EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7566 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5243 times:
I am sure you will get totally different answers from everybody and, who knows, maybe there will be some "no, you are completely crazy" answers. My two cents are: I read some months ago in another thread here that to many airlines and passengers, any flight that exceeds 6 hours is a long haul flight.
I have seen a lot of posts by people who claim that they would never fly EZE-PTY, for example, with CM due to the fact that a narrowbody is used (or a trans-Atlantic on board a 752). I guess they are right generally, but if you get a bulkhead or emergency exit row seat, less than 50% load factor, extraordinarily nice f.a.'s, etc., then maybe the issue of narrowbody vs. widebody becomes less relevant.
The longest I have been airborne inside a narrowbody is less than 5 hours and I am sure I can handle one more hour. But more... I dunno.
Amhilde From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 643 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5160 times:
Yes but with seats these days that takes about 30 seconds. I figure its to the point where you will either throttle the annoying kids/armrest hog/chatty kathy seatmate or you crawl to the back lav and weep into the stainless steel basin and wonder why you subject yourself to such torture.
B747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5097 times:
There is certainly no specific definition as to what is short haul, medium haul or long haul.
When I started flying with airlines, a 737 or DC9 were short haul aircraft, the 727 or 880 were medium haul, and the 707 or DC8 were long haul. I would venture to say that in my little head, up to 2 hours was short haul, medium haul would be 2 to 6 hours, and long haul beyond 6 hours...
Then each of these airplanes existed in various versions, some with reduced range (707-100 or 720s) while the 707-320 were long range. In practice, the comfort in a 720 was the same as in a 707-320... And nowadays, 737 are definitely becoming mediun range airplanes...
Narrow body or wide-body preference is another point. I often have to ride as a passenger, I personally hate the wide-body "mass of bodies" which is present for boarding, in flight, and waiting for baggage. A nice 5-seat accross MD-80 is for me much comfortable than a Y-class 747 rear cabin, when only 120 people will rush for collecting baggage rather than 400.
Maybe it is because I am a pilot, for me, my only interest in riding as a passenger is, if I can sleep, sip my 2 glasses of wine, then close my eyes without being disturbed, until landing. I may surprise you, but my interest in airplanes when a passenger is at the lowest level, compared to just everyone that is A.Net member.
I am among those who would be unable to tell what specific type of aircraft I was in on my last flight with Varig, Delta, or Iberia... I slept good is all I can recall. And when I ride as passenger on my airline, I talk to the pilots then the flight attendants, because I know them... the only difference.
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19202 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5065 times:
Surely it is the only time in the air - and not the aircraft - which differenciates between long, medium and short haul? For instance, would a 74F operating between ANC and MIA - a flight of 7-8+ hours - be a long-haul a flight, even though both cities are in one country? Would LHR-JFK - between 5 and 6 and between two countries - be a long-haul? It all depends just on the length of the flight - not the aircraft type or whether you land in one country or two. I agree with the above about 2 or less hours being short-haul, 2-6 being medium-haul, and 6+ hours being long-haul.
[Edited 2004-04-06 11:54:08]
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
Crazyboi From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4885 times:
For the airlines, it's probably a matter of customer perception. They are compelled to supply "long haul" services (suitable food, cabin comfort, and such) when the passengers deem it appropriate to the route.
In this sense, I think that "long haul" is really a psychological conception as much as it is a physiological or temporal one.
In terms of airline operation, they want to provide the minimal services to passengers for economic benefit. Therefore, they can service a route (say, LHR-JFK) as medium-haul, with medium services and a lower fare base. Or, they can serve the same route with more premium long-haul passenger amenities. Of course, with longer flights, passengers will demand more long-haul services and, thus, necessitate what we know of as "long-haul" operations.
Blah, blah, blah... in other words, there are a lot of contributing factors and it's relatively subjective from the airline position.
This is the time. And this is the record of the time.
FLYSSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7409 posts, RR: 57
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4704 times:
I just read again my post and yours and realize that you are actually very right ! I would give you some "strange" examples concerning AF :
CDG-BEY (1724 NM) or CDG-CAI (1735 nm) are considered "long-haul". They are served by B777 or A340 or B744 and Long-haul Crews, with a full "long-haul" service on board.
CDG-TLV (1775 nm) is considered a "medium-haul" flight, operated with an A320 in a "Europe network" configuration (same seats in Y and C with the "no midldle seat" concept in C) and served by a "medium-haul" crew with medium-haul on board service ( + Video ).
CDG-DAM (1778 nm) & CDG-AMM (1828 nm) are considered Long-haul destinations, served by Long-haul crews but operated by an A320 in a "Europe Network" configuration but with a long-haul inflight service...