Airbus keeps an A350 flying for 24 hours

Airbus yesterday flew the latest variant of its A350 widebody jet from Australia to France, non-stop, on a route that saw it remain aloft for over 24 hours. The variant is called the A350-1000ULR, which stands for Ultra-Long Range. The plane earns its name thanks to its use of an additional rear center fuel tank that can carry …

[johnB]

Noise cancelling headphones

In my opinion, the best way to do long haul is with a decent pair of over-ear noise cancelling headphones.

[Like a badger]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Long haul is often worth the misery for the delights at the end of the journey, but I don't think there is a "best way". Every aspect of air travel seems to be purposely designed to be as inconvenient and passenger unfriendly as possible - and the ground side especially so, but even the best aircraft (A380) are still no fun at all. My perfect long haul flight would be to be sedated, boxed, and loaded as cargo. It'd be a bit Dracula-esque climbing out of the box in the Kingsford Smith recovery lounge, but I could cope.

Either that, or Singapore Airlines share the magic dust that enables their cabin crew to be as perfectly turned out and charming at the end of a long flight as when it took off, whereas the passengers go from vaguely presentable to "cast of the Living Dead" in the same flight.

[dansbar]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

I can answer the Singapore Airlines fresh cabin crew question. The A380 carries 1.5 cabin crews. There’s a spacious (by aircraft standards) crew bedroom downstairs in the hold. The crew rotates through it during the flight.

[Anonymous Coward]

Crew bedrooms

Most long-haul aircraft have a (cramped) sleeping compartment for the crew. It's not just an A380 or Singapore Airlines thing.

[david 12]

Re: Crew bedrooms

Most long-haul aircraft have a (cramped) sleeping compartment for the crew.

Pilots have the front crew compartment, which seems to be slightly less cramped (allows them to stand up straight, sit down, and lie down)

[gryphon]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Fifth Element FTW

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Fifth Element FTW

Please return your stewardesses to the upright position, and prepare for landing...

[Anonymous Cowpilot]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

I am not sure you really understand the complexity, cost and risk in long haul flying. It's optimised for safety not comfort.

The Singapore Airlines magic dust is thst they fire any cabin crew that so much as frown in front of a passenger for a few seconds. They have a reputation as a brutal employer for both cabin crew and flight crew.

[IamAProton]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

"My perfect long haul flight would be to be sedated, boxed, and loaded as cargo"

I'd love to have that option too

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

"My perfect long haul flight would be to be sedated, boxed, and loaded as cargo"

I wouldn't be surprised if that's an idea that has crossed the mind of, or been contemplated by Micheal O'Leary of Ryanair for whenever they introduce long haul flights.

Probably the lost opportunity to sell food and water will prevent that idea getting traction

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: FedEx PeoplePak

Many years ago, as an April fools, FedEx announced a next-day express service for people.

A 6ft long padded envelope that you popped your sedated executive in and they were dropped off before 9;00 next day anywhere in the world.

They were overwhelmed with people calling them about the service.

[C R Mudgeon]

Re: FedEx PeoplePak

As my mom used to say, "there's a song about everything" -- in this case, The Velvet Underground's The Gift.

[Philo T Farnsworth]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Not to mention breathing air.

In first class you get oxygen as well as nitrogen.

Myself, I've not been on an airplane since 2008 and I'm a happier person for it.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

"Myself, I've not been on an airplane since 2008 and I'm a happier person for it."

I've been looking into cargo ship travel. There is no Casino or nightly entertainment and he food isn't fancy, but meals are usually quite good and there's lots of time to read or do work or nap. Much of the ship is open to wander around and some even have a small pool, a gym, and an entertainment room. Alcohol is nearly always prohibited as well as smoking. There's a wee issue with mid-voyage rerouting so you must be flexible.

I have a share in a property in Wales that I'll be selling to the partners in a few years and it would be nice to do that in person and have a wee holiday at the same time.

[david 12]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

I've not been on an airplane since 2008

Since then, cabin pressure (and oxygen level) has improved in new models. Passengers now fly at 5000-6000 feet equivelant instead of 7500.

[Anonymous Coward]

sedated, boxed, and loaded as cargo

That gobshite would have considered this, if only for the free publicity it generated.

But it has no chance of ever becoming part of the Ryanair experience. First, they'll never do long haul. The cornerstone of their business model is short-haul flights between otherwise empty "airports" => next to no congestion delays and 20-30 minute turnarounds for their buses with wings. Next, treating their mug customers as cargo would add costs, pile on extra overheads and increase load/unload time. The company's unsedated self-loading freight can get on/off quicker by themselves than if baggage handlers were involved. And O'Leary does just about everything possible to avoid the overheads of baggage handling. Which is one of the reasons why Ryanair charges £100+ or whatever to check in a bag.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: sedated, boxed, and loaded as cargo

>Next, treating their mug customers as cargo would add costs

Among the blue-suits civilian passengers are known as "self-loading freight"

[anothercynic]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

As someone else pointed out, frequent crew rotation and getting decent sleep in decent crew facilities makes a huge difference in crew morale and crew performance.

