6 ms·

The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

44 points by kyleblarson 8y ago

neonate 8y ago
http://archive.is/ZwLPY http://archive.is/ZwLPY
fourmii 8y ago
I love reading stories like this as commercial flying has always intrigued me. Geez, has it come a long way! Still remember a flight I had from Europe to Australia when it was such a novelty to smash alcohol cause it was so readily available and then going to the back of the plane to smoke!
toomanybeersies 8y ago
I don't think anybody really enjoys long haul flights, but personally, I especially dislike them. I'd much rather break my flight up into <8hr segments. I guess with everyone trying to squeeze as much of their vacation time though, it's more efficient to take a single 20 hour flight than two 10 hour legs with a 3 hour layover. A while back, I flew to Vietnam from New Zealand. My flight there was AKL-HKG-SGN (11h30m, 2h40m). My return flight was HAN-SGN-KUL-OOL-AKL (2h, 2h, 8h, 3h). Total flight time is about the same, but the total trip time including stopovers was 18 hours to Vietnam, and 24 hours on return. I found it so much more pleasant to be able to get off the plane, stretch my legs, and eat some real food every few hours. I really don't enjoy long flights at all and I don't think the couple of hours it saves is worth it. 4 hours is the limit for me being comfortable on a flight, after 8 hours I'm feeling quite uncomfortable but I'll manage, and 12 hours is the absolute limit for me for flying. 20 hours on a plane would be absolute torture. I really don't see the point in these excessively long flights either, you usually have to layover somewhere anyway, these ultra-long flights are most often to a hub like DOH or DXB, where you then need to connect to your final destination. Flying from Auckland to London, I'd much rather take AKL-HKG-LHR (12hr, 12hr) than AKL-DOH-LHR (18hr, 8hr). I'd even pay a premium of a couple of hundred bucks for it, although conveniently basically every option with one stopover from Auckland to London is about the same cost (I really don't know how it's profitable to fly from NZ to England for US$450 though, that's insane, I'm fairly sure freighting 100kg to London would cost more).
- FabHK 8y ago
  Agreed - if you fly Economy. For example, Asia to Europe it's quite pleasant to stop over in the Gulf (sorry, non-Gulf carriers :-) However, if you fly Business (or even First), my, are these long flights pleasant. Also, if you wish to minimise the number of take-offs and landings (eg out of a fear of flying, rational or not), non-stop flights are the way to go, obviously. EDIT: s/direct/non-stop/g
  - ipsi 8y ago
    As someone who also flies from NZ to London every now and then, I would love a non-stop flight from, say, London to Sydney, and then a short hop from there to NZ (the city I'm actually flying to couldn't handle a plane big enough to fly from London, sadly, so it's a minimum of one stop). That would be quicker, I'd be able to optimise my sleep better, and at least in business class it would be reasonably relaxing. Also, some stops can be quite stressful - LAX, in particular, is awful (Sorry, Air New Zealand, but I'll probably never fly you again while you go through LAX!). Also, several parents I've talked to would definitely prefer a single long flight to several shorter ones, given e.g., the stress of getting all your stuff + kids off and on the plane without losing them, the distress of ear pressure during takeoff and landing, etc.
    - toomanybeersies 8y ago
      I thought Air NZ went to AKL-SFO-LHR these days?
      - ipsi 8y ago
        Nope, NZ0001/NZ0002 still fly through LA, unfortunately.
  - grkvlt 8y ago
    If you have status with an airline, then stopovers become more relaxing with access to lounges (food, drinks, internet etc.) plus many have areas where you can get some sleep, so economy might become more feasible.
gumby 8y ago
I'd prefer no break, but then I am pretty used to sleeping and reading on long flights, and no break lets me manage my time better. When I was a kid, QF1 was 36 hours Sydney->London, with stops at Singapore, Bombay, Bahrain, and Frankfurt. Though it was fun to get off the plane briefly I would happily have avoided them even back then. Now even one stop is generally intolerable.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
A loosely related interesting fact. When you go on long international trips you're more likely to go on older planes than would be used for short domestic trips. Really counter intuitive since you'd think you'd want the tip top newest beasts for the long international flights, but the main wear and tear on planes is in pressurization cycles. International flights experience a single pressurization/depressurization for a long trip, whereas domestic flights experience numerous pressurization cycles over a much shorter period of time meaning they cycle through them much faster. The planes used on the long international trips end up being flyable, safely, for much longer.
- sitepodmatt 8y ago
  That depends, Europe to/from Asia, whatever airline, it's uncommon not be on a 787/a350 which are very new or a380 (ranging from 2-10years old), occasionally have to suffer a max 15 year old 777/a330 (some airlines are still ordering these new though), but rarely gets worse than this. Most short/regional 737/a320 seem older than above. Going west from europe to say Canada or states I admit is a different story old 757s, a340, 737 on long hauls, 747s, ran by terrible airlines like Air Canada, Air Transat, United and so on, even when they run new metal its terrible legroom.
xg15 8y ago
Some of the described problems are unique to flight (low air-pressure, dehydration, etc), but a lot of them sound like they would apply similarly to other very long stretches of travel by vehicle. (E.g. the bits about exercise). Maybe it would be interesting to research how people on very long train or bus rides deal with those.
xg15 8y ago
> Singapore is also adding bone-broth teas because they’ll send people to the bathroom more frequently, forcing them to stretch. I'm sure it's meant well, but this idea fulfills all the bad cliches about Singapore to a point...
- sitepodmatt 8y ago
  At the same time reducing bathrooms (a350-900 for example), i.e. increasing passengers per toilet. Logic ain't with this airline, the glory days for SG are well gone.
  - xg15 8y ago
    The whole thing doesn't seem logical. Their top priority is keeping people hydrated - so naturally, they'll make the drinks extra-dehydrating...
jessriedel 8y ago
> Beverages are being selected to not only improve hydration They don't need new types of beverages to improve hydration; water is already optimal. What they need is to give people sizeable plastic water bottles with a screwtop on request rather than a tiny plastic cup. I always end up waking at 4am parched from the dry air and weighing whether I should wake both my poor neighbors so I can get up and track down a flight attendant. And then bring three spillable cups back to my seat. (Bringing your own bottle is great if you remember to do it, but it's often hard to refill on the plane depending on how they are serving water.)

