
The World's First 20-Hour Airline Flight - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-14/human-guinea-pigs-prepare-for-20-hour-marathon-flights
======
cyberferret
I did the 17 hour Sydney to Houston (and 17 hours back again) flight on a
United 787 last year. I normally hate long haul flights, being 6 foot and all,
as well as routinely suffering from bad neck and back problems from long
periods of sitting. But I actually managed to enjoy both flights.

On the trip over, I scored a seat near the galley exit. Meaning no seats in
front of me where the overwing exit door was. I could stretch my legs right
out, and every hour or so, I could just unbuckle my seatbelt and stand up and
do a series of stretches and sit back down again without bothering any other
passengers or crew.

On the way back, the plane was nearly empty, so United allocated a full row of
3 seats to everyone in economy. Being able to lie flat was a massive bonus and
I slept most of the 17 hours lying down and didn't feel it.

The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre
fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the
normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I
believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems.

The aircraft also cruises higher than most other earlier era jets, so we were
usually well above most weather patterns for a very smooth ride. The new cabin
lighting also helped to set the mood for sleep and awake cycles while on
board. Kudos to Boeing engineers for the design work that went into this.

~~~
ksec
Which basically sums up as, it is not the long hours flying that is the
problem, it is the long hour being stuck in uncomfortable, small, non moving
position economy seats that is causing problem.

On one hand we need to cramp as many people as possible to make it cost
effective, on the hand passengers are basically torturing themselves.
Especially if you are 6 foot plus tall.

~~~
cmroanirgo
I'm surprised that this ever became a thing. I've done lots of Sydney to X
long haul flights. When the A380 first came out I mentioned the fact of Sydney
to London non stop to a stewardess, and she said that it'll probably not
happen because of staffing issues: That is, a long haul involves a stop,
generally 9 to 12hrs in. At that point the whole crew changes over. However,
you can't keep the same crew on call for 20hrs without paying them, even if
not actually on duty. That is, the staff requirement doubles for the long haul
flights. It must've been worked out tho, to allow this one.

~~~
robjan
Even on a 12 hour flight the staff are required to rest in the crew rest area.
I guess they will either rotate resting staff back on or block out some of
business class for crew rest. The real issue is that the staff will have to
rest downroute for a long time and be grounded more due to cosmic radiation
limits.

~~~
tallanvor
Airplanes for such long distance flights already have crew rest areas. Here's
an article that talks about the ones for the 787:

[https://www.executivetraveller.com/here-s-where-qantas-
pilot...](https://www.executivetraveller.com/here-s-where-qantas-pilots-sleep-
on-the-boeing-787-dreamliner)

~~~
robjan
All long haul jets have crew rest areas but, having stayed in then myself, I'm
not sure if they have sufficient space for multiple crews e.g you would
probably need three sets of people on the flight deck unless they rotate the
first set back in.

~~~
cyberferret
Most long haul flights have 2 complete 2-person flight crews. Generally
comprised of Captain, first officer, and 2 second officers. Rotation is such,
that at any one time, either the Captain or the First officer is on the flight
deck with one of the two second officers.

Critical parts of the flight (such as take off and landing) will have the two
most senior pilots in command, but less demanding parts in cruise, one of the
second officers will be backing up one of the senior crew while the other 2
crew members have mandated rest.

Because these are 'hot bunks', you only need 2 available for the flight crew
at any time. I assume the cabin crew have a similar rotation system.

------
jungletime
My cousin (mid 40s) developed blood clots in his legs from a long flight to
Europe. The clots passed through his heart, and lodged in his lungs. He's
alive, but struggles for every breath he takes. Yeah, we need an honest study,
and subsequent class lawsuit.

These cramped seats/long flights probably kill quite a few people.

~~~
yodon
To whomever downvoted this, DVT is absolutely a real thing and absolutely life
threatening. Your heart doesn't have the pumping capacity to pump blood out of
your lower legs so your body is designed to use calf muscle expansion and
contraction to move the blood. If you sit idle for many hours the blood pools
in your lower legs and your chance of a quite literally life threatening blood
clot skyrockets. If you develop such a clot and get on anti clotting meds in
time you'll probably be on them for the rest of your life. Voice of experience
here. Getting up and walking around on a long flight is a really good idea.
Can also happen to those who camp out in a chair without moving for 8 hour
gaming or coding sessions.

~~~
Angostura
Getting up and walking around is a good idea. I also take an aspirin before
flying long haul.

~~~
Frye
I grew up flying from San Diego to Singapore and learned by watching others to
get up, walk around, and stretch. I recently took Southwest's 6 hour flight to
Maui and the flight attendants made an announcement discouraging "aisle
aerobics". I guess on their tiny single aisle 737s it causes too much
congestion.

------
ping_pong
I fly between Singapore and SF a couple of times a year on United and
Singapore Airlines' direct flight. Granted, I take business class every time,
but I actually enjoy it, despite my hatred of flying and its long duration.
It's calming to know that you can't go anywhere and communications is
relatively tough (even though you can get Internet connectivity), so doing
things like reading a book or binge watching movies doesn't feel so wasteful,
it's relaxing.

~~~
ci5er
I used to have to fly to SG, through SF or LA, about every two-three weeks
back in the late-90s/early-2000s; you don't have to transfer at Narita or
Taipei any more?

~~~
acrooks
From the west coast, there are non-stop flights to SG from LAX, SFO and SEA.

There are rumours that either Air Canada or SQ will create a direct flight to
Vancouver as well, which I will welcome with open arms :) I live in Vancouver
and need to go to Singapore once a month, so I still need to connect - usually
through Hong Kong or Taipei and sometimes through Seoul and Narita.

------
te_chris
I'm from New Zealand and live in London. Generally visit home once every 1-2
years. It's basically 24hrs of travelling, as they're near enough each other's
antipodes - not quite, France is more like NZ's in Europe, the UK is a lot
closer to the pole than we are, but I digress...

It sucks. It's so god-damn awful. A lot of people in this thread are talking
about direct flights they've taken and how they're not so bad, but trust me,
when you change in SIN, or KUL, or HKG, or LAX, or whatever, and you still
have to get on another 12 hr flight to AKL, it's horrible. And then there's
the carbon... Nothing I can really do about it though, and you get "used" to
it of a sort, but trust me, 27 hrs of continuous travelling and a 12hr body
clock adjustment are the worst.

I suppose I should caveat that I can't afford the pointy end of the plane -
return business class fare is min £4500

~~~
kmlx
i do london - sydney every year for vacation. i usually stop 2-3 days on my
way there or when coming back. SIN or HKG usually. both beautiful places.

when i can't stop i buy lounge access and make sure it's fitted with showers.
usually in SIN as it's one of the best airports in the world.

and i always take sleeping pills/xanax with me just in case.

if you follow my advice you can make it a bit more bearable even with economy.

~~~
te_chris
Oh totally, you can take the edge off a bit, but fundamentally it's
unpleasant. I try and shower if I have time in the change. I also fast for 12
hours before breakfast time at the destination. In my experience this cuts
down the amount of days it takes to feel 'normal again'.

~~~
cmroanirgo
Yep, a shower 1/2 way is amazingly refreshing.

------
foxrob92
I have to fly from Australia to the US and back around once per year (in
cattle class). Usually around the 10h mark between MEL/SYD and SFO I just want
to get off the damn plane. 20h sounds like torture, though maybe less so in
Business class.

------
neonate
[https://outline.com/sC4FCZ](https://outline.com/sC4FCZ)

------
Mountain_Skies
Addis Ababa to DC was a 17½ flight when I took it. Since it lands in Rome or
Dublin to refuel, it doesn't count as a non-stop flight but on the fuel stops
they don't pull up to the terminal. You're stuck in the plane so it's only
slightly better than being in the air. It did cure me of my previous hatred of
coast to coast flights in the US. They seem so short now. Used to be I'd
always arrange a stop half way.

~~~
echelon
I really wish we had better rail infrastructure in the US.

Being able to walk around and check out different cars is amazing. Dining and
sleeper cars are fantastic.

~~~
VLM
Not entirely clear how you'd use rail infrastructure to go from Addis Ababa to
DC, so if you need the aviation infrastructure for intercontinental travel,
its cheaper to use the same infrastructure for both. Kinda like the classic
problem of "why don't rockets use atmospheric oxygen for the first 5% of their
flight" well, its just not worth it.

Another BIG problem is urban people think rails go everywhere and connect
everything. An interesting geographic feature to google for is "darien gap" in
Panama. Most people refuse to believe there is no road connection between
north and south America... We don't even have paved roads crossing Panama in
2019... We're simply not going to have high speed rail between the USA and
Cape Horn in our lifetimes due to engineering challenges.

