It’s all about perspective. From London you can get to almost anywhere in 12 hours. From Sydney you can’t even get to Los Angeles in that time, never mind New York, Chicago or London. Even Dubai is longer.
We had another conversation at dinner tonight in Perth about the non stop to London. The overwhelming opinion around the table was why waste the time landing and walking around a terminal just to get to your destination. Aussies view it as a waste... unless they make a stay out of it in which case it’s a different story. More often or not it’s straight through.
It’s going to be amazing to stand a LHR and look at departure board one day and see PER, SYD, MEL and BNE non stop on the board.
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: The era of ultra-long-range flights
Essentially one will have to pay more for any ultralong nonstop flight. Their payload is all that fuel needed. Not much other income.
In Business Class it might be more comfortable to go nonstop but in Economy Class? Ride the middle seat for 17 hours plus? Crying babies, drunken guys and dirty lavatories? No thanks. Have a stop, take a shower and catch some fresh air. Otherwise you will need even more days to go back to normal after your ULR flight.
In Business Class it might be more comfortable to go nonstop but in Economy Class? Ride the middle seat for 17 hours plus? Crying babies, drunken guys and dirty lavatories? No thanks. Have a stop, take a shower and catch some fresh air. Otherwise you will need even more days to go back to normal after your ULR flight.
Re: The era of ultra-long-range flights
A.net split on this one? Always was.But let's say (yes I know it's not) it's representative of the flying public both Y and Premium.On that basis the market will split too.And it doesn't have to be 'down the middle' we are talking 789's and 359 type aircaft flying low frequency compared (U.K./Auz) fleets of mamouth 388's.
So it's probably likely that they will garner enough consumers to become a regular new feature in the global airline marketplace.Cant see anybody not liking that whether they use them or not.
After that?? Bring on the supersonics!Couldnt help noticing that the Perth flight was naturally overwater all the way to the gulf...
So it's probably likely that they will garner enough consumers to become a regular new feature in the global airline marketplace.Cant see anybody not liking that whether they use them or not.
After that?? Bring on the supersonics!Couldnt help noticing that the Perth flight was naturally overwater all the way to the gulf...
Re: The era of ultra-long-range flights
CPT - MIA was flown back in the days when SAA had the 747SP's so that's perhaps another possible future ULR route.
Re: The era of ultra-long-range flights
What is the definition of a ULH flight? I fly a lot of long-haul, but as a frequent passenger (an not an expert) i don't know the definitions:
What is ULH? + 12H?
What is considered LH? + 8H ?
I regurarly fly FRA-IAH which is 12h in bad headwinds. Is that a LH or a ULH flight?
Is there an "Industry standard" for this definition?
Thanks from Scandinavia!
What is ULH? + 12H?
What is considered LH? + 8H ?
I regurarly fly FRA-IAH which is 12h in bad headwinds. Is that a LH or a ULH flight?
Is there an "Industry standard" for this definition?
Thanks from Scandinavia!
If it weren't for UAW, Detroit would shine!
Re: The era of ultra-long-range flights
I would say as a general yardstick ULR means flights over 7000 NM.
Some would say +/- this figure.
Some would say +/- this figure.
Re: The era of ultra-long-range flights
CPHFF wrote:What is the definition of a ULH flight? I fly a lot of long-haul, but as a frequent passenger (an not an expert) i don't know the definitions:
This could provoke a typical A.net screaming match, but I think it's fair to say that the term is most often used to mean flights over about 14 hours. Some purists reserve it only for the very longest flights, over 16 hours, but I don't think that's the most common usage.
FRA-IAH is not ULH, but DXB-IAH is.
The term really came about when the A340-500 and 777-200LR opened up markets that previously couldn't be served nonstop. Previous long-haul equipment such as the 747-400 and 777-200ER had a range of 14+ hours, so the routes above that point became "ULH."
Re: The era of ultra-long-range flights
What's funny is that I never really see routes described as "medium haul." I would think medium haul would be anything 4 to 7 hrs. For example, a US transcon flight I would call medium but so would an East Coast to Europe TATL flight. To me, long haul would be 8 to ~ 14 and ultra long haul, 15hrs+.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 330lover, BoeingGuy, Chasensfo, eastafspot, Ferryflight, gloom, groundbird, Ishrion, Noshow, Oliver2020, planecane, qf789, Tack, tmu101, VectorBlue, withak and 223 guests