Qantas Plane Flies For More Than 24 Hours In Record-Breaking Flight (theguardian.com) 70
Qantas completed a record-breaking 24-hour, 24-minute test flight from Melbourne to Toulouse on Tuesday. "The specially adapted A350-1000ULR airliner is due to debut with the Australian carrier's nonstop Sydney-London route from 2027," reports The Guardian. From the report: Tuesday's flight is thought to be the longest ever by a commercial plane, beating the previous record of 22 hours and 42 minutes set by a Boeing 777-200LR in 2005 between Hong Kong and London via the Pacific in 2005.
Flight-tracking provider Flightradar24 said the trip was the second-most-tracked flight ever on its channels -- behind a 2022 flight carrying Queen Elizabeth II's coffin -- with more than 3.6 million people following its progress northwards via Canada. Qantas has ordered 12 modified A350-1000ULR aircraft, designed to connect Australia's east coast with London and New York in about 20 hours.
Flight-tracking provider Flightradar24 said the trip was the second-most-tracked flight ever on its channels -- behind a 2022 flight carrying Queen Elizabeth II's coffin -- with more than 3.6 million people following its progress northwards via Canada. Qantas has ordered 12 modified A350-1000ULR aircraft, designed to connect Australia's east coast with London and New York in about 20 hours.
Sardines (Score:2)
How many passengers died of deep vein thrombosis?
Re:Sardines (Score:5, Informative)
The final cabin layout when this route starts in customer service will be significantly premium heavy with less economy than normal, and has standing exercise areas for all cabins, so you are encouraged to get up and stretch your legs.
Re:Sardines (Score:4, Insightful)
Then the health issues are on the passenger in that case, the airline provided facilities to use but the passenger chose to not use it. But the facilities were provided, thats the important thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally and for any insurance claims: yes. But the airline reputation still would suffer by a lot.
In the end, it will depend on the actual cabin layout which will depend on their marketing. This is probably going to be marketed to people who would fly business class anyway. A 24h+ flight would be a special luxury treat (just checked Sydney - New York, even as non-non-stop flight you can do that in less than 24hrs). Due to the additional tank you have less space for passengers, an additional meal per passeng
Re: (Score:3)
The airlines reputation isnt going anywhere, DVT is a known risk on a lot of long haul currently in operation, yet you dont hear anything about airlines getting negative PR about it. This route will be no different. Its a bit longer, but not massively.
Qantas already have it set at around 40% premium seating, with around 140 economy or economy plus seating at 33 inch pitch, and 98 premium seats (first, business and premium economy).
Its a low density, premium heavy cabin precisely because thats what the rou
Re: (Score:2)
Its a low density, premium heavy cabin precisely because thats what the route demands
When you say "what the route demands" I'm not sure if you're referencing physics, customers, or both.
...because in order to operate a route of this distance, physics dictates that the aircraft has to have less mass - Fewer passengers and fewer bags in the hold. Hence the lower-density configuration. If they made the density higher the plane would be too heavy to manage the route, even with its special design.
Re: (Score:3)
Im intimately familiar with range-payload charts.
You have to take my sentence as a whole - I say that its both low density and premium heavy. The low density is because of the range-payload drop off, the premium heavy is because Qantas will make more money with the premium cabin, so thats where the bulk of the weight allowance goes.
Re: (Score:1)
Sydney to London is a longer route than Sydney to New York. Just saying...
Longer route (Score:2)
Well if you had a route from Auckland to Madrid it would be just about the longest.
(Actually Wellington to Madrid would be even closer to antipodean points but I don't think you could get a fully fueled A350 off of Wellingtons short runway.)
Of course the return trip would have to keep going east to catch the jetsteam.
Re:Sardines (Score:4, Interesting)
If you read the article, you will see that the "standing areas" are also where snacks and stuff are. So if you want to eat over those 24 hours, get your fat ass up and walk to get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Even on 12 hour flights they encourage passengers to get up and move around, although most don't from my observations. I always make the effort. There isn't anywhere special to do it either, so I usually just go to the back of the plane by the toilets.
Re: (Score:3)
Zero, because it turns out that everyone isn't a little bitch who doesn't know how to get up and move their legs during a flight, or how to wear basic compression stockings if they are in a high risk group.
