Non-stop Sydney to London possible

Captain · Post by **Captain** » 18 Jul 2005, 21:56

I just read the news that the new Boeing 777-200LR would be able to fly from London to sydney non-stop: https://www.aviation24.be/article9372.html

Could this ever happen now that Qantas has commited itself to A380's?

I also heard that for the return journey, the plane will not be able to go without a stop due to the extra journey time caused by headwinds.

My question is: Can the A340-500 (which flies non-stop from Singapore to New York, 18 hours) fly to Sydney non-stop? What about the A380?

Captain

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 18 Jul 2005, 22:11

Captain wrote:My question is: Can the A340-500 (which flies non-stop from Singapore to New York, 18 hours) fly to Sydney non-stop? What about the A380?

I do not think that the current version wouldbe able to do that, although I did not check the data.

BKK - JFK is just over 16 hours, AFAIK.

Regards, Bernhard

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 19 Jul 2005, 04:03

I also heard that for the return journey, the plane will not be able to go without a stop due to the extra journey time caused by headwinds.

Boeing 777 is currently undergoing a further modification to allow non-stop both directions.

KT

Advisor · Post by **Advisor** » 19 Jul 2005, 08:47

If the 777 can fly non stop Sydney London then i think the 380 will revolutionize air travel

beaucaire · Post by **beaucaire** » 19 Jul 2005, 08:59

What a horror-trip that must be ....
Being confined 18 hours in a dry tube,you must arrive de-hydrated like a mummy - not all what is technically achievable is desirable...

Post by **sn26567** » 19 Jul 2005, 09:12

beaucaire wrote:What a horror-trip that must be ....
Being confined 18 hours in a dry tube...

You can try to sleep 8 hours. That leaves 10 hours to watch movies, litsen to music, have a lunch and a dinner, and read if you still have time left...

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 19 Jul 2005, 10:17

No thanks - the current flight to KUL, SIN from Europe is long enough thank you. By the time you land you have cabin fever - add another 7 hours and craziness will set in......besides think of all the wonderful stopover destination we miss out on!

Rayman · Post by **Rayman** » 19 Jul 2005, 11:13

bits44 wrote:Boeing 777 is currently undergoing a further modification to allow non-stop both directions.

777-SP

also usefull, for some as in the picture, to declare finally exceptional load factors

CXRules · Post by **CXRules** » 19 Jul 2005, 14:33

LHR-SYD is about 17-19 hours flight (depends on which direction you're talking about). That's a long flight. Unless they serve like 4 meals and provide lots of water and enough movies to watch, I'm not sure I want to be in that flight. But I'm sure there's enough business people to fill the B777 everyday for BA and Qantas.

We need a new Concord to fly that route, now you're talking!

lastrow · Post by **lastrow** » 19 Jul 2005, 16:01

what route would that be (the 17/19h route)? I have heard that the ETOPS regulations and the referring regulations for 3- and 4-engine jetliners as well are under revision allowing new north-pole routes. Another problem pending to solve tied with this issue is that an emergency landing cannot easilytake place on every certified airport due to temperature problems (imagine some airport in north Siberia with full of short-pant-waering Aussies ...)

Has anyone heard about that? Would a LHR-SYD flight benefit from a new oute? Unfortunately I cannot find the referring article anymore. :-/

CXRules · Post by **CXRules** » 19 Jul 2005, 20:46

LHR-SYD routes don't fly over the Poles (neither North nor South). I haven't heard any ETOPS changes. I thought Continental already using B772 on its EWR-HKG non-stop route flying over the North Pole. Soon AA will do the same with its new Chicago-Delhi route with its B772. The ETOPS changes were made years ago, if I remember correctly.

I think the SYD to LHR route is about 19.5 hours while LHR to SYD is about 17.5 hours (non-stop, that is, on 777-200LR).

Captain · Post by **Captain** » 19 Jul 2005, 22:14

CXRules wrote:But I'm sure there's enough business people to fill the B777 everyday for BA and Qantas.

