Boeing 777 breaks distance record

Do we share Boeing's belief that we want to spend 20+ hrs on a plane, see story here.

Or do we prefer A380s with space and entertainment, then a break a la Virgin?

Originally posted by slinky09
Do we share Boeing's belief that we want to spend 20+ hrs on a plane, see story here.

Or do we prefer A380s with space and entertainment, then a break a la Virgin?

I do think that there is unlikely to be much of a market for any plane whose only distinguishing feature is that it can fly more than half way round the world. I believe Boeing have only sold 2 or 3 of these things so far.

Chris

I can't really understand the routing for a flight of this type. The only reason you would go East from HKG to LHR would be to complicate the paperwork by flying over the US.

Surely they could have come up with a more sensible proving route than that.

Phil

GOD! 23 hours in an economy seat with 31" pitch....

What a total nightmare that will be!
They should call any airline which does this DVT airways!

Originally posted by AlanA
GOD! 23 hours in an economy seat with 31" pitch....

To be honest I would not want 23 hours in an UC seat. Say about £2500 for a 8 hour flight. That would presumably imply you were paying £7500 for the 23 hour flight. And lets look at what you get for your money - Massive jet lag, dehydration that makes you look like a prune (no moisuriser in the amenity kit), and both normal Freedom and GNF in the same flight. Mind you, after 10 hours on the freedom menu [:$] the GNF service would be a relief!

I think (according to last night's news) that they took the "scenic route" [8D] for the purposes of breaking this record. The report did say that this wouldn't be considered a "commerical" route.

Still, I agree that the idea of being stuck on ANY airplane for that length of time doesn't appeal. 10 hours is about my maximum...after that - beware! [B)]

Nice to see records broken though. I like the 777. If I have to be in Y (BA or AA) then the 777 would be at the top of my list.

Of course just because the plane can stay up that long doesn't mean either the passengers or crew can.

I assume you would have to have at least 2 complete sets of crew. Also where would you stow all those meals and would you really want to eat something that was put together over 24 hours earlier.

I'm all for ultra-long haul and look forward to going LHR-SYD direct when it starts but I think that's about the limit.

Phil

[Scrooge]

On this flight there are two sets of crews,one from PIA and the other from EVA.

IMHO a flight for this amount of time should rate right up there with the exam we men get when we reach 40,depressing,undignifed,uncomfortable,and you come out with your rum hurting[:I]...

No way in hell you could get me on a plane for that long,even in a UCS,not going to happen,I think 14 hrs is about my max without a little land time.

I remember, when I was a kid, flying 747-100's and hopping all over the place trying to get to Jakarta. The flight I took once or twice a year, left LA in the evening on Monday and I arrived in Jakarta on Thursday. (30 some hours of flight/and layover plus the international dateline.)

I think I typically flew LAX-HNL-TPE-SIN-JAK... You could watch businessmen grow beards, shave them off, and grow them again... I think I would pay a little more to take a straight flight that chops 6 or 7 hours off that. I can tell you I would want to be in business class at least for that flight. [|)]