
I Just Took the World's First 20-Hour Flight - valiant-comma
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-10-19/i-just-took-the-world-s-first-20-hour-flight-here-s-what-it-did-to-me
======
escape_goat
Title should be annotated "[in business class]." He had a fully reclining bed.
I am not sure that it is even legal to refer to the length of your flight
unless you flew in regular seating.

~~~
kaffeemitsahne
> _I am not sure that it is even legal to refer to the length of your flight
> unless you flew in regular seating._

How would that work? What the hell?

~~~
wincy
I think it’s a joke.

------
semerda
This article sounds like it’s an ad; ie journalists onboard to cover the new
route with an experimental twist. If they really want to test the effects on a
human body then do it in cattle class (economy) not biz class with creature
comforts.

~~~
martinald
Agreed. Singapore Airlines already flies nearly this distance commercially
(JFK-SIN). I'm not really sure what difference 30 minutes is going to make to
require all these experiments. Qantas themselves fly Perth London direct which
is only 90 minutes shorter.

But good PR from Qantas I must say, it's got massive writeups everywhere.

~~~
booblik
I believe it is EWR-SIN

------
lisper
This article puts a heavy emphasis on overcoming the jet lag from NY to
Sydney, but you get the exact same time difference flying from anywhere in
Europe to the west coast of the U.S. and people do that regularly. In fact, I
just did it last week. It's no big deal, at least not in terms of time zone
adjustment. Personally, I find it much harder to go the other way, from CA to
Europe. My body parses that as a 15 hour difference and it typically takes me
a full week before I'm not waking up in the middle of the night any more.

Also, being on the plane for 20 hours is not so different from the 18 hours it
takes to fly from SF to Singapore, which also happens every day. This all
seems much ado about nothing.

------
calvinmorrison
NY->Melbourne would be fantastic. Right now the flight there is a 24+ hour
trip with at least one layover in HK or LA/SF.

What I noticed is after about 3 or 4 hours (for me), I decompress and start
feeling like a child on a road trip again. Time is kinda of just going by, you
distract yourself. They serve food at good intervals and you eventually get of
the plane.

To say the California->Australia part is actually not as annoying as the
domestic short haul flights from NY->LA which is like being jam packed like a
sardine with few amenities. International, even in the cheap section, was
comfy enough and I even had leg room!

~~~
goatforce5
For anyone doing US <-> Australia flights, and assuming you have a few extra
days up your sleeve, look in to doing a stop over in Honolulu.

On four separate occasions i've stopped in HNL for 2 or 3 nights for little
(less than $150) to no additional cost to the airfare (you have to sort out
your own hotel and food, obviously), and what there's no better place to spend
a few days killing time and smoothing out the jet lag.

~~~
simonblack
Australia to Europe is roughly 21 hours total flight time. Even using Business
Class, the long-leg Melbourne-Dubai is about 14 hours and not pleasant.

We took to breaking the whole trip into three 7-hour parts, Melbourne-
Singapore with 2-3 nights stopover, then Singapore-Dubai with another 2-3
nights stopover, and then the final 7-hour leg Dubai-Paris.

This gave sufficient recovery-time between flights for us poor old 70-year-
olds and had the benefit of breaking the 9-hour time-zone difference into
three smaller jumps that reduced jet-lag quite markedly.

~~~
manicdee
Seconded!

Breaking the Dubai leg with a Singapore stopover is awesome. Singaporean food
markets are an experience not to be missed. Now I am addicted to rose cordial!

------
peterwwillis
I've traveled 24-36 hours one-way, probably two dozen times. Staying awake for
long periods to "adjust" is the opposite of what helps me: _constant naps_.
Sleep for 30 minutes, sleep for 3 hours, whatever - as much as I can get,
every leg. When I arrive, I stay awake until the local time is approximately
"late", and then sleep (avoiding alcohol and caffeine, using earplugs and eye
mask, to maximize sleep potential). So far I have only been jetlagged once.

~~~
graeme
Do you wake up early or late, local time?

~~~
peterwwillis
Normal time? I pick the cheapest flights, so it's kind of random. If the
flight is in the A.M. but it's 15 hours & no connections, I find that much
harder to adjust to than a 25+ hour trip.

------
trollied
If I ever took this flight I’d probably be stuck next to a screaming child,
with a seat kicker behind me and a full flight duration seat recliner in front
of me :D

~~~
listenallyall
I've flown 15+ hour flights, and yes, I recline my seat. So does most
everybody else. To expect someone to sit straight up for that duration, makes
you the inconsiderate party.

~~~
msh
So it’s okay to mash other people’s knees?

