
Qantas wants to fly from Sydney to New York or London nonstop - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-24/qantas-wants-to-fly-sydney-to-new-york-or-london-nonstop
======
gumby
As a kid I used to take the 36-hour QF 1 from Melbourne to London (70s/80s).
Melbourne, Sydney, Singapore, Bombay (as it was at the time), Bahrain,
Frankfurt, London. The only in flight entertainment was a few channels you
heard through a pair of plastic tubes you stuck in your ears (no joke). Each
channel was only an hour or so long so it got repetitive, but you did manage
to read a lot of books. Oh yeah and of course there was smoking on the plane.

Currently it's a 24 hour flight with only a single stopover, in Bangkok.

~~~
podgib
Currently, the stopover is in Dubai, not Bangkok (on Qantas anyway).

~~~
sitepodmatt
IFEs are going away so it wont look too dissimilar shortly, aside from smaller
seats. One day you will refer back to 70/80s as luxury economy.

~~~
lathiat
One thing I've begun to dislike is that traditional IFE had polarising or
directional filters so you couldn't see the screens of seats around you. iPads
being used on some flights now don't so you see a sea of screens and in some
cases some movies could flash quite some bright light from long away.

But now a resent plane I was on (I forget with who) the inbuilt IFE also
didn't have these directional filters which was really annoying as you could
see basically every seat beaming into the dark cabin.

------
cletus
I really wonder how much of a demand there is for this.

So usually once a year (maybe twice) I fly from New York to Perth. By distance
this is one of the longest journeys. Perth is a few hundred miles from the
antipode of NYC. I have the "advantage" that I can fly in pretty much any
direction. The two major options for a single stop are via the Middle East or
over the _Arctic_ to Hong Kong. There might be other options through say South
Korea or Japan but I don't think any airlines fly direct from Perth to these.
Oh and I think China Southern can do it via China.

Anyway. this amounts to roughly 24 hours (total) in aircraft time. I'm 6'2"
and wider than a coach seat so this would be torture. I am fortunate enough to
be able to afford a premium cabin so it's one of the things I choose to spend
money on. This might mean paying 3x as much for a flight. I don't care.

Anyway, a big problem with even longer haul flights is the added cost of
carrying the fuel you need for those last few thousand miles. I think Qantas
estimated the per passenger cost of LHR to PER is about 30-40% higher than
making a stop.

SYD-JFK is ~10% longer than LHR-PER, which will make the cost what? 60-70%
more than going via LAX or DFW.

The problem of course too is if your final destination from Sydney isn't
London or New York then you need to make a connection anyway.

So this is where say the ME3 carriers shine: ultra long routes with a single
stop and a lot of options for city pairings.

Anyway, I'm sure someone will want these flights. I don't expect any direct
NYC to PER flights anytime soon however. :)

~~~
nl
I believe they manage the fuel costs by flying slightly slower (20% maybe from
memory?) than normal. I read about the plans a couple of years ago.

That still gets there quicker than with a stop.

I'd do it. I'm in Adelaide, and I don't like the stop overs to Europe.

~~~
tankenmate
I wouldn't think it would be 20% slower; that would be going from 850km/h down
to 680km/h. The big problem isn't so much that it is much slower but in fact
the slower speed meaning a higher angle of attack which leads to more drag. At
altitude commercial jet liners fly at a set angle of attack to reduce drag, so
maybe flying a few percent slower might lead to less fuel usage, but more than
that and the increased drag eats away at the savings.

------
emmelaich
Deep vein thrombosis is already a problem on 10+ hour flights.

They really should have small gyms with bookable time (just a exercise bicycle
maybe)

I've done the Sydney/Europe route quite a few times. The break in Asia does
help; just to have a one hour walk around. As does first class! (did it once)

~~~
stephengillie
Each row could have a turn to do a few push-ups and sit-ups in the aisles, and
then a quick jog around the jail yard...err cabin.

~~~
dx034
I flew with China Eastern from SYD to FRA with stop in Shanghai. They did
exercise programs for the whole cabin twice on each flight. I've never seen
that before but it was certainly helpful!

------
adolph
I wonder why inflight refueling hasn't taken off in the civilian market. Risk,
cost, other reasons?

~~~
tmh79
Its very expensive and very risky for civilian flights. Either of those
factors alone would be a no-go zone for airlines, put them together and its
worse.

~~~
StavrosK
"Ladies and gentlemen, we are almost out of fuel. In a few minutes, the
refueling aircraft will be making its way toward us. To enjoy the benefits of
in-flight refueling at low, low prices, please have your credit card ready."

------
harigov
>> 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.

