Fly Qantas
 

Qants to buy up to 115 Boeing 787s:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...51213h_nr.html

And they are buying neither the 777LR nor A345 at this time. Cannot make LHR-SYD work economically.

It was an interesting order, today the Qantas CEO is saying that they'll probably take 100 planes and as they were under their budgeted plane renewal amount, the rest of the order will be likely made up with either A380 or 747-8 in the future.

If Qantas doesn't want it, then I think the 777LR has problems.

Who really wants to be cooked up in a plane for 20 hours. Surely if your in economy the problems with DVT are accentuated and personally I like a break to be able to walk around or stop off for a day or two.

Obviously the deal breaker was the attitude of the business community. Their research showed that the time saving for a business man is only a few hours and would they pay a premium for this saving, the answer seems to have been no.

Geordie

I'm flying London to Perth tomorrow with a 1 hour stop in Singapore. Does anyone know if I can get off the plane to stretch my legs? Last year I flew from Atlanta to Capetown, and I was told, after 9-11, no one could get off the plane during the refueling at the Cape Verdi Islands. Furthermore, crews were cleaning the bathrooms so we had to stay in our seats. Just what one needs during an 18-hour flight.

So, if anyone is flying from Atlanta to Cape Town, use the toilet before landing at the Cape Verdi Islands.

The SYD->LHR flight would be at the edge of the performance envelope of the 772LR. Optional extra fuel tanks would be carried, and still they may not be able to do it with full passenger cargo load.

The 772LR is a niche aircraft, but there are markets that make sense. And therefore it has received recent orders from AI (anywhere in India to anywhere in N. America), EK (Dubai to anywhere in N. America), AC (YYZ/YVR to anywhere in India and SE Asia). PK is going to use them for IAH non-stop, and probably to the west coast. BR can run TPE-New York.

At least it's won the battle with the A345.

BTW, on many routes, a long non-stop is much more convenient and easy for any traveler, even in coach seat. Two examples:

- Some flights can use the Polar routes which won't be possible with shorter range aircraft. For example, US-Asia flights flying over the Pole avoid the strong headwinds of N. Pacific and possible delays at NRT.

- W. Coast to Middle East flights, and Asia/Oceania flights to the E. Coast. For many passengers, these flights allow them to go through immigration at their destination. For example, Australian travelers should appreciate skipping the lines at LAX when entering the US.

Using my own family as an example, if CO or CX will run IAH-HKG non-stop on 772LR, my parents will gladly pay $200-300 more on the same coach seat or probably $500-600 more for premium economy if available.

These are significant perks that are more than just avoiding a 1-hr fuel stop in FRA or ARN (for New York - BKK/SIN). I really feel that the airlines are not utilizing or realizing the potentials of these ultra-longhaul aircrafts. But I think some of them are. Both AA and CO just started US-Delhi flights with 772ER. but if they want to fly to Mumbai or Bangalore, etc, they'll need something with longer range.

My understanding is that LHR-SYD works fine on the 777LR but SYD-LHR doesn't. It's within the design range of the plane but not when the stiff headwinds are taken into account. Any extra fuel cuts into their margin so much as to make it uneconomical. The plane just does not have enough range.

Three weeks ago I had a chance to fly the London Perth and Sydney London route. Many people told me that they enjoy doing a stop-over for a day or two in Bangkok or Singapore. One person told me when the plane stops in Singapore for two hours, they go to a hotel pool and take a swim.

Also, can't blame the flight attendants for not wanting to work 20 hours straight. Ditto for the Auto Pilot!

People who say they prefer a stop are idiots. Time and time again, people have always said that, but when there are ultra-long non-stops available, they always prefer the non-stops.

Flight attendants don't work 20 hours straight. Neither do the pilots. They work in shifts. And after an ultra-longhaul like that, they get a lot of off-time. I can't say for sure, but I don't think FAs mind. The LRs have options for overhead bunks for both pilots and FAs.

rrkwan

People who prefer stops are not idiots, just like people who write lengthy diatribes about a flight are not geeky anorak wearing prats.

Geordie

People who prefers stops are not idiots. I guess I wasn't clear in my last response, my fault. I know people who continues to do that if they have the time and money for a comfortable overnight stopover.

However, I've heard plenty who <b>said</b> it's crazy to do something like a 15-hour New York or Toronto to Hong Kong non-stop in coach; but once they've done it, <b>each of them</b> prefers that over a 2-hour connection at NRT, or a fuel-stop at YVR or ANC. All add 3-4 hours to total travel time.

Likewise, most people will prefer a 20-hour LHR-SYD non-stop over a 12-hour LHR-SIN + 2-hr layover + 8-hour SIN-SYD. Once they've tried it.

After flying from Bangkok to London in Business, I could have stayed on for another flight. But in coach, it is a different situation.

And if I was flying a U.S. airline in coach, I would need to stop after eight hours so I could get more money out of the ATM for drinks.