Most passengers ignore one of the basic tenets of flying - hydration. Drink lots of liquids (preferably water, *not* alcohol) during the flight because the cabin air is dry and 12-18 hours in a very dry environment will dehydrate you like nothing else. That's why newer planes (B787 and A380/A350) have lower cabin 'altitude' (higher cabin pressure) and higher humidity to keep you fresher. Getting on board with 2 litres of water in your hand luggage is a good idea - If you get off your flight with no spare water, you should definitely feel less like death warmed up. :-)

[LogicGate]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

"Getting on board with 2 litres of water in your hand luggage is a good idea"

However, since 9.11 and TSA, purchasing 2 liters of water at the airport after having gone through the security check costs approximately as much as upgrading to first class.

For some strange reason, airports have not made it a priority to update screening hardware to differentiate between consumable liquids and two component liquid explosives.

[Jedit]

"airports have not made it a priority to update screening hardware"

AOL to that. It really annoys me that you can't actually drink some of the contents in front of them to demonstrate that it's safe.

Still, not as bad as Paris CDG was 20 years ago. They had a soft drink vending machine in direct line of sight of the security gate and you still couldn't get through with a bottle from it, even though they'd watched you purchase it and they'd personally given it to you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "airports have not made it a priority to update screening hardware"

Do you really think a suicide bomber would be concerned of the negative effects of drinking some of their liquid explosive?

[FIA]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

For some strange reason, airports have not made it a priority to update screening hardware to differentiate between consumable liquids and two component liquid explosives

It's daft that they even care.

I remember reading a few years ago, might've been on these very pages, the steps required to mix a two component liquid explosive.

It was something like add 1 to the other, drop by drop, in a well ventilated fume cupboard until mixed. If you got it wrong or added too much it would flash off, not explode. Not something you'd be doing mid flight in the bog....

Actually did some googling... story was from here...

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Its almost as if the whole thing is security theatre that the airports go along with because it makes you spend 3hours at their shopping centers.

Fortunately they discovered that Toblerone prevents terrorists and it's now mandatory for every passenger to carry one with security.

[Anonymous Coward]

daft that even care

As a person with extensive training in sensitive chemical reactions (nothing boom-prone though) I can guarantee that it is impossible to fabricate a bomb from a 2-component recipe aboard an airplane. Unless you count Vodka and sugar as a 2-component incendiary bomb, two components that are, incidentally, available from duty-free shops in almost unlimited quantities. I'll post this as Anon for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: daft that even care

As someone experienced in the big bang stuff and as I've said before. If they really thought your water bottle was an unstable homemade explosive, they way they treat it after confiscation isn't exactly mil-spec

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: daft that even care

Maybe we ought to ask El Reg to dob your downvoter in to the plod as someone who seems to have some personal experience that disagrees with your assessment

[MachDiamond]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

"For some strange reason, airports have not made it a priority to update screening hardware to differentiate between consumable liquids and two component liquid explosives."

I imagine they have, but why would they cut their own throat given what they charge for plain old water on the "secure" side?

Bring a few liter bottles and fill them up rather than buying bottled. Any fast food place with a self-serve drinks dispenser will usually have a water option.

[anothercynic]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

And many airports offer you water points where you can fill up your 2 litre mega bottle (or your 4 tiny 500ml ones) for this exact reason.

And most airports in Europe have this thing called "a water tap" in the bathrooms, and you can also go to places selling food and ask them to fill up your water bottle with tap water. It is *NOT* as terrible as you make it out to be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Yes, but you are talking about Europe, a civilised continent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Empty bottle, use the numerous water fountains airside to fill. Job done.

It’s really that easy.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Free water fountains ?

Possibly in some sort of communist utopia - here you could subscribe to the water fountains after downloading their app

[Disgusted of Cheltenham]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

When I asked where the free water was in Bristol Airport I was assured that there was none for passengers as water is only required to be provided for employees. It may have changed since I stopped using it.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

"My perfect long haul flight would be to be sedated, boxed, and loaded as cargo."

"Sleep field on"

(5th Element)

[LogicGate]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

My thoughts exactly!

While the movie creators may have tried to illustrate a kind of dystopian travel experience (seeing that everything else is shown as maximally inshittificated, modern day airlines have managed to make the 5th element air transportation seem very idyllic.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

"modern day airlines have managed to make the 5th element air transportation seem very idyllic."

It would be. There's nothing to see, the seats are extremely uncomfortable and if you don't have to put up with the other passengers, bonus.

I use the trains now as there are things to see, they feed you (depending on class of service), the seats are much more comfortable. Avoiding the groping and wanton tossing of my luggage is nice too. Not that I would mind the groping so much if the person doing it wasn't twice my mass, surly and the same sex.

[Petalium]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Yes, it’s the only thing that makes long flights bearable, unfortunately I have a tendency to forget them on the plane, on my forth set now…

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

That's part of their life cycle. They have to travel half way around the world to return to their spawning grounds

[that one in the corner]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

> my forth set now

Forth, very good if you can get your head around the stack. A neat choice for the software inside your headphones.

[seven of five]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Actually, there is a very easy solution to this - fly business class. This is obviously also a very costly option, but starting or ending a vacation in misery is not an option (to me). For flights the company books, Business is compulsory for everything longer than three hours anyway.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

"Business is compulsory for everything longer than three hours anyway."

I've seen that on short-haul flights, the only upgrade is to get a seat in the emergency exit row or at the front bulkhead so there isn't a business option. The last time I flew the minimum cushion thickness on the seats was better than 100mm so it has been a while.

