airbear
Posts: 607
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 9:27 pm

SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:39 pm

With QF's fleet decision due this week, I was thinking... would I really want to from SYD-LHR non-stop? I can see some "human" problems associated with such an flights.

The problems I see mainly relate to hygene conditions. Firstly, as opposed to airlines such as CX or SQ, where I have noticed the FA's keeping the toilets clean on a regular basis during long flights, even in Y class, I have never seen QF FA's do this. So, when toilets block up or run out of toilet paper or paper towels or just become filthy and smelly, with 300 or so people on board for 20 hours I can see the potential for big trouble.

Will QF have to employ an extra crew member just as an in-flight janitor/cabin maintainance person to keep things running smoothly - as well as smaller things like galley equipment, or will several blocked toilets at one time, cause a diversion?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:49 pm

Quoting Airbear (Thread starter):
With QF's fleet decision due this week, I was thinking... would I really want to from SYD-LHR non-stop?

A smaller, premium market is always willing to pay for a more spacious cabin and shorter flight. For some people, saving several hours in trip time may be worth the time spent couped up in the cabin...

Quoting Airbear (Thread starter):
So, when toilets block up or run out of toilet paper or paper towels or just become filthy and smelly, with 300 or so people on board for 20 hours I can see the potential for big trouble.

No aircraft will be able to carry 300 passengers on this route, period. A more likely configuration is a 772LR with 180-220 seats.

Quoting Airbear (Thread starter):
Will QF have to employ an extra crew member just as an in-flight janitor/cabin maintainance person to keep things running smoothly

They haven't even announced they will begin such service. If they do, I suspect they will have no choice but to create a subproduct addressing these issues.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:59 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
For some people, saving several hours in trip time may be worth the time spent couped up in the cabin...

A non-stop flight would only save 2-2.5 hours on the trip
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:11 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):

A non-stop flight would only save 2-2.5 hours on the trip

yes..but its also the fact pax won't have to wake up and during the flight for arrivals, departures, etc...not to mention, I don't know about how it works on the SYD-LHR-SYD route, but in USA-Pakistan/India-USA routes, pax have to get off the plane...such a majour inconvenience.....

having flown on 14-16 hour flights, a few extra hours wouldn't bother me and I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for a nonstop flight......like SQ's SIN-EWR flight.
"Up the Irons!"
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:32 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
A non-stop flight would only save 2-2.5 hours on the trip

Is that flying time or does it include 1.5 hour spent at an intermediate stop?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18255
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:36 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
ot to mention, I don't know about how it works on the SYD-LHR-SYD route, but in USA-Pakistan/India-USA routes, pax have to get off the plane...such a majour inconvenience.....

Ever since that appalling Forgeard thread, I don't participate in anything remorely resembling A v B.

This thread verges on that, so I'll stress that my comment is only to you, in a spirit of trying to help you get more out of life.

On your USA/sub-continent flights, try a stopover, in say, somewhere nice. Paris. London. Beirut, even.

It's what many do from SYD to LHR. A couple of days in Singapore or - better yet, Bangkok - does wonders for the shopping!

I'm almost thinking of planning a trip to Europe now so I can justify stopping in Bangkok and buying some fabric at the Jim Thompson Shop - at one quarter of the price I would pay in Oz.

Not to mention a couple of great meals.

I worry about you. Put some fun in your flying.

 Smile

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:39 pm

Quoting Airbear (Thread starter):

Will QF have to employ an extra crew member just as an in-flight janitor/cabin maintainance person to keep things running smoothly - as well as smaller things like galley equipment, or will several blocked toilets at one time, cause a diversion?

Or they can make the flight attendants do it. Considering, you know, its their job...

AAndrew
 
blrsea
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:48 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):
On your USA/sub-continent flights, try a stopover, in say, somewhere nice. Paris. London. Beirut, even.

It's what many do from SYD to LHR. A couple of days in Singapore or - better yet, Bangkok - does wonders for the shopping!

