8 ms·

>> 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

>> 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.

derekp7 9y ago
For business, you are flying to make money. A missed connection due to a slight delay could turn it into a 24 hour delay, and therefore a missed opportunity to make money. Of course, I don't know if the stop overs for refuelling involve a connecting flight or if you are put back on the same plane, so in those cases (where your are guaranteed a rest stop of no more than 3 hours) I can see the preference going ether way.
- lathiat 9y ago
  Many of those flights even with the same flight number often have you deplaning and transferring to a different plane. But not always. The reason for this partially is old airline freedom laws. Because stopovers used to basically be required for all long haul flights in 70s etc you can "stopover" in other countries airports.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    The rules around flight numbers are, in simplified form, that the airline can use a flight number once per city pair per 24 hours. This allows reusing a flight number -- possibly with a different plane -- on a later segment, which is a concern due to flight numbers being limited to four digits via legacy systems (airlines with lots of regional affiliate and partner codeshare flights literally risk running out of flight numbers!). In the US, larger airlines often use a flight number twice a day -- once for a domestic flight and once for an international flight. For flights departing to international destinations, it's not uncommon for one of the inbound feeder flights to use the same flight number. Also, for a foreign carrier, the rules are a bit more complex; they can make an additional stop in the US, and can pick up more passengers, but can't do much more than that. US federal law requires that transportation between two points in the US take place on a US-owned carrier. So, for example, Qantas flies from New York to destinations in Australia with a stop in Los Angeles, and can pick up more passengers at LAX and even change planes there for the onward journey, but they can't sell JFK-LAX tickets.
0x0001111 9y ago
The few 14+ hour flights I've been were more comfortable than the usual connecting flights I take for the long haul and ultra-long haul trips. Not sure if the longer haul flights have more comfortable seats even in economy but leg room and width were ample. They were all 777-300ERs. I prefer them over having to go through another airport (security) and chances of delays for the connecting flight.
mikeash 9y ago
You can get up and walk around during the cruise phase. I vastly prefer direct flights, even for long trips. (For example, I fly Washington to Beijing every couple of years, and try hard to get a direct flight for that.) Changing planes adds so much time, and is stressful for international flights where you have to clear customs before when making the connection.
privong 9y ago
> I find it so hard to sit in the plane for such a long time. The 14.5 hour flights I have taken were certainly more tedious than individual 7 or 8 hour flights. But back-to-back 7 or 8 hour flights plus an hour or two layover is much more tedious. Whenever possible, I would rather do a single flight.
- drdeadringer 9y ago
  What makes it more tedious, the sense that you're meandering around an airport in "dead time"?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - henrikschroder 9y ago
    If you have multiple flights, there's always stress that you might miss a connection. And you can spend every flight worrying that you might not catch the next one. When you board your last flight, you know you "made it", you know you're gonna get to wherever you're going, and can spend the entire flight relaxing. If you have a single flight, you get that feeling of being done once you board your first flight, there's just fewer opportunities for stress.
    - drdeadringer 9y ago
      It appears I have accepted the usual stresses and matters of courses of flying as normal and in doing so have become a grateful sheep. Then again, the times I've had to worry about missed connections are small and the rest didn't end the world; the worst I've had to experience is waiting longer than expected.
  - privong 9y ago
    > What makes it more tedious, the sense that you're meandering around an airport in "dead time"? Partly what henrikschroder said, but it's also the trip just takes longer with a connection. And after being on a 7 hour flight, I never look forward to getting back on another one. Also I typically have to go through customs and immigration in the stop between the two long-haul fights, so that adds a whole additional level of hassle that would be avoided with a direct flight.
jpatokal 9y ago
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.
- saryant 9y ago
  Yep. I've flown a few 14+ hour ultra-long-haul flights in business or first class and it's a pleasant enough way to fly. Key for me is to shower at the lounge before departure. That makes a big difference in comfort.
