Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Commercial Vehicles (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/)

-   -   Qantas Dreamliner completes longest ever 19-hour commercial flight (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/214290-qantas-dreamliner-completes-longest-ever-19-hour-commercial-flight-3.html)

Yes, I'm completely aware of the above :)
The Great Circle distance was given as a reference. If you see flightaware.com, flightradar24.com or similar tracking sites, there are usually 3 values given for the distance. Something like Actual: 9,719 mi (Planned: 9,539 mi/Direct: 9,540 mi). These values are for SQ22 (SIN-EWR). The Direct shows the Great Circle distance, which in this case is 9540 miles. Planned, which is from the filed flight plan and Actual represents the actual distance flown on that particular day/flight. As you can see from the above link, the actual distance filed and covered on each flight can be tabulated and they change, depending on the factors mentioned in your post.
Monday 21-Oct-2019 | Actual: 9,719 mi (Planned: 9,539 mi/Direct: 9,540 mi)
Sunday 20-Oct-2019 | Actual: 10,343 mi (Planned: 9,565 mi/Direct: 9,540 mi)
Saturday 19-Oct-2019 | Actual: 10,417 mi (Planned: 9,565 mi/Direct: 9,540 mi)
Friday 18-Oct-2019 | Actual: 10,334 mi (Planned: 9,539 mi/Direct: 9,540 mi)
Thursday 17-Oct-2019 | Actual: 10,327 mi (Planned: 9,565 mi/Direct: 9,540 mi)
The essence of your post is evident from the data.
But the idea of putting the Great Circle Distance in my post was to have a reference. From the above values, the maximum deviation from the Direct route is around 877 miles, which is (~762nm).
For the QANTAS flight (JFK-SYD) the values are as follows:
Actual: 10,134 mi (Planned: 9,961 mi/Direct: 9,962 mi)
The actual flown is ~172 miles (~150nm) more than the Planned or Direct. An Airbus A350XWB-900ULR is designed to fly up to 9700nm (11,162 miles) with a particular payload and it has the ability to fly an additional ~1200 miles is what I meant. So, with a little bit of payload sacrifice, it could easily do this route. The quoted post claimed that there is no aircraft currently flying is capable of doing this route. But then again, it all depends on the payload requirements of the carrier and their calculations for making a profitable case.

Travelling for 19 hours in an airplane is completely different than to travelling in a car bus or train.

The environment in an airplane is very controlled and artificial, which is like having food with artificial ingredients than having fresh food. Any artificial thing is not good for the human body which is a proven fact.

Hence this Project Sunrise research flights are conducted by Qantas to check the effects on the human body after which it is made to spend that many hours in a controlled environment.

Such projects can be carried out quietly but Qantas saw an opportunity here to start marketing for these flights even before the first revenue flight! In the current age of social media any opportunity to market a product is lapped up.

Coming to the commercial aspects of these ultra long haul flights, these are very expensive to run and sustain. Case in point Singapore Airlines had to pull out their SIN-EWR non stop flight few years back which they use to fly on an Airbus A340 as it was not commercially viable and they lost a lot of money. The A340 was a fuel guzzler.

With the introduction of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A350 aircrafts which are more fuel efficient and the manufacturers claim they have such ergonomics where they have made sure the passengers won't feel much fatigue after flying in them for long hauls.

The new SIN-EWR flight on the A350 has only Business Class and Premium Economy. Only a fraction of the travelling population can afford to fly on these. There are many 1 stop flights on this sector via HKG/China/Taiwan for a third of the fare what Singapore Airlines is charging. So we exactly do not know how much this ultra long haul is making or losing money.

On the other hand Qantas has claimed that their first ultra long haul flight on the Perth - London sector is a success as it has load capacities of 90% since its launch.This would have spurred Qantas to start more such flights. Point to note is that London - Australia is a very popular sector(Kangaroo Run) than say a SIN-EWR or SYD-JFK.

