FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Cost effectiveness of some ULH flights ?
View Single Post
Old Nov 18, 2024 | 10:12 am
  #9  
Sheikh Yerbooty
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Western Europe
Programs: Yeah, well, don’t really care anymore
Posts: 1,146
Originally Posted by airsurfer
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.
1: 40 minutes descend, 45 minutes climb, deviation from optimum routing, 1-1.5 hours on the ground. It all adds up.
2: A non-stop flight between two points burns less fuel in total than a one-stop.
3: QF are running their PER-LHR with one set of cabin crew, giving them extended breaks. I suppose Australian law makes that possible
4: SYD/MEL-LHR are unlikely to be viable, or maybe even possible, if Russian airspace is unavailable

Last edited by Sheikh Yerbooty; Nov 18, 2024 at 2:01 pm
Sheikh Yerbooty is offline