44 points by kyleblarson 8y ago

http://archive.is/ZwLPY http://archive.is/ZwLPY

I love reading stories like this as commercial flying has always intrigued me. Geez, has it come a long way! Still remember a flight I had from Europe to Australia when it was such a novelty to smash alcohol cause it was so readily available and then going to the back of the plane to smoke!

toomanybeersies 8y ago

I don't think anybody really enjoys long haul flights, but personally, I especially dislike them. I'd much rather break my flight up into <8hr segments. I guess with everyone trying to squeeze as much of their vacation time though, it's more efficient to take a single 20 hour flight than two 10 hour legs with a 3 hour layover. A while back, I flew to Vietnam from New Zealand. My flight there was AKL-HKG-SGN (11h30m, 2h40m). My return flight was HAN-SGN-KUL-OOL-AKL (2h, 2h, 8h, 3h). Total flight time is about the same, but the total trip time including stopovers was 18 hours to Vietnam, and 24 hours on return. I found it so much more pleasant to be able to get off the plane, stretch my legs, and eat some real food every few hours. I really don't enjoy long flights at all and I don't think the couple of hours it saves is worth it. 4 hours is the limit for me being comfortable on a flight, after 8 hours I'm feeling quite uncomfortable but I'll manage, and 12 hours is the absolute limit for me for flying. 20 hours on a plane would be absolute torture. I really don't see the point in these excessively long flights either, you usually have to layover somewhere anyway, these ultra-long flights are most often to a hub like DOH or DXB, where you then need to connect to your final destination. Flying from Auckland to London, I'd much rather take AKL-HKG-LHR (12hr, 12hr) than AKL-DOH-LHR (18hr, 8hr). I'd even pay a premium of a couple of hundred bucks for it, although conveniently basically every option with one stopover from Auckland to London is about the same cost (I really don't know how it's profitable to fly from NZ to England for US$450 though, that's insane, I'm fairly sure freighting 100kg to London would cost more).