  - wenc 9y ago
    > Key for me is to shower at the lounge before departure. That makes a big difference in comfort. I can confirm that. A shower before a long flight, even in economy, can make a huge difference. I almost never fly business, but I have a Priority Pass membership which gets me into airline lounges to shower. Best thing ever.
    - walterbell 9y ago
      What's the benefit of a shower before flying? Did you mean a shower during a layover between two legs of a flight?
      - 9y ago
swatkat 9y ago
Current longest non-stop commercial flight, Air India DEL to SFO, has been very popular and often operate at 85% capacity 6 times a week[0][1]. Air India is adding DEL to LAX non-stop next month. It's especially popular with elderly travellers, as there's no hassle of transit. [0] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/AI-hits-gold-with-direct-Valley-flight/articleshow/52138198.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/A... [1] http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2016/10/18/air-india-longest-flight/ http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2016/10/18/air-india-...
- throwaway43894 9y ago
  Yeah, I wish Air India had more international flights at a reasonable price.
- saagarjha 9y ago
  > It's especially popular with elderly travellers, as there's no hassle of transit. That, and the fact that there are a lot of Indian elderly who make the Delhi-San Francisco flight regularly to visit children who work in the Bay Area.
  - himlion 9y ago
    That makes a lot of sense. I was wondering why the demand for that route would be large enough for a daily non stop flight.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  AI173 DEL-SFO uses a strange routing to produce a slightly longer distance than QR921 AKL-DOH -- literally, it's routed to be just 50 miles longer by distance flown. But by time in the air QR921 is still the longest flight in the world (17 hours 30 minutes, compared to Air India's 16 hours 55 minutes). Five other flights also are scheduled for 17 hours or longer in the air: EK449 AKL-DXB; UA1 and SQ31 SFO-SIN; QF8 DFW-SYD; and AA125 DFW-HKG.
wycx 9y ago
A non-stop flight means you only have to deal with CBP or TSA once, at the end of the flight. If you fly SYD-LAX-JFK or SYD-DFW-JFK you have to get off the plane at LAX or DFW, go through immigration and customs, go to the domestic terminal, go though TSA security and hope you have not missed your domestic connection.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Most major international transfer airports (e.g. Narita, Hong Kong, Schiphol, Changi, even Moscow) have nice air side connections that don't require entering immigration. Ya, they'll still security screen you, but it is much quicker than when initially broadening. America is unique in requiring all passengers to go through immigration, but in that case they are usually going somewhere else in America anyways so it would be a port of entry. Sucks if you are transferring in Miami to go to South America, however.
  - jacalata 9y ago
    Cheap flights from Eastern Canada to Asia often stop in the US, which is a huge pain.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      On the other hand, a cheap flight from the USA to Asia can have an easy airside transfer in Canada.
    - petecox 9y ago
      Perhaps next time I want to visit Canada I'll go Melbourne -> Seoul -> Mexico City -> Montreal The previous time it was Melbourne -> LA -> Newark -> Montreal, flying home Vancouver -> LA -> Brisbane -> Melbourne.
  - avh02 9y ago
    You can add doha to that list, they often do security screens but not always... An hour has been hurried/comfortable connection time multiple times, even made 50 minutes a few times. YMMV.
podgib 9y ago
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.
- lathiat 9y ago
  Me too :) often same price with Qantas to do PER-SIN-DXB-onwards instead of PER-DXB. And Singapore is the best airport. Business class any day but 19hours non stop in Economy is pain for me. (Which the new PER-LHR is). It makes sense for Qantas though it's mostly the only way to fly more long haul flights competitively because all the flights are too long like this. And saves you airport fees for the stopover.
henrikschroder 9y ago
The lie-flat shell seats of modern business class really make a world of difference.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
tluyben2 9y ago
I don't, even in business. I flew to HKG last week via Helsinki and Bangkok; not only was it cheaper because 2 stops but we had 1 full day in Helsinki and 1 full day in Bangkok which made my jetlag, landing in HKG non existing and gave us time to visit friends in both cities.
- peteretep 9y ago
  That Finnair A350 J tho...
richev 9y ago
No need to stay sat down. On a long flight I take a few walks, loiter in the galley area, get the blood flowing in the legs with a session of raising myself up/down on tiptoes repeatedly... Really seems to help.

