Emirates

[Xeque]

Stoney Bridge (post 184):
I am not attempting to re-open the B v A argument. Not something I'm particularly interested in. Given the departure points (i.e. oil rich UAE and KSA) there are (and were) plenty of potential passengers for the direct Gulf/USA routes. Trouble was for Saudia/PanAm that no-one liked the time in flight. I think it's the same now.
Metroman's post (181) says it all and echo's what has been my attitude to long distance journeys for many years. The maximum I can take is BKK/LHR direct at 11/12 hours and now I've cut that back a little by flying into Schiphol and taking the train into London so as to avoid the sheer horror of Heathrow. Anything longer than that and I break the journey and do exactly what Metroman says. Hot bath/shower, pleasant dinner, good night's sleep in a proper bed, and a hearty breakfast before I go off to the airport to start again on the next leg. The airports that have established Airside Hotels have recognised the need. Singapore has one of the best in the world but there are others just as good at Dubai, Bahrain etc. London Airports should provide such facilities also. Then transiting passengers who are not prepared to 'camp out' in the departure lounges could enjoy some real comfort whilst avoiding the trauma and degradation of (so-called) 'security' checks were they to have gone 'landside' and into local hotels (assuming, of course, that they were allowed to).
It's up to the airlines to provide passengers with the ability to do this without swingeing fare penalties. Perhaps, now that passenger figures are dropping, the airlines' beancounters might recognise this.
Trouble with doing it all in one go is that, although you have reached your destination in the shortest time, you arrive totally wrecked and unable to do anything significant for at least 24 hours after that. Much better to spread the load and look after your health.