Awesome Article and photos on flying BA First Class Ultra Long Haul in 1968
Mar 12, 2019, 6:30 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AA EXP, IHG Diamond, IC Amb
Posts: 5,510
Awesome Article and photos on flying BA First Class Ultra Long Haul in 1968
https://www.godsavethepoints.com/201...m=BoardingArea
At a cost of £630, traveling from London to Australia in 1958 required 130 weeks worth of the average wages, six stops, 35 hours of actual flight time and more than 60 hours of constant travel. That’s a lot more than any “around the world” flight found today. Here’s a relayed first hand account of the journey, using original photographs, menus and boarding passes from his 1958 flight.
At a cost of £630, traveling from London to Australia in 1958 required 130 weeks worth of the average wages, six stops, 35 hours of actual flight time and more than 60 hours of constant travel. That’s a lot more than any “around the world” flight found today. Here’s a relayed first hand account of the journey, using original photographs, menus and boarding passes from his 1958 flight.
Mar 13, 2019, 6:49 am
#12
Join Date: Apr 2004
Programs: AA Plat/2MM, DL Silver, UA Silver (via Marr), Marr LTT, HH Gold (via cc), Hyatt Disc
Posts: 1,039
Double checking the "130 weeks worth of the average wages" statement: online inflation calculator suggests that £630 in 1958 = £14,338 today. Certainly an eye-popping amount, but 130 weeks worth of wages? I assume not.
PS I originally thought that the receipt said 1968, hence the potential confusion in the title thread.
PS I originally thought that the receipt said 1968, hence the potential confusion in the title thread.
Mar 13, 2019, 9:51 am
#15
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Programs: BAEC Gold, UA Mileage Plus, Hotels.com Gold, Marriott Bonvoy Platinum, Pizza Express Gold
Posts: 603
Double checking the "130 weeks worth of the average wages" statement: online inflation calculator suggests that £630 in 1958 = £14,338 today. Certainly an eye-popping amount, but 130 weeks worth of wages? I assume not.
PS I originally thought that the receipt said 1968, hence the potential confusion in the title thread.
PS I originally thought that the receipt said 1968, hence the potential confusion in the title thread.