Re: (Score:2)
How many passengers died of deep vein thrombosis?
Pfft. A mere fashionable side effect. You know what fuels these planes? Most assume jet fuel. Nope. They run on pure narcissism.
Don't worry. I hear BMW made the airline seat cushions. Consumers will pay the per-hour license fee to use the heated and massaging feature in order to walk away with “only” varicose veins.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. I hear BMW made the airline seat cushions. Consumers will pay the per-hour license fee to use the heated and massaging feature in order to walk away with “only” varicose veins.
I wish airlines had comfy supportive seats like my BMW.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You think DVT is the problem, but imagine the toilets.
Re: (Score:2)
You think DVT is the problem, but imagine the toilets.
It would be an interesting graph to see which ruins the toilets more: fewer passengers for a long flight, or many passengers for a shorter flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Many frequent flyers like me try to sync their biological cycles so that you won't have to go while in flight, to the extent this is possible.
Of course, this becomes nearly impossible if the flight is 22h long. And we all know that once someone takes a dump in a tiny economy class toilet on a long haul flight, that's basically a writeoff for the rest of the flight.
So I would say fewer passengers for a long flight is worse, because it just takes one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Double sunrise? (Score:2)
My grandpa told me about a 24 hour flight from London to Australia back during WW2 in which you could experience a double sunrise.
Re:Double sunrise? (Score:5, Interesting)
A stripped-down Qantas Boeing 747 made a non-stop London to Sydney delivery flight on the 16th of August 1989. https://simpleflying.com/qanta... [simpleflying.com]
Re: (Score:3)
A stripped-down Qantas Boeing 747 made a non-stop London to Sydney delivery flight on the 16th of August 1989. https://simpleflying.com/qanta... [simpleflying.com]
When a car attempts one of those “strip-down” challenges to go for distance, everything from the seats to the safety bumpers gets jettisoned for weight savings.
Why only one flight in 1989? Seems passengers get all uptight when you ask them to pack 5 gallons of jet fuel in a carry-on, with general admission standing room only “seating”..
Re: (Score:2)
A stripped-down Qantas Boeing 747 made a non-stop London to Sydney delivery flight on the 16th of August 1989. https://simpleflying.com/qanta... [simpleflying.com]
Yep, this is nothing but an advertisement for a third rate airline offering a flight no-one wants.
Why would you pay a premium... and I mean a premium over far better carriers like Singapore Airlines to take a longer flight with no break? I regularly fly from the UK to Australia to see family (once or twice a year) and realistically the 12-14 hour leg between Singapore and London is enough, especially in economy... even economy on a Singapore Airlines A380. Having an hour or two in Singapore where you ca
Re: (Score:2)
Oh heck yes. I even make sure I have a good nights sleep in Singapore. Then complete the journey the next day.
Jet-lag is still a thing but a full break normally kick starts the adjustment process!
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you pay a premium... and I mean a premium over far better carriers like Singapore Airlines to take a longer flight with no break?
You answered your own question. People pay a premium for non-stop flights all the time. For passengers, there is less chance of missing connecting flights due to delays, weather, etc. Less chance of luggage not arriving at the destination. There are many reasons to use a non-stop flight.
Also from the standpoint of Qantas, they currently have to land in other airports like Singapore which imposes a fee for each landing. They have to pay whatever fees for food, fuel, that the airport charges.
I regularly fly from the UK to Australia to see family (once or twice a year) and realistically the 12-14 hour leg between Singapore and London is enough, especially in economy... even economy on a Singapore Airlines A380. Having an hour or two in Singapore where you can get a proper meal, use a proper toilet and properly stretch your legs (on a nice, static, non moving floor) is a godsend on a flight that takes 20-26 hours depending on which Australian city you're flying to.
No one is taking
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read my post... you just made up what you wanted to hear and answered that.
You asked why passengers like me would choose to fly nonstop as opposed to fly with stops. And there are many reasons why I would choose that. But according to you, I am wrong for having my own opinion.
It's not an argument against choice... it's a prediction that it will inevitably fail. People don't want to take a 23 hour flight. There is simply a limit to endurance there. Hell, here in the UK you've got loads of people who refuse to fly more than 2 hours.
