I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

Long route for such a shoddy prmium offering *whistles*

AFAIK, they used to fly this route with a 744.

Pellegrine wrote:

AFAIK, they used to fly this route with a 744.

They flew from gatwick with a stop in EZE, until 2000.

Does anyone know how bookings for next weeks look?

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

Once you've done something along the lines of LAX to Dubai or JFK to Hong Kong or what have you, honestly, you can do anything.

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

I have done the following, all in coach-
BOM-ATL on DL 17.5 hours
SFO-DXB on EK 16.5 hours
SFO-DEL on AI 16 hours
It sucks, it really sucks and the flight seems never ending, but when you have family halfway across the world, it is a necessary evil to do every once in a while since more often than not, these are the flights offering affordable fares compared to half and half split in Europe.

BA's previous longest flight, LHR-EZE, continues to operate with a 777-236ER.

Is this being flown with any sort of weight restrictions by BA? Or is it going with a full load of passengers and cargo?

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

Ever crossed the pacific?

B752OS wrote:

Is this being flown with any sort of weight restrictions by BA? Or is it going with a full load of passengers and cargo?

For a 15hr sector they would be carrying 216 seat max passenger load plus ~ 8t of cargo.

FlyCaledonian wrote:

BA's previous longest flight, LHR-EZE, continues to operate with a 777-236ER.

Did that last september! Long ling flight! But at least I was in J.

descl wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

AFAIK, they used to fly this route with a 744.

They flew from gatwick with a stop in EZE, until 2000.

Yup flew this route in 2000, my first true long, long haul seemed to take forever.

Varsity1 wrote:

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

Ever crossed the pacific?

HNL is halfway so I guess kinda. I've crossed the Atlantic, but from LAS we had a layover in JFK so it really wasn't too bad. The longest flight I've been on was LAS-LHR on BA last summer, but it wasn't coach, it was in a World Traveler Plus.

And again the 787 lifts the cup for yet another prize achievement:
Medium airliner replacing a large airliner, more convenient to the airline, but a tuna can for passengers.
I wonder in a few years when these 787 will be no longer new and start to become obsolete and expensive...
A300 and 767 have already been there ... I've seen this movie in the past.

I'm doing DFW-LAX-AKL, AKL-WLG-AKL, AKL-SYD-DFW next month all in Coach over the course of 9 days. I'll be gobbling up the Ambien for those flights

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

I have done the following, all in coach-
BOM-ATL on DL 17.5 hours
SFO-DXB on EK 16.5 hours
SFO-DEL on AI 16 hours
It sucks, it really sucks and the flight seems never ending, but when you have family halfway across the world, it is a necessary evil to do every once in a while since more often than not, these are the flights offering affordable fares compared to half and half split in Europe.

If the ULH flight is lower yield than the 1-stops, then that is terrible for the airline.

Flighty wrote:

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

I have done the following, all in coach-
BOM-ATL on DL 17.5 hours
SFO-DXB on EK 16.5 hours
SFO-DEL on AI 16 hours
It sucks, it really sucks and the flight seems never ending, but when you have family halfway across the world, it is a necessary evil to do every once in a while since more often than not, these are the flights offering affordable fares compared to half and half split in Europe.

If the ULH flight is lower yield than the 1-stops, then that is terrible for the airline.

Name me a stopping point on any of those three flights that would INCREASE yield over a 1 stop flight.

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

I have done the following, all in coach-
BOM-ATL on DL 17.5 hours
SFO-DXB on EK 16.5 hours
SFO-DEL on AI 16 hours
It sucks, it really sucks and the flight seems never ending, but when you have family halfway across the world, it is a necessary evil to do every once in a while since more often than not, these are the flights offering affordable fares compared to half and half split in Europe.

Depending on your age, buy some compression/dvt stockings to protect your health.

Its a 14 hours flight which isnt so terrible, after flying ATL-JNB in coach, everything seem so short

Is this the first time a BA 787 has gone south of the equator?

A doddle . .. . Anyone who would have a problem with 15 hours in economy hasn't done 19 hours on Indian Railways . . .