~~~
jpatokal
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.

~~~
vijayr
_Modern business class is a different world_

While boarding a flight this week, I was told to wait (just entered the plane)
because they wanted to serve orange juice to someone in business class. So me
and some 10 people behind me waited until the air hostess served the juice and
came back few mins later, because orange juice couldn't wait for another 15
mins. It felt very weird. I guess rich people do really experience life on a
different level.

~~~
trimbo
Most people are either spending miles or company money. And if they're
spending miles, it's still usually miles from company money.

~~~
chx
Or from credit card churning, manufactured spending, or, in the most extreme
case, pudding.

~~~
deoxxa
I'd like to hear more about pudding.

~~~
delroth
Reference to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Phillips_(entrepreneur)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Phillips_\(entrepreneur\))

------
grizzles
I've flown SYD,BNE<->SFO,LAX,LAS,YYZ an uncountable number of times. I want
Boom or some other supersonic flight much more than this. I'd happily pay the
extra $$ for it, even if it's twice as dangerous as standard jets. That's
still way safer than travelling by car. I hope they can get certified by the
mid 2020s.

~~~
chx
Let's get realistic, shall we? Any new jet costs billion plus USD to develop.
This was even true for the Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100, even more so for the
Bombardier C Series. And these were relatively minor adjustments over existing
tech, not an entirely new design for faster-than-sound travel. If you consider
groundbreaking planes, like the 787 program, that was 32 billion.

Boom, according to Crunchbase has raised $35.24M in 3 Rounds from 13
Investors. That's ... nothing. A rounding error in the budget to develop
something like this. The CIA reportedly spent 3.7 billion to develop the SR-71
engine. And that was really long ago. What do you want to do with 35 million?
35 _billion_ would be a much, much realistic number.

This is not an industry to disrupt. If you intend to fly in the UK, EU, USA,
Australia then you need to certify with the FAA/EASA/CASA etc and you can't
pull a fast one with those.

~~~
asdfologist
That sounds precisely the kind of industry that needs to get disrupted.

~~~
chx
I would guess that's what HN says. I am, however, an ancient -- by the
measures of HN anyways -- frequent flier who really likes the current safety
record of commercial flight.

With Uber, it is understandable venture capitalists funded a fantastic trick
shamelessly called "sharing economy", rolling back most advances labor
achieved in a century. But with flying safety is too important for a similarly
illegal company to get anywhere.

Or in other words, breaking the law gets somewhere with the taxi industry
because they are relatively small and weak but good luck trying to break the
federal regulations set by the FAA. Many tried to be creative already but they
didn't get anywhere and that was just getting creative with existing planes. I
will get the popcorn as you people try to disrupt the freakin' FAA -- and even
if Thiel and the like can get Trump / GOP led Congress to intervene, there's
the EASA as well.

For that's the really expensive part. You can build an app and release it
(probably full of bugs) for real cheap and disrupt an industry (spits) but
building a plane to such exacting standard as these authorities demand is a
different world that techbros will find impenetrable, and, again, thanks God
for that. And don't tell me they are not, here's the photo:
[https://boomsupersonic.com/assets/team-page-hero-photo-
cdf15...](https://boomsupersonic.com/assets/team-page-hero-photo-
cdf1527228921f4dfca7c9f59786a4fc.jpg) there's a grand total of two women and
one black man on the pic among, I didn't bother to count how many white
techbros.

------
shifte
An interesting tidbit, Qantas already set a record flying non-stop from LHR to
SYD in 1989 when taking delivery of a 747-400
[http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Qantas%201st%20England-
Aust%20n...](http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Qantas%201st%20England-Aust%20non-
stop%201989.htm)

~~~
perilunar
Qantas also holds the record for the longest _duration_ commercial flights:
the 27-33 hour Double Sunrise service between Perth and Ceylon during WW2. At
the time they were also the longest _distance_ non-stop flights.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Sunrise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Sunrise)

[http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history-
catalinas/glob...](http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history-
catalinas/global/en)

------
JTenerife
Some years ago I travelled from Melbourne to Frankfurt a couple of times in a
year. I took flights with stops at Singapore and actually liked the 2-4 hours
break.

~~~
SyneRyder
Similar here, I used to do Perth to Copenhagen via Singapore. I actually
stopped flying Qantas & switched to Singapore Airlines when they stopped
flying via Singapore.

------
sandworm101
One must ask whether there are health concerns when hundreds of people sit in
economy for 20+ hours. Is saving four or five hours really worth the risk of
catching something?

~~~
sgc
I would be more worried about blood clots and other physical complications
from the terrible seats.

