4 ms·
> flight times of up to 22 hours Making flight connections is never fun, but this sounds absolutely brutal.
by beaviskhan 2mo ago
> flight times of up to 22 hours
Making flight connections is never fun, but this sounds absolutely brutal.
- wildzzz 2mo agoI'd love to visit Australia and SE Asia but am hesitant with those long flights. I'd probably be fine with layflat seats but those are well beyond what I'd ever consider paying for an airline ticket.
- Scoundreller 2mo agoWould make sense to offer packages with lay-flat seats in shifts (possibly formally/informally for people on the same ticket).
- 27183 2mo agoYou could pack a lot more in if you sedate them and put them in racks like they have at the morgue. TBH I'd sign up for that on a long flight if the sedative recovery wasn't bad.
- throwaway173738 2mo agoNext stop Phlosten Paradise.
- 27183 2mo agoThis is exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote it down ;)
- post-it 2mo agoJust like The Jaunt by Stephen King. "It's longer than you think, dad! ...about 22 hours."
- throwaway270925 2mo agoAh yes, the B.A. Baracus method! I'd use that!
- alwa 2mo agoEspecially on the same routes where you’d think about using this kind of airliner... https://www.airnewzealand.com/economy-skynest https://www.airnewzealand.com/economy-skynest
- inigyou 2mo agoYou just know this is going to be 2-3 times the price of an economy seat, which means you're going to buy the economy seat anyway. In flights, price beats everything else.
- alwa 2mo agoI think this is an ancillary specifically for economy class passengers—you pay a certain amount to reserve a 4-hour slot on a bunk or something. I have no idea, but my guess is economy + nap slot would still come in well under the cost of a business seat. Plus they can sell those same 6 berths what, 4 or 5 times over in the same 22-hour flight? If I recall correctly they’re not certified for use during taxi takeoff and landing, I’d imagine due to orderly-evacuation kinds of requirements.
- kylehotchkiss 2mo agoYou can play the points game and win - Singapore biz from US west coast booked a year in advance is within the signup bonus amount :)
- anonzzzies 2mo agoMany of colleagues do this all the time, usually via the Middle East. I did it before; it sucks but with enough gin tonic and melatonin it goes by in with too much pain.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- inigyou 2mo agoI've traveled UK to Australia a few times. Not nonstop, but with stops in SE Asia, basically 2x13 hours plus a few hours airport time. It sucks, but you get over it because how else are you going to get there? If you don't suffer blood clots or something, it isn't really actively dangerous.
- stackghost 2mo ago>2x13 hours plus a few hours airport time. That sounds like pure torture
- inigyou 2mo agoIsn't everything, really? A dentist's appointment for example. It has an end, and then you're glad you had the courage to go through it.
- stackghost 2mo agoThe longest I've spent in a dentist's chair is perhaps an hour, when I had braces as a teen. Being cooped up in a metal tube for 13 hours, knowing you had to do the same thing tomorrow, and then the same thing two more fucking times on your way home, is not worth any vacation to me.
- inigyou 2mo agoThen don't do it for vacation. A resort in Australia is no more valuable to you than one in Florida (if you're in the US). Do it for something more meaningful.
- 27183 2mo ago> how else are you going to get there? Sailing would be more fun, IMO. Might take a quarter or half a year though.
- EspadaV9 2mo agoLiving in Australia, and travelling to Europe last Christmas as a family of 4, I really wanted to get the direct London to Perth flight, but connecting flights didn't line up. Being able to do Melbourne or Sydney would be great. Not needing to deal with connections, and cutting 6+ hours off the total travel time sounds amazing, possibly getting us there a day earlier, meaning more time for Greggs vegan sausage rolls.
- someguydave 2mo agoYeah but the idea is most folks will fly direct.
- Scoundreller 2mo agoAlso bad for fuel economy (and/or take a hit on cargo/pax/luggage carrying capacity): You have to take off with all that fuel even though you only need X / hr. Increased weight = more flying at a lower altitude (+ air resistance) until the fuel burn makes it safe to fly higher. On shorter flights, you still have the weight impact from that empty tank and its infra. If they had to make a bump out on the fuselage, you have a permanent aerodynamics hit. It's like permanently attaching a cargo carrier to your vehicle to carry more fuel. Fewer fuel stops, but more burn per mile. Can make sense in some situations. The study of breaking up long-haul flights for reduced fuel burn is usually called: "Intermediate Stop Operations"
- sandworm101 2mo agoBut it may allow operation of more routes without the need to refuel at both ends. That can be logistically interesting, paticularly going forward in a world of fuel crisis and uncertainty. Being able to deliver people in and out of Cuba without having to refuel in that country would be a market niche.
- Scoundreller 2mo agoAssuming you can regularly land with your fuel tanks half-full. You could overbuild everything to support that, but usually airlines don't want to pay for a niche design to support that. I'd bet military aircraft do get that treatment though.
- sandworm101 2mo agoIt is actually rather common. Many airlines running shorter flights will not refuel at every stop. It saves time on the ground, which can be more valuable then fuel.
- Scoundreller 2mo agorather common amongst (ultra)-long voyages?
- zahlman 2mo agoDoes it actually take 22 hours for a commercial airplane to get to the diametrically opposite point on the globe?
- pletnes 2mo ago900 km/h, 20,000 kilometers. Yep!
- toast0 2mo ago22 hours is a very long time to be in a plane. But, being able to skip a stop in a 3rd nation is likely worthwhile for many. Depending on the routes, it will likely reduce the overall travel time significantly and a meaningful amount of time in the air.
- soulofmischief 2mo agoWhat are the economics of connecting flights? I'd imagine that max flight time isn't the only factor; hubs allow people to move around via connecting flights in a way that might not be economically acceptable if all flights were direct.
- inigyou 2mo agoThese ultralong flights will surely only be used regularly on routes with enough traffic, like London/Sydney. Although they could also run intermittently to different places. Like London/Sydney on Monday, London/Melbourne on Tuesday... Which one brings in more money? I really have no idea. If you do it like this you can serve more people with direct flights, but they can't pick any day they want. I was once on a scenic long-distance train for some reason that didn't run every day due to low usage — Wellington to Auckland, I think? Normally you'd fly.
- darknavi 2mo agoSeattle to Joburg is brutal. It's ~23 hours of flying with a lay over somewhere like Dubai. As much as a 23 hour flight sounds terrible, it's hard for me to express how much dread I felt getting back onto a plane right after a 13 hour flight. I'd rather just hunker down for the full day I think.
- u1hcw9nx 2mo agoNew A350's has better air quality, higher humidity and cabin pressure, and these long haul flits have less seats to reduce weight .. but it's still brutal.