Unfortunately, you don't understand desis (people from Indian subcontinent)  Smile They want to spend as much time as possible in their own country during their vacation. And typical US annual vacations being just 2-3 weeks, many would prefer to get to their destination as soon as possible.

FYI, the stopover in Europe for US-India flights over atlantic, the stopover is in London/Paris/Frankfurt etc. Over the Pacific, it is more likely to be Seoul/HKG/Singapore/Kaula Lampur/Bangkok, typically one-two stopovers over pacific depending on your route.

As for the business travellers, well they can't have 1-2 day stopovers everytime on their trip. Big grin
 
Simpilicity
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:52 pm

desireable? Of course but it won't happen. LHR/SYD on the other hand probably will. Westbound might be able to fly PER/LHR NONSTOP?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18255
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:01 pm

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 7):
Unfortunately, you don't understand desis (people from Indian subcontinent)

As equally, I could say that you don't understand Australians and New Zealanders.  Smile

However, I thought I had made it clear that my message was not for all "desis" - or for all Aussies or all Kiwis. Or even all Brits. Or all anyone.

It was purely and simply for Jacobin777. I am sorry that I did not make that clear enough.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
MarshalN
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:39 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:05 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
yes..but its also the fact pax won't have to wake up and during the flight for arrivals, departures, etc...not to mention, I don't know about how it works on the SYD-LHR-SYD route, but in USA-Pakistan/India-USA routes, pax have to get off the plane...such a majour inconvenience.....

having flown on 14-16 hour flights, a few extra hours wouldn't bother me and I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for a nonstop flight......like SQ's SIN-EWR flight.

I've been on quite a few 16 hour segments, and I have to say that 16 hours is about the max I can take it on a plane in one stretch. I simply cannot imagine myself sitting in a plane for 20 hours. Some people might not mind, but I think at that point I'm just going to say "forget it, I'm taking a stopover".
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:12 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 4):
Is that flying time or does it include 1.5 hour spent at an intermediate stop?

Yes, it should
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:08 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):
This thread verges on that, so I'll stress that my comment is only to you, in a spirit of trying to help you get more out of life.

I hope I wasn't imbuing you in any way.. no 

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):
It's what many do from SYD to LHR. A couple of days in Singapore or - better yet, Bangkok - does wonders for the shopping!

sometimes people don't have the freedom to do that and they must get to their destination ASAP......I would like to have the joy of stopping for a couple of days in Singapore or Bangkok........maybe next spring while on my way to SYD...

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):

I worry about you. Put some fun in your flying.

lol..thanks for the concern cheerful ...I'll be a-ok (I think)..in fact, I'll be flying in a few hours..buts its only a "short" flight compared to SYD-LHR.....

it gets a bit old and stale after a while...even with my laptop and a powerport plug, there is so much I can do in terms of work, play video games, watch movies, and look out the window......

I'm hoping there will be more air carriers getting the Connexion by Boeing internet, I wouldn't mind paying an extra $30 for all flight internet, especially if its a loooong flight....

Quoting Mariner (Reply 9):

It was purely and simply for Jacobin777. I am sorry that I did not make that clear enough.

i feel exclusive... Smile

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 10):
I've been on quite a few 16 hour segments, and I have to say that 16 hours is about the max I can take it on a plane in one stretch. I simply cannot imagine myself sitting in a plane for 20 hours. Some people might not mind, but I think at that point I'm just going to say "forget it, I'm taking a stopover".

you have a valid point there, but if I can log onto A.net from a plane then I think I can bare the extra few hours... biggrin 

 wave 
"Up the Irons!"
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4348
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:30 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
A non-stop flight would only save 2-2.5 hours on the trip

How do you work that out?

