As a kid I used to take the 36-hour QF 1 from Melbourne to London (70s/80s). Melbourne, Sydney, Singapore, Bombay (as it was at the time), Bahrain, Frankfurt, London. The only in flight entertainment was a few channels you heard through a pair of plastic tubes you stuck in your ears (no joke). Each channel was only an hour or so long so it got repetitive, but you did manage to read a lot of books. Oh yeah and of course there was smoking on the plane.
Currently it's a 24 hour flight with only a single stopover, in Bangkok.
I really wonder how much of a demand there is for this.
So usually once a year (maybe twice) I fly from New York to Perth. By distance this is one of the longest journeys. Perth is a few hundred miles from the antipode of NYC. I have the "advantage" that I can fly in pretty much any direction. The two major options for a single stop are via the Middle East or over the Arctic to Hong Kong. There might be other options through say South Korea or Japan but I don't think any airlines fly direct from Perth to these. Oh and I think China Southern can do it via China.
Anyway. this amounts to roughly 24 hours (total) in aircraft time. I'm 6'2" and wider than a coach seat so this would be torture. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford a premium cabin so it's one of the things I choose to spend money on. This might mean paying 3x as much for a flight. I don't care.
Anyway, a big problem with even longer haul flights is the added cost of carrying the fuel you need for those last few thousand miles. I think Qantas estimated the per passenger cost of LHR to PER is about 30-40% higher than making a stop.
SYD-JFK is ~10% longer than LHR-PER, which will make the cost what? 60-70% more than going via LAX or DFW.
The problem of course too is if your final destination from Sydney isn't London or New York then you need to make a connection anyway.
So this is where say the ME3 carriers shine: ultra long routes with a single stop and a lot of options for city pairings.
Anyway, I'm sure someone will want these flights. I don't expect any direct NYC to PER flights anytime soon however. :)
Deep vein thrombosis is already a problem on 10+ hour flights.
They really should have small gyms with bookable time (just a exercise bicycle maybe)
I've done the Sydney/Europe route quite a few times. The break in Asia does help; just to have a one hour walk around. As does first class! (did it once)
I got a DVT on a flight from Saigon -> NYC. Fell asleep for 9 hours with my leg folded under me.
DVT is gone now, but still dealing with the repercussions. I ended up getting Schamberg's disease as a side effect of Xarelto, so both of my legs look like they're covered in a rash. I have some vascular inefficiency issues in my left leg that become prominent if I sit for more than 30 minutes.
Getting up and walking around the cabin mitigates that. I usually walk several laps from front to back every few hours, and it's not an issue because most people tend to be asleep.
Agree. It's an interesting technical challenge to ask for planes that can fly these long routes at present speeds, but I think we're solving the wrong problem. The problem is speed, not fuel efficiency.
AAR (Air to Air Refueling) isn't really necessary for the civilian market, but is extremely important for the military.
Most people don't realize, but the range of a fighter jet is very small. The F-15 gets about 1500 miles of range (or 750 miles of radius). A 747 gets nearly 8,000 miles of range, so FIVE TIMES more range.
Also do you ever wonder how we get jets to Afghanistan? We literally fly them the entire way. After September 11th the Air Force had to set up something known as a "Sky Bridge". It's a network of Boeing Aerial Refueling planes that F-15s would visit, one after the other, to airbases in Europe, Turkey, Kuwait, etc. So F-15s were refueling 4 or so times on a single flight.
Other fun facts:
- Helicopters can do aerial refueling as well
- If you lower the amount of fuel in a jet, it can take off with shorter runway. This can be important in hastily set-up or even damaged airports, and the jets can then refuel aerially later
Its very expensive and very risky for civilian flights. Either of those factors alone would be a no-go zone for airlines, put them together and its worse.
>> Pretty much everyone prefers a nonstop flight—business people, especially.
Is this true? I find it so hard to sit in the plane for such a long time. I don't think flying in business class would make too much of a difference because it is still way more constrained than outside a flight.
Modern business class is a different world. There's space to stretch out, kick back, sleep, food is often served on demand, etc. On more than one occasion I've found myself at the tail end of a 14-hour flight and wishing we weren't landing just yet.
Having flown Sydney to New York and back just last week, I would much prefer a single non-stop flight. Especially since on the way back I missed my connection in SFO due to bad weather and was stuck for a full day: all US West-Australia flights leave late at night, so if you miss one wave, it's 24 hours until the next batch.
Also, 20 hours seems like a lot, but it's only an incremental increase on the current longest flight (17:40 for Doha to Auckland, NZ on Qatar) or the previous longest flight (18h+ for Singapore to NY). The problem is really the economics and the rocket problem: to fly further nonstop, you need to carry lots of fuel, which increases the weight, which requires more fuel... The 18 hour flight was business class only with seats going for north of $10k return and Singapore Airlines still couldn't make it pay off.