[DS999]

This is why I don't want a non stop flight

It is cheaper to upgrade just the second leg of a one stop flight from premium economy to first than to buy the whole flight in business. A few extra hours to arrive isn't an issue, and after having a 13 hour long flight once even in business class that's about as long as I want to be stuck in a plane at a go. Breaking it up is a good thing.

I can see for business travel where you want to minimize the time you're away from home a non stop flight is good, but that's an insane option when traveling for pleasure unless your time off is severely limited and every hour counts.

[ChrisC]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Or a set of earbuds that do a good enough job of muting the outside world, combined with a suitably soothing set of podcasts or other audio sources, AND making use of the provided blanket to cocoon oneself away from the small but annoying changes in localised air temperatures within your part of the cabin, which (for me at least) make it bloody difficult to properly relax/fall asleep.

Or, if you actually want to remain awake without being bored senseless, then a tablet loaded with stuff you'd happily watch/read/play, to keep your brain engaged and blissfully ignorant of the passage of time, without the need to find anything of interest on the IFE system.

But above all, pay whatever you have to pay in order to secure yourself a seat you know you'll be comfortable in, because if you can't get properly comfortable, then even the shortest of flights will very, VERY, quickly become an unpleasant experience.

[Tron]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

I wouldn't set foot on a plane without a pair of noise cancelling headphones. LHR to Narita was far enough for me. Now with the Russian airspace blocks I'm not sure I'd bother. Nowhere is worth 24 hours in a plane.

[PRR]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

> ....wouldn't set foot on a plane without a pair of noise cancelling headphones.

Oh you kids. I've flown 30 miles in an old B-17 (not remotely made for comfort) and in a DC-3 (not bad for a short hop); 1,000 miles in a tired original Boeing 707 (w/737 shades and all rivets loose) shortly before that era ended; 2,800 miles in a tri-tail Constellation (very nice ride!).

[Mike Lewis]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

I was shocked by the price of noise-cancelling headphones so for my next flight, I shall be wearing ear defenders over my earphones.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

Absolutely. And no risk that you run out of charge and have the noise-cancelling cut out just as you finally manage to drop off (having tangled the lead all around yourself and unknowingly yanked it out during your previous tossing and turning).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Noise cancelling headphones

From my experiences the best way to do long haul is in an Airbus A350XWB, even in economy. It’s not a bad experience.

However 20+ hours and the 112 reduction in passengers over a standard XWB1000 to fit in the extra fuel tank and the consequently calamitous fuel burn/passenger makes Project Sunrise a crime against the Planet.

Just land in Dubai, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, refuel and shake your legs.

[dansbar]

Empty A380

Why do they fly the A380 all the way back to Australia empty? Why not pickup passengers in Europe of Dubai (where they hub usually)?

[Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch]

Re: Empty A380

Your question was about passenger service. I understand your confusion, but the story was about Qantas.

[anothercynic]

Re: Empty A380

Planes always return to base first (when going into or coming out of maintenance). The plane ferrying from Dresden to Oz is not officially signed off by Qantas' maintenance people yet. It gets another once-over in Oz before they clear it back into passenger service.

It'll probably blow your mind when I tell you that many airlines do this kind of ferry flying from the Americas/Africa/Europe to China, Philippines or Singapore (where maintenance is also done by some major MRO operators) or vice versa. Only very few airlines have the MRO capacity and capability to do heavy maintenance themselves (Lufthansa, SIA, Etihad and Emirates are some, who also do maintenance for a lot of other airlines), and the aircraft manufacturers only have limited places where they have built up major facilities to do OEM type maintenance. So the planes have to get there first (empty).

[jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid]

Re: Empty A380

I guess because the plane is only out of maintenance and still not ready for passengers. Needs to be cleaned, supplied, flight and cabin crew embarked etc.

Flight plans are all worked out to maximise the efficiency of aircraft landing, depositing passengers and then heading off again with a new full load. Unlikely for there to be a one way flight route planned months in advance that a plane fresh out of maintenance would be able to service. Also, maybe maintenance completion periods aren't reliable enough to run a flight schedule around.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Empty A380

Also passengers like return trips. Even if you scheduled a regular Oz - Frankfurt flight with passengers then had the plane pop over to Dresden empty for service, you would have to fly another empty plane to Frankfurt to do the return leg.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Empty A380

"Needs to be cleaned, supplied, flight and cabin crew embarked etc."

Nearly all passenger airports have services available for basic cabin maintenance. Often it's through a third party company.

What can be an issue is when a plane needs to be re-positioned and there are regulations that disallow a foreign carrier from operating between local/regional airports with customers. Mechanical checks might be another reason for dead-heading.

[david 12]

Re: Empty A380

Not a scheduled service, and probably couldn't make it anyway. Passengers = weight and safety margin, weight = more fuel, more fuel = more weight, more weight = more fuel.

Fuel weight and cost increase exponentially for long flights. Add passengers, and the long flights become hard limits.

[jacampbell]

Re: Empty A380

It was a test flight - the very first time it had done more than fly around Europe. No passengers but lots of instrumentation.

Imagine the PR if it had to stop half way there (or back) to fix some problem.

