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.
The "extra crew" is net zero or even a savings. You need two set of crews to fly LHR-DXB-SYD because the crew operating LHR-DXB gets a crew rest before maybe operating DXB-SYD a day or two later so you have to have a crew already in DXB to operate DXB-SYD (they probably flew LHR-DXB a day or two before). Flying with an augmented crew that is rotating out means either the same or maybe a couple less crew members depending on the airline, labor laws, aviation regulations, etc. Plus with the nonstop there's no added costs of the crew layover in DXB which would amount to a hotel room and per diem for each crew member for the 1-2 nights they're on crew rest in DXB.
Originally Posted by
airsurfer
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 ?
Operating cost is only one factor. The other is margins on revenue. If I can spend $5 and get you to spend $6 or if I can spend $6 and get you to spend $10, which is the better option and yields a better margin? These ULH nonstops can command a premium especially in the forward cabin because time is money and that convenience can often be monetized.