Would you book a 20 hour non-stop flight?

[Mattg]

Qantas has been in the news this week for their plans to fly non-stop from Sydney to New York and London. All that needs to happen now is for Airbus or Boeing to offer a plane capable of flying 20+ hours non-stop. (See this thread: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ws/qantas-our-spirit-flies-further-84612.html)

Qantas seems to think that passengers prefer not to have to stopover. I'm not so sure - I like the opportunity to stretch my legs, breathe some fresh air, have a shower etc. at a transit point along the way.

So, I thought I would start a simple poll. Assuming that the price was the same as a routing with 1 or 2 stops, would you book a non-stop Sydney-London flight?

If you answered no, is there anything that Qantas could do to change your mind?

 

[RooFlyer]

My answer 'no' assumes there wasn't a choice. If time really was at a premium, and some-one wanted to pay for me to be in Business, probably yes. But given a choice, I'm happy with current arrangements which allow some respite at one point along the way. The 4-odd hour time difference doesn't matter if you are travelling for 1+ weeks, which I think most would be doing going to Europe or nth America for.

 

[TomVexille]

I certainly know people who prefer stopovers so they can walk around and stretch the legs, and others who want to get there ASAP and hate stopovers. And there's a reason why (usually) non-stop flights are more expensive than connecting as people do seem prepared to pay for the convenience. Personally the SQ SIN-NYC (whichever airport they re-launch to) is a bucket list item, but I don't think I'd make a habit of it.

 

[firstclasser]

I wouldn't consider it in Y. But I would consider it in J and F.
Maybe QF should configure these ultra long haul flights with F and J seats only

 

[Spongbob]

Timing of departure and arrival flights would be key factors.

 

[Simo]

Seeing times and depending on when you get to the other end is a big deal for me. Would I fly direct maybe but wouldn't do it all the time

 

[chocsaway]

Personally I would prefer a direct flight to London. I find getting off at Dubai, going through security again and hanging around for a couple of hours more of a pain than a welcome break. At least to have the option of a straight through flight would be a great improvement imho.

 

[juddles]

Personally I would prefer a direct flight to London. I find getting off at Dubai, going through security again and hanging around for a couple of hours more of a pain than a welcome break. At least to have the option of a straight through flight would be a great improvement imho.

I completely agree with chocsaway. The other issue for me with a mid-way stop is that it governs when you can/cannot sleep. Nothing like flying MEL-DXB, only falling asleep three hours out of DXB, then having to get up and waste two hours both trying to stay awake, but also wanting to stay sleepy enough to be able to go back to sleep when you board :/

Having said this, I would not ever want to experience a 20hr flight in Y

 

[Austman]

I've done the 19+ hours flight SIN-EWR return and they were two of the most relaxing and enjoyable flights I have ever done. An hour or so longer would be a doddle.


One hour after take-off and still 18:15 to go!

It was in SQ J-class and I had BYO pyjamas. The flights had enormous amounts of "quiet" time between the main services after take-off and before landing - about 16 hours of it. So I managed to get true rest with perhaps 10 hours sleep. Bliss. And watch what I wanted, eat when I liked etc.

But doing it in Y or even PE? I'm not so sure.

 

[juddles]

I wouldn't consider it in Y. But I would consider it in J and F.
Maybe QF should configure these ultra long haul flights with F and J seats only

That is what i thought when I started reading the thread!!

Unlike many others, I am NOT a superhuman savvy airline manager who knows exactly what all airlines should do. But I really think that a 787-size aircraft, configured with F and J only, with a small bar/social area, would actually be a go on a route such as LHR-SYD.

 

[Mattg]

That is what i thought when I started reading the thread!!

Unlike many others, I am NOT a superhuman savvy airline manager who knows exactly what all airlines should do. But I really think that a 787-size aircraft, configured with F and J only, with a small bar/social area, would actually be a go on a route such as LHR-SYD.

At the very least, you would have to hope that QF would not even consider 3-3-3 in Y if they used a 787.

 

[mviy]

I care about price (my J travel is self-funded so I don't want the price to go up), timings (afternoon arrival into LHR and evening arrival back into Australia would be fabulous), and would consider such a flight in J/F.

 

[Deleted member]

I won't fly long haul in whY anymore regardless. That said I wouldn't fly that often either. So for me it's about the journey, just as much as the destination.
So yes, I would fly non stop 20 hours, at least once to see how I cope.

 

[kermatu]

I've voted no. When I have a choice and a bit of time I normally prefer to stop along the way for a couple of days (Dubai, Asia, even LA) before getting to Europe or further into North America.

If no time to stop for a few days I'd probably still prefer a break in the middle to stretch legs. The kid in me also likes the additional landing/takeoff and airport experience. Plus a refreshed cabin, crew and food.

A comfortable F suite would be 'acceptable' for 20 hours though. Usually beyond my budget sadly.

 

[Pushka]

I think cabin fever would hit at the 14 hour mark in even the premium cabin. A 14 hour flight gives the chance of a sleep for a few hours. I hate the Singapore - ADL flights as they are only around 6 hours and late night departure and early morning arrival. Good way to wreck a nice holiday.

I do agree that the timing of departure and arrival time is important. Flying the day flight sector DXB - SYD for 13 hours meant trying to sleep not long after a nights sleep then arriving first thing in the morning wasn't good. And that was in F. Yet the overnight ADL - DXB seemed much better.

 

[DaveB]

Arrival lounges are going to be a necessity for early morning arrivals.
Can't see anyone on leisure paying more for the privilege of being jammed in Y for 20 odd hours.
A shame SQ had the all J plane being on the 340 which couldn't make any configuration work. Surely the smaller 2 engine long range versions of 350 or 989 can make a go of a larger J cabin with the remaining all Y+ or hopefully even Y++.

 

[Austman]

I think cabin fever would hit at the 14 hour mark in even the premium cabin. A 14 hour flight gives the chance of a sleep for a few hours.

I thought that would happen too. I was almost dreading the 19+ hour SIN-EWR non-stop flight. But it turned out to be great. Those 16 or so hours of "quiet" time in the middle of the flight sort of drifted away - I probably slept 8 or 10 of them. I suppose it's hard to tell until you've done it.

 

[Buzzard]

Yes and no for me.
If I simply want to get from A to B then a direct flight in a good J or F cabin would be fine. As an example EK where there is a decent bar area or you can have a shower. If I am stopping for the sake of stopping then why not just keep going. If I am going to have a 3 or 4 day stop along the way then let's stop.

 

[ellen10]

I would say yes to a non stop flight if travelling in a premium cabin. On our recent flight to LHR via Dubai I found the packing up of items changing clothes etc a pain, not to mention the security checks at Dubai and waiting to board again.

 

[Assassin]

I'm keen to try PER-LHR once it starts, and would love a NYC-SYD option. BUT only in J or F. I flew Y SYD-JNB earlier this year and even in a bulkhead row and a day flight, it was about 6 hours too long! I could not imagine an extra 6 hours plus trying to get some sleep!