Only time will tell whether these ultra long haul flights can be sustained by the operators in the long run as not many factors are in favour of these flights as against to one stop flights that Emirates and Qatar operate successfully.Also 90% of the paying passengers look for deals and select the cheapest flights over time. Only the business community is concerned about the time taken to travel from point A to B. The company pays for their travel hence they can afford to buy these expensive tickets on the ultra long haul flights.

The longest two I traveled recently was from DOHA-MIAMI and DOHA-LAX. After the first one, I cried. After the second one, I gave up on air travel. Its since two years I went anywhere. Its an absolute torture. I threw up just reading about this 19 hr flight. May be first class / business class. Economy? Absolute no.

NO, sorry that is simply not true in real life. The published range of an aircraft is under specific (normalized) condition and a particular pay load.

The range published does not take into consideration for instance winds. Whether it can actually fly that distance is heavily depended on amongst other winds aloft. As I explained before; head wind will reduce its range, tail wind will increase its range.

Give your plane a steady 75 knot head wind all the way and it will fall out of the sky before it reached your destination.

Have you figured out why they might be making such claims by now?

Let me give you a well meant hint. In order to figure out whether a plane is capable of flying this route, you need to look at more than a published range. A whole lot more as I was trying to explain.

I can actually categorically state that I have never come across any flight planning process that uses published range, or whatever range as an input! It is simply not relevant. Range, in practice is a combination of many different parameters and considerations. Not a static number.

I am currently travelling, but let me see what I can find in terms of flight planning charts and flight planning software screen sheet. Range is never mentioned, nor required.

Jeroen

It;s all down to individual preference. I am sure majority will love these long haul flights. Having done DEL<>DOH<>DFW / DEL<>DOH<>SAN / DEL<>DOH><LA / DEL <>FRA<>LA<>SAN / DEL<>DOH<>EWR and various combinations & permutations to US, I absolutely like these 20 hours one stop over flights. Atleast, I dont have to worry about work matters for these 20 odd hours & gives much needed rest to brain. :uncontrol

Key to survive these long haul is hydration, exercise & zero alcohol. I never sit idle on these long haul for more than 30-45 min if not sleeping. Also, always wear comfortable clothes. I see people wearing tight body hugging jeans on such long haul flights.

True, I must admit that even when flying business class I might still prefer a stop over on these very long haul flights

Jeroen

Nice to see your genuine interest in aviation and that you read up on the subject. I am not picking on you but just using the above post to share with all members that these printed ranges in Wikipedia or even Jane's are too theoretical to matter and in aviation we usually don't even know what these are. As Jeroen has mentioned each flight has a unique calculation made of expected fuel consumption and hence need to carry XXX kgs of fuel. The variables are so many that the brochure number is simply of no relevance. Weather, Jetstream, air traffic restrictions are the well known ones. But for a long flight you work on the historic FE data of that particular tail number with those particular engines. The FE from machine to machine can easily vary by 1%+ which is a lot. In flight planning which is done by a licensed flight despatcher (now also called a flight operations officer) we actually work backwards on fuel calculation starting with the alternative diversionary airfield as the start point of our backward journey; how much fuel do you want in your tanks when you land, then work back to the actual scheduled destination after building in the assumptions of holding time, missed landing etc, then work back from destination to departure point. And as most know on a long flight a large part of the fuel is being burnt to carry that other part!

In aviation industry's casual talk we don't say 'this aircraft can fly 3000 nautical miles'. We say 'this aircraft can stay up for 7 hours' meaning in normal weather conditions and after allowing for take-off, taxi etc the machine can cruise for 7 hours. Colloquially we speak in hours.

From doing 38 hr train journeys, (Tirupati - New Delhi) about 12 yrs back to doing a few 20 hr + journeys ( Blr - San Francisco, Chicago), I don't mind long journeys. It's time i get to spend with myself, reading a book, catching up on some movies etc..