While nobody knows exactly, yet, I think its more likley 3.5-4.5 hours. My calculation:

1) Stop over time: 1:40, But this is doors open to doors closed time, add
2)Actual landing & taxi time and actual taxi & take of time. At SIN this seems to about 20-25m each, so lets say 45min.
3)Time from FL390 to ground, net. About 30min
4) Time to FL 280, with full fuel load, about 30 min
5) Time FL280 to FL390, several hours,but lets call it a net 20min diffrence to flight time.
6) Distance saved about 30min

Total 3:15. IMHO this would be the minimum under normal operating conditions. Calculations base on QF9 MEl-SIN-LHR timetable, B744.

The current scheduled elapesed time is 23.5 hours. A non stop service COULD, MAYBE be scheduled for 20 hours.

I would certianly opt for this non stop, all other things being equal. I think most Ozzies/Kiwis would agree.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:03 pm

A more medical and health related aspect that would me make hesitate to use a 20 hour non-stopper is the lack of humidity in the aircraft.
After eight hours I have dried out nostrils,dry skin and sometimes get tears in my eyes.So an intermediate stop of just 1,5 hours helps to re-hydrate the body.
As a previous post suggests rightly so,the toilets will look horrible after 12 hours without service and the smell that evaporates to the seats close to the sanitary area in any aircraft after many hours in-flight is not amusing.
From a more technical point of view - to transport fuel for a 20 hours non-stopper SYD-LHR is somewhat penalizing,in that you have to consider an additional amount of fuel to transport more fuel...
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7061
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:13 pm

I did SYD LHR earlier this year. Non Stop - forget it - Its way too long a flight. I was in Business, and with the additional space, etc I was still looking forward to my stop over at ICN, where I got a good six hours sleep in the transit hotel, and some shopping in. Much better than another 13 hours onboard. ( I recommend the KE service)

So, you take a non stop, and arrive wrecked into Heathrow in the early morning... only saving over the QF one stop was leaving from SYD two hours later.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
jeffrito
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 3:17 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:19 pm

As I understand it, the associated aircraft will be outfitted with hypersleep chambers, which are currently under development. The bugs are being worked out, as early models required constant rebooting and passengers complained of chronic pinky-toe cramps.
 
mikedlayer
Posts: 390
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 7:40 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:39 pm

I've never flown the route, however will be doing so in the coming year so I'm not quite sure how such a long flight is going to feel to me.

But having flown many long flights myself, my view on the matter is that you just have to get on and do it. Sooner you start, sooner you finish. I'm not sure a couple of hours break would make much difference on such a long flight, would it?
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:42 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
No aircraft will be able to carry 300 passengers on this route, period.

Do you exclude a potential A388R ? The A380 has a lot of growth potential.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
ba319-131
Posts: 8151
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 1:27 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:01 pm

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 10):
I've been on quite a few 16 hour segments, and I have to say that 16 hours is about the max I can take it on a plane in one stretch. I simply cannot imagine myself sitting in a plane for 20 hours. Some people might not mind, but I think at that point I'm just going to say "forget it, I'm taking a stopover".

- I agree, take a stop, far better.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 15):
I did SYD LHR earlier this year. Non Stop - forget it - Its way too long a flight. I was in Business, and with the additional space, etc I was still looking forward to my stop over at ICN, where I got a good six hours sleep in the transit hotel, and some shopping in. Much better than another 13 hours onboard

- I'm planning a SYD trip next year, and plan a stop en route too!!
111,732,3,4,5,7,8,BBJ,741,742,743,744,752,762,763,764,772,77L,773,77W,L15,D10,30,40,AB3,AB6,A312.313,319,320,321,332,333
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2524
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:19 pm

I've done this trip 16 times in 5 years for business, in J class. Once in Y.

i) When you're already travelling 23hrs flying time, closer to 28 door-door, what is the big deal about reducing the flying time to 20hrs (make that earlier meeting? I don't think so)
ii) Business travel is as much about arriving fit for work as it is about arriving as quickly as possible. If I get there 2hrs earlier, but de-hydrated, sleep deprived and, along with my fellow passagers, smelling somewhat 'lived-in', am I better off?

