DFB_london

Probably the 787 (or A350) not the duration are key. 6 hours on a 777 leaves me parched and feeling shredded. 12-14 hours on a 787/350 and I feel far better. The better cabin humidity makes a huge difference. I find the 777 to be a particularly bad plane for dehydration and jet lag.

DFB_london

New fleet like A350 much more capable and much lower fuel burn. Look - Singapore is doing this now already to New York so the economics are there.

orbitmic

The plane model undoubtedly matters too, but also having one long haul flight is much less tiring than 2. As mentioned, I have done AKL-DOH in Y and that is on a 777 and on every occasion, I was indeed very significantly less tired after that than when I do equivalent distances with one stop which I do frequently. That's why I suggested that with the new proposed route on the 350 I have no doubt that it would be even less tiresome comparatively.

I think that there is a mental "block" at the idea of spending 20 hours in a Y seat (though much of it from people who don't travel long haul Y regularly any way, which I do) but the reality truly is not what people (including myself) tend to apprehend beforehand. From experience, it really is a lot more liveable (and preferable to the alternative, unless you can genuinely break the journey to the point of spending a night or two at your intermediary point).

dddc

Having bounced between Oz and the UK for nearly 3 decades now, most of it in Y, the improvement in cabin quality on the later aircraft like the A380 and A350 is noticeable. I came back on Cathay's A350's early last year with only a couple of hours stop over in HK, but arriving first thing in the morning here which I really try to avoid. However, I was surprised how refreshed we both felt and we didn't have too bad jet lag. As much as love the B747s, I'll take an A350 any day. B777s? Not so sure. I endured Emirates 10 abreast DXB - BNE with a scheduled stop in Singapore and unscheduled stop in Hyderabad. Took a few days to get over that. I haven't done a stop over in 20+ years because I want to maximise my time in Australia, or use my annual leave somewhere else.

Having a stop allows for a shower, a chance to stretch your legs, I've used a gym before, have a bit to eat of something exotic perhaps. Also if you get stuck next to someone you don't like, you may not be with them on the next leg. I had a wide man next to me on a 9 abreast 777 and that was an uncomfortable 12 hours LHR-HKG. I had a long hot shower after that. The next leg felt so spacious, even though I had someone next to me. Downsides of a stop is the hassle of packing up your gear, going through security and boarding again, plus losing 2 to 5 or more hours on a direct flight, but unless they can ensure comfort on board, I wouldn't fly. I don't think I'd like to do it in the B787, but maybe on an A350 like Cathay's as there Y cabin I found reasonably comfortable, apart from then seat backs meaning you feel the person behind you reaching into the seat pocket or their knees if they decide to sleep with them up against your the back of chair. It's always the fellow passengers that can turn a good journey bad or uncomfortable for you.

percysmith

I have eczema and never had a problem with 777?
But maybe I'm a good sleeper on planes. And I'm usually able to fly 9-abreast on 777 (if not PE or J)

In contrast, did a 787 3-hour 1am-4am redeye on 787 and got completely sore, not only because of seat width but also cabin temp. The purported humidity advantage was non-existent.

orbitmic

Once again, I fully agree on plane types. I feel significantly less tired after x hours on a 350 than the same x hours on a 777 or 747, and in my view, even the 787 is somewhere in between rather than in the same league as the 350 so fully agree on plane type.

For the rest, all the arguments that you mention (shower, break, bad neighbour, legs stretching etc) they are exactly everything I had in mind before taking my first AKL-DOH ULH and which made me fear I'd regret that routing. All I can repeat is that from experience, non of it is any more relevant in replacing an 18hr flight by two 12 and 8 hour flights than it would be in replacing a non stop 13 hour flight to Singapore by two 9 and 6 hour flights via Doha or Dubai. In both cases, I find the nonstop significantly less tiring, very much including the ULH. You can still take a shower after you arrive, you can still stretch your legs when you arrive, you can still have bad neighbours (remember that an additional long haul flights is just an additional opportunity to get one of those! ). In my experience, whether the shower follows 6 hours on the plane or 12 or 18 did not make much of a difference, and note that QF have said that they would create a special area for Y pax to be able to stretch their legs onboard which sounds nice to me.

Now of course, this may well be a personal thing, not least in that I fly so many flights a year that to me a 7 hour flight is pretty much "short haul", but what I am stressing here is that all those arguments that you mention are not arguments that I ignore or was not sensitive too - they were exactly the reason why I thought that I would find the ULH in Y "worse" than two shorter ones, that was my expectation, and my experience strikingly contradicted my expectations. Every time, I found the one much longer flight a lot less tiring and a lot preferable than two shorter long hauls with a connection. Maybe it's psychological, but there is that weird cycle when I fly long haul that at first I think that 10, 13, 18 hours is going to be super long when I board, then meal and a first film and it looks like only 6, 9 or 14 hours are left and then I think "oh gosh, now it's just like a - New York, Miami, Singapore left!". Add a bit of closing my eyes (I rarely sleep in Y unfortunately, but I do tend to close my eyes and "escape" in semi-dreamy" state) and when I open then again, it is 2, 5, or 10 hours left and then I say "Oh, only a Nice, Doha, Houston left now!" and so on. Unpleasant neighbours are horrible, but materially, I don't find them that different on a 6 or 12 hours flight, even if it is twice more of seeing them, it just feels like maybe 10% worse as one gets used to almost anything.

