Realistically thinking, the next regularly scheduled ULH flight will probably be DFW-SYD (this flight currently runs via BNE). But I'm hoping that we see some interesting new flights made possible by the 787 before then...
Morgue-logistics aside, I don't see how 19-hour-in-a-tin-can will ever be "the norm". I daydream about nonstops to/from anywhere you can think of, but besides me and a few others (AKA, a.netters), most people would rather have a one-stop instead of a 18+ hour flight.
Back to morgue logistics, that's the easy part, imagine the medical training and equipment (at least a Automatic external defibrillator) would be needed in every flight and AFAIK noone carries them.
Only on anet can you read about the logistics of ULH flying and the number of morgue's needed onboard. First time over ever heard of them! Did a quick google search (as google searches a.net better than the a.net search) and found a thread on them. Someone calculated that on average based on 400 777's flyin at any given time, that someone dies every week! Maybe this isn't such a crazy concept anyways!
AR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7517 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6674 times:
Quoting Kermode (Reply 16): On a side note, as If this comment isn't all a side-note, can anyone provide a direct link to a picture of one of the sq a345 morgues? There don't seem to be any in the database.
While I cannot provide a link to that pic. I´m sure there was one in the database here. Maybe it was taken down due to sensibilities. But I did see it somewhere.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 29469 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6597 times:
Quoting falkerker (Reply 15): imagine the medical training and equipment (at least a Automatic external defibrillator) would be needed in every flight and AFAIK noone carries them.
Many airlines have onboard defibrillators on all their aircraft. If not mistaken it's been an FAA requirement for U.S.airlines since about 2004. Some have had then longer than that, for example AA. I've seen them on KLM aircraft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuaJSKZ7EeM
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 6061 posts, RR: 43
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6541 times:
As aircraft become more and more capable, another phenomenon occurs ...
That is there becomes a point where it is more economical, with regard to fuel, to land enroute, than fly the route non-stop. Carrying 20 hours of fuel is very very expensive, more expensive than carrying 10 hours of fuel twice, (for example).
There was a very interesting message thread about just that on here a few months ago. The (accurate) theory is that if you consider how much it costs to carry the final 10 hours of fuel on the first 10 hours, then stopping in the middle becomes cheaper.
So looking at the routes above, yes there is demand .... but would the average passenger pay a premium for a non-stop over a one-stop flight? Historically, that passenger would not .... and ticket price will often dictate.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!