On the other hand in current J class services:
i) The Kangaroo route breaks into comfortable sectors Europe-SIN (12-13hrs) / SIN-SYD/MEL 7-8hrs. There's plenty of time to sleep, eat, work, watch movies, even with the stopover of 1.5hrs
ii) Most of us need a freshen up after 13hrs in a plane. Go to the lounge, have a shower or use the pool on the roof of the airport; take a massage or at least go for a long walk - Much better for the sense of well-being and condition on arrival
iii) Crews: you get a fully fresh crew in Asia, whilst continuing in the same a/c and flt number. Crews can pass their 'use by date' after 12hrs. Yes I know you would carry additional crew, but they will not be as fresh.
iv) What will be served for the 3rd and 4th meal services? Spacefood?

I don't see the value propostition, even for business travellers. I'll stick with the one stop service in J and look forward to QF's A380 service with more space (only 474 seats) and in flight lounges in each class (F,J,Y).
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
User avatar
Ryan h
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 7:11 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:22 pm

If I had to I could probably do a flight that long, but I do like a stopover on a long flight to stretch my legs etc.
South Australian Spotter www.ryanhothersall.net
 
Aither
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:36 pm

There is the health issue but also the environmental issue : on such very long haul flight, it's more fuel/environment efficient to do one stop -even if that means two take off- in order not to carry the extra tons of fuel and food and water etc necessary for the whole non stop flight.

All these more fuel efficient aircraft manufacturers are advertising are worthless if they make the overall network "not fuel optimized".

[Edited 2005-12-03 12:38:58]

[Edited 2005-12-03 12:40:25]
Never trust the obvious
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:48 pm

You know how the last five minutes waiting for the jetway to come to the plane seems to take forever? That's what the stopover is like -- just an eternity. Especially from Europe...just when you are ready to crash out for real, you have to straighten up, land, get off the plane, etc etc., then back on the plane, and finally get going again. Now, if I were travelling in coach, I'd see some argument to wanting the stop, but in F or J, no thanks, I'd rather just keep on truckin!

Steve
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5007
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:51 pm

Quoting Simpilicity (Reply 8):
Westbound might be able to fly PER/LHR NONSTOP?

You clearly are not up to speed with the subject. Firstly QF called for 10000nm still air capability, secondly, who ever said that there would be a westbound leg?
Given the typical winds, the SYD-LHR route would usually be east bound , thus a true round the world flight.
There was a response to a thread on this list a while ago that stated that SQ use an east bound route , when winds dictate it , from EWR to SIN.
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:41 pm

Doesn't AC fly direct YYZ to DEL direct with their A345's? And then probably soon with their 772's?

Quoting A342 (Reply 18):
Do you exclude a potential A388R ? The A380 has a lot of growth potential.

The A388 doesn't have a centre tank at the mo, so it depends if the 30000kg extra will get you there.... But unlikely. But never say never, as with 'only' 300 passengers it's 200 less than normal, but the 300 pax would have to pay the difference (extra) the other 200 would have....
 
MiCorazonAzul
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:51 pm

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 6):
Or they can make the flight attendants do it. Considering, you know, its their job...

yea, like our flight attendants that clean the entire plane in between flights.

I am personally not a huge fan of these ultra long haul flights.
Live for Today.....tomorrow is NOT guaranteed.
 
Boogyjay
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 1:29 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:42 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 25):
The A388 doesn't have a centre tank at the mo, so it depends if the 30000kg extra will get you there....

The A380-800ER will have a central wingbox fuel tank adding 60000l i.e. ~48000kg of extra fuel, not 30000kg.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:57 am

The BBC had a reporter on the Boeing test flight recently from HKG to LHR, who did a piece on flying ultra-longhaul. His report was not good. Nothing against the aircraft and its performance, just the flight and its effect on him.