By contrast, a second (or third) additional flight - especially long haul - is always far worse for me. In fact, a sure sign of it is that typically, when I have an itinerary of two or three connecting long haul flights, I almost find the first one easiest and the following ones harder and harder (or rather more and more unpleasant) to cope with regardless of lengths (ie if it is 13+6, I still typically resent the second 6 hour long one more than the first despite it being twice shorter). Again, maybe it is not the same for everyone and some fellow posters find the second shorter Y flight easier to cope with than the first longer one, but for me, having one flight less is a massive advantage.

callum9999

I completely agree (which is exactly why people need to stop using anecdotes to prove a point - you'll always find someone with the exact opposite anecdote!).

Being tall, I tend to get uncomfortable pretty quickly in economy, then once I'm already uncomfortable it makes little difference whether it's 8 hours, 10 hours or 16 hours. Time just blurs and I become "numb" to the discomfort.

When I connect long-haul to long-haul, I'm initially happy to be out the seat - then I'm incredibly bored. I'm tired and achy so I just go and sit down somewhere in a bright noisy terminal and attempt to occupy myself for potentially hours. I'm then relieved to finally get going and board the next plane, and shortly after I go through the entire process of becoming uncomfortable all over again. The only time that's worthwhile to me is if I get to spend 24hrs+ in an interesting city. Otherwise, give me a single long flight any day!

dddc

I know what you mean about long haul flights time wise. 4 to 9 hours is what I'd call mid haul. It needs two meal services and a properly defined snack run to be classed long haul in my mind. If you are going to be onboard for 20 hours, I'd want three full, proper meal runs and snacks available on demand.

With regards to the shower, I've always found it beneficial mid route, and again upon landing. Maybe it's just getting rid of the cabin air, maybe it's just physically refreshing. I remember one of the early times I did it via Tokyo or Osaka, I saw many of my fellow passengers from LHR at the gate looking exhausted where as we were feeling very refreshed and perky. We slept comfortably while our seat companion took whisky and night nurse! As I said before, coming off the double A350 run from MEL to LGW via HKG with a 2 hr stop over, we didn't feel tired at all. Gong LHR to BNE with a 6 hour stop, again all A350s we didn't feel tired - but we did land at 11.30pm and were in bed by 1am so that may have had a factor there, but otherwise I think the modern aircraft are reducing the length of jet lag you get. Did a 787 with Etihad but that was hard to judge as I had baby next to me (not mine!) the seemed to scream and cry every time I managed to nod off. Despite an evening arrival, I felt the urge to sleep the next day from 1pm to 6pm which through me out of sync for the next few nights annoyingly.

I've done BNE-SYD-MEL-BKK-AMS-LON once and because I had 3 hours at AMS I found a shower and purged myself of plane air and felt respectable to meet my soon to be betrothed when I landed. I don't think I would have felt comfortable with plane hair and 24hrs+ of cabin air. It really comes down to what comforts airlines are going to provide Y for those lengths. SQ felt it was better not to offer Y on it's SIN-JFK route. I'm not sure the walking area QF are talking about will cut it. The snack bar on the A380 last time I flew in October was rather depleted from the levels it was the time I flew it before. I'd want to see a minimum 18" seat width, 34" seat pitch, 9" recline and seat backs that don't let you feel every movement of the person in the seat behind you. No IFE boxes in the foot area, but in the seat pan like CX. I'm undecided about a foot rest. I use an inflatable one that is good as I can blow it up to the comfort level I want that day.

Ultimately, YMMV depending on your own physiology, the plane and carrier you fly and even the time of day/night you travel. We can only make recommendations to people and until they try it out they won't know how their bodies will react.

dddc

Being in the midst of some back issues, the central message I'm getting is if you are uncomfortable, don't put up with it as your body is saying something is wrong. Have or the others in the series for back and neck pain. You need to counteract it to avoid the build up of issues.

If you have more than a couple of hours to connect I would recommend going to a lounge. If you fly regularly you could join Priority Pass or Lounge Pass if you don't have airline or credit card access to a lounge. You can have a shower, have something to eat, sit somewhere more comfy and maybe even chat to some people.

dddc

I don't know how it affect excema, but I started to suffer with dry nasal passages on 777s. I used a saline mists like this to keep them moist. I've carried it on board since I first noticed this problem but found that I didn't have to use it on the A380s or A350s.

DFB_london

Some reactions will also depend on the cleaning agents the airline’s contractors use.
BA should be better as cleaning (though improved) is still an afterthought.

email2markt

I think it makes sense for BA and QF to undertake a premium land grab on these in-demand direct routes, nice little profit and reputation gained from running a route like that and it won’t really affect the Middle East carriers much.

fartoomanyusers

the trouble is that if/when oil prices spike ... and the routes become unprofitable (again) ... then the airline is left holding planes which aren't ideal for "normal" long haul routes.

i find it strange that QF complains about the A380 being inflexible, but they're prepared to risk these Ultra Long Haul routes / aircraft

Waterhorse

The ULH versions of the aircraft are really very similar to the normal versions, they just have greater fuel capacity and slightly higher max take off weights. They can fly on shorter routes that normal versions of the same plane can operate. If the route proves to be unviable, the extra tank space can often be removed. BA did this to the ex BMed A321s that were no longer required for mid-haul routes, thus reducing their APS weight and hence operating costs.

DFB_london

You are spot on. Now I know that on here there are many that never let the facts get in the way of repeating often long held views preconceptions or unchecked biases. Great to see some facts.
To add to this, Qantas and Singapore have stated that if ulh with the A350 doesn’t work out it can be used flexibly elsewhere. For now both have networks that can both run large enough fleets of ULR modified A350 (which reduces operations risk) and enough premium demand to fill them in these markets. But neither is taking residuals risk in a way airlines had to with the 340-500 or even 777LR. If it doesn’t work out then these can be modified back like the BA A321s.
BA’s problem is that it probably can’t justify a stand alone fleet to serve one city, and even if it could, Qantas would beat it to market.