[blu3b3rry]

22 hours feels like a bit of an endurance test

Longest I've done recently was 8.5 and that felt like enough, even with the comforts of premium economy to lessen the pain a bit.

Can only agree with the poster above about a decent set of noise-cancelling headphones. And a nice big bottle of water to keep yourself hydrated.

I don't sleep well on aircraft (or anything else moving for that matter) so found the best way to ensure that was a drop of whiskey (other alcoholic beverages are available) before bedding down.

[RockBurner]

Re: 22 hours feels like a bit of an endurance test

I've done Europe to Chile (and back) twice this year (don't ask).

Melatonin tablets to "keep" you asleep when trying to sleep (either on the plane or after)

lightweight casual clothing to keep comfy (but with something soft to keep warm if the AC is turned down too low)

keep sipping water

Invest in Business Class.

The key is to minimise anything that causes small niggles that prevent you turning off mentally.

Trip 1: Air-France Business Class LHR -> Paris -> Santiago (15 hrs total iirc): Business class, great. (return was the reverse)

Trip 2: Iberia Economy LHR -> Madrid ->< Santiago (15 hrs total) : survivable... but questionable*., Return BA Premium Economy Santiago -> LHR (14.5 hrs iirc) : Bearable, just.

* I had a trapped ulnar nerve for that flight... I think the painkillers I was on for that (which did f-all for the pain) helped make the flight survivable.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: 22 hours feels like a bit of an endurance test

I used to do Chile regularly (was an astronomer) before there were direct flights.

Chatting to some Kiwi's in Santiago airport - they stood out among the stylishly dressed South Americans as the only others wearing down parkas and carrying pelicases.

They were Antarctic researchers, their commute was Antarctica -> Tierra del Feugo, Santiago, Miami, LA, Auckland. Assuming they weren't flying business class either !

[UCAP]

Re: 22 hours feels like a bit of an endurance test

London to Singapore, stop for 3 days, then Singapore to Auckland. Reverse trip was Auckland to Singapore, stop for 3 hours then Singapore to London. Duration of each leg between 11 and 12 hours. Even in business class, its quickly becomes a trial by endurance.

[R Soul]

Re: 22 hours feels like a bit of an endurance test

You chose to spend 3 days in Singapore. Twice. WTF? Why? Just why?

Singapore's a less blingy verson of Dubai.

[UCAP]

Re: 22 hours feels like a bit of an endurance test

Stopover on the trip back was 3 *hours*, not 3 days. Staying in Singapore on the way out was the wife's idea; I do not oppose her if I want to keep my continued health.

[Ol'Peculier]

Re: 22 hours feels like a bit of an endurance test

I did the 3 day stopover in SG the last time I went in that direction, and there's plenty to do, see, and most importantly eat.

Never been to Dubai (apart from the airport) and have no plans to.

IMO, and based on experience, having a couple of days somewhere in the area (KL, Hong Kong etc.) saves you from crippling jet lag when you get to AU or NZ.

[trevorde]

Essential for ultra-long distance flights

Enough toilet capacity

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Essential for ultra-long distance flights

They're mostly over the ocean, so just adopt the old BR approach, a flap that dumps the contents out the bottom. Won't be any worse in total than the product of flocks of migratory birds....

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct-Dumping Airline Loos

Sucked out through a smallish rotating ball-valve, then (the strainered remains) plummeting to Earth. Not how I'd want to go.

The exterior/interior pressure difference might not be so much, but the Venturi effect of flying at 450-600 MPH ... Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Direct-Dumping Airline Loos

No more problems with constipation, though...

[that one in the corner]

Re: Essential for ultra-long distance flights

You'll have seen the "Mock The Week" where Dara describes his boyhood in Ireland, running about with a basket catching the blue ice dropping from the sky.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Essential for ultra-long distance flights

You are talking shite !!

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/aviation-explainer-series/airplane-toilets/

[werdsmith]

Re: Essential for ultra-long distance flights

The use of toilets doesn't add to the all up weight. It's a bit like energy, it is mass that changes form. It is loaded onto the plane through the doors and then removed from the plane from a sump.

Unlike the fuel that is loaded through a valve into a tank and then leaves the aircraft through the engine turbine exhausts after leaving some of its energy behind in aforementioned mass.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Essential for ultra-long distance flights

"The use of toilets doesn't add to the all up weight."

The black water tank needs to be larger than the blue water tank which means space and balance accomodation. Losing mass en-route through deleting the black (and blue) water might lower fuel consumption.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Essential for ultra-long distance flights

If they did dump it, they could weigh you before and after the flight and give you a discount on your excess baggage fee if you pooped enough

[that one in the corner]

Re: Essential for ultra-long distance flights

After a while the style settles down a bit and it starts telling you things you actually need to know. Like the fact that the fabulously beautiful planet, Bethsellamin, is now so worried about the cumulative erosion caused by ten million visiting tourists a year, that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete whilst on the planet, is surgically removed from your bodyweight when you leave. So every time you go to the lavatory there, it’s vitally important to get a receipt.

[Pascal Monett]

Oh yeah

22 hours locked up in a metal tube with a bunch of fleshbags I can't stand and am not interested in.

Congrats on the effort and the achievement., but count me out.

[sad_loser]

Re: Oh yeah

17 hours London to Perth was much better than I predicted, even in cattle class.

