Originally Posted by
Sheikh Yerbooty
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.
1: For SIN-JFK 4 hours is true, but SYD-LHR, I doubt.
2: 'hundreds' should read 'tens'. The 'hundreds' is indeed my nonsense. But less fuel consumption of a flight which carries lots of extra fuel whil the aircraft does not have this range ? Explain ?
3: And what about cabin crew ? They cannot work 20 hours, it is not allowed by law.
4: Exactly: QF and BA are not allowed to fly over Soviet airspace (unless the Ukraine war is resolved in 2026) so the shortest route usually goes close to the three airports I mentioned and HKG is indeed a better match. Many nonstops between W Europe and SE Asia go over the Middle East for the same reason.