derekp7 9y ago

For business, you are flying to make money. A missed connection due to a slight delay could turn it into a 24 hour delay, and therefore a missed opportunity to make money. Of course, I don't know if the stop overs for refuelling involve a connecting flight or if you are put back on the same plane, so in those cases (where your are guaranteed a rest stop of no more than 3 hours) I can see the preference going ether way.

lathiat 9y ago
Many of those flights even with the same flight number often have you deplaning and transferring to a different plane. But not always. The reason for this partially is old airline freedom laws. Because stopovers used to basically be required for all long haul flights in 70s etc you can "stopover" in other countries airports.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The rules around flight numbers are, in simplified form, that the airline can use a flight number once per city pair per 24 hours. This allows reusing a flight number -- possibly with a different plane -- on a later segment, which is a concern due to flight numbers being limited to four digits via legacy systems (airlines with lots of regional affiliate and partner codeshare flights literally risk running out of flight numbers!). In the US, larger airlines often use a flight number twice a day -- once for a domestic flight and once for an international flight. For flights departing to international destinations, it's not uncommon for one of the inbound feeder flights to use the same flight number. Also, for a foreign carrier, the rules are a bit more complex; they can make an additional stop in the US, and can pick up more passengers, but can't do much more than that. US federal law requires that transportation between two points in the US take place on a US-owned carrier. So, for example, Qantas flies from New York to destinations in Australia with a stop in Los Angeles, and can pick up more passengers at LAX and even change planes there for the onward journey, but they can't sell JFK-LAX tickets.

0x0001111 9y ago

The few 14+ hour flights I've been were more comfortable than the usual connecting flights I take for the long haul and ultra-long haul trips. Not sure if the longer haul flights have more comfortable seats even in economy but leg room and width were ample. They were all 777-300ERs. I prefer them over having to go through another airport (security) and chances of delays for the connecting flight.

mikeash 9y ago

You can get up and walk around during the cruise phase. I vastly prefer direct flights, even for long trips. (For example, I fly Washington to Beijing every couple of years, and try hard to get a direct flight for that.) Changing planes adds so much time, and is stressful for international flights where you have to clear customs before when making the connection.

privong 9y ago

> I find it so hard to sit in the plane for such a long time. The 14.5 hour flights I have taken were certainly more tedious than individual 7 or 8 hour flights. But back-to-back 7 or 8 hour flights plus an hour or two layover is much more tedious. Whenever possible, I would rather do a single flight.

drdeadringer 9y ago
What makes it more tedious, the sense that you're meandering around an airport in "dead time"?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- henrikschroder 9y ago
  If you have multiple flights, there's always stress that you might miss a connection. And you can spend every flight worrying that you might not catch the next one. When you board your last flight, you know you "made it", you know you're gonna get to wherever you're going, and can spend the entire flight relaxing. If you have a single flight, you get that feeling of being done once you board your first flight, there's just fewer opportunities for stress.
  - drdeadringer 9y ago
    It appears I have accepted the usual stresses and matters of courses of flying as normal and in doing so have become a grateful sheep. Then again, the times I've had to worry about missed connections are small and the rest didn't end the world; the worst I've had to experience is waiting longer than expected.
- privong 9y ago
  > What makes it more tedious, the sense that you're meandering around an airport in "dead time"? Partly what henrikschroder said, but it's also the trip just takes longer with a connection. And after being on a 7 hour flight, I never look forward to getting back on another one. Also I typically have to go through customs and immigration in the stop between the two long-haul fights, so that adds a whole additional level of hassle that would be avoided with a direct flight.

jpatokal 9y ago

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.

