Scotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1207 posts, RR: 3 Posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3783 times:
Twenty-five years ago I flew on PA801 JFK-NRT which I believe, at that time, was the longest non-stop sector. The equipment was a 747SP.
Boeing then produced the 743 which enabled all airlines on the JFK-NRT run to offer non-stop service. In Europe, on the Australia run, it was normal to have 2-3 stops. Eventually with the 743 and the 744 these flights became one-stops. Now we have the A345 SIN-LAX & SIN-EWR non-stops.
My question is: All this has taken place over the last 25 years. What is the future of long-haul non-stops? I know Boeing will produce the 777LR but what do you think will be the replacement and aircraft flying non-stop NYC-SYD and LON-SYD? It surely has to happen.
Moby From Netherlands, joined Jun 2004, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3656 times:
My wild guess is that this can happen, as you know airliners are operating in a most cost efficient way, so if it's sure they can have the flight non stop Europe-Australia full for 80% they will do it, otherwise they will operate their schedules just as they do now.
Stop in SIN loads of people out and loads of new pax in.. It's all a matter of money.
But hey what do you prefer have a stop over and be able to wlak around the airport a little or sit another somany hours in a metal tube.
Scotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1207 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3608 times:
It was an article in the NY Times in which the correspondent flew EWR-SIN via AMS (Was not overly impressed with the 3 hour layover) and then the non-stop back to NYC. Much preferred the non-stop as he was able to sleep for 13 hours!
Hz747300 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2004, 2053 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3592 times:
Slept for 13 hours!?! There must have been sleep enhancers used, probably alcohol.
Does Qantas fly to NYC via LAX on a code-share, or on its own jet? There is a Qantas sign at the JFK check-in but I never have seen a Qantas jet. I would think that the loads would have to be high for those flights, and that a SYD-NYC run would be profitable. Certainly, once in place it would create its own market.
BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 3013 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2604 times:
There's a lot of non-stop flights that are currently possible to fly with the aircraft available on today's market, but are not offered simply because they wouldn't be profitable. One can obviously think of many examples.
On the other hand, there are a few non-stop flights that cannot be offered by today's aircraft, but that would (probably) be profitable if and when technology is able to deliver. There aren't that many city pairs that would justify the development of a new aircraft with a range even bigger than the A340-500 (and soon the 777LR) - let's face it, with these planes you can already cover almost the entire world. But let's think, which would those city pairs be?
LEO777 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
A possible long haul flight in the future might also be ORD-JNB.
There is also a sign at ORD that reads Qantas but if I am correct that is on codeshare with AA.
ORD-SIN could possibly open up again as the demand increases between both cities.
You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there.
Malb777 From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1968 times:
Not to keen on the nonstops my self. I remember my first flight to Australia back in 1974, London, Frankfurt,Bahrain,Kuala Lumpur,Singapore,Sydney Melbourne. on a QF 742.Took a long time but at least we could walk around airports stretch out, Last flight to UK was Brisbane ,Bangkok ,London return, on TG 777 & 7474 Quicker but I think I suffered jetlag more on this flight than before. Either that or I am just getting older
thank god i was not born a bird. this type of flying is much better