[IamAProton]

Re: Oh yeah

Airline and airfcraft configuration do make a big different.

TK 787 and 777 have 3-3-3 seats in economy, so you have more space than CX, for example. Their 350 has 3-4-3 and the extra-legroom economy (first rows) are actually less-assroom. I'm possibly under the average regarding butt-size and it's extremely annoying to feel squeezed.

But CX server alcohol (unless they recently changed) and TK does not, so there are many variables to consider at least for me. (sort by price ascending, check for crazy connections, then consider airline/airports/ plane layout)

[David 132]

Re: Oh yeah

"22 hours locked up in a metal tube with a bunch of fleshbags I can't stand and am not interested in."

Oh, it's not so bad, once they get started on the communal games of I-Spy, and the group singalongs. Who can possibly remain grouchy after 60 renditions of "She'll Be Coming Round The Mountain" or "The Wheels On The Bus"? And of course Father Noel Furlong is the life and soul of the flight...

[that one in the corner]

Re: Oh yeah

"You have used eleven inches of tape. Bless you."

[Anonymous Coward]

Conflicted

Flying is a miserable experience, from parking the car at one end to leaving the airport at the other.

This development leaves me conflicted. 22-24hr trapped in a flying bus with no room to walk, eat properly, defecate etc. And yet it would actually reduce the overall time spent in the system by cutting out a change of aircraft in the middle somewhere.

I think overall it is better, the airport is the most awful part of the whole process so more time in a plane with less time in airports is the least awful option.

Yay Airbus :-|

[anothercynic]

Re: Conflicted

Errrr what?!

You're able to walk (up and down the aisles). You're able to eat properly (although that depends on what you mean by 'properly'). You're able to defecate (the more modern planes have decent bathrooms).

So I'd like to know what you're smoking so I can avoid it ;-)

[Annihilator]

Re: Conflicted

Regardless of how great the bathrooms might now be (and I'd argue they're not), but digestive system goes into strict lockdown on any flight. It's almost impressive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Conflicted

Unless you are a particularly petite person or you are in your own personal little 1st class pod eating on an airplane is a battle of elbows usually requiring all parties to eat like they have the hands of a T-Rex. The food ranging from ordinary and free to awful and expensive mixed in with the low pressure affecting your sense of taste anyway. Walking up an down a tiny aisle avoiding elbowing people's heads, avoiding random limbs hanging out into the aise and usually being blocked by a trolly all whilst smelling other peoples farts and other eminations does not equal freedom to walk in my humble opinion.

And using a usually very tired, very small, very smelly, often dirty portaloo-in-the-sky is not a positive in favour of flying.

I can only assume that you are either very very rich, or very rich and tiny with no sense of smell and have only ever flown using Private jets, 1st or Business class with lounge access and have never had the joy of flying cattle class with the rest of the genpop.

My own opinion and I am entitle to my own opinion especially as it is based upon considerable personal experience of flying in classes other than 1st or business is that of flying in 2026 is as joyful and relaxing as squeezing the blocked anal glands on an agressive old dog. Necessary definitely, but not pleasent for anyone involved.

[Persona]

Re: Conflicted

Thanks. I've always wondered what it was like in the back of the plane. I never go further back than the bar.

[Excused Boots]

Re: Conflicted

"You're able to walk (up and down the aisles). You're able to eat properly (although that depends on what you mean by 'properly'). You're able to defecate (the more modern planes have decent bathrooms)."

Unless the last time that they flew, the pilot was Orville Wright.

[werdsmith]

Re: Conflicted

Yes, the airports, the queuing and waiting, the overcrowding and the jeopardy of delays. I'm usually more relaxed once the aircraft is starting its take off roll. Then it starts again the other end.

Having said that, my one and only trip to Australia was multi-stop with a day or 2 in each. London, Bahrain, Delhi, Singapore. Return via Hawaii, Los Angeles, New York, London. It was very cheap so I tolerated it.

[Caver_Dave]

Re: Conflicted

Nice!

[Persona]

Re: Conflicted

I always prefer single hops to the ones where there is a stop part way. On one flight from London to Sydney we had a refueling stop in Hong Kong. I was stumbling around HK airport trying to find the Virgin lounge at 4 O'clock and having trouble finding it as it was upstairs. I had and still have no idea if it was 4PM or 4AM local time. Fortunately they were very welcoming when I got there so it didn't really matter, but I would have preferred to have stayed on the plane eating, drinking watching movies and most importantly sleeping.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Conflicted

>Flying is a miserable experience, from parking the car at one end to leaving the airport at the other.

Law of conservation of misery, as flying gets cheaper, more comfortable and more convenient they have to make the airports worse to maintain the overall experience.

Once Musk-Rockets (tm) are able to ballistic missile you to Oz in 20mins, you'll have to turn up at the airport 23.5 hours in advance for security

[Persona]

Re: Conflicted

Ah but that 20 minutes or so in freefall would be so memorable! 1 in 3 inexperienced flyers will barf in zero G and you will be able to watch all those droplets of vomit floating around in freefall while you try not to inhale. Your 23.5 hour security wait before would be needed to enforce the nill by mouth policy.

[Caver_Dave]

The A350-1000ULR carries hardware that simulates the presence of passengers

Is it just me, or does that say they put some crash test dummies or similar in the seats?

