Revo From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 29886 times:
British Airways is leading the race to become the first airline to operate non-stop flights from London to Sydney.
The 9,200 mile journey, which will take up to 20 hours, has eluded airlines in the past because there have never been any commercially viable aircraft capable of flying such a distance.
Airbus is offering BA the new A350-900R model, which will be capable of flying about 9,400 miles. Passengers have a while longer to wait though before finally being able to take a non-stop flight Down Under – the A350-900R won’t take to the skies for at least another seven years.
BA’s bitter rival, Virgin Atlantic, has already committed itself to Boeing’s rival to the A350, the 787 Dreamliner. This has a range of up to 8,500 nautical miles, which would enable Virgin to launch non-stop flights from London to Perth in Western Australia. Virgin’s 787 is likely to enter service in 2011.
Virgin may become the first to launch non-stop Australia flights, but until Boeing offers an extended-range version of the 787 the key markets of Sydney and Melbourne will remain out of reach.
Australian airline Qantas also has ambitions to offer non-stop flights from Sydney to London using extended-range 787s.
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29800 times:
What a thrilling idea to stay put in a 787 tube for 20 hours non-stop....
I can accommodate the idea of an A380 to handle the distance non-stop but no way would I like to fly that long in a 787-It's a pure matter of space and perception of space-I admit and has nothing to do with the technical feasibility's of any 787 to make the distance...
Rdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 907 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29764 times:
I cannot imagine the smell after the flight arrives with 20 hours cooped up and the loos closed due to a malfunction!! How much food will they need and also water?? there will not be many takers from my clients as they all like to go EK so they can stretch thier legs en route.
No go for me I am afraid.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 22159 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29729 times:
This short article is worthless. Who wrote it?
Quoting Revo (Thread starter): Airbus is offering BA the new A350-900R model, which will be capable of flying about 9,400 miles. Passengers have a while longer to wait though before finally being able to take a non-stop flight Down Under – the A350-900R won’t take to the skies for at least another seven years.
9400 mile range is NOT ENOUGH to fly this route. You need 10000nm minimum due to winds. And the article doesn't distinguish between "miles" and "nautical miles"
Not to mention Boeing offers a 9450nm jet right now. Why do passengers have "to wait" when they could have already bought the 77L? Because 9400nm is not enough range...
and the 787 is not a "8500 mile" aircraft according to Boeing. That data is old. And the A350-900R will NOT likely take to the skies in 7 years. R/LR versions take 2 to 3 years in most cases. That makes it 9-10 years. A 788LR or 789LR would likely be available before then. With 10000nm range? I'd assume because it's the only reason to make the plane to begin with...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Adicool From Netherlands, joined Apr 2007, 307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29613 times:
Airlines haven't offered this service bc it's simply not very practical. I mean, 20h, c'mon! They'd need tons of water, food etc. I think such a flight would be too strenuous for some people - let alone the FA...having one stop-over in SIN or DUB is just fine, you can walk around a little, have a smoke, get all fresh . I sounds like a really bad idea to me...there are also some medical concerns...I mean, what will be the affect on pax after having stayed in a isolated space for 20h...
definitely not for me, I already think 12h FRA/CDG-LAX is dreadful!
Ek036 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29534 times:
It should cut off 2.5hours of total traveling time. I think is should appeal to more business traveler's and premium ecconomy.
Still think QF or virgin should try the water with a LHR - PER on a 777-200LR non stop first!
Pilot21 From Ireland, joined Oct 1999, 1429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29515 times:
Quoting Adicool (Reply 6): Airlines haven't offered this service bc it's simply not very practical. I mean, 20h, c'mon!
Well having done 16hrs on CX from JFK-HKG, and people do SIN-LAX/JFK which is 17 to 18hrs, the extra 2 hrs isn't that much more, the airlines have proved (more or less) that people can cope with these long flights, but the aircraft range for this sector is still beyond reach, and even if the plane that can do it is built, the cost V's benefit of doing it non-stop is very borderline. (re: lack of cargo that can be transported/plus lack of pax/plus the amount of fuel needed etc)
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29373 times:
The only thing I have doubts about this on is if you look at the current offerings LHR-SYD, some of them make enormously long stopovers in SE Asia eastbound in comparison to their westbound flights. Is it due to curfews? BA9 stops for nearly 3 hours in BKK and BA15 stops for over 2 hours in SIN. Westbound, the stopovers are 90 minutes or less.
To do it in 20 hours nonstop, BA would have to depart LHR at midnight or later to arrive in SYD when the curfew is lifted in the morning, or change it to a morning departure. If this is such a viable "nonstop" route, what would prevent them from doing it on a short tech-stop basis somewhere now, just inside the curfew hours for both LHR and SYD?
Bofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29373 times:
Maybe would it be a market for F and J and that will be the only type of fares that
the airline would like to have. I can not see a 20 hr non-stop full of lower Y-class
fares. But you never know... Maybe you can work onboard and save some money
for yourself and the airline? "Do you want a ordinary seat or do you like to work
as a steward? We have a vacancy for the second half of the flight, 10 hours...". "OR
you can clean the aircraft inside after landing and we reduce your fare by 100 GBP!"
"My last offer today is to keep the pilots awake. It gives you a reduction of 200 GBP
if you take the 20 hr shift..."
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29196 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 5): No difference in being cooped up for 24 hours with a 90 minute stop than 20 hours non-stop.
With a stop is definitely worse. Because the total time spent in the airplane is longer...you have to slow down, descend, land, taxi, taxi back out, climb, etc.
Airbus would be throwing down an interesting gauntlet; since the aircraft would be, to some extent, "useless" if it didn't make the numbers, the penalties for non-performance would have to be quite large.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8643 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 29150 times:
Do we really expect BA to still have an Australian service by the time the A350 900R flies let alone enters service? They have terminated their services to both MEL and PER in recent years. And less than a year ago they downgraded one of their two remaining flights - both to SYD - from a 744 to a 772 service.
If the JSA is still in force when the A350 900R enters service and if BA are still serving SYD at that time it would seem the ideal time to quit the LHR-SYD route. They could then allow QF to fly the route non-stop on behalf of them both. Then BA would not have the costs of buying and operating an aircraft type simply to be able to offer one or two return flights a day on just one route.
To me the 'race' BA is meant to be leading is one they will never enter.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 9211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 28941 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 15): In 1989, the QF 747-400 delivery did LHR-SYD in 20 hours non-stop (30 guests on board, nothing else).
Actually I was told by a QF employee the flight did carry freight - one football.
As for making that trip non-stop there is no way I would go for it. I'm too old and wold end up with a fried brain at the end of the flight. Besides, there is far more pleasure in stopping overnight someplace I have never been (or some place I enjoy visiting) to pass up the chance that a layover gives me.
Albird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 28844 times:
Well if BA are really interested in doing this route then i would expect them to aquire some 772LRs and then do the same as SQ with there SIN-EWR route and just have it as a premium cabin service. I wonder if the demand for a full club world config aircraft would work or would they need to add some WTP??
JWMD123 From Ireland, joined May 2006, 867 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 28495 times:
Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 9): EWR-SIN on SQ A345 is already 19:20 so there's not much new with 20 hours. I've done SQ20 SIN-LAX 16:20 and it was fine...in Raffles Class
Last year I completed SIN-LAX in Economy (albeit executive economy) for 16.5 hours and whilst a first it sounded daunting, after it was over, it was not that bad.
Anyway, I am heading to SYD in October and if I had my way I would not mind a straight flight. Given the schedule we have with VS vis Hong Kong, it would cut over 4 hours off if it were a straight flight