Of course it is. You outlined all the preferences you have including using Singapore Airlines. Therefore Qantas Airlines should never create a flight you would not take. Everyone should have less choice because of your preferences.
There's just not enough people willing to suffer that much to make this program commercially viable.. that means they'll have custom planes that are unprofitable on any route... which means QANTAS will have it's hands out yet again for government money (after doing all they can to kill competition in the Australian domestic market).
So I should believe you over Qantas that is doing feasibility analysis. But aga
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that wasn't a passenger flight. They were moving the aircraft, and they removed all the stuff that would be needed to support passengers, as well as not having any passengers either. This is a commercial passenger flight, fully loaded with 24 hours worth of provisions, and enough passengers to make it profitable.
It's a bit like how France holds the world record for the fastest conventional wheeled train at 574.8 km/h, but that was a special run with no passenger cars and outside of normal operatio
Re: (Score:3)
That will be the direct flights from Perth to Sri Lanka, flown using stripped down Catalina flying boats. They were able to carry 3 passengers and 70kg of essential mail. The single-hop flights took up to 33 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
That will be the direct flights from Perth to Sri Lanka, flown using stripped down Catalina flying boats. They were able to carry 3 passengers and 70kg of essential mail. The single-hop flights took up to 33 hours.
This reminds me of the plans BA looked at to run the Concorde to Australia. It never made it passed the planning stage as it would take six fuelling stops, only save a few hours at best due to the refuelling stops and would cost several times the cost of a ticket at 1970s prices (which were considerable... especially for 1970)
Re: (Score:2)
13.5 hours, 10 of them in the air. That would be a significant saving over the current travel time. It would never have worked though, the sonic booms over land would have made it impossible to get clearance for the route.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, guess how Qantas is calling this A350 designed specifically for them?
Project Sunrise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how it happened exactly but I experienced a double sunrise on a June flight from Tel Aviv to JFK. Flight departed at or 4 in the morning. Flew northwest and saw the sunrise then outran it and it was dark again. By the time we were ready to land in NY the sun was just rising again.
Re: (Score:2)
AI tied itself in knots trying to explain how that happened, but I figured that we flew far enough north that at 35,000 feet we flew briefly where we could just barely see the midnight sun (the "sunrise"), and then flew back south into the dark, where eventually the sun caught up to us. I thought the experience was kind of cool.
Wow! (Score:2)
Of all possible destinations Toulouse? To Lose? Really?
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Informative)
Its a route proving flight, part of the A350-1000ULRs certification - and Toulouse is Airbuses biggest base of operations, where the A350 production line is based.
The aircraft was going there to be painted and handed over to Qantas after certification is granted.
When it goes into airline service, Qantas will be flying it from Melbourne and Sydney to London Heathrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, its a stunt - but it also shows off the capabilities of the aircraft perfectly.
Boeing dis something wimilar years ago with the 777.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what it goes over?
Good job, you can look at a globe.
Re: (Score:2)
why on earth would they use that route, unless they want to waste fuel?
Flights from Sydney to London (or Toulouse) go over asia.
Flights from Sydney to London via Asia are longer, unless it is you want to fly over countries actively at war. Just ask Malaysian Airlines how well that worked out for them.
Qantas currently has no non-stop flights from Sydney to London for specifically this reason. If you want to fly over Russia (shortest distance) you'll need to stop in China since you'll be flying a Chinese airline. If you want to fly the shortest route that doesn't take you through Russia or the Ukraine you'll need to land in the middle
Re: (Score:3)
why on earth would they use that route, unless they want to waste fuel?
Did you miss the part where Tolouse is an Airbus manufacturing hub and this was a test flight? They could have flown the plane anywhere but if they need the plane back in Tolouse for final assembly and to remove all the testing equipment, they should probably land the plane in Tolouse.
Re: (Score:3)
That is where Airbus is headquartered. Why would they not want to land at their factory, so they can see how the aircraft performed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when the inflight entertainment cycles through var (Score:2)
The movies will feature the Taken trilogy and transition smoothly to martial arts chop socky Tekken over the Pacific leg, instead of the entire John Wick film series or lazy programming like the security feed at Heathrow - air marshalls get on high alert when a passenger suddenly stands up and yells You basta** at the screen
Brutal (Score:3)
That must be a brutal flight to suffer through. Especially in the middle economy seats. And then to think that you've got to do it again to get back home? I shudder to think of it.
