Is this true? I find it so hard to sit in the plane for such a long time. I don't think flying in business class would make too much of a difference because it is still way more constrained than outside a flight.
Having flown Sydney to New York and back just last week, I would much prefer a single non-stop flight. Especially since on the way back I missed my connection in SFO due to bad weather and was stuck for a full day: all US West-Australia flights leave late at night, so if you miss one wave, it's 24 hours until the next batch.
Also, 20 hours seems like a lot, but it's only an incremental increase on the current longest flight (17:40 for Doha to Auckland, NZ on Qatar) or the previous longest flight (18h+ for Singapore to NY). The problem is really the economics and the rocket problem: to fly further nonstop, you need to carry lots of fuel, which increases the weight, which requires more fuel... The 18 hour flight was business class only with seats going for north of $10k return and Singapore Airlines still couldn't make it pay off.
While boarding a flight this week, I was told to wait (just entered the plane) because they wanted to serve orange juice to someone in business class. So me and some 10 people behind me waited until the air hostess served the juice and came back few mins later, because orange juice couldn't wait for another 15 mins. It felt very weird. I guess rich people do really experience life on a different level.
If you can get the miles from churning, I wouldn't say that the co-pay is particularly onerous, it's much less than it would have cost to buy all the tickets in economy.
Also, on international flights this won't interfere with the boarding process, because usually they either board using multiple doors (one for business/first, one for economy) or they board from a door behind the front cabin, so that people in first/business turn left to get to their seats while people in economy turn right. There are some studies suggesting that if people don't have to walk through and see the fancy cabin on their way into the plane, they get less angry in the economy cabin.
That said, yes, it's a very different world. I've done international flights in economy, and suffered. I've also done them in business class, and was fine. Getting a good night's sleep over the ocean, stepping off the plane into fast track through immigration, then into a lounge for a shower and a hot breakfast, makes the process not only bearable but pleasant.
And that's without getting into the ultra high end of airline travel (which is still well behind what you get once you're into private-jet money). Look up some videos of, say, Lufthansa's first-class terminal in Frankfurt. It's literally a separate terminal for the first-class passengers, with private security screening, private passport control, private dining and relaxation areas, and then they put you in a chauffeured luxury sedan and drive you across the airport to your gate, where you take an elevator up and board the plane, never having to mix with the economy-class passengers at all.
The middle eastern carriers are like this, too, and many go so far as to send a personal driver to your home or hotel to pick you up and make sure you reach the airport in time, and have staff who whisk you through check-in and security and into a private lounge to wait for your flight.
Currently Etihad has the fanciest in-the-air setup, with two different first-class "seats" on their A380s, both more or less private airborne apartments (one of them is literally called "The Apartment", the other is a multi-room setup called "The Residence"), with your own private butler, access to a shower in flight, etc.
I can confirm that. A shower before a long flight, even in economy, can make a huge difference.
I almost never fly business, but I have a Priority Pass membership which gets me into airline lounges to shower. Best thing ever.
Am really looking forward to the shower in Singapore after a 12.5hr flight!
Also, showers usually do more than just getting one clean. It could be psychological, but I find showers help me to relax, de-stress, and prepare me for sleep. Of course I'm one of those folks who shower before bedtime, so your mileage may vary.
It's a remarkably dumb feature, pure novelty.
If flying premium economy, it's a wash between direct or having a short layover.
In economy, I definitely prefer having a layover closer to the middle. Flying 20h non stop in economy seats is hell and I'd never do it.
That depends very much on the kind of aircraft, and while there are aircraft for which this is true this definitely isn't always the case. Modern aircraft are miracles of efficiency.
Most fuel is used to haul the airframe, cargo and the passengers around, fuel is only a relatively small percentage of the total maximum take off weight.
For example, the A350 mentioned in the article has a maximum of 108 Tonnes (140K liters) of fuel on board and has a maximum take-off weight of 280 Tonnes. So no matter what the mix cargo/passengers/fuel is there will never be more than 30-40% of the take-off weight in the fuel, and a good chunk of that (5 - 7 Tonnes) will be burned just on take-off and another 5-7 Tonnes to get it to altitude. So fully 10-14% of the fuel will be gone after the first few minutes of flight, then once you reach cruising altitude the consumption drops quite a bit due to the reduced drag.
Consumption during take off and getting to altitude varies between about 2.5 and 1.0 times consumption at cruise altitude due to increased drag and the climb itself.