I've never flown business class, but I'm from Australia and currently studying in the UK. When flying home, I generally try to find a 2-stop flight, which gives 3 7-ish hour flights, instead of the 14-15 hour leg on a one-stop.
I've flown SYD,BNE<->SFO,LAX,LAS,YYZ an uncountable number of times. I want Boom or some other supersonic flight much more than this. I'd happily pay the extra $$ for it, even if it's twice as dangerous as standard jets. That's still way safer than travelling by car. I hope they can get certified by the mid 2020s.
Let's get realistic, shall we? Any new jet costs billion plus USD to develop. This was even true for the Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100, even more so for the Bombardier C Series. And these were relatively minor adjustments over existing tech, not an entirely new design for faster-than-sound travel. If you consider groundbreaking planes, like the 787 program, that was 32 billion.
Boom, according to Crunchbase has raised $35.24M in 3 Rounds from 13 Investors. That's ... nothing. A rounding error in the budget to develop something like this. The CIA reportedly spent 3.7 billion to develop the SR-71 engine. And that was really long ago. What do you want to do with 35 million? 35 billion would be a much, much realistic number.
This is not an industry to disrupt. If you intend to fly in the UK, EU, USA, Australia then you need to certify with the FAA/EASA/CASA etc and you can't pull a fast one with those.
It always seemed weird to me that the Concorde was a British-French thing whose chief routes was between London, New York, and Paris. I would have thought there'd be huge demand for the long-haul flights across hemispheres, between northern cities like London, New York, Tokyo and Syndney, Johannesburg, etc.
Qantas also holds the record for the longest duration commercial flights: the 27-33 hour Double Sunrise service between Perth and Ceylon during WW2. At the time they were also the longest distance non-stop flights.
Some years ago I travelled from Melbourne to Frankfurt a couple of times in a year. I took flights with stops at Singapore and actually liked the 2-4 hours break.
One must ask whether there are health concerns when hundreds of people sit in economy for 20+ hours. Is saving four or five hours really worth the risk of catching something?
I moved from London to Sydney last year, and have flown the route via Dubai (on Emirates) three times now. Takes about 24 hours if you have a short layover in Dubai.
I'd gladly pay extra for a direct flight, because...
- 4 hours quicker
- An aircraft issue at Dubai can add a day to your journey (as happened to a friend who visited at Christmas)
- Changing at Dubai always seems to involve twenty minutes of walking, ten minutes on a train to go between terminals and then ages on a bus to get from the gate to the actual aircraft. Total PITA.
By a perhaps unusual confluence of events, I live in London and work remotely for a Sydney- based company. I'd love a direct flight for my quarterly visits.
Always wondered why would anyone fly such a long distance without a relax day or two in stopover city. 10 hr flight than another 10. Even for few million salary i wouldnt want to be made to fly like this.
Because you're going somewhere and want to get there. Nothing wrong with a stopover day but there's a fair bit of overhead associated with clearing immigration/customs and heading into a stopover city for a day. If it's somewhere I really want to go, sure. But it's certainly not worth it just to break a flight up.
For those in SF, in the past I tried finding the longest possible flight from SFO using an "opposite side of the world" website. It landed in the ocean, in the vicinity of Madagascar.
>> But right now, all the money in the world won’t get you from Sydney to the Big Apple or U.K. without a pit stop, because commercial planes just don’t have that kind of range.
This makes it sound like this long a flight is a physical impossibility today. However three minutes of searching leads me to believe a few commercial aircraft have indeed made a similar or longer trip. Not to mention any military aircraft that might do this as well, I'm sure there exists an amount of money that would get you on such an aircraft today :)
Not currently possible economically partially because of the weight restrictions you end up with and in some cases due to taking slightly longer routes to stay in range of other airports for an emergency (ETOPS). But it's changing fast, because PER-LHR which is about to start seemed crazy not that long ago.
The problem is the range can vary depending on the weather (headwinds etc) and you need a buffer (if you're left in a holding pattern landing). If you're an airline making a scheduled flight you're not basing it on "can this airplane make it" but "can this airplane make it once a day there and back through wind and snow"
[+] [-] gumby|8 years ago|reply
Currently it's a 24 hour flight with only a single stopover, in Bangkok.
[+] [-] podgib|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] homakov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cletus|8 years ago|reply
So usually once a year (maybe twice) I fly from New York to Perth. By distance this is one of the longest journeys. Perth is a few hundred miles from the antipode of NYC. I have the "advantage" that I can fly in pretty much any direction. The two major options for a single stop are via the Middle East or over the Arctic to Hong Kong. There might be other options through say South Korea or Japan but I don't think any airlines fly direct from Perth to these. Oh and I think China Southern can do it via China.
Anyway. this amounts to roughly 24 hours (total) in aircraft time. I'm 6'2" and wider than a coach seat so this would be torture. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford a premium cabin so it's one of the things I choose to spend money on. This might mean paying 3x as much for a flight. I don't care.
