either way, but long haul is long haul. To me, it doesn't make any difference whether I am in a plane for 10 hours or 15 (I have never flown as long as 19). I am sure the same would be true between 13 and 19. I am more concerned with the quality of that experience. I think it was Einstein who pointed out that an hour spent sitting next to a pretty girl feels like a minute, whereas a minute with your hand on a hot stove feels like an hour. This is the reason that Boeing missed the point when they proposed the sonic cruiser. 10% time saved is neither here nor there - concentrate on the experience.

If I break a journey, unless I take a break for a day or more, I find it more tiring than a direct flight. It would have to be substantially shorter to make a difference to this (such as half the total time).

Nowadays, transits are very rarely painless, smooth experiences. For instance, there will be at least one extra security screen to negotiate.

[Cyrano]

This month's Airline Business has a good analysis here (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/03/27/205628/Transfer+pointers.html) of the yield effects of non-stop versus one-stop service. The underlying question is whether it's worth it for an airline to invest in longer-range aircraft to offer non-stop service, i.e. can they gain higher yields to justify the higher cost of the new aircraft?
The article compares yields on the London-Singapore sector between SIA (non-stop) and Emirates (via DXB). For economy class, yields were 2.09p/km for SQ and 2.04p/km for EK (i.e. virtually no difference). In business class the story is slightly different: 12.71p/km for SQ and 11.76p/km for EK, and there's a similar difference between the F class yields. So it would appear that high-yield passengers may be prepared to pay a slight premium for non-stop service.
A key question is whether or not the replacement of one-stops with non-stops results in higher fares. The answer is no stronger than "maybe", but then only if there is no sufficiently close substitute given by a one-stop service.
...
It may be unreasonable to expect either higher ticket prices or higher real aircraft prices in a market where thereare competing alternatives and where value for money and price remain inversely correlated.

C.

[chornedsnorkack]

Chorned, You raise some very good questions there.
I must admit, I personally even as a passenger would rather take a crew rest bunk over a first class seat with my airline. Your point about the breaks in the "mattress" of a FC or Club seat are definately a problem for some people. Our crew rest bunks mattress' are a single smooth piece and are probably about 2 1/2 ft to 3ft wide throughout the length which can only be a benefit also. Not to mention that the rest areas have curtains usually (except on some of the older designs) and you generally dont have anyone walking up and down the aisles beside you except when its wakey wakey time.
An example of a crew rest:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0208378/L/
A Club bed
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0362328/L/
What is odd is that the BA First is hardly better. The width of the bed is exactly the same as in Club, and the length is just a few inches longer. Just why should anyone want to fly First Class?