[Annihilator]

Re: The A350-1000ULR carries hardware that simulates the presence of passengers

I assumed sandbags at first. :-D

But it might be more advanced and simulate the movement of people around the cabin from a flight-dynamics perspective.

[IamAProton]

Re: The A350-1000ULR carries hardware that simulates the presence of passengers

With 115t empty weight / 283MTOW I doubt the position of few passengers in flight would make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt the position of few passengers in flight would make a difference

It does. More so if the passengers are the typical American lardarses.

[Excused Boots]

Re: I doubt the position of few passengers in flight would make a difference

And all rush to the back simultaneously.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I doubt the position of few passengers in flight would make a difference

"Out of the left-hand windows you can see the snows of Kilimanjaro. And out of the right-hand windows you can now see nothing but straight up to the blue, blue sky as we drop towards the plains beside Kilimanjaro. I have been your pilot for this flight and would like to say"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The A350-1000ULR carries hardware that simulates the presence of passengers

Don't they use water tanks and occasionally pump it around to simulate passenger motion?

Or am I confusing that with the special chemtrail flights?

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: The A350-1000ULR carries hardware that simulates the presence of passengers

Ones that shout, cry and fart for 22 hours?

[anothercynic]

Long flights

I will say this, having had to do several long flights this year:

1. It's difficult to look at the benefits/disadvantages of flying direct vs flying a kangaroo route (i.e. one or more stopovers) without actually having tried it. Those who have flown Perth-London/Frankfurt or Singapore-New York are probably the ones most qualified to answer since those are the only non-stop flights that are roughly of the length that Qantas are planning to fly. Maybe those non-stops from Doha/Dubai to Auckland/Christchurch are alternatives because they are also very very long flights (the longest in the world other than the Singapore Airlines one). Note that SIA's nonstop to Newark/JFK is all-premium, so there is no Economy class on that flight (unlike Qantas' non-stop Perth-to-Europe and soon-to-be Project Sunrise offerings). SIA have previous experience, having used an A340 (also in all-premium layout) to Newark before killing it until the A350-900ULR came on-stream.

2. I agree with others that either flying Premium Economy or Business is well worth the money, if only for the slightly better layouts. Of course Qantas will absolutely milk their offering for what it's worth (which it will be - ask SIA about their non-stop service to New York), because no-one else does it (yet). Having had to fly to Japan and Southern Africa (Africa was shorter), I very much appreciate a lie-flat business seat (because you can actually lie and sleep, provided the crew don't turn *up* the heat instead of down). Emirates has added some new tweaks to their latest Economy seats that should improve how well you sleep in Economy (built-in wings that give your head support), but nothing beats lying flat with no constant stress on your spinal column and your ass for 20-odd hours.

3. There's a reason why Doha, Dubai, Singapore and Istanbul have the delightful airport experiences - They are there to decompress you from your previous flight, give you relief and some stimulus because you get on the next one. Both Istanbul and Singapore have made a layover an opportunity to look at their host cities (even just for 12 hours) - I can't speak for Doha or Dubai. Sometimes just having that break makes a big difference, consider that a bonus.

My personal preference is that if I *am* going to be stuck in a tube for 22 hours that I will a) fly business (or premium economy at a stretch), and b) ensure I move about regularly (a lap or two around the plane along the aisles makes a difference, provided I don't get in the way of the crew preparing for service). And having a decent business class seat is important too (the 'old' business class on Turkish, whilst not a "suite", is pretty damn good because you don't feel like you're in a coffin, the newer door-less staggered business class on Swiss, for the aforementioned coffin reason, is not). Doored suites (the newest type of business class on many airlines) are good in the sense that you will have guaranteed aisle access and don't need to bother your neighbour.

If it's not possible to get a decent business class seat for non-stop, I will do a single layover at a decent airport with a break long enough to take a walk but not so long that I am begging to get back on a plane (2 hours or so in Istanbul was a great break). If the airport offers bedrooms/pods/airport hotel for a longer break, go for that, if only to lie flat for a little bit. So unless Project Sunrise flights are priced decently, I'll be hopping through Singapore or Istanbul, if only because the airports actually are very good.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Long flights

Bring back airships.

I don't mind a week London-Oz if I get a lounge and library and proper bed.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Long flights

Just take a cruise. Longer, but even more comfortable.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Long flights

"Just take a cruise. Longer, but even more comfortable."

Cruises are almost all there and back again. Gone are the days of ocean liners for traveling from one place to the next. The cruise ships are very tetchy about getting off. They make their money by getting you into the casino and the myriad other small charges every 10 minutes and they plan their margins over the full course of the cruise. Get off anywhere and they lose money.

There are cargo ship accommodations, but they can be hard to book and aren't as cheap as you'd think given the lack of entertainment and bling. You can get just about anywhere if you have the time and can put up with some last minute itinerary modifications.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Long flights

Several of the cruise lines will let you book partial routes, and in shoulder season it's also possible to find repositioning cruises where they move the ship from, say the Caribbean in hurricane season to the Mediterranean, and back later. You just need to watch for the cabotage rules, since ships registered in one country may have restrictions on moving passengers between 3rd-country ports.

Cunard operates the QM2 liner on one-way trips between New York and Southampton, which I'd like to do someday.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Long flights

>Cunard operates the QM2 liner on one-way trips

The Titanic business model ?

