Read the forum code of contact
By: 19th October 2005 at 03:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Personaly i wont take this flight, cant bear the thought of sitting in a plane for THAT long.
By: 19th October 2005 at 05:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Personaly i wont take this flight, cant bear the thought of sitting in a plane for THAT long.
I'd be prepared to pay a premium if it cut the overall flying time down by several hours!!
By: 19th October 2005 at 10:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-What would that time be though..i would say that a normal one stop flight would take something like 3-4 hours(minimum) or so longer then a non-stop!!! Maybe they can offer more leg room and other goodies to make the journey more comfortable!!
By: 19th October 2005 at 10:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Density
What would that time be though..i would say that a normal one stop flight would take something like 3-4 hours(minimum) or so longer then a non-stop!!! Maybe they can offer more leg room and other goodies to make the journey more comfortable!!
They may have to give the legroom anyway. If they fly near the range limit then they may not be able to operate with a payload full of coach passengers... fewer seats and more space for each lightens the plane!
By: 19th October 2005 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It does say in article they are evaluating an all business class services...
By: 19th October 2005 at 12:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Personaly i wont take this flight, cant bear the thought of sitting in a plane for THAT long.
I would love to go on this flight.Could the A350 couple with this range aswel as the 787.
James
By: 19th October 2005 at 16:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The article stated that it could only go Sydney-London. So if they gave passengers more leg room for the ultra-long journey there, then that would mean that the passengers using the same plane for whatever route on the way back eg. LHR-SIN-SYD would get the same extended legroom for theoretically a lower price (due to the stop)?
By: 19th October 2005 at 17:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Why would the price be lower with a stop? I thought the price would have been bigger because the fees have to be paid at an additianal airport, i'd love to fly London to Sydney, then again Ive never flown long haul.
By: 19th October 2005 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Why would the price be lower with a stop? I thought the price would have been bigger because the fees have to be paid at an additianal airport, i'd love to fly London to Sydney, then again Ive never flown long haul.
Because if there is a fuel stop, the plane can fly all the way with light fuel loads, and burn less fuel in total. The beginning of a long-haul trip burns much fuel to carry the rest of fuel.
Also, if there is a stop, the crews might leave at the stop and be replaced, instead of travelling along, resting on the plane and getting paid for not being on the ground...
By: 20th October 2005 at 01:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Why the price is lower with a stop
The price is lower with a stop because it is less convenient for the passenger. QF will charge what the market will bear. It has less to do with the actual cost of the trip. For instance, it is cheaper for me to fly NW from BOS to ORD via DTW vs. AA or UA non stop from BOS to ORD. It is certainly less expensive for the carrier too to offer a non-stop flight. The same thing applies on SQ's fare from EWR to SIN. It is cheaper to take the connecting or one stop flight. It has to be, because what is the incentive to take a connecting or one stop flight when it takes longer?
Bkonner
By: 20th October 2005 at 08:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-On four occasions (2 return flights) i have walked aimlessly round Singapore airport for half-an-hour ( twice in the wee hours of the morning when it was completely deserted !!) whilst they refuel the London - Sydney plane (or vice-versa) and i can honestly say never again !
Next time i will simply re-mortgage the house, buy a seat with a bed and drink heavily pre-flight :) :)
By: 20th October 2005 at 15:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-This is a fantastic idea for business travellers. They'll likely be able to move around at a bar or common area.
Qantas really seems to be pulling out all the stops in upgrading their service. Aren't they developing big product plans for their A380 interiors as well?
By: 21st October 2005 at 07:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It beats sitting around in some airport transit lounge or club for several hours at a time.
Business or first class travel for that amount of time would be quite comfortable, but i should imagine sitting all that time in economy without a break would be quite unbearable
By: 21st October 2005 at 11:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-...Next time i will simply re-mortgage the house, buy a seat with a bed and drink heavily pre-flight :) :)
Well you won't be getting on one of my flights if you do that last bit...
By: 21st October 2005 at 17:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Mcr
...Next time i will simply re-mortgage the house, buy a seat with a bed and drink heavily pre-flight
Well you won't be getting on one of my flights if you do that last bit...Fine, have it your own way. :)
..I shall simply arrive sober and carry my duty free in my hand-luggage, making sure to take regular bathroom breaks until both bottles of Vodka are finished :diablo: :eek:
Michael
PS in all seriousness, i dont drink anything on aircraft nowadays, apart from lots of water, simply because i found that i always felt lousy post-flight from the heady mix of alchohol and bug-ridden re-cycled cabin air....
PPS Did you see the edition of "Airport" or some such program with the family from Liverpool taking their first holiday for years and the husband was so P***ed in the airport lounge that he couldnt even stand up !!! - needless to say he wasnt allowed to fly.........
By: 22nd October 2005 at 07:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-That's ok then...but don't bother booking accomodation at the far end as the police cell won't cost you anything. ;)
By: 22nd October 2005 at 12:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-That's ok then...but don't bother booking accomodation at the far end as the police cell won't cost you anything. ;)hahahahaha - imagine someone getting blind drunk at the departing airport and the next thing they know is waking up in a cell, they would have to bang the door and get attention to find out what country they were in....
"Oh....still in England then ? :)"
Posts: 12,842
By: steve rowell - 19th October 2005 at 02:40
Qantas is toying with the idea of a non-stop Sydney to London service next year
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16950166%255E23349,00.html