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

One of those interesting engineer's daydreams is building a rail connection
across north and south america. Imagine a really cool bridge across the panama
canal.

The problem is there's no market. High speed (human) cargo gets put on the
planes because the countries need aviation infrastructure for intercontinental
trade anyway. Low speed (metal ore or bulk grain) cargo takes boats which use
about half the energy and cost of rail with essentially zero environmental or
property tax impact (well, zero compared to rail or road, anyway). So what has
to move faster than people but slower than coal... well... nothing, I guess.
So no market means no infrastructure.

~~~
UserIsUnused
Parent was talking about US, not intercontinental

------
pauljurczak
They will fly with only 50 people on board. In order to make this test more
realistic, they should put inflatable dummies in every unoccupied seat and
assign most of reporters to economy class.

------
heyflyguy
To consider that an airliner can carry passengers, baggage, and 20 hours plus
reserve fuel on board - it's damned impressive.

~~~
jedberg
They point out in the article that one of the sticking points is that modern
aircraft actually can't do that. This test flight will only have a few
passengers and a few bags.

They're mostly testing the physiological effects of long flights to determine
if it is even worth developing/buying the planes that would be capable of a
full load flight at 20 hours.

~~~
ajmurmann
The jet lag angle in the article was really odd to me. Impacts on the crew,
blood clots mentioned in the comments here all make sense. Jet lag though
shouldn't be any different on a 20 hour flight than it is going the same
distance with a 3 hour layover.

~~~
jedberg
It's still pretty different. With the quick stop, you're still descending,
experience the sea level pressure, having to wake up, walk around, change
planes, experience sunlight, etc. It starts readjusting your circadian rhythm.

------
gerbilly
On long flights, I wish they would give me a job to do while on the plane,
helping the stewards pick up trash, cleaning the toilets ... anything, just so
I could move like a normal human being is supposed to.

There should be a program where they can train people you as a cabin steward
'aide' or something.

(I know I know it would be impossible because of: regulations, safety,
security, reasons ...)

~~~
giarc
Ever flown with a child? Grab a kid and walk up and down the aisle with them.
Don't have a kid, just walk up and down the aisle anyways. People might look
at you funny, but who cares.

~~~
geff82
We recently had made a transatlantic flight with our two very small
children.... it was actually relaxing when, at some random point, they just
fell asleep and we could sit for a while instead of moving all the time, also
walking throught the plane just as you described.

------
fortran77
I do the 15 hour flight between SFO -> TLV (United) and back about every 8
weeks. It's really not bad. I always go on a little sleep deprived and I just
sleep about 9 hours of it.

~~~
WildGreenLeave
The first time I flew long haul (Amsterdam - Bangkok) I was so excited about
the trip that I wanted to go there well rested. So of course I went to bed
early and got up after about 10 hours of sleep. Biggest mistake in all of my
flying, sat in my chair for 12 hours being bored out of my mind.

------
not_a_moth
I have to take long haul flights about once a quarter.

Yes, they can be enjoyable, especially if you can swing upgrades, but keep in
mind a 16 hour flight with the 787 at a higher altitude than normal and
usually at somewhat higher latitudes (still sub arctic), is the equivalent of
something like at least a dozen chest x-rays. It's goes up exponentially if
you do fly over the arctic to save fuel costs.

If you didn't know, flight attendants are classified as radiation workers.

I have trouble getting too excited about them even if in business class.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
You could take a dozen of flights daily for the rest of your life with little
to no implications to your health (with respect to radiation dosing) [0]. The
occupational limit for nuclear workers is 50 mSv. A single flight is 0.001
hourly. You spend 100% of a calendar year on plans, and only get 8.76 mSv
exposure.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(radiation...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_\(radiation\))

~~~
not_a_moth
It seems like you're claiming 1,000 chest x-rays/ year is fine.

An x-ray still damages your dna, guaranteed, and your cells then have to
repair it. The older you are, the harder that is to do, and the more times
your cells have to repair dna, the more you age [David Sinclair's theory of
aging anyways]

I don't think you will find a health practitioner who would think that's safe
for 1 year, let alone decades of doing it.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
If you look at the chart, you are ordinarily exposed to "natural background
radiation", which is 0.01 mSv.