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Long flights

I could have phrased that better!

[MachDiamond]

Re: Long flights

"Cunard operates the QM2 liner on one-way trips between New York and Southampton, which I'd like to do someday."

They only do those a couple of times each year so you could plan a trip going in one direction and then need to fly to get back unless you want to wait a year.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Long flights

"it's also possible to find repositioning cruises"

The downside of some of those is they reign in the entertainment and food.

Partial routes can be a higher price per mile/hour.

One of the things I don't like is the cruise ship ports have become massive tourist traps and there's no time to get far enough away to clear that zone. Some adventure cruises and the smaller boutique operations go to places that aren't tawdry tourist fleecing operations.

[IamAProton]

If you really need to save those extra 3 hours

It might be worth the money/effort.

For me.. no way. I'd rather pay extra for reasonable stopovers, 10 hour in a 3-3-3 economy configuration is already on the miserable side, 22 (perhaps in a 3-4-3) nope?

"The A350-1000ULR carries hardware that simulates the presence of passengers"...like sandbags in the cargo?

[anothercynic]

Re: If you really need to save those extra 3 hours

That's the thing - Project Sunrise flights are *not* going to be sardines-in-a-can flights, because Qantas actually did the research (with actual flights and official researching with NASA and others) to make sure people don't a) riot and b) keel over dead the minute they step off the planes. That's why they asked Airbus for the 1000ULR (it's large enough to make the economics work, and the extra tank makes the non-stop part possible). The project has been in the works since 2017, so a decade of research & development has led to this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If you really need to save those extra 3 hours

Catastrophic fuel passenger burn compared to an A350 900/1000 that has a fuel stop in Doha/Dubai/Abu Dhabi/Singapore/Kuala Lumpur etc.

They can also swap crew so they don’t need double there too.

[tmTM]

Re: If you really need to save those extra 3 hours

Therein lies the rub.

Demand? Yes

Premium? No

You simply won't be able to convince an entire plane load of people that it's worth paying extra.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: If you really need to save those extra 3 hours

It's hard to see the economics of this.

For a flight over about 6000km its cheaper to land and refuel and climb than to carry the weight of the extra fuel all the time.

The service is going to have to be setup with more business and premium economy to get passengers.

You are limited by the number of people who want to pay more to fly direct in premium so you aren't going to be running a daily service, so you need other shorter all premium destinations to keep the planes busy.

And all the Gulf airlines are going to cut fares to recover customers when the US gets bored in Iran and they reopen

[anothercynic]

Re: If you really need to save those extra 3 hours

Speak to Singapore Airlines. They'll tell you otherwise. Their non-stop SIN-JFK in the A350-900ULR (the smaller brother of Qantas' plane) is *all premium* (so Premium Economy and Business) and it is *very* popular for obvious reasons. The seat maps are online too if you want to have a look at their layout. :-)

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: If you really need to save those extra 3 hours

But Singapore is a regional hub, so they are also taking passengers from all over SE Asia, and all of Australia, on to JFK. They aren't relying only on Singaporeans heading to NY

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: If you really need to save those extra 3 hours

Thinking about it, if you can't fly over Russia and you want to avoid the middle-east, you are presumably flying north past Singapore, S. Korea, Japan, Alaska and over the north pole - you migth as well stop and pickup more passengers.

[MachDiamond]

Re: If you really need to save those extra 3 hours

"You simply won't be able to convince an entire plane load of people that it's worth paying extra."

A trip that far is a premium adventure to begin with so shaving a day or so off of each end of travel so it's there to spend at the destination shouldn't be a key. For business travelers, a lot of that market has gone away with the increasing quality of communications. Getting Down Under and back as fast as possible isn't as important. If it's worth somebody going in person, it's worth the extra travel time and a stop in between can ease some jet lag. I've wound up places so far out of sync as to be worse than useless.

[Luiz Abdala]

Military is used to In-Flight Refuelling, but...

An airplane that keeps aloft for 22 hours is an achievement in of itself, but...

(put on your foil hats folks)

- I wonder how long until some civilian passenger carrier decides AAR is a reasonable decision some day and everybody must be trained to perform it.

- Every plane could carry potentially less fuel... and operators can't hate it. The counterpoint is to keep a tanker available around in critical spots.

- A 747 can have a refuelling boom port on top, but what about every 737 a A320 around? Would people be able to retrofit those, and would it pay off during the airframe lifetimes?

Giant whatif scenario.

[Crypto Monad]

Re: Military is used to In-Flight Refuelling, but...

I wonder how long until some civilian passenger carrier decides AAR is a reasonable decision some day and everybody must be trained to perform it.

The cost of providing the tanker plane and pilot, and the fuel burnt in its own takeoff and landing, means it will be much cheaper just to land and refuel.

An extra hour or two on the ground is the passenger's problem. An extra hour or two of crew duty might be more problematic, but actually it's an opportunity to change crew anyway, as well as restock the lemon-soaked paper napkins.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Military is used to In-Flight Refuelling, but...

Ryanair solution, every passenger boards with their own 5gallon can of Jet-A.

[Ian Bush]

Re: Military is used to In-Flight Refuelling, but...

And pay excess baggage for it

[thedarkstar]

Re: Military is used to In-Flight Refuelling, but...