saryant 9y ago
Yep. I've flown a few 14+ hour ultra-long-haul flights in business or first class and it's a pleasant enough way to fly. Key for me is to shower at the lounge before departure. That makes a big difference in comfort.
- wenc 9y ago
  > Key for me is to shower at the lounge before departure. That makes a big difference in comfort. I can confirm that. A shower before a long flight, even in economy, can make a huge difference. I almost never fly business, but I have a Priority Pass membership which gets me into airline lounges to shower. Best thing ever.
  - walterbell 9y ago
    What's the benefit of a shower before flying? Did you mean a shower during a layover between two legs of a flight?
    - 9y ago

swatkat 9y ago

Current longest non-stop commercial flight, Air India DEL to SFO, has been very popular and often operate at 85% capacity 6 times a week[0][1]. Air India is adding DEL to LAX non-stop next month. It's especially popular with elderly travellers, as there's no hassle of transit. [0] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/AI-hits-gold-with-direct-Valley-flight/articleshow/52138198.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/A... [1] http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2016/10/18/air-india-longest-flight/ http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2016/10/18/air-india-...

throwaway43894 9y ago
Yeah, I wish Air India had more international flights at a reasonable price.
saagarjha 9y ago
> It's especially popular with elderly travellers, as there's no hassle of transit. That, and the fact that there are a lot of Indian elderly who make the Delhi-San Francisco flight regularly to visit children who work in the Bay Area.
- himlion 9y ago
  That makes a lot of sense. I was wondering why the demand for that route would be large enough for a daily non stop flight.
ubernostrum 9y ago
AI173 DEL-SFO uses a strange routing to produce a slightly longer distance than QR921 AKL-DOH -- literally, it's routed to be just 50 miles longer by distance flown. But by time in the air QR921 is still the longest flight in the world (17 hours 30 minutes, compared to Air India's 16 hours 55 minutes). Five other flights also are scheduled for 17 hours or longer in the air: EK449 AKL-DXB; UA1 and SQ31 SFO-SIN; QF8 DFW-SYD; and AA125 DFW-HKG.

wycx 9y ago

A non-stop flight means you only have to deal with CBP or TSA once, at the end of the flight. If you fly SYD-LAX-JFK or SYD-DFW-JFK you have to get off the plane at LAX or DFW, go through immigration and customs, go to the domestic terminal, go though TSA security and hope you have not missed your domestic connection.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Most major international transfer airports (e.g. Narita, Hong Kong, Schiphol, Changi, even Moscow) have nice air side connections that don't require entering immigration. Ya, they'll still security screen you, but it is much quicker than when initially broadening. America is unique in requiring all passengers to go through immigration, but in that case they are usually going somewhere else in America anyways so it would be a port of entry. Sucks if you are transferring in Miami to go to South America, however.
- jacalata 9y ago
  Cheap flights from Eastern Canada to Asia often stop in the US, which is a huge pain.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    On the other hand, a cheap flight from the USA to Asia can have an easy airside transfer in Canada.
  - petecox 9y ago
    Perhaps next time I want to visit Canada I'll go Melbourne -> Seoul -> Mexico City -> Montreal The previous time it was Melbourne -> LA -> Newark -> Montreal, flying home Vancouver -> LA -> Brisbane -> Melbourne.
- avh02 9y ago
  You can add doha to that list, they often do security screens but not always... An hour has been hurried/comfortable connection time multiple times, even made 50 minutes a few times. YMMV.

podgib 9y ago

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.

lathiat 9y ago
Me too :) often same price with Qantas to do PER-SIN-DXB-onwards instead of PER-DXB. And Singapore is the best airport. Business class any day but 19hours non stop in Economy is pain for me. (Which the new PER-LHR is). It makes sense for Qantas though it's mostly the only way to fly more long haul flights competitively because all the flights are too long like this. And saves you airport fees for the stopover.

henrikschroder 9y ago

The lie-flat shell seats of modern business class really make a world of difference.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

tluyben2 9y ago

I don't, even in business. I flew to HKG last week via Helsinki and Bangkok; not only was it cheaper because 2 stops but we had 1 full day in Helsinki and 1 full day in Bangkok which made my jetlag, landing in HKG non existing and gave us time to visit friends in both cities.

peteretep 9y ago
That Finnair A350 J tho...

richev 9y ago

No need to stay sat down. On a long flight I take a few walks, loiter in the galley area, get the blood flowing in the legs with a session of raising myself up/down on tiptoes repeatedly... Really seems to help.