Macc From Austria, joined Nov 2004, 1108 posts, RR: 3 Posted (11 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5386 times:
just watched a docu on n-tv about a SQ flight from LAX to SIN. People boarded Friday evening and landed Sunday morning. Crazy thing due to the date line. the flight takes 18 hrs, and i read the flight from SIN to JFK takes 18,5 hrs. i just wonder if there are any other regular flights which take longer and which other airlines offer such long flights.
I exchanged political frustration with sexual boredom. better spoil a girl than the world
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5362 times:
For one thing, no airline flies SIN-JFK nonstop.
The only longer flight that was ever planned was TPE-PTY nonstop by BR, under heavy subsidy by the Evergreen Aviation & Technology Group. Considering current changes in their C-market aircraft delivery schedule, I sincerely doubt BR will ever fly this route.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2830 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5319 times:
People boarded Friday evening and landed Sunday morning.
Whilst the above is the longest current non-stop flight, I have often flown on a single flight number CDG or LHR - Oz (MEL or SYD) being around 24 hours and 10 time zones and with only a one hour stop in SIN. For an evening departure from Europe, timetables have always shown arrival time in Oz as, e.g. 0700 D+2, i.e. AM two days later. JFK - SYD is also a single flt number, I believe.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
GuyBetsy1 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 846 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5260 times:
It's not to say that there aren't any longer flights or airlines that could fly them, but rather on whether there is such a market for these flights.
SQ has always been an innovator to initiate 'firsts'. First airline to fly nonstop FROM SINGAPORE to LAX, first airline to fly nonstop to EWR. There is traffic between SIN and those cities. Other airlines may not be able to boost that kind of excitement.
The only other airline which may compete with SQ for attention is probably EK.
So unless they try something that is going to rival SQ for distance, ie DXB-LAX or DXB-AKL nonstop, non one else can step in any fill those shoes. Okay... maybe DXB-HNL perhaps flying either direction?
Not unless QF might want to try to fly SYD-JFK nonstop.
Lyzzard From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 404 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5001 times:
Given the current jet stream and weather conditions over the north pacific, current LAX-SIN flights are averaging 19 hours in flight time alone... I'll be boarding SQ19 tonight, guess I'd better plan to watch 6 of 7 full length movies.
CORULEZ05 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4895 times:
I dont know about you guys but I dont see how anyone wants to be on an airplane, regardless of how nice it is, for THAT LONG! I love flying but 18 hrs? No way. While flying non-stop is nice and convenient, 18 hrs is a bit much if you ask me.
QANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5950 posts, RR: 35
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4722 times:
Syd-Lhr nonstop is impossible with passengers n cargo, it's close to 18000ks and the only plane ever to do it was VH-OJA in late 1989 with no pax or cargo and this was Lhr-Syd, just a specially made fuel and tech crew, that flight took close to 21hrs, there is no concievable way that it could operate in the reverse direction.
Per-Lhr and VV would be possible to achieve nonstop, not sure if QF will ever operate it though. as for long flights, Qantas 94 from LAX-MEL on a bad day can take well over 16hrs, i know, i've had the misfortune of being on it.
a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
VS045 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 192 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 days ago) and read 4636 times:
Ait Tahiti Nui has wanted to do PPT-CDG non-stop for a while now but need airbus to increase the MTOW for the route to possible/profitable. That would surely be the longest route in the world!?! I don't know how suitable the 772LR would be for that route, regarding their current fleet, ETOPS etc.
Highflier92660 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 748 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4261 times:
Certainly LHR-SYD at a distance of 10,573 miles would be the ultimate long distance city pairing, but at this time the old Kangaroo route is beyond the practical range of any now flying, even the upcoming 772LR. In time, an aircraft like the A380 could evolve into a legitimate London to Sydney passenger jet. Then we all would be screaming for another Mach 2 plus supersonic jet to make that interminable flight a bit shorter.