Thread: Would you ever consider taking a 19 hour flight in economy class ?

I flew in cattle class from Melbourne to perth a couple of weeks ago on QF9 - which then continues on to London (17hrs non-stop). It was OK for a 3hr flight - but I would dread being on it for 17hrs.

Originally Posted by Ukan Kizmiaz

I flew in cattle class from Melbourne to perth a couple of weeks ago on QF9 - which then continues on to London (17hrs non-stop). It was OK for a 3hr flight - but I would dread being on it for 17hrs.

Haha yes. A 3 hour flight is ok. But 17 hours i believe borders on actual torture.

I don't think these long haul flights will be long for this world. Some people will try it and then realize that it was NOT worth the time in the plane. I think the industry is ridiculous for even offering it

Originally Posted by Backspin

Haha yes. A 3 hour flight is ok. But 17 hours i believe borders on actual torture.

I don't think these long haul flights will be long for this world. Some people will try it and then realize that it was NOT worth the time in the plane. I think the industry is ridiculous for even offering it

I think the industry is looking to make money. They wouldn't offer it if there wasn't a demand for low cost, non-stop, direct, very long haul flights.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I think the industry is looking to make money. They wouldn't offer it if there wasn't a demand for low cost, non-stop, direct, very long haul flights.

Like any new things on offer, some ppl will try it. But I am wagering that there wont be very much repeat business and therefore they are wasting their time.

This industry should realize that people would be willing to pay more and would travel more often, if flying was faster. Yet the Airbus A220 is one of the slowest aircraft ever made even though its the newest

11 hours is already too much for me. I don't intend to fly longer in one session.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Like any new things on offer, some ppl will try it. But I am wagering that there wont be very much repeat business and therefore they are wasting their time.

This industry should realize that people would be willing to pay more and would travel more often, if flying was faster. Yet the Airbus A220 is one of the slowest aircraft ever made even though its the newest

I don't know why you're wagering anything when you're talking out of your arse. "New things on offer"?

Singapore started Newark flights in 2004, and other airlines were doing these sort of distances until the GFC, then they gradually pulled them because they couldn't sell them at a profit.

With oil being reasonably low and aircraft fuel efficiency on the up, they are catching on again. The Gulf carriers all fly direct non-stop to the US nowadays.

This is adding an hour or two on specific routes that can sustain the traffic. If they didn't think they could money on them, they wouldn't even have started.

This industry should realize

Oh FFS.

They know every cent they spend and lose, how many passengers they fly and where they are coming from and going to.

That's how they decide how they can fill new aircraft with new routes. They don't just guess FFS.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I don't know why you're wagering anything when you're talking out of your arse. "New things on offer"?

Singapore started Newark flights in 2004, and other airlines were doing these sort of distances until the GFC, then they gradually pulled them because they couldn't sell them at a profit.

With oil being reasonably low and aircraft fuel efficiency on the up, they are catching on again. The Gulf carriers all fly direct non-stop to the US nowadays.

This is adding an hour or two on specific routes that can sustain the traffic. If they didn't think they could money on them, they wouldn't even have started.




Oh FFS.

They know every cent they spend and lose, how many passengers they fly and where they are coming from and going to.

That's how they decide how they can fill new aircraft with new routes. They don't just guess FFS.

Im not sure that the bean counters know that people would fly more if it was faster. We cant keep flying slower. But they are. The newest airliner is the A220.

2019 Airbus A220 Speed: 541 mph (870 kph; 470 kts)

1985 Boeing 747 Cruise speed: 933 km/h

And now there's this new concept piece of shit airliner thats supposed to be even slower yet. To make the bean counters even happier. Does this look like progress to you ? We went from row ships to sail ships to steam ships to prop planes and then to jets. Every step of the way was faster. But now over the last 30 years, we are going slower. So again, is this progress ? I think the bean counters are fuct. im sorry

I have always flown Economy without any problems. However, Economy now does not seem to be the same as Economy 10 or 15 years ago. I recently flew Air Asia to Chiang Rai and I literally could not fit in the seat!