Yes, I know that they have an area specifically designed to stand and stretch. The so called Wellbeing Zone" [qantas.com]. And it is good that they planned and designed for this. But, it's still a tiny patch of real estate for a LOT of people to vie for. And, from my experience, it won't make the suffering from being cramped up for 22 hours that much better. Such standing spaces are already utilized in front of bathrooms and in entry corridors on much shorter flights and it is still brutal. Brutal!
The article says that the economy seats are limited, more higher class seating. I can't wait for the laugh from when I hear what a first class seat on this flight costs. Fist class seats on current flights go for ~$10k. I expect that flights on these new planes will be significantly higher.
Re: (Score:2)
But, it's still a tiny patch of real estate for a LOT of people to vie for.
24 hours is a lot of time to spread around passengers. There's plenty of aircraft with plenty of standing space for really long haul flights, and they are rarely used to capacity. Most people will spend their time sleeping, watching movies, reading, playing games, etc. Those who do go to the "wellbeing zone" will typically be there for minutes at a time.
Fist class seats on current flights go for ~$10k.
The price isn't as bad as the Fisting. But really that's sort of irrelevant. First class is pointless for anything other than waving your gold plated dick a
Re: (Score:2)
Those who do go to the "wellbeing zone" will typically be there for minutes at a time.
Have you been around people in the last 4-5 years? The wellbeing zone will be disappeared by travelers and their yoga mats or ultra slow stretching ceremonies, and it will be for many minutes. Perhaps their unboxed lhasa apso can poop in one, at those ticket prices they'll expect staff to take care of that.
Re: (Score:2)
The article says that the economy seats are limited, more higher class seating. I can't wait for the laugh from when I hear what a first class seat on this flight costs. Fist class seats on current flights go for ~$10k. I expect that flights on these new planes will be significantly higher.
Biasing towards premium economy/business/first class might work out:
- The higher classes already subsidize lower cost economy seats, so having fewer of them might not actually raise prices on premium classes. If anything it might steal high-profit pax from other routes.
- This direct flight provides a time-saving, less-likely-to-miss-connection, less-likely-to-lose-baggage option for those willing to pay for a higher class
- The premium passengers would tend to gravitate towards this route, while economy migh
How Have I Not Seen This One Here. (Score:2)
Qantas never crashed.
Having flown 18hrs with Singapore Airlines (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind there is no actual crushing economy on that flight - the seats are all premium economy seats or business. This looks to have roughly the same number of seats. Hopefully that is because Qantas have also have gotten rid of cramped economy.
However let's not pretend that, even in business lie-flat seats, that this is comfortable. I've flown in both on the Singapore Airlines route and business is only marginally better than premium economy. Most of that isn't the seat, it's the space to stand and walk around or the meals. Yes it is easier to sleep flat, but on an 18+ hour flight you sleep a couple times... and that seat is still designed to be a seat... not a bed... you will get up and move around.
Best of luck for all that fly that route - I hope it's tolerable. That's about the best you can expect out of being cooped up that long in a plane.
DVT; or bring compression socks or a massage gun (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they going to get made at people doing laps on the plane?
I don't know, would they get mad a fake concern you made up? Literally no one does now and people get up to stretch their legs on virtually all flights.
Also if you're at risk of DVT, wear compression stockings, done. Easy. No need to even get out of your seat. DVT is just not a risk to anyone except those people who are unable to apply a bit of thought and can somehow afford a $1000+ plane ticket, but not a $15 "medical device".
"I hate Qantas" (Score:2)
Anybody else remember those commercials with the koala?
Did they have 2 complete crews? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They already have a planned rotation. There will be two crews, rotating every four hours. This isn't unlike existing long-haul flights, except that instead of the crews rotating at the same time, they will be on two-hour offsets. One pilot will stay for the first four hours, the other for the first two hours. A replacement will swap in at two hours and stay through the sixth hour, and then the other will swap at four hours and stay through the eighth hour, and so on. Qantas said that this will apply to all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)