Apart from the couple of hours gained on a theoretical ULR flight from Australia to London, the major negative factor is psychological. That halfway (or whatever) break in the journey is a factor which helps to make the trip bearable for a great many passengers. Even if it's just a refueling stop there is an effect on the passenger which 'resets' their mental clock with regard to boredom and endurance of the journey.

Even front cabin travel is not going to mitigate that. There is a psychological barrier to get over for those long flights which has a massively draining effect on the passenger, who may well get off at the other end demanding they be rerouted on the return to a flight which makes at least one stop.

The economics of the operation are another factor, but it's the number of hours locked in that tube which is going to be a huge hurdle. That's what the BBC guy found the hardest, those endless hours sat in the 772LR without any major change in the scenery or activities around him. Sending someone on a business trip isn't going to be desirable if they emerge at the other end as a wreck.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:05 am

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 27):
The A380-800ER will have a central wingbox fuel tank adding 60000l i.e. ~48000kg of extra fuel, not 30000kg.

Surely you mean the A380-800F? As the planning so far is that will have a centre tank (unless FedEx, UPS and Emirates decide not to have it).
But like on all Airbus products (A320, A330 and A340 at least) they didn't have centre tanks to start with and then that was changed.

Don't forget that only the rear section of the centre wingbox will be used as the centre tank (mid spar to rear spar). But you might be right and I was remembering wrong.... Shall have to check when I get to work  Smile
 
Paul
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:59 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:37 am

Yeah its only desireable if you in C or F.

I do the trip every year and always in Business, there is no way on earth I would ever sit in Y for that length of time. I swear I would not go even if someone paid my ticket for me.

However I kind of like having a stopover and getting up and stretching the legs at the airports, it also gives one a chance to check other international business lounges. Great stuff!

Regards

Paul
Veni, vidi, vici.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:47 am

I've done US to Australia about 60 times since starting my own little business and for the past few years have used the RTW approach instead of plain round trips. While I could head straight to LHR from Australia I find it far better to stop in Asia. My 60+ year old body does not like flights over 15 hours (nor does it like west to east flights, which is why I went the RTW route).

the simple fact is that I arrive in LHR in far better shape after a night (or a few) in Asia, plus I get to experience the different cities that I can fly through on the way. Since I am a one man company I can make a decision that stopping for health reasons is important and there is no boss to tell me not to. The benefits of seeing the world is well worth the few days I miss at the office and is far better for my health. I'll pass on the non-stop.
 
AC787
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:25 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:16 am

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 24):
Given the typical winds, the SYD-LHR route would usually be east bound , thus a true round the world flight.

Is this true? I had always pictured it would still go the usual route of west bound across asia.
 
Boogyjay
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 1:29 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:20 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 29):
Surely you mean the A380-800F? As the planning so far is that will have a centre tank (unless FedEx, UPS and Emirates decide not to have it).

Well not really. In an Air&Cosmos article about the A380-MRTB, they say it'll be based on the A388F. Then they later add: "Optionnaly, Jean-Christophe Poisson proposes the modification planned for the A380-800ER, that is to bring the tank capacity to 370,000 liters (against 310,000 liters) using the central wingbox".
That's where I got it but I'd be more than happy to have more infos if you can have and can release some.  Smile
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:10 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 28):
Apart from the couple of hours gained on a theoretical ULR flight from Australia to London, the major negative factor is psychological. That halfway (or whatever) break in the journey is a factor which helps to make the trip bearable for a great many passengers. Even if it's just a refueling stop there is an effect on the passenger which 'resets' their mental clock with regard to boredom and endurance of the journey.



Quoting Aither (Reply 22):
There is the health issue but also the environmental issue : on such very long haul flight, it's more fuel/environment efficient to do one stop -even if that means two take off- in order not to carry the extra tons of fuel and food and water etc necessary for the whole non stop flight.

All these more fuel efficient aircraft manufacturers are advertising are worthless if they make the overall network "not fuel optimized".



