Originally Posted by
airsurfer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singap...ghts_21_and_22
This flight (and the upcoming QF project Sunrise flights stating in 2026-'27) flies 18-20 hours nonstop which would 'save four hours compared to a one-stop flight'.
I doubt it. I rather thing two hours: extra landing and takeoff costs 2x30 minutes plus one hour stop makes two hours. But, let it 4 hours, this is not the worst issue.
Taking 1-2 extra sets of crew, hunderd(s) tons of extra fuel makes such flights more costly than one stop flights on a similar distance. The extra fuel and extra crew costs paying passenger space, decreasing profits of the flight.
Moreover, LHR-SYD contains more stop airports close to the great circle route (SIN, BKK, DXB), unlike the SQ SIN-JFK polar route.
I think such flights are just prestige of the airlines 'we can do LHR-SYD non stop'. Or is there another reason these airlines operate such flights which cost much more money than a one stop flight.
Your ideas ?
1: The time lost is close to 4 hours, when including the deviation from optimum routing
2: The aircraft does not need "hundreds of tons" extra. In fact, the total fuel consumption on a non-stop is considerably lower. The total fuel capacity of an A350-100 is in the range of around 165.000 litres, which equates to roughly 115 tons . Adding "hundreds of tons" extra is therefore physically impossible.
3: ULH flights require an additional 2 cockpit crew members, no more or less
4: Neither DXB, BKK or SIN are anywhere near the great-circle route between SYD and LHR. HKG, on the other hand, is. However, the GC route goes over Russia and that's not presently allowed
My idea? People armed with computers and flight planning software, coupled with exact information on aircraft performance, are fully able to make the necessary calculations. If they can make a business case out of it, I'm not here to argue that.