Anyway, a big problem with even longer haul flights is the added cost of carrying the fuel you need for those last few thousand miles. I think Qantas estimated the per passenger cost of LHR to PER is about 30-40% higher than making a stop.
SYD-JFK is ~10% longer than LHR-PER, which will make the cost what? 60-70% more than going via LAX or DFW.
The problem of course too is if your final destination from Sydney isn't London or New York then you need to make a connection anyway.
So this is where say the ME3 carriers shine: ultra long routes with a single stop and a lot of options for city pairings.
Anyway, I'm sure someone will want these flights. I don't expect any direct NYC to PER flights anytime soon however. :)
[+] [-] emmelaich|8 years ago|reply
They really should have small gyms with bookable time (just a exercise bicycle maybe)
I've done the Sydney/Europe route quite a few times. The break in Asia does help; just to have a one hour walk around. As does first class! (did it once)
[+] [-] stephengillie|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jawngee|8 years ago|reply
DVT is gone now, but still dealing with the repercussions. I ended up getting Schamberg's disease as a side effect of Xarelto, so both of my legs look like they're covered in a rash. I have some vascular inefficiency issues in my left leg that become prominent if I sit for more than 30 minutes.
Good times /s
[+] [-] enraged_camel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] remarkEon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adolph|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Top19|8 years ago|reply
Most people don't realize, but the range of a fighter jet is very small. The F-15 gets about 1500 miles of range (or 750 miles of radius). A 747 gets nearly 8,000 miles of range, so FIVE TIMES more range.
Also do you ever wonder how we get jets to Afghanistan? We literally fly them the entire way. After September 11th the Air Force had to set up something known as a "Sky Bridge". It's a network of Boeing Aerial Refueling planes that F-15s would visit, one after the other, to airbases in Europe, Turkey, Kuwait, etc. So F-15s were refueling 4 or so times on a single flight.
Other fun facts: - Helicopters can do aerial refueling as well - If you lower the amount of fuel in a jet, it can take off with shorter runway. This can be important in hastily set-up or even damaged airports, and the jets can then refuel aerially later
[+] [-] tmh79|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dba7dba|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harigov|8 years ago|reply
Is this true? I find it so hard to sit in the plane for such a long time. I don't think flying in business class would make too much of a difference because it is still way more constrained than outside a flight.
[+] [-] jpatokal|8 years ago|reply
Having flown Sydney to New York and back just last week, I would much prefer a single non-stop flight. Especially since on the way back I missed my connection in SFO due to bad weather and was stuck for a full day: all US West-Australia flights leave late at night, so if you miss one wave, it's 24 hours until the next batch.
Also, 20 hours seems like a lot, but it's only an incremental increase on the current longest flight (17:40 for Doha to Auckland, NZ on Qatar) or the previous longest flight (18h+ for Singapore to NY). The problem is really the economics and the rocket problem: to fly further nonstop, you need to carry lots of fuel, which increases the weight, which requires more fuel... The 18 hour flight was business class only with seats going for north of $10k return and Singapore Airlines still couldn't make it pay off.
[+] [-] podgib|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grizzles|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chx|8 years ago|reply
Boom, according to Crunchbase has raised $35.24M in 3 Rounds from 13 Investors. That's ... nothing. A rounding error in the budget to develop something like this. The CIA reportedly spent 3.7 billion to develop the SR-71 engine. And that was really long ago. What do you want to do with 35 million? 35 billion would be a much, much realistic number.
This is not an industry to disrupt. If you intend to fly in the UK, EU, USA, Australia then you need to certify with the FAA/EASA/CASA etc and you can't pull a fast one with those.
[+] [-] kobeya|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shifte|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perilunar|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Sunrise
http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history-catalinas/glob...
[+] [-] JTenerife|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dopeboy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GordonS|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richev|8 years ago|reply
I'd gladly pay extra for a direct flight, because...
- 4 hours quicker
- An aircraft issue at Dubai can add a day to your journey (as happened to a friend who visited at Christmas)
- Changing at Dubai always seems to involve twenty minutes of walking, ten minutes on a train to go between terminals and then ages on a bus to get from the gate to the actual aircraft. Total PITA.
[+] [-] Grustaf|8 years ago|reply
I would have thought it has always been here.
[+] [-] marcosscriven|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] XorNot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] homakov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghaff|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moomin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marzipan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikestew|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Taniwha|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Swenrekcah|8 years ago|reply
This makes it sound like this long a flight is a physical impossibility today. However three minutes of searching leads me to believe a few commercial aircraft have indeed made a similar or longer trip. Not to mention any military aircraft that might do this as well, I'm sure there exists an amount of money that would get you on such an aircraft today :)
[+] [-] lathiat|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kalleboo|8 years ago|reply