What i dont like is frequent boarding procedures, security checks, running between gates and long queues at immigration. I would prefer a non stop 15 hr flight vs one with a break, where i have to run between gates and do security all over again ��.. Though i fly economy, Etihad , Emirates offer a really good in-flight service + Etihad has the added benefit of US immigration procedure completion at Abu Dhabi itself , which makes life really easy.. also i donot over indulge on alcohol during the flight , which helps��

A wonderful achievement on technology (another good milestone for Boeing's 787). The human factor is quite significant too considering the crew had to work such a long "shift" with intermittent breaks.

Obviously for such a long haul, the plane had to be fueled to the brim literally & passenger / cargo payload has to be quite lower than the standard take-off weight of the 787 on routine flights. As a technology demonstrator & PR activity, this is an awesome idea. But from a commercial point of view, what value does this flight bring? I'm still not convinced. A SYD-JFK/NWK flight with a 787 already means lower seat count, lower cargo capacity. A 777-200ER/LR would give far more passenger capacity & cargo hold in a US west coast originating flight or an NY-SFR-SYD layout with a layover on the west coast. People won't mind that either.

Unless the flight actually fills to the capacity, the tickets will also be costlier on this route compared to a 1 stopper. Lower occupancy may not keep this route viable for too long. Interesting to see if it becomes mainstream flight & how it is received by passengers on this route.

I completely agree and understand. Actually, some time after posting the above, I was expecting the same comments from Jeroen as I completely missed to mention the above points :)
I know that the published range of an airliner is more or less like the ARAI fuel figures published by car manufacturers in India. For an aircraft, there are umpteen number of parameters to be considered for fuel burn. Winds, altitude, temperatures etc. of airports, jetstreams, prevailing winds, whether you are flying eastbound or westbound, the route taken depends on ETOPS restrictions, no-fly zones etc.
My only point was, if a 787-9 can fly the route with severely limited payload, the A350XWB-900ULR can do this route with more payload than the Boeing, but economic viability is something which the airline defines.
I've the payload range charts from Boeing and Airbus, but I don't have the data for the ULR variant. So, it was a comparison between B787-9 and A350XWB-900.

Interesting initiative. Only time will tell us about the commercial success of this.

As a 6 ft tall, economy class traveller I absolutely dread the idea of being in a plane for 19 hours. But that's just me. Maybe some others like it. At times fellow passengers make me feel, "Are we there yet?" in a Chennai-Madurai flight. Good luck with 19 hours. lol:

Unless I skipped the detail, they did not check the physiological and psychological effects of such a travel undertaken by Economy class passenger.

Wow, quite an elitist "research".

Yes, always loved the non-stop Singapore-Newark direct flight by Singapore Airlines, especially in the business class – just brilliant.

I agree, I don’t see much point in the research bit – probably a bit of PR, or seeing how the Dreamliner is coping with the long distance. And they have references like SQ long haul flights which is just around 30 mins less than this Qantas flight.

SQ used to have the direct 18 hours flight to Newark a decade back with standard configuration. Then they made it all-business, and eventually stopped it. And now I guess the business + premium economy configuration is working well for them.

Well I always loved flying and one such long haul was a few years back from Mumbai to Newark. This was the brand new Jet Airways aircraft back then and trust me the 16+ hours flight was one of the best I have done in a long time. Most of them have been with hops either in Dubai, Frankfurt or Heathrow.

One good thing you certainly avoid are the airport transfers and layovers and god forbid if there are delays then :Frustrati

I feel using the Dream liner for this for PR stunt. I would not be surprised if Boeing had vested interests in this. The dream liner in any of its 3 configuration cannot travel this distance with business load. Qantas wanted a research and Boeing piggybacked to boost their image in the troubled times that they are in. Also since these aircraft were anyway scheduled to be delivered to Qantas made the whole thing easier.