Originally Posted by
FullWings
One 20-hr flight uses considerably more fuel than two 10hr ones.
I would need to check the maths, but I would not be so sure about that. Yes, fuel consumption is highest at takeoff, and is a direct function of takeoff weight, but the equation is definitely not 1:1. Also the 20 hr sector needs to be compared to two 10.5 hr to allow for another approach/landing & takeoff. But the big savings is doing away with the interim airport landing and handling fees which is a considerable portion of total cost. On the revenue side I'm not so sure how it will work out. As a rule of thumb, an airline can charge a premium for a non-stop service (or rather competitors with a connection need to offer a discount), however on such a long route where the time saving is marginal, I don't know to what extent will this work. I for one would rather pay less and spend a night in a Bangkok hotel to break it into two shorter legs. The key is how much of the premium traffic will they manage to capture to fill F/C. I have taken QF first, and the experience was quite disappointing in comparison with what the competition has to offer.