CB777 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1216 posts, RR: 2 Posted (16 years 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1439 times:
I was wondering if airlines fly from Los Angeles to Sydney nonstop or do they have to stop somewhere such as honolulu to refuel, also the same thing goes for Auckland? Also are there nonstops flights from New York to Singapore, and are there any nonstop flights from New York to Johannesburg South Africa. What aircraft have the longest range for these routes which will it be the 747-400, A340, or the 777.
Asdf From Austria, joined Mar 2014, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (16 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1290 times:
Airlines do not have to make a stop when flying from Los Angeles to Sydney. United Airlines, Qantas, and Air New Zealand are among the airlines that fly nonstop from Los Angeles to Sydney. United also flies nonstop from Los Angeles to Auckland.
I don't think there are any nonstop flights from New York to Singapore. I think the range is beyond that of any aircraft in service today, but I'm not 100% certain. There are nonstop flights from New York to South Africa, but I'm not sure it they are to Cape Town of Johannesburg. The A340 has the longest range out of the three planes.
VS9 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (16 years 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1267 times:
As said, there are no non-stop flights from NYC to Singapore. SQ operates from EWR and JFK to SIA with an intermediate stop in Europe (used to be either FRA or AMS.South African Airways operates non-stop from JFK-South Africa 6 days a week (the 7th flight stops off in Sal) alternating between Cape Town and Johannesburg as a first stop depending on the day of the week. The old flight from MIA operated to Cape Town, but I understand the new Atlanta flight will operate to Jo'burg.All flights from South Africa to the USA stop for fuel at Sal, Cape Verde Islands. If you have ever done the non-stop flight from the USA - ZAF you know what hell is. I am off to Cape Town tomorrow and taking Virgin Atlantic via London. OK, the journey is longer, but the service is better on VS than SAA and you get a few hours break in Europe.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (16 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1263 times:
I remember about a year or two ago hearing about United wanting to attempt a nonstop Chicago to New Delhi or Mumbai, India flight. They were going to use a modified 747-400. However, a few months after this announcement they said they scrapped the plan because it was too complex. That would be a very long flight if they ever can make it.
VH-BZF From Australia, joined Oct 1999, 861 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (16 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
FYI, As the previous writers have stated, all services to Singapore (SIA, UA, NW etc) all operate via Tokyo, Osaka or Hong Kong if flying over the Pacific. SIA services from JFK or EWR operate via FRA or AMS (initially it was BRU), then onto SIN. As far as service to Australia from LAX, United, QF & Air NZ all operate non-stop service to Sydney. United operate daily non-stop to Melbourne (at 12,762kms,the longest non-stop service, year round, in the world!) & QF operate 5 times a week non-stop with 2 B747-400's via Auckland. United also operate SFO-SYD non-stop daily, codesharing with Ansett. Apparently the longest in miles is JFK-JNB at 7960miles, operated one-way only.
Hope that helps?
Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 13174 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (16 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
The longest A340 sector in the world, again operated in one direction only is Cathay's HKG-YYZ, which is 7,793 miles and (I imagine) about 15 hours. While I imagine CX would be relatively pleasant, I think the increasing number of nonstop routes flown will encourage airlines - perhaps legally - to increase pitch. I don't know what UAL's 744 pitch is on LA-MEL (or HKG-ORD/vv), but it can't be healthy to be cooped up for 16 hours with a seat pitch of 32'. Hopefully, many airlines will follow the example of ANZ (34') and of course, AAL (35').
The Chicago - Hong Kong flight is 15h55 (and could well go above 16 hrs. depending on the winds and holding at HKG). I always like to estimate a fuel load for these long flights, e.g.
ORD-HKG Taxi 3-5t
Div. - KHH 12t
About 180t in all.
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (16 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1234 times:
The only aircraft that will be capable of flying singapore-US non-stop are the A340-500 and the soon to to be released 777-200X. Their range will be in the 15-16000 km area, whereas the 747-400's range is around 13-14000km. The A340-600 and 777-300X will have a range comparable with the 747-400 but offering much greater economics.
Future_747_f/o From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (16 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1221 times:
The longest direct route in the world is the one which i have just reciently travelled on LAX TO SYD. it is 14:40 hrs non stop and from LAX TO AKL it is only 12:30hrs. They only use 747-400's for this route
Acvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (16 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1201 times:
The LA-SYD is not as long as SAA's former MIA-CPT or current ATL-CPT/JNB
The NYC-CPT is also longer than the LAX-SYD
CX ran the HKG-JFK for about 8 months. They cannot run nonstop during the winter or when the jetstream is strong.
The A340 has the longest range but, most of the longer flights are actually flown with the 747-400. The new 777-200X will have a range of 10,000m which by any account will make it the longest range aircraft.
The ORD-BOM route was cancelled before it began due to complexities with the Indian government not technical issues and a question of how good year round load would be (profitability). It was to be flown with a 777 not a 747-400. They decided to keep flying the 767-300ER (via europe) transatlantic to India and the 747-400 (via SE Asia) trans pacific to India. They then ended up withdrawing the transpacific service as loads and yields faltered.
Technically, It would not have been a problem to operate that route. Operationally, It would not have made money and there were significant hurdles with the Indian government to overcome.