I am 6'1" (185cm) tall and my legs were too long for me to sit in the seat normally. Either my knees were wedged in just under the tray or I had to do some serious 'man spreading' to fit my knees on either side of the seat in front of me!

I was able to do this for a one hour flight without any problems, but I cannot imagine sitting like this for 12 or 15 hours. If this is the future of Economy class seats, I will have no choice but to start paying more.

Originally Posted by qwerty

I have always flown Economy without any problems. However, Economy now does not seem to be the same as Economy 10 or 15 years ago. I recently flew Air Asia to Chiang Rai and I literally could not fit in the seat!

I am 6'1" (185cm) tall and my legs were too long for me to sit in the seat normally. Either my knees were wedged in just under the tray or I had to do some serious 'man spreading' to fit my knees on either side of the seat in front of me!

I was able to do this for a one hour flight without any problems, but I cannot imagine sitting like this for 12 or 15 hours. If this is the future of Economy class seats, I will have no choice but to start paying more.

Your suspicions are correct. They've been squeezing down the specs on seat configurations for years. Some airlines are worse than others for this.

But check out what was at the airline trade show the last year. The bean counters at work again

Yeah, a while ago I was reading about seats like that on some internal flights in the Philippines.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Yeah, a while ago I was reading about seats like that on some internal flights in the Philippines.

If it chopped a third off a <90 minute flight, I'm sure there would be plenty of customers.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Im not sure that the bean counters know that people would fly more if it was faster. We cant keep flying slower. But they are. The newest airliner is the A220.

2019 Airbus A220 Speed: 541 mph (870 kph; 470 kts)

The 220 is not new, it's a rebadged Bombardier.

As for speed, the faster you go, the more fuel you use.

Yes, I'm sure you could offer a faster flight that goes higher in thinner air. Oh, hang on a minute. Didn't they already do that?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The 220 is not new, it's a rebadged Bombardier.

As for speed, the faster you go, the more fuel you use.

Yes, I'm sure you could offer a faster flight that goes higher in thinner air. Oh, hang on a minute. Didn't they already do that?

As for speed, the faster you go, the more fuel you use.

bean counting

The reason we are going slower is because of economic and technical regression. The slower you go, the longer it takes. Time is money. More people traveled across the oceans when aircraft were invented because it was faster.

The idea that we've hit the ceiling of human travel at 870 Km/h is just tommyrot.

Yes, I'm sure you could offer a faster flight that goes higher in thinner air. Oh, hang on a minute. Didn't they already do that?

They did that yeah. It was called the Concorde. But trade war politics , Malthusianism, ozone layer propaganda (the global warming of the day) and even post 9/11 regulations, grounded the Concorde. Thankfully there is some new supersonic projects in the works. But its about 10 years late

Originally Posted by Backspin

bean counting

The reason we are going slower is because of economic and technical regression. The slower you go, the longer it takes. Time is money. More people traveled across the oceans when aircraft were invented because it was faster.

You have an interesting perspective.

You see, to me, if they can fly the same aircraft on the same route 12 times a week instead of 6 times a week, they can sell more tickets.

And make more money.

So you're really not making any sense.

If there is a limitation, it is in the aircraft manufacturers.

By the way, Concorde did not make money. While it did sell tickets to the wealthy and famous, they alone did not carry it. It was a great marketing tool for frequent flyers, but eventually competition put it out of business.

Branson wanted to take it on, and he probably would have done a better job of using it as a marketing tool with Virgin, but BA decided to nix the competition in that respect by ending the program.

New York Shanghai 39 minutes flight time. More expensive than economy. Possibly less than business class. Very cramped with 1000 passengers. Possibly overoptimistic to get FAA approval.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

New York Shanghai 39 minutes flight time. More expensive than economy. Possibly less than business class. Very cramped with 1000 passengers. Possibly overoptimistic to get FAA approval.

