Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3895 times:
I don't think even these long legged birds can make this trip non-stop. Although I have seen where Boeing may possibly develope a 10,000 nm Sonic Cruiser. This could make it I believe. Although I rather doubt that this willl happen. The number of aircraft would be very limited. I don't think that it would be economically feasible to produce this aircraft. Time will tell though.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3842 times:
Yep, your right on that one. I actually remember that. Since the 744 is my favorite all time aircraft, I was pretty excited about it. But the passenger load was sad. I think there was a total of 23 people on baord that flight. Grant it, it was a delivery flight, but 23 people on a 744? Bet they had thier choice of seats and meals.
TR From UK - England, joined May 2001, 953 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3817 times:
The shortest possible route is app. 9.200 nautical miles (17.000 kms)! This does not take any consideration to airspace restrictions etc. etc. With a 'normal' aircraft cruising at 800-900 kms per hour the flying time would be between 19 and 21 hours roughly. I am not sure that I´d like to spend that amount of time non-stop in an aircraft and I´m sure that FA and pilot unions will have something to say to that as well.
9V-SPF From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 1375 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3811 times:
The distance between LHR and SYD is 10549 miles. If you compare this with a different flight in the same direction, for example LHR-SIN, which takes 12 1/2 hours at 6764 miles distance, you can come to the conclusion that a nonstop flight between London and Sydney would take about 19 1/2 hours.
Almost 20 hours on board of an airplane in Coach Class?
I would prefer a stop, even if the journey took me 5 hours more.
Mr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
The B744 is my all time favourite too. The Qantas B744 (VH-OJA) was towed to the runway and started it's engines there and took off from there. Not too sure about the load but it carried full fuel that's for sure. I think this was one attempt to Qantas to break a record, not too sure which record. Yes, it broke the record, but an MAS B777 broke it again flying Seattle to KL non-stop.
Hkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3607 times:
I'm not sure if I'm correct, but I think the CX flights from Toronto to Hong Kong which used to stop at Anchorage (now Vancouver) took about 20 hours. And passengers weren't allowed to leave the plane during the refuelling stop. If that's right, staying on a plane for 20 hours is feasible! Perhaps that's because of CX's excellent service and the comfortable interior of their 340s?
BBD From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3547 times:
If Boeing were to go ahead with its subsonic cruiser, and if it were to produce an economical, long range version, capable of flying LHR-SYD non-stop, I believe that it could have a dramatic effect on the market, particularly at the top end (ie business end) of the market, and could be quite appealing to QF.
As indicated in previous messages, a flight time of 16 hours, which would be nudging the outer limits of current non-stop flights, is quite feasible: current timetables show a total flying time from LHR to SYD via SIN of about 21.25hours (excluding the stopover); taking out the effect of the descent and takeoff, together with a straightening (shortening) of the flightpath that could be possible as there would be no need to fly directly over SIN, could possibly reduce this to about 20 hours. A further reduction of about 20%, due to the faster speed (as initially claimed by Boeing), could see this then drop to about 16 hours - a total savings of about 7 hours (including the stopover), or about 30%, on the current time.
This would mean arriving in SYD "1-3 hours after leaving LHR", depending on the seasons and daylight saving regimes:
LHR [+1] dp: 1800
SYD [+10] ar: 1900(+1)
Going the other way, flying time would be a bit longer (about 17 hours):
SYD [+10] dp: 1000
LHR [+1] ar: 1800
I believe that the savings in time, as well as the more favourable travel logistics that it would create, would be appealing to a fair section of the business market which would be prepared to pay a premium for such a service.
Indeed, the possibility of non-stop services from Australia to Europe, eliminating the need to go via SIN, was (and probably still is) one of the main motivations - perhaps the motivation - for SQ wanting to buy into AN, so that it too, indirectly, could offer such a service.
Other non-stop long haul possibilities for QF could be SYD-JFK, where the current flying time of about 20.50 hours (including the stopover at LAX) could be reduced to about 15 hours non-stop.
BCal DC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 722 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3540 times:
that flight from London to Sydney took 20 hours, 9 minutes and 5 seconds, which is a long time to go without a stop.
It was a special plane, modified I believe for the publicity stunt. However I seem to remember it actually had enough fuel to carry onto Melbourne... but it didn't, just to be on the safe side.
B0047 From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2000, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3456 times:
I believe they used a company plane, an A340 named "The World Ranger", it flew into the Paris Air Show on July 18th 1993. It was a one stop around the world flight lasting 48 hours, 22min. It also set a record for longest distance by an airliner - Auckland-Paris 10,392nm.
Qantas744 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 246 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (12 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3377 times:
Although LHR-SYD non stop might be a good idea for some people,I'm not sure if QF or BA would see it that way.Those two airlines codeshare on the 'kanagaroo' route using SIN as a hub-flying directly to SYD or MEL would mean BA dropping 12 flights a week to SIN,and 19 flights a week if you include the codeshares.
The last time I flew SYD-LHR I deliberately chose to have a stopover in SIN because I didn't want to spend 22 hours on a 744,it's not so bad if it's broken up into two flights.
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll