I know that the A345s are already flying record breaking longhaul routes with SIA and Emirates,but what about the arrival of the B777LRS? So far only PIA and EVA AIR have signed up for them.And what about the twin engine long haul theory?Although Boeing promises to outdo the A345 in terms of range/payload do you think that either PIA or EVA will be willing to fly a twin over water for 18hrs? How many passengers will feel comfortable flying on just two engines for that long?Personally I love the 777 and feel that it is an extremely beautiful and safe jet, but the very fact that it will be used on the world’s longest sectors worries me.We’re not just taking about crossing the Atlantic here.Trans-Pacific flights are awesomely long!
By: greekdude1 - 14th May 2004 at 01:32
Most airlines don’t let you get off on these flights, it wastes time and costs them money
This is true. I just found out that TG’s LAX-NRT-BKK flight is operated in this manner. One of my infamous acquaintances flew to India recently on TG and apparantly at NRT, they were not allowed off the aircraft, as it was just a fuel stop. All these years, I was under the impression that Thai was even allowed to sell revenue tickets on the LAX-NRT portion, but it turns out that pax can’t get off there if they wanted to! I wonder if SQ is under this same criteria with their SIN-TPE-LAX and SIN-NRT-LAX flights, as well?
By: Tempest - 13th May 2004 at 15:56
Most airlines don’t let you get off on these flights, it wastes time and costs them money
By: RIPConcorde - 13th May 2004 at 15:42
There is difference between having a stop mid-way and being able to strech the legs and escape from the confines of the aircraft, and being stuck on it non-stop for 20 hrs.
By: Tempest - 13th May 2004 at 15:14
Passengers have been flying flights of up to twenty four hours for years. Try LHR -SYD on Quantas’s 31-inch pitch or JNB-JFK or Dehli-JFK. Just because the plane lands for fuel once doen’t mean it is a short flight.
By: Bmused55 - 13th May 2004 at 11:34
There is one other point to consider: as range offered by airliners increase but the speed remains the same (which in effect means ever longer non-stop flights), just how long would people like to be on an aircraft without touching down and getting off the plane?
The A345 is now clocking 18.5 hour flights. If the 772LR lives up to its range expectations you could be looking at 20 hour-stretch flights. How much longer would anyone want to be on board an aircraft?
Airlines operating the A345 have had to increase pitch and create ‘rest areas’ even in economy to help passengers cope with such long flight. This naturally translates as fewer seats on the aircraft, so from the profits point of view these ultra long range aircraft might not bring that much more revenue.
That’s my two cents anyway.
A very good point.
Kudos
By: 4 engines good - 13th May 2004 at 11:32
There is one other point to consider: as range offered by airliners increase but the speed remains the same (which in effect means ever longer non-stop flights), just how long would people like to be on an aircraft without touching down and getting off the plane?
The A345 is now clocking 18.5 hour flights. If the 772LR lives up to its range expectations you could be looking at 20 hour-stretch flights. How much longer would anyone want to be on board an aircraft?
Airlines operating the A345 have had to increase pitch and create ‘rest areas’ even in economy to help passengers cope with such long flight. This naturally translates as fewer seats on the aircraft, so from the profits point of view these ultra long range aircraft might not bring that much more revenue.
That’s my two cents anyway.
By: Pembo330 - 13th May 2004 at 10:46
From a passenger point of view, I would agree with Omar.
From an airline point of view, I agree with Matthew. 🙂
Sign In
May 13, 2004 at 7:56 am