Braybuddy wrote:

A doddle . .. . Anyone who would have a problem with 15 hours in economy hasn't done 19 hours on Indian Railways . . .

Indian Railways are different- you can walk, sleep, eat in dinning car (or during stops) and watch the crowd vs. sitting for 15 hrs in a dark long 'tube'.

I have done EWR-BOM/PEK/PVG, in coach and business with United multiple times.... and it is a very long journey (though business is better).

I would still take the ULH flights over a one stop to India or China to reduce the overall travel fatigue (and 'get it done' with) unless there is significant price advantage.

I wonder if this route is a success,will BA order additional 789'S?

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

Then you should fly Sydney to Dallas. Or do Sydney to Los Angeles, or the return of either flight. Or pretty much Sydney to anywhere else in the world. It's usually a long over water flight.

Hence why we need new long range supersonic airliners, and pretty soon. Make travel a lot more time efficient.

georgiabill wrote:

I wonder if this route is a success,will BA order additional 789'S?

If they like the performance of the 787-9 on ULH enough to open more ULH routes, I'd think they'd order additional 787-10s for the shorter routes now flown by -9s and shift the existing -9 fleet to more ULH flying.

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

I have done the following, all in coach-
BOM-ATL on DL 17.5 hours
SFO-DXB on EK 16.5 hours
SFO-DEL on AI 16 hours
It sucks, it really sucks and the flight seems never ending, but when you have family halfway across the world, it is a necessary evil to do every once in a while since more often than not, these are the flights offering affordable fares compared to half and half split in Europe.

Back in the "Golden Age" of aviation TWA operated the Constellation L1649A from London to Los Angeles westbound with a block time of 23:45 which still holds the record for the longest scheduled commercial flight. Now that would be grueling.

viewtopic.php?t=577253

Not sure what's wrong with you guys! I love flying, the more the better. I've done lots of ULH, yes SQ22 (18h) was all J but BKK-LAX, JFK-HND, DXB-SYD, PEK-JFK, LAX-SYD all in Y and loved every minute of it. When was the last time you read a book from cover to cover on the ground? And had hours for thinking, napping, snacking, drawing and watching ten movies back to back? Plus the sheer joy of flying a third of the way round the world in a single bound?

RTW00 wrote:

Indian Railways are different- you can walk, sleep, eat in dinning car (or during stops) and watch the crowd vs. sitting for 15 hrs in a dark long 'tube'.

You can walk around a plane too! And you have clean air with reasonably comfortable seats at a comfortable temperature, all while you avail of the zillions of IFE options.Then there's the free booze, and the food is slightly better than locals shoving snacks through your window. And if you don't want any of that, you can pop a sleeping tablet to pass the hours, without having to chain your bag to your seat. And that's not even going near the toilets . . .

Braybuddy wrote:

RTW00 wrote:

Indian Railways are different- you can walk, sleep, eat in dinning car (or during stops) and watch the crowd vs. sitting for 15 hrs in a dark long 'tube'.

You can walk around a plane too! And you have clean air with reasonably comfortable seats at a comfortable temperature, all while you avail of the zillions of IFE options.Then there's the free booze, and the food is slightly better than locals shoving snacks through your window. And if you don't want any of that, you can pop a sleeping tablet to pass the hours, without having to chain your bag to your seat. And that's not even going near the toilets . . .

But you'll get very little on BA.

Tight seats. A very limited area to walk around (as BA does not allow passengers cross cabins). Two meagre meals with nothing in the middle, not even snacks unless you are willing to pay extortionate prices for a small box of pringles or maltesers!

Sounds like hell to me, the EZE is bad enough!

cedarjet wrote:

Not sure what's wrong with you guys! I love flying, the more the better. I've done lots of ULH, yes SQ22 (18h) was all J but BKK-LAX, JFK-HND, DXB-SYD, PEK-JFK, LAX-SYD all in Y and loved every minute of it. When was the last time you read a book from cover to cover on the ground? And had hours for thinking, napping, snacking, drawing and watching ten movies back to back? Plus the sheer joy of flying a third of the way round the world in a single bound?