FabHK 8y ago
Agreed - if you fly Economy. For example, Asia to Europe it's quite pleasant to stop over in the Gulf (sorry, non-Gulf carriers :-) However, if you fly Business (or even First), my, are these long flights pleasant. Also, if you wish to minimise the number of take-offs and landings (eg out of a fear of flying, rational or not), non-stop flights are the way to go, obviously. EDIT: s/direct/non-stop/g
- ipsi 8y ago
  As someone who also flies from NZ to London every now and then, I would love a non-stop flight from, say, London to Sydney, and then a short hop from there to NZ (the city I'm actually flying to couldn't handle a plane big enough to fly from London, sadly, so it's a minimum of one stop). That would be quicker, I'd be able to optimise my sleep better, and at least in business class it would be reasonably relaxing. Also, some stops can be quite stressful - LAX, in particular, is awful (Sorry, Air New Zealand, but I'll probably never fly you again while you go through LAX!). Also, several parents I've talked to would definitely prefer a single long flight to several shorter ones, given e.g., the stress of getting all your stuff + kids off and on the plane without losing them, the distress of ear pressure during takeoff and landing, etc.
  - toomanybeersies 8y ago
    I thought Air NZ went to AKL-SFO-LHR these days?
    - ipsi 8y ago
      Nope, NZ0001/NZ0002 still fly through LA, unfortunately.
- grkvlt 8y ago
  If you have status with an airline, then stopovers become more relaxing with access to lounges (food, drinks, internet etc.) plus many have areas where you can get some sleep, so economy might become more feasible.

gumby 8y ago

I'd prefer no break, but then I am pretty used to sleeping and reading on long flights, and no break lets me manage my time better. When I was a kid, QF1 was 36 hours Sydney->London, with stops at Singapore, Bombay, Bahrain, and Frankfurt. Though it was fun to get off the plane briefly I would happily have avoided them even back then. Now even one stop is generally intolerable.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

A loosely related interesting fact. When you go on long international trips you're more likely to go on older planes than would be used for short domestic trips. Really counter intuitive since you'd think you'd want the tip top newest beasts for the long international flights, but the main wear and tear on planes is in pressurization cycles. International flights experience a single pressurization/depressurization for a long trip, whereas domestic flights experience numerous pressurization cycles over a much shorter period of time meaning they cycle through them much faster. The planes used on the long international trips end up being flyable, safely, for much longer.

sitepodmatt 8y ago
That depends, Europe to/from Asia, whatever airline, it's uncommon not be on a 787/a350 which are very new or a380 (ranging from 2-10years old), occasionally have to suffer a max 15 year old 777/a330 (some airlines are still ordering these new though), but rarely gets worse than this. Most short/regional 737/a320 seem older than above. Going west from europe to say Canada or states I admit is a different story old 757s, a340, 737 on long hauls, 747s, ran by terrible airlines like Air Canada, Air Transat, United and so on, even when they run new metal its terrible legroom.

xg15 8y ago

Some of the described problems are unique to flight (low air-pressure, dehydration, etc), but a lot of them sound like they would apply similarly to other very long stretches of travel by vehicle. (E.g. the bits about exercise). Maybe it would be interesting to research how people on very long train or bus rides deal with those.

xg15 8y ago

> Singapore is also adding bone-broth teas because they’ll send people to the bathroom more frequently, forcing them to stretch. I'm sure it's meant well, but this idea fulfills all the bad cliches about Singapore to a point...

sitepodmatt 8y ago
At the same time reducing bathrooms (a350-900 for example), i.e. increasing passengers per toilet. Logic ain't with this airline, the glory days for SG are well gone.
- xg15 8y ago
  The whole thing doesn't seem logical. Their top priority is keeping people hydrated - so naturally, they'll make the drinks extra-dehydrating...

jessriedel 8y ago

> Beverages are being selected to not only improve hydration They don't need new types of beverages to improve hydration; water is already optimal. What they need is to give people sizeable plastic water bottles with a screwtop on request rather than a tiny plastic cup. I always end up waking at 4am parched from the dry air and weighing whether I should wake both my poor neighbors so I can get up and track down a flight attendant. And then bring three spillable cups back to my seat. (Bringing your own bottle is great if you remember to do it, but it's often hard to refill on the plane depending on how they are serving water.)