1,000 chest X-rays per year would be 60 mSv -- which is over the 50 limit for
nuclear employees. A chest x-ray isn't really comparable to an hour spent on a
commercial flight: it's sixty times as much radiation.

~~~
not_a_moth
LA - NY is multiple chest x-rays (see the chart from the poster below you,
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/medi...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/media/File%3AExposure_chart-
XKCD.svg)). There is no such thing as a standard hour either - altitude and
latitude are the biggest factors - long haul flights have it worst.

Let's drop the nuclear worker max as if it should bear on normal folks: Well
known doctors like Peter Attia, Rhonda Patricks, and others I've heard on
podcasts recommend max 5 mSv per year as limit that risks health and
accelerating aging.

Another ref, look at the FAA's data where they measure exposure on different
flights:
[https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oam...](https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201413.pdf)

e.g. NYC to Tokyo averages 22 microSV per hour. A chest x-ray is 20 miscroSV.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
If you want to go with the 5 mSv limit, and a chest x-ray is 20 μSv, that's
still 833 chest x-rays per year before hitting your annual quota.

~~~
not_a_moth
Sorry your math adds up to 250 not 833 x-rays.

Importantly - each year simple, normal living exposes you to 3.5 mSv (see the
same chart), so you only get 1.5 mSv to "allocate" to other exposures.

In other words you only get 75 chest x-rays per year.

By FAA rates of exposure on trans-pacific flights, you should take max 5-6 of
those legs per year.

------
telesilla
I've done the 17h flight across hemisphere several times, how is that going to
be significantly different from 20h? What are they expecting to learn that the
last few years of these long haul flights hasn't taught us? I imagine it's
more about the plane than the passengers.

~~~
runj__
The "Guinea Pig" angle is a marketing stunt. A pretty good one though.

------
kevindong
On short flights (<=3 hours), I'll generally take the window seat since
there's built in entertainment (I'm perfectly content to just look out the
window instead of watching TV on shorter flights). But on flights longer than
3 hours, I've started taking aisle seats and getting up and just walking
around for a minute every 30 minutes. That does wonders for me.

------
dvcrn
Cramped seats aside, the thing that made long flights a lot more tolerable for
me is getting (muscle)relaxing medicine (something like Xanax) prescribed by
my doctor. It calms me down and if I take a bit more I can sleep wonderfully
and eradicate jet lag.

Obviously, 20h is a bit extreme but it helps me forcing myself into the sleep
rhythm that I should be in.

------
cozzyd
I once took a flight from Dallas to Sydney that had to stop in Brisbane for
more fuel (due to winds or something it didn't have enough fuel to get to
Sydney). That was probably about 20 hours in total.

------
madengr
So what’s the actual flight path? I can’t find a graphic.

~~~
cranekam
Great circle mapper to the rescue: [http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JFK-
SYD](http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JFK-SYD)

~~~
madengr
Thanks! I was wondering if East or West woudl be faster. Looks like you save
40 degrees by going west from NY.

------
isostatic
Don’t fly in economy then. Take fewer flights and avoid cramped seats by
flying further forward.

~~~
raverbashing
Not everyone can afford to not fly in Economy

But do keep yourself hydrated and go for a walk around the plane once in a
while, it helps.

~~~
isostatic
Everyone can afford not to fly at all

~~~
jchw
You do realize it's part of some of our jobs, correct?

~~~
GordonS
Yep, every UK company I've worked at for 20 years has had a strict "economy
only" policy, unless you're at something like VP level.

There have been times when I've had to take 3 economy flights in a row to get
to a destination, travelling over 24h straight.

Travelling long-haul in economy if you're anything near 6 feet tall is
absolutely fucking _miserable_. But not everyone has the luxury of easily
getting another job, so what can you do?

The only upside is that after doing it long enough you gain status (but it
takes a looong time flying economy), then you tend to get free upgrades a lot
more often, and you can use your airlines to get a free upgrade on the rare
occasions where the moon and stars align and the airline says there is
availability.

~~~
flyinglizard
I have a rule - I don’t fly long haul economy for an employer, ever. Premium
Economy is the minimum tolerable, and if it’s more than once a quarter, I only
fly business. No exceptions.

~~~
GordonS
I also agree that Premium Economy is the "minimum tolerable" \- it's still not
exactly pleasant for long haul, but at least you have enough space to be
_relatively_ comfortable. Sleeping is still pretty difficult though.

I have the same Premium Economy rule nowadays, but I now have the luxury of
being able to do that; earlier in my career, I didn't.