I think your spot on. Singapore airlines still has flights to New York with a stopover and I guess their non-stop flight are used by those in a hurry businessmen. I read that Singapore airlines non-stop JFK flight has less seats than a normal A340-500 and they have had to make changes to serve more meals, more entertainment, crew resting times.

Therefore, we might well see a non-stop flight from a European airport to Sydney but at a premium price for businessmen and people in a hurry. I can't see every single flight to SYD being non-stop as research shows that passengers do like to stretch their legs on terra firma and maybe spend a night in a vibrant Asian city.

Captain

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 19 Jul 2005, 22:18

I read that the non stop service from singapore airlines is very expensive to run! Mainly because it has to carry a lot more fuel, which weights tons more, and so it burns a hell of a lot more fuel because of this!

it'

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 26 Jul 2005, 19:44

I agree with the people mentioning the human factor.

I did VIE - BKK - SYD (and back) once and VIE - KUL - SYD (and back) twice. Although I really like flying and try to arrive prepared for such flights, I would not choose a nonstop flight - especially not if it is more expensive. On the other hand, said trips were vacation trips, so the time pressure was mine to make.

I intend to go to SYD again this autumn and I have been thinking about stopping in DXB or KUL for one day.... some swimming and shopping. Although I have to admit that the nonstop flight from DXB to to SYD is no short hop either.

Still, on the way back I want to have the stopover, just to avoid to be dead after three weeks of vacation.

Regards, Bernhard

hvv · Post by **hvv** » 28 Jul 2005, 12:54

I also don't think I want to have even longer flights, although I don't mind flying. It may be different in first class, but in economy (even economy extra/plus/premium), 12 hours is more than long enough for me. The comfort level needs to be much higher for longer flights to be enjoyable... Anyway, I understand from earlier discussions on SQ that most or all seats on the current extremely long flights are business class, and thus expensive.

Hans.

A380-800 · Post by **A380-800** » 30 Jul 2005, 20:51

I am traveling sometimes in business class (for my company), but the
longest trip I have ever done was from FRA to KUL and I must say these
13 hours were long enough, even in business class. I am not sure if I
would book a flight which will last for 20 hours....it's a looooong time !

rgds,

A380-800

lastrow · Post by **lastrow** » 01 Aug 2005, 10:21

I have found the article I have faintly rembered (for all German forum members

: the AERO 7/2005, p. 56) it has reported that the FAA-ETOPS and some European proposal called LROPS are currently under discussion to be merged into one common ICAO rule. So the Boeing people would like to have a stronger twin-role (and the article says that this could lower also 747's sellings) whilest the Europeans would like to have a limit for twins of 240 mins.

The article says that the main reasons to limit the twins operational range would be that with one engine the plane would need more fuel - because it must fly at lower altitude. Thus 240 mins would be a suitable limit for twins.

-lr.

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 01 Aug 2005, 22:43

lastrow wrote:The article says that the main reasons to limit the twins operational range would be that with one engine the plane would need more fuel - because it must fly at lower altitude. Thus 240 mins would be a suitable limit for twins.

So let us hope one engine is lost due to a mechanical failure and not due to fuel contamination.

In this case...

Regards, Bernhard

sn-remember · Post by **sn-remember** » 02 Aug 2005, 14:15

Remember the advertising flight at the LeBourget fair for the A340 some yrs ago: PAR-AKL-PAR ?
Of course it was more or less empty ....and flying Eastwards !

However for such long flights I will prefer the A380 if it is configured with lots of leg space and some leisure room to stretch a bit...already a luxury in today's mass transportion !!

A stop should not be a necessity if it is just staying in the plane looking at the cleaners doing their job...
However it is more than welcome if you are given enough time to walk around the airport and take some fresh air supplies ;o))

regi · Post by **regi** » 06 Aug 2005, 22:28

SN-remember, you strike the nail on the head by saying "if".
I am really worried that the A380 will be like a B747 in a 3-4-3 seat configuration , in the same 31 inch seats , giving nothing extra at all.
Longer boarding times, nervous crews, "sorry sir, no more beef", all those things involved with large capacity planes.

Aviation24.be

Non-stop Sydney to London possible

Non-stop Sydney to London possible

Re: Non-stop Sydney to London possible