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 20):
i) When you're already travelling 23hrs flying time, closer to 28 door-door, what is the big deal about reducing the flying time to 20hrs (make that earlier meeting? I don't think so)

Amazingly none of these tech/operational issues or expressions of social concern are raised when discussing existing 17-18 hour flights operated by Thai, Singapore Air, etc with A340-500. Coincidence? I think not. I am not sure what magical flight duration line is being crossed here.

I guarantee that if Qantas was on the verge of ordering 345 (or actually does so on December 7 and surprise everyone), we would see 180 degree turns in the points of view expressed above.

****************


I think Airbear is raising good points. Flights of such duration creates complexities stemming from human factors and economic considerations. Qantas will have to address issues such as hygiene and so on.
 
Aither
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:55 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 34):
Amazingly none of these tech/operational issues or expressions of social concern are raised when discussing existing 17-18 hour flights operated by Thai, Singapore Air, etc with A340-500. Coincidence? I think not. I am not sure what magical flight duration line is being crossed here.

You watch X-Files too much.

I would not like to fly SIN-EWR non stop as well. I was not saying UlR routes cannot be profitable, as long as they attract a lot of business traffic, but from an ecological standpoint this is not good.

Also the importance of "time" can be different : i guess in the US, time is more important -> "Time is Money".
For many other countries, especially in Asia but in Europe as well, time seems to "cost less".



[Edited 2005-12-03 20:03:18]
Never trust the obvious
 
airxliban
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:06 am

Just out of curiosity, when we are talking about a distance as far as SYD-LHR, would drilling through the centre of earth create a path of shorter distance than the comparative air travel route?
PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
 
anstar
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:07 am

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 6):

Or they can make the flight attendants do it. Considering, you know, its their job...

Shhhhh. Don't tell the QF Cabin Crew this....
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:26 am

Quoting Aither (Reply 35):
You watch X-Files too much.

This is just a perplexing comment..

Quoting Aither (Reply 35):
I would not like to fly SIN-EWR non stop as well. I was not saying UlR routes cannot be profitable, as long as they attract a lot of business traffic, but from an ecological standpoint this is not good.

Also the importance of "time" can be different : i guess in the US, time is more important -> "Time is Money".
For many other countries, especially in Asia but in Europe as well, time seems to "cost less".

There have been numerous threads devoted to ULH flights...yet the silence from you and your like-minded ilk on the very issues raised above is simply deafening. The "ecology" issue that you raise has elevated the standard for disingenous, bogus arguments to a new (and yet again perplexing) height.

This thread is about an Australian (perhaps the most laid-back people on the planet) company that is seemingly on the verge of betting hundreds of millions of dollars on the idea that Europeans and Australians are willing to fork out to top Dollar/British Pound to save a few hours on this trip. This flight has no connection to the United States.

For a certain part of the world's population regardless of nationality-- time is money. Qantas is betting on it apparently...as have many others.

This is nothing new. About 35 years ago, flying between the the west coast of the United States to Europe required stops. So did flying between Europe and Asia. Now they are all almost non-stop and I do not hear anyone complaining about the new convenience.

[Edited 2005-12-03 20:31:24]
 
mNeo
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:12 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:41 am

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 36):
Just out of curiosity, when we are talking about a distance as far as SYD-LHR, would drilling through the centre of earth create a path of shorter distance than the comparative air travel route?

Yes it would be shorter. Infact If one wer to drill underground from any two distant points the distance would be MUCH shorter. Just take any ball and you will realize that the distance would be cut by about 1/4th(?)
Powered by Maina
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:44 am

Just one question: How long did flights from Europe to the US take with old prop airliners before the 707 was introduced?
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:46 am

Quoting MNeo (Reply 39):
Yes it would be shorter. Infact If one wer to drill underground from any two distant points the distance would be MUCH shorter. Just take any ball and you will realize that the distance would be cut by about 1/4th(?)