~~~
6nf
The new Qantas fitouts are pretty comfy on the long distance routes.

~~~
podgib
Not in economy. They're putting 9 across in the 787, which was designed for 8
across. Same as most airlines, but wouldn't call it comfy.

------
scotty79
I did Sydney to London and it was around 20 hours in flight. I don't think
anyone should wish for that trip without a stop in economy class.

~~~
richev
I moved from London to Sydney last year, and have flown the route via Dubai
(on Emirates) three times now. Takes about 24 hours if you have a short
layover in Dubai.

I'd gladly pay extra for a direct flight, because...

\- 4 hours quicker

\- An aircraft issue at Dubai can add a day to your journey (as happened to a
friend who visited at Christmas)

\- Changing at Dubai always seems to involve twenty minutes of walking, ten
minutes on a train to go between terminals and then ages on a bus to get from
the gate to the actual aircraft. Total PITA.

~~~
alkonaut
Stopping for refueling is Ok-ish, such as Quantas QF1 LHR-SYD which stopped in
Bangkok last time I took it (heard that changed to Dubai?). Just walked into a
gate and waited a little while the plane filled up fuel and beer. Then back to
the same seat. Adding 3-4h is obviously not ideal but I wouldn't pay a large
premium to fly direct compared to that. If I did it on a regular basis and was
in business class it would be another matter, but can they really find enough
such passengers?

------
Grustaf
"The World’s Longest Flight Is Coming"

I would have thought it has always been here.

------
marcosscriven
By a perhaps unusual confluence of events, I live in London and work remotely
for a Sydney- based company. I'd love a direct flight for my quarterly visits.

~~~
quickthrower2
Good pun if you work for Atlassian

------
XorNot
Kind of wish we'd get news that we could make the trip fundamentally faster
instead.

------
homakov
Always wondered why would anyone fly such a long distance without a relax day
or two in stopover city. 10 hr flight than another 10. Even for few million
salary i wouldnt want to be made to fly like this.

~~~
ghaff
Because you're going somewhere and want to get there. Nothing _wrong_ with a
stopover day but there's a fair bit of overhead associated with clearing
immigration/customs and heading into a stopover city for a day. If it's
somewhere I really want to go, sure. But it's certainly not worth it just to
break a flight up.

~~~
homakov
That's what makes me wonder. I feel so bad after 10hr flight that I'd rather
spend a day in a city like Doha (unfortunately most stopover cities are also
most boring middle-eastern cities). I mean I'm jealous - it's the reason I
avoid long distance flights at all cost. Maybe business class is more bearable
or there are special tricks like sleeping pills, dunno.

~~~
ghaff
Certainly it's better in business though I don't fly that routinely.

If I have the time and the opportunity presents itself to visit a city I want
to spend time in, I'm more than happy to. But turning a 20-hour flight into a
two+ day journey with additional airport transfers, etc. isn't an improvement
in my book. I can usually sleep a bit even in coach. And I just read and watch
movies the rest of the time. I don't like it but I don't see the advantage of
stretching it out.

~~~
homakov
Ok I see your point, good for you. I never can sleep neither in coach or
business - when I fly I'm super anxious though I dont have aerofobia anymore.

------
moomin
About time. I will happily pay money to avoid Dubai.

------
marzipan
For those in SF, in the past I tried finding the longest possible flight from
SFO using an "opposite side of the world" website. It landed in the ocean, in
the vicinity of Madagascar.

------
AndrewKemendo
Or just buy two DC-10s and refuel in flight. We do it literally everyday in
the Air Force.

~~~
mikestew
Every day, and at great expense and increased risk. The motivations of the U.
S. Air Force differ just a tad from commercial airlines.

~~~
StavrosK
Yep. One strikes fear into the hearts of innocent civilians, the other is
military.

------
Swenrekcah
>> But right now, all the money in the world won’t get you from Sydney to the
Big Apple or U.K. without a pit stop, because commercial planes just don’t
have that kind of range.

This makes it sound like this long a flight is a physical impossibility today.
However three minutes of searching leads me to believe a few commercial
aircraft have indeed made a similar or longer trip. Not to mention any
military aircraft that might do this as well, I'm sure there exists an amount
of money that would get you on such an aircraft today :)

~~~
lathiat
Not currently possible economically partially because of the weight
restrictions you end up with and in some cases due to taking slightly longer
routes to stay in range of other airports for an emergency (ETOPS). But it's
changing fast, because PER-LHR which is about to start seemed crazy not that
long ago.