Totally agree with you, there's no such thing as a bad time on an aircraft. To be honest, I even enjoyed the two emergency landings I've been through. Honestly, I think a 7 hour flight is worse than a 17 hour flight, because the former doesn’t give you time to sleep AND eat AND watch a few movies AND read a book.... Long flights are pure relaxation and meditation....

coolian2 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

I have done the following, all in coach-
BOM-ATL on DL 17.5 hours

If the ULH flight is lower yield than the 1-stops, then that is terrible for the airline.

Name me a stopping point on any of those three flights that would INCREASE yield over a 1 stop flight.

Well, for that one, the answer is "AMS"

Ultimately not enough to save the flight on DL metal (even though there was a considerable gap between ATL-BOM ending, and DL taking over NW's BOM-AMS) but they continued it for years, and now will do so via a relationship with 9W.

DL could start offering ATL-BOM nonstop again tomorrow, if they wanted; but apparently, there's more yield in 1stopping this way via partners.

cedarjet wrote:

but BKK-LAX, JFK-HND, DXB-SYD, PEK-JFK, LAX-SYD all in Y and loved every minute of it.

And then there's those of us who'd rather just not go, than have to do that. It's all relative.

I've done ORD-DEL and back on AI twice in Y, and I've never had a problem. AI blocks it for ~16 hours, but the flight has never taken longer than 14.5 hours for me. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I love ULH flights! Great time to sleep and watch some movies.

aviationjunky wrote:

I could not imagine sitting in coach for 15 hours. I would most definitely prefer a layover.

You don't get out much?

I somewhat agree though - I cannot imagine being confined to Club World for 15 hours - yikes!

I've just done 13hrs in Y with BA, and it was fine. Food OK, staff OK, IFE OK. Seat (A380) OK.

Let's get a grip on how bad long haul is.

Stopovers don't make it any better if interior means adding 4 hours to your trip. As a kid my mom flew with my baby sister, me and my older brother (11 and 14) EWR-wall street HELIPORT-JFK-SFO-HKG-SIN on PA. if she could have just had us take one long flight there's no doubt we would have been on it.

45 min + transfer (or hour drive) + 6 hrs + 3 hr layover + 15 hours + 90 minutes in HKG including re clearing security and having them double expose all our film + 4 hours = 26 hours

EWR - SIN = 18.5 hrs

7.5 hrs saved vs walking around at 3 airports

ikramerica wrote:

Stopovers don't make it any better if interior means adding 4 hours to your trip. As a kid my mom flew with my baby sister, me and my older brother (11 and 14) EWR-wall street HELIPORT-JFK-SFO-HKG-SIN on PA. if she could have just had us take one long flight there's no doubt we would have been on it.

45 min + transfer (or hour drive) + 6 hrs + 3 hr layover + 15 hours + 90 minutes in HKG including re clearing security and having them double expose all our film + 4 hours = 26 hours

EWR - SIN = 18.5 hrs

7.5 hrs saved vs walking around at 3 airports

Your maths is off. Adding all your travel times gives a total of 30 hours 15 minutes.....

Is this the longest flight?

Longest BA route would have to be LHR-SIN-SYD, 24hrs.

I'd take a long nonstop any day over 1 stop. Nothing worse than having to wake up, sit up, pack up for a transit. Disrupts my sleep. For a 777 normal transit turn around for a flight would be 80mins, maybe 90 depending on the carrier- lights on and cabin prep normally commences 1hr prior to landing, seatbelt sign off 20mins after take off, 20mins taxi in and out... for me that's 3.5hrs wasted, disrupting my sleep... worse if it's a connection too...

tonystan wrote:

But you'll get very little on BA.

Tight seats. A very limited area to walk around (as BA does not allow passengers cross cabins). Two meagre meals with nothing in the middle, not even snacks unless you are willing to pay extortionate prices for a small box of pringles or maltesers!

Sounds like hell to me, the EZE is bad enough!

I take your word for it. I avoid the IAG group as much as possible now. Was down to only two flights with Aer IAG in 2016, which is a first, and none with BA or IB.