It begs the question: does it make financial sense to do a technical stop? Assume it is a route where only one carrier flies the nonstop, so there's no competitive disadvantage to 17 hours gate-to-gate vs. 16 hours. Would flying two 8-hour segments (plus reserves) burn less total fuel than a single 16-hour segment? Or do the costs associated with the 2nd take-off and climb to cruise altitude more than burn up the savings?

Airlines used to have technical stops all over the place because they were limited by aircraft range. With longer range aircraft, I assume they got rid of them for competitive reasons. But maybe they make sense on these ultra-long flights?

Some portion of passengers might actually *like* them on a 16+ hour trip.