We use Jet-A1 in the civilised world

[Excused Boots]

Re: Military is used to In-Flight Refuelling, but...

Yes but the comment was about RyanAir

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Military is used to In-Flight Refuelling, but...

Flight Refuelling Ltd were founded in 1934. By 1939 they refuelled 16 cross-Atlantic flights with the Empire flying boat service - although that was all mail (not passenger) services.

WWII stopped the trials, but I suspect longer ranged aircraft would have done so anyway.

[Andy Miller]

No Standing Forward of this point

I read "a zone dedicated to standing", and for a second thought they were selling space for you to stand all the way Australia....

[Crypto Monad]

Re: No Standing Forward of this point

ISTR there was originally a proposal for having a standing configuration on the A380 to pack in 1000+ passengers, albeit for short-hop flights like Bangkok to Phuket.

[stiine]

Re: No Standing Forward of this point

If they put in a treadmill, you could run all the way...

[M.V. Lipvig]

Can't imagine what that

is going to smell like at the end of a flight. Not all nationalities like to bathe, snd being in a tube for an entire day with them is going to be like spending the day in a gas chamber. Hope they also added extended range sanitary and water tanks.

[david 12]

Re: Can't imagine what that

it's continuously ventilated. There's a full-size ventilation shaft large enough to crawl out of at the back of the plane.

[Marty McFly]

Boeing

_{>I know there a plenty of Boeing haters here and this will get downvoted in to oblivion<}

Just for the record, Boeing ran London to Sydney in 1989 in a 747. And eastbound Hong Kong to London in 2005 in a 777 crossing the Pacific & Atlantic in the same flight. So ultra long flights in commercial aircraft are not exactly something new.

The London-Sydney city pair never developed as financially viable due to the economics of the time. We'll see if Airbus can pull it off.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Boeing

A 747-400 burns nearly 11tons fuel/hour, this A350 does under 6tons/hour.

Don't know what a 1989 era 747 did, but it must have been much worse

On the other hand, there is a lot more competition by SE Asian and Gulf airlines today

[thedarkstar]

Re: Boeing

747-400 is a 1989 era plane.

First flight 1988, type certification and first commercial flight 1989

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Boeing

But BA didn't get a 747-400 fleet until mid 1990, so the 1989 flights would probably be some variation of 747-200

[Marty McFly]

Re: Boeing

747SP

[anothercynic]

Re: Boeing

A fully-fuelled jet with virtually no cargo/passengers will fly a *long* way, which is why things like the BBJ (Boeing Business Jet) exist - Even when customised, the all up weight is still less than what a fully loaded (with cargo and SLF) B737/B777/B787 weighs... Their reach is a shedload more.

What the Qantas B747-400 proved though was that the engines were good for that, and the B777 showed that ETOPS performance was as expected. Airbus will definitely manage, given that there are margins in play to allow that. The A321XLR (also fitted with an extra tank) seems to be doing alright for the airlines using it (although it's a narrow-body, it still has intercontinental mod-cons) to do what they call long thin routes in the business.

The longest intercontinental flights are the ones from Singapore. SIN-EWR (Newark) was the longest pair and done with an A340 in all-premium layout, but it's been replaced by SIN-JFK (with the A350-900ULR). After those, it's Doha/Dubai to New Zealand. They are non-stop for the most part and are flown with a mix of B777-200LR/300ER, B787, A380 (!!) or the A350.

[Cruachan]

Stories like this always make me think of the SABRE and other projects that literally never got off the ground. Flights would have been 2 hours or less if it ever was developed, but as the company are now bust that seems unlikely. James Follet's novel Sabre based on the proposed space plane was also very good IIRC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)

Part of the issue for me with air travel is the attempts by the airlines and lots of brands to still make it seem glamorous, as if overpriced alcohol, perfume and other such luxury goods that you can only buy at travel retail are a good thing. Clearly they are to some people though.

[stiine]

outdoors?

I think that sentence needed another phrarse. Something like 'after landing' or 'before takeoff'.

[xyz]

but but but .

half the fun is the lay over in Singapore. It's only after getting passed India that you realize what a big assed planet we're on. I'm usually knacked after a 13 hour flight (and ciggie desperate), so Christ knows what state the plane's in.

[teneriffe trail]

I worked on the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. It would have been 30% shorter flight time on routes like this. Alas, people didn't want speed, just cheaper tickets. And airlines couldn't justify the 10% fuel premium.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

But the American public all objected to the noise and environmental concerns of supersonic flight, and that was just from the relatively small Concorde - they would surely have been much more vociferous in their protests against a much larger and faster US aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

No not all - as the Boeing would have made good'ole American noise

[teneriffe trail]

Sonic Cruiser was sub-sonic. Mach 0.98 at 50,000ft. About the size of a 767.

[Crypto Monad]

With the cruise speed of an A350 being M0.85 (according to Wikipedia), then you're only looking at a 13% time saving these days.

That would be 90 minutes off a 12 hour flight (with ~11 hour cruising). Nice to have, but I don't think many passengers would pay extra for it. Most aren't bothered by the longer flight times from having to avoid Russia and Ukraine these days.

Flying in the tropopause would be cool though. I once flew in a commercial airliner at 43,000ft and the curvature of the Earth was quite noticeable.