APUBleed

I don't know if I'm in the minority, but as an Australian I can't wait until non-stop flights from Sydney to London happen and ESPECIALLY Sydney to New York (transferring through the US is an absolute nightmare given their stricter rules). It's not just about time saved but effort especially after a long flight where you are feeling tired.

I probably agree with Willie that I wouldn't want to fly in a BA aircraft for 21 hours either though. But if Willie tried any of his competitors he'd probably, like I, have a different view.

rockflyertalk

Elon Musk may have an alternative, there is also a business called BOOM supersonic. It could well happen. I wouldn't rule it out.

subject2load

subject2load

seat1C

I think it's worth remembering that it's only non-stop if you want to start and finish where the plane takes off and lands. If you want to go to Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide it isn't any quicker than going on the "stopping service".

I personally quite like Perth, but I don't think non-stop is really going to make a difference until it's going to Sydney.

WorldLux

I'm well aware of Boom. The problems I've listed in the quoted post still remain applicable. No matter how you turn or twist it, a supersonic airplane won't be as fuel-efficient as a subsonic airplane. Range is another problem. Boom plans to get 4,500nm out of their bird. That's not enough for PER-DXB, a route where the plane could fly Mach 2.2 without disturbing anybody. It would be enough for SYD-HNL-US East coast. Any supersonic flight over land will be out of the picture if they can't eliminate or reduce the supersonic boom.

Moreover, it isn't even certain that Boom will ever take to the sky. There have been plenty of attempts by small teams to launch aircrafts and many of those projects have never reached the testing and certification period. Rekkof is a good illustration. IIRC they had the support of VLM and KLM at some point and they occasionally updated their brochure.

orbitmic

But this thread is not about the existing LHR-PER, it is about LHR-SYD which QF says they will start as non-stop in the next four years using either the long range 35K or the new 77X. I don't think Walsh cares that much about the Perth route but he is probably trying to rubbish the SYD one because that's what will affect IAG's market share...

ilcannone

Perhaps not, but I can think of two major advantages to a direct Oz-UK flight, which don't exactly cover large demographics:

1) avoiding going via the US for which most would need a visa for no matter what unlike in most of Asia

2) those who need medicines e.g. HIV related tablets which are banned in places like the UAE etc don't need to worry about taking them or documents etc.

rockflyertalk

Ldnn1

You note those cover very small demographics but even then, point (1) is not particularly relevant because (a) few people travel UK<>Oz via the US anyway as there are far more connection options going east and (b) in any case most people travelling UK<>Oz don't require a visa for the US, merely an ESTA. Meanwhile I don't see that point (2) makes any difference compared to e.g. BA/QF's existing 'direct' route via SIN where there is no customs entry.

I think there are far more relevant advantages to a non-stop flight, many of which outlined upthread. However I still remain largely unimpressed by the 'breakthrough' of achieving 20+ hours of flight.

WorldLux

The problem isn't a technological one. We have been able to fly at significantly higher speeds for decades now. The problems are economic and political ones. Prohibition of supersonic flights over land is probably the biggest problem. Even if they manage to eliminate the sonic boom, there's still the issue of range and the question whether airlines will go for it. How much more fuel per seat is Boom going to use compared to a modern jet?

Re: Virgin backing Boom: Remember when Virgin ordered A380?

ilcannone

Correct about the US thing, but if someone doesn't want to pay for the ESTA for whatever reason, or a visa if they for some reason need one (e.g. having been to Iran etc), well...again, small demographics but still. Not to mention that those on a round the world trip could still go this way.

As for the medication thing, if one was to fly Qantas pre Dubai exit, that would have been a no go, or wishing to go via Emirates etc.

callum9999

If they don't want to pay for an ESTA (why thats important given its nothing in comparison to the cost of the flights I don't know?) then why would they be selecting a flight via the US? And if they're going around the world, how does this flight help them? It still requires a connection.

​​​​​​A quick search suggests all you need to carry with your HIV medication in Dubai is a prescription. So the only major advantage of this flight you have really described is for someone who is HIV positive who will only fly with Qantas and finds carrying a prescription too arduous. There's niche and then there's niche!

itsmeitisss

Is your real name Boris?

LTN Phobia

I would not fly on these as long as I have a choice not to.

I can just imagine my irritation if I have noisy seat neighbours like I had on far too many flights and I have to put up with them for 20 hours. There is a reason why I pay substantisl extra money to stop over somewhere between Australia and Europe.