I knew when I seen your post , that it would be about hypersonic transport. Sorry but hypersonics are nonsensical vaporware and will always be.

We have this cottage industry of supersonic skepticism because everyone thinks they are an expert on how uneconomic the Concorde was. And because it had some state subsidy at the start. You know, because commercial aviation , from the manufacturers to the airlines, has always been a beacon of Ann Randian free market capitalism. We also have a bunch of dated laws on the books still, that the US used to keep the Concorde away while they built their own SST. Those laws were pure protectionism yet they are held up as legit noise and environmental concerns now.

Then in parallel with the supersonic skeptics, we have the techno rapturist dreamers going on about hypersonic transport. The reason hypersonics get a pass is because everyone knows its a pipedream. And we wont have the burden of actually having to make anything hypersonic work. We wont need to worry about laws and regulations. Because its never going to happen.

So in between it all, we are in this no mans land. Stagnating to nowhere and moving backwards thanks to bean counters. Judging by the 737 max, we can hardly do subsonic transport right. Well the USA cant anyway.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You have an interesting perspective.

You see, to me, if they can fly the same aircraft on the same route 12 times a week instead of 6 times a week, they can sell more tickets.

And make more money.

So you're really not making any sense.

If there is a limitation, it is in the aircraft manufacturers.

By the way, Concorde did not make money. While it did sell tickets to the wealthy and famous, they alone did not carry it. It was a great marketing tool for frequent flyers, but eventually competition put it out of business.

Branson wanted to take it on, and he probably would have done a better job of using it as a marketing tool with Virgin, but BA decided to nix the competition in that respect by ending the program.

I'll have a full post debunking all of Concorde stuff.

But its sure funny to see your inner Ann Randian capitalist side seeping out. Just as I predicted even though I hadn't yet read your post. You seem rather mildly left wing on all other things. But when the subject of Concorde comes up, you are an Ann Rand capitalist.

Originally Posted by Backspin

knew when I seen your post , that it would be about hypersonic transport.

I knew when I saw your post that you would jump in feet first with your agenda. Ignoring that I voiced some scepticism myself.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

I've never flew any other class so I don't see economy as being bad. Each to their own.

I read an article once that posited the question would you do a job that paid you $100 an hour to sit still, that allowed you to sleep or watch videos or read a book according to your interests and gave you as many bathroom breaks as you needed. Regular meals and even as much alcohol as you wanted would you take such a job?

That's the difference between choosing business or econony

Originally Posted by Takeovers

I knew when I saw your post that you would jump in feet first with your agenda. Ignoring that I voiced some scepticism myself.

apologies. I only meant because you are a rocket guy, that you'd be talking about hypersonics bc it involves rockets. I did notice your skepticism

Originally Posted by TheRealKW

I read an article once that posited the question would you do a job that paid you $100 an hour to sit still, that allowed you to sleep or watch videos or read a book according to your interests and gave you as many bathroom breaks as you needed. Regular meals and even as much alcohol as you wanted would you take such a job?

That's the difference between choosing business or econony

Its not the same because you are flying. You are exposed to synthetic air, heightened radiation, noise, the floating sensation, the ambient stress of flying and of course, jet lag. For some people, it just does not matter what is on TV. Because its hard to concentrate or get into it. Its just different. Im sometimes fine on flights and other times, its just restless leg, sore back and tiredness w/o the ability to sleep.

Which is why the best flights are the ones that are shortest.

Originally Posted by TheRealKW

I read an article once that posited the question would you do a job that paid you $100 an hour to sit still, that allowed you to sleep or watch videos or read a book according to your interests and gave you as many bathroom breaks as you needed. Regular meals and even as much alcohol as you wanted would you take such a job?

That really does sound like a startlingly stupid article.

Originally Posted by Backspin

I knew when I seen your post

I knew when I seen your grammar and your feeble attempt at pretending you've read Ayn Rand that you're talking out of your arse again.