Qantas will run 20-hour test flights
 

Qantas will run 20-hour test flights to check how the human body copes with its planned ultra-long-haul routes.

The airline has announced its intentions to fly direct between both London and New York and Sydney – the world’s longest nonstop services.

The 10,573-mile journey from Heathrow is expected to take 20 hours and 20 minutes at an average speed of 520 mph. The most direct route would take the plane over Denmark, Latvia, western Russia, northeast Kazakhstan, China and the Philippines before making landfall in Australia close to Darwin.

The Independent

Presumably they are going to fly around Indonesia!

Perhaps my worst flight was in an AF B777-300, night flight, 12 hours, CDG/SIN in 10 across economy seating, IT WAS HORRIBLE!

The return of that trip I flew in a KL B777-200, day flight, 14.5 hours, MNL/AMS in 9 across economy seating and it was OK, I was a smoker at the time but once I had got past the initial number of hours, whereas the hours until my next fag were less than the hours since my last fag, I was OK and even when the KL cabin crew were having their rest there was kind of like an open buffet area to go and grab a snack or drink, it was OK.

I've read that these QF test flights are only to seat around 40 pax, sure I've ridden otherwise empty ferry flights before now, room to spread out, three or four seats to oneself, I appreciate that they say they want to determine any impact upon the human body but what about with a load factor of 100%, squeezed in to economy class, screaming kids or whatever, allowing pax to stretch their legs if only with a walk to/from an open buffet area?

I think that if these Asian carriers can offer a PDQ connection with lesser fares then many pax shall continue to opt for indirect flights.

Any passengers who are particularly price-conscious, come to that.

By all accounts QF can't operate DXB/SYD without leaving much of the baggage behind so LON/SYD, whereas many pax will be going for weeks or months, taking their long-lost relatives goodies from the old country, pretty much anything bar the kitchen sink, well that should prove to be interesting.

Earlier this year, friends of mine did the QF PER~LHR non-stop in Y and said it was one of the best flights they had had.

QF no longer do the DXB transit to/from LHR do they - The EK/QF agreement ended I thought?

All
I have done the SQ Singapore - Newark in the 340 some years ago, and will be doing it again in Oct but I get to turn left, so it is just a long day in a comfortable cabin, but would not want to do it in economy, or anything like it.
Regards
Mr Mac

20 hour flight? No thanks! (and I only fly L/H in Businesss). Then again I am an old bugger, no doubt the new generation who only think about price will be happy to endure it. I'll continue to take my little break in SIN.

I very much doubt that the non-stop will sell for less than connecting flights.

The non-stop shall be using more fuel than connecting flights.

Indeed it will. Having said that, the extra fare for the non-stop will be far more than just the cost of the additional fuel.

I would do it if I could afford to Turn Left! The longest I have known was an HKG (Kai Tak!) to LHR in a VS 346 in (I think) 1995. We had to avoid some storms and it was 15 hours and some - in Y. It was a trial. As it was the last evening before Lunar New Year, the flight was 100%.

I don't really see the point except for showing off, the A380 seems to be the perfect equipment for the LON/OZ air bridge, give it a few years and A380's shall be as cheap as chips and by the time they are past their use-by dates there shall be a whole new generation of aircraft about, the likes of CX have recently started direct services MAN/HKG with A350's when previously they only served LON, so I can see that a MAN/SYD service might work but without any necessity to be non-stop, many Aussies take their holidays in Asia thus why QF utilise different Asian intermediary points and any travel agent search engine shall identify just how many carriers and options there already are serving the Oz routes.

And just what is the endurance of a fully laden QF B787 with, let's say, each pax with 20kg of baggage, above the 20.5 hours block times, holding fuel, one hour to alternate, 5% contingency etc. just how much more fuel can they possibly put on?

It's 30 years ago that I worked in Oz, these B787's are going to be planning from +24H weather forecasts, 30 years ago if the alternate had, let's say, a PROB30 of TS then they would need an alternate for the alternate etc. One day with a B737-300 we needed so many alternates that we had to offload pax just to get enough fuel on for a one hour flight, what chance from LON?

In the era when companies have to do something different? To grab headlines? Differentiate from the competition? I'd say this is an entirely sensible option. Between the USA and Europe to Oz there must be a dozen carriers on both routes (maybe more) and 100 different prices. So, be the one who is offering non-stop.

How is the non-stop is going to use less fuel? The non-stop flight time will be less than two connecting flights and will travel less miles. And the two connecting flights will have one additional take off and climb.

Because the non-stop flight shall be tankering fuel for up to 20 hours and it costs circa 3% fuel burn per hour to tanker that fuel so to carry just 1,000kg of fuel for the final hour of a 20 hour flight the aircraft is going to take-off with some 1,700kg of fuel of which it shall burn some 700kg just carrying that 1,000kg for 19 hours and that is just 1,000kg, work out the total fuel burn then tankering costs from one to nineteen hours, the fuel burn shall be mega.

It's a bit like Concorde and the A380 - someone has to do it and QF is the natural one. It does not matter if it does not last - the main thing is to do it before anyone else does.