
The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights - kyleblarson
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-behind-the-worlds-longest-flights-1534339076
======
toomanybeersies
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
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
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
I thought Air NZ went to AKL-SFO-LHR these days?

~~~
ipsi
Nope, NZ0001/NZ0002 still fly through LA, unfortunately.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/ZwLPY](http://archive.is/ZwLPY)

------
TangoTrotFox
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
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.

------
gumby
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.

------
fourmii
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!

------
xg15
> _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
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
The whole thing doesn't seem logical. Their top priority is keeping people
hydrated - so naturally, they'll make the drinks extra-dehydrating...

------
jessriedel
> 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.)

------
xg15
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.