With that kind of penalty on a take-off and the required reserve on landing (which is usually dead weight, but which you will very much appreciate if you have to get to your first or second alternate) the overhead of a landing+take-off sequence is pretty stiff so non-stop flights have a good chance of being more efficient if the destination is in range.
There is a cool graph of the fuel efficiency of a 777.
The peak efficiency is 3000 miles. Anything higher than that and you're better off stopping for fuel.
Maximum efficiency merely indicates at which distance all parameters are matched most perfectly, it is not the distance above which one should land to take on more fuel to be more efficient.
Reduction to absurds is an easy way to prove that to yourself, imagine a flight of 3000 miles at maximum efficiency, and then one at 3001 miles at which you claim they should stop to take on more fuel. This clearly is not the case so there is something wrong with your statement.
SFO has two sets of parallel runways, and usually likes to use 28L/28R for arrivals. There are plenty of protocols for airports to do simultaneous landings on two runways parallel and next to each other, but (simplifying a bit) SFO has the slight problem of them being too close together to do instrument landings for both runways at the same time.
This leads to compromise protocols which rely on the ability of one plane to maintain visual contact with the other plane when doing simultaneous landings. But of course in foggy/cloudy/rainy weather, visibility goes away and SFO can no longer handle simultaneous landings on those runways, which basically cuts the capacity of the airport in half.
Business class any day but 19hours non stop in Economy is pain for me. (Which the new PER-LHR is).
It makes sense for Qantas though it's mostly the only way to fly more long haul flights competitively because all the flights are too long like this. And saves you airport fees for the stopover.
The 14.5 hour flights I have taken were certainly more tedious than individual 7 or 8 hour flights. But back-to-back 7 or 8 hour flights plus an hour or two layover is much more tedious. Whenever possible, I would rather do a single flight.
If you have a single flight, you get that feeling of being done once you board your first flight, there's just fewer opportunities for stress.
Then again, the times I've had to worry about missed connections are small and the rest didn't end the world; the worst I've had to experience is waiting longer than expected.
Partly what henrikschroder said, but it's also the trip just takes longer with a connection. And after being on a 7 hour flight, I never look forward to getting back on another one. Also I typically have to go through customs and immigration in the stop between the two long-haul fights, so that adds a whole additional level of hassle that would be avoided with a direct flight.
[0] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/A...
[1] http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2016/10/18/air-india-...
But by time in the air QR921 is still the longest flight in the world (17 hours 30 minutes, compared to Air India's 16 hours 55 minutes). Five other flights also are scheduled for 17 hours or longer in the air: EK449 AKL-DXB; UA1 and SQ31 SFO-SIN; QF8 DFW-SYD; and AA125 DFW-HKG.
That, and the fact that there are a lot of Indian elderly who make the Delhi-San Francisco flight regularly to visit children who work in the Bay Area.
Of course, I don't know if the stop overs for refuelling involve a connecting flight or if you are put back on the same plane, so in those cases (where your are guaranteed a rest stop of no more than 3 hours) I can see the preference going ether way.
The reason for this partially is old airline freedom laws. Because stopovers used to basically be required for all long haul flights in 70s etc you can "stopover" in other countries airports.
In the US, larger airlines often use a flight number twice a day -- once for a domestic flight and once for an international flight. For flights departing to international destinations, it's not uncommon for one of the inbound feeder flights to use the same flight number.
Also, for a foreign carrier, the rules are a bit more complex; they can make an additional stop in the US, and can pick up more passengers, but can't do much more than that. US federal law requires that transportation between two points in the US take place on a US-owned carrier. So, for example, Qantas flies from New York to destinations in Australia with a stop in Los Angeles, and can pick up more passengers at LAX and even change planes there for the onward journey, but they can't sell JFK-LAX tickets.
America is unique in requiring all passengers to go through immigration, but in that case they are usually going somewhere else in America anyways so it would be a port of entry. Sucks if you are transferring in Miami to go to South America, however.
Melbourne -> Seoul -> Mexico City -> Montreal
The previous time it was Melbourne -> LA -> Newark -> Montreal, flying home Vancouver -> LA -> Brisbane -> Melbourne.
On a long flight I take a few walks, loiter in the galley area, get the blood flowing in the legs with a session of raising myself up/down on tiptoes repeatedly... Really seems to help.