~~~
listenallyall
Not my problem. Buy a premium ticket.

On a domestic flight within the US, I'll try to accommodate you. Once the
flight length exceeds 6, 7 hours, yeah, that seat is going back.

------
madengr
20 hour commercial flight. Fly a B2 bomber, from Missouri to the Middle East,
and back, non-stop. I think it’s 44 hours, cramped in that little cockpit.

[https://www.uso.org/stories/253-inside-the-longest-
bombing-r...](https://www.uso.org/stories/253-inside-the-longest-bombing-run-
ever)

------
johnchristopher
> airline used this test trip to explore ways to reduce its inevitable
> downside: Soul-crushing, body-buckling jet lag.

Our soul can't travel as fast as a plane, that's why we feel weird while
waiting for it to catch up with us.

edit: eh, finally saw the day a reference to Gibson is down voted on HN ^^

------
jaynetics
This sounds quite unpleasant and hard to keep up in economy class. Sydney time
is NYC time minus 9h. Why don't they just start at 10am or so and have
passengers stay up and go to bed soon after arrival (9pm local time)?

~~~
jedberg
You have to push the body to stay awake at some point. If you do what you
said, they'd have to arrive at the airport around 7am, which means they
probably woke up at 5am in NYC if they're lucky. So you'd be asking them to
stay awake about 6 hours longer than they normally would which is... exactly
the same as leaving late and asking them to stay up.

~~~
jaynetics
> they probably woke up at 5am in NYC if they're lucky

Whoops! In Berlin I'd get up at 7:30 to catch a flight at 10. Let's say noon
then.

> exactly the same as leaving late and asking them to stay up

Except that they wouldn't have to sleep in conditions that are adverse to
sleeping.

~~~
jedberg
> In Berlin I'd get up at 7:30 to catch a flight at 10

That's cool, but in the US, you generally have to arrive three hours ahead of
your international flight. You can push it to two, but if you arrive less than
90 minutes ahead, you can't check luggage.

And in NYC you still need to _get_ to the airport.

And then once you arrive in Sydney, it's not like you get to just hit the
pillow. You have to go through customs and immigration, and then get to your
hotel. It'll be at least four more hours before you even see a bed.

So your proposal demands that the person stay awake for 19 hours of flight,
plus five hours before that, plus four after, for a total of 28 hours. _And_
be the most functional at the last four hours as they navigate customs and
immigration and finding a hotel in a foreign city.

Sleeping on a plane sucks but I'd rather do that than attempt to navigate a
foreign city with no sleep.

------
nsstring96
I'm surprised they used only a twin-engined aircraft for such a long flight.

~~~
aphextron
All long haul commercial aircraft are twin engine now. The 747 is a relic and
used almost exclusively for cargo now, and the A380 has ceased production. The
game changer was new ultra high bypass engines like the GE90 that made the
fuel savings of a twin engine configuration attainable by having sufficient
thrust to replace four. Also with increased reliability, ETOPs regulations
have allowed for twin engine jets to operate across practically any stretch of
water. And with the decentralization of routes, the need for huge 400
passenger planes has gone as well. The future will be entirely twin jet.

~~~
kensai
The future will hopefully be electric. The amount of engines might rise again.

~~~
spaceandshit
If commercial aircraft go electric (which as the other commenter pointed out,
won’t be happening for a while), the number of engines would be 0. Electric
motors are not the same as gas turbine engines.

~~~
derekp7
I think you mean there would be no internal combustion engine. According to
Oxford, an engine is "a machine with moving parts that converts power into
motion". So an electric motor is still an engine.

~~~
spaceandshit
Ah, I guess you're right. In the aerospace world, engines typically mean one
type of device. I stand corrected :)

------
tpmx
For reference: [http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=syd-
jfk](http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=syd-jfk)

------
masonic
You'd think their meal order tracking system would be more advanced than a
sheet of paper hung with masking tape.

------
Animats
Oh, like this is a big deal. There are many inter-city bus trips that long.

