QANTAS - London-Sydney non-stop

[Brucebubs]

QANTAS are trialing a non-stop flight from London to Sydney tomorrow.

They recently flew a similar New York to Sydney non-stop trial and feel these long hauls are the future of air travel.

London- Sydney flight time is 19 hours 30 minutes.

Boeing 787/9 aircraft.

It is almost 100 years ago to the day of the very 1st flight from UK to Australia ... and that took 28 days to reach Darwin.

I can only say I hope they have a good toilet system.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...fYrC&ocid=iehp

[Ozzy the dog]

Wouldn't mind being on that flight.

Certainly beats British Airways.

On the two occasions we have travelled to Aus we have done a multi-city round trip. First time was with Singapore from Manchester - Perth. Perth - Melbourne. (drive to Brisbane) then Brisbane to Manchester.

Second time was more or less reverse of first but with Emirates. The internal flights were around 5 hours as Singapore team up with Virgin Australia and Emirates with Qantas. All makes for easy booking and short travel.

However, when booking the second trip I tried BA, who team up with no-one and as such, the internal flight they offered (Brisbane to Perth) was 75 hours. The reason for this was that the flight connected in London Heathrow.

Just done a search for same flight today and they have the trans Australia flight down to 15 hours, 40 - connect in Singapore.

So Qantas managing 19 hours London to Sydney is pretty darn good.

Qantas were brilliant BTW. As were Virgin Australia and Singapore.........

[6L6]

It's a LONG time to spend in an airplane, even if you have a bed in First Class.

No thanks.

[Fogducker]

A few years ago I was at the EAA airplane convention in Oshkosh,Wi. Got to tossing a few beers down with some Aussie guys and learned some good trivia. QUANTAS stands for Queensland and Northern Territories Airline Service. It's the SECOND oldest airline in the world-----The answer to the obvious question---KLM is the oldest!

I've fantasized about retiring in Oz. They're one of the few countries that like Americans and they have good beer too! It would make a nice winter trip (Its their Summer). Maybe give one of my Martins a one way trip while I'm at it!

Fog

P.S. I'm sorry "spelling freaks"----there is no U in QANTAS!

[Brucebubs]

Originally Posted by Fogducker

A few years ago I was at the EAA airplane convention in Oshkosh,Wi. Got to tossing a few beers down with some Aussie guys and learned some good trivia. QUANTAS stands for Queensland and Northern Territories Airline Service. It's the SECOND oldest airline in the world-----The answer to the obvious question---KLM is the oldest!

I've fantasized about retiring in Oz. They're one of the few countries that like Americans and they have good beer too! It would make a nice winter trip (Its their Summer). Maybe give one of my Martins a one way trip while I'm at it!

Fog

No letter 'U' in QANTAS.

Never had a jet airliner crash fatality ... unlike KLM. (Tenerife 1977)

[Merak]

Knock on wood...

[Slothead56]

I fly a lot on business (and personal). The thought of 19+ hours in an airplane makes me shiver. Can you imagine being stuck in a middle seat for that long?

[Dru Edwards]

I fly coast to coast (Canada to US) and back every other week and that's long enough for me. The 787 Dreamliner is a great plane though, especially those business class pods where you can fully recline like a bed and sleep. Did that a few times.

Don't think I could handle 19 hours, especially sitting next to someone with hygiene issues.

[Brucebubs]

Touched down safely in Sydney 45 minutes behind schedule.

[patrickgm60]

Originally Posted by Dru Edwards

I fly coast to coast (Canada to US) and back every other week and that's long enough for me. The 787 Dreamliner is a great plane though, especially those business class pods where you can fully recline like a bed and sleep. Did that a few times.

Don't think I could handle 19 hours, especially sitting next to someone with hygiene issues.

I fly SF to Beijing, Shanghai, or Taipei somewhat regularly; 14 hours. The 787 is a nice upgrade (I usually fly economy), but that's about my limit. Never have been able to catch more than a cat nap on flights.

I wonder whether those flights will have a higher proportion of business/first class seats, for those who can't be cramped for nearly an entire day.

[Earl49]

Originally Posted by Slothead56

I fly a lot on business (and personal). The thought of 19+ hours in an airplane makes me shiver. Can you imagine being stuck in a middle seat for that long?

Only in my nightmares. I used to fly a lot for business and for personal travel (over 900K miles) but no more.

Originally Posted by patrickgm60

I wonder whether those flights will have a higher proportion of business/first class seats, for those who can't be cramped for nearly an entire day.

I usually pay for First Class since I am 6'-6" with long legs. But even that is getting pretty cramped these days, and isn't what it used to be. Alaska Airlines squished four rows of the bigger seats into the space previously occupied by three rows and the closet / bulkhead. After 3½ hours with my knees smashed into the seat ahead of me, I had to ask the flight attendant for a wheelchair to get off the plane. I'm never flying anywhere again, for any reason! Well maybe on a private jet.... on someone else's nickel.

[CoffeeFan]

I love to travel as much as the next guy, and try to do two or three trips a year, usually to Europe. Travel time is usually 12-15 hours, but that includes layovers where I can stretch my legs, grab a bite to eat, etc.

But 20 hours on an airplane?

Nyet...

[Brucebubs]

I'm with you guys. 20 hours locked in a metal tube with 200+ other passengers and the A/C on recirculate - no thanks.

[619TF]

Originally Posted by patrickgm60

I fly SF to Beijing, Shanghai, or Taipei somewhat regularly; 14 hours. The 787 is a nice upgrade (I usually fly economy), but that's about my limit. Never have been able to catch more than a cat nap on flights.

I wonder whether those flights will have a higher proportion of business/first class seats, for those who can't be cramped for nearly an entire day.

Likely. Actually they flew the aircraft with a whole lot less passengers as there's currently no plane that can (officially) fly that far on a tank of gas. That all means they'll either have to come up with a different aircraft or leave plenty of empty space.

[Brucebubs]

Originally Posted by 619TF

Likely. Actually they flew the aircraft with a whole lot less passengers as there's currently no plane that can (officially) fly that far on a tank of gas. That all means they'll either have to come up with a different aircraft or leave plenty of empty space.

Yes, they did the same with the New York - Sydney trial flight. Apparently there was 30 minutes of fuel left when that flight landed.

Too scary!