There will be a press-conference in Tolouse on Monday morning in which Noel Forgeard will announce the launch of an earth-boring drill that will replace the A340-series and have 20% better costs than the 777. It is rumored that Emirates has already signed up for 50 firm and 20 options.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:48 am

Without reading this thread, I can summarize the monotonous complaints:

1. who'd want to fly that long?
2. won't it smell?
3. isn't it less fuel efficient than stopping?
4. what happens with a delay, cancelation?
5. can run into curfew issues at both ends
6. only saves 1 hour, who cares?
7. nobody can cram me into Y for that long
8. DVT will kill 100 pax per flight.

Did I miss any? Big grin
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5007
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:12 am

Quoting AC787 (Reply 32):
Is this true? I had always pictured it would still go the usual route of west bound across asia.

The great circle distance LHR-SYD east bound is about 9200nm. Fron SYD-LHR east bound via a way point close to Barrow Alaska, is 10,054 nm. Assuming a 40 knot tail wind which is quite normal, the equivalent still air distance is about 9300nm.
If you do it west bound the 9200nm with a -40knot wind turns into a still air distance of about 10000nm.
So depending on the winds of the day, the probability is that an east bound routing will work best.
 
afay1
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 2:37 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:47 am

Jus think of the back-to-back mileage run possibilities! Or if ryanair were to start such a route (clean your own damn bathroom), or even Aeroflot (more vodka and Natasha please)...
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:02 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):
It's what many do from SYD to LHR. A couple of days in Singapore or - better yet, Bangkok - does wonders for the shopping!

Seconded. There are a whole range of fabulous places in the region that are definitely good for the soul.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
sometimes people don't have the freedom to do that and they must get to their destination ASAP......I would like to have the joy of stopping for a couple of days in Singapore or Bangkok........maybe next spring while on my way to SYD...

Also true. Markets are funny things, and rarely operate on an all-or-nothing basis. Non-stop may well be preferred by those on a strict timetable. Many others will make the stop=over a positive part of the journey. I guess the point is, one day soon, we'll get the choice.

Quoting A342 (Reply 18):
Do you exclude a potential A388R ? The A380 has a lot of growth potential.

I've said before, provided A can do the necessary work, (and there would be a fair bit to do) an ultra long range A380 (I suspect it might be a 387 in the end), might make an admirable 300+ seat ULR platform - one day .  Smile
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:03 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 18):
Do you exclude a potential A388R ? The A380 has a lot of growth potential.

Since we are talking about QF's current RFP for C-market aircraft, I will refrain from speculating on an aircraft type that isn'on proposal. It will be some time before Airbus will offer such a variant, QF will announce their (777  Wink )order in the next few weeks.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:04 am

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 27):
The A380-800ER will have a central wingbox fuel tank adding 60000l i.e. ~48000kg of extra fuel, not 30000kg.

Assuming this equals into 4 hours of flight and taking a cruise speed of 850km/h as an example, you would THEORETICALLY get a range of 18200 km (A388 basline variant range 14800 km). As there is more fuel burned on the first parts of the flight as the aircraft weighs more, you would get less range than that, but still a very good one. Maybe enough for SYD-LHR.

But who´s talking just about the wingbox, put even more tanks in to the belly ! Big grin
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
NZPM
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:46 pm

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:12 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):
It's what many do from SYD to LHR. A couple of days in Singapore or - better yet, Bangkok - does wonders for the shopping!

I definately agree with Mariner. For me, getting there is half the fun! Especially if it involves and extra landing and take-off, and sometimes even a change of airline and/or equipment. Not to mention the opportunity to spend a day or two in an exotic mid-point.  Smile
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SYD-LHR Nonstop...Is It Really Desireable?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:47 am

The origin of stopovers was pure necessity rather than any desire to set down in some nice locale. There plenty of nice places in between London and Sydney. However once the necessity stop is gone, why stop anyway?

If less of your time is spent enroute the more time you have to enjoy or do whatever it is you do at your destination or back at home. I think for most people-- particularly "road warriors" who are away from home very frequently, this flight will be worth the extra expense. The extra two hours at home are worth more to them