Would you pay a price premium for non-stop SYD-LHR flight?

[JohnK]

The options should have included "no way without a stop".

Regardless of what class you are flying (especially cattle) I think a flight of that distance should have some interaction with mother earth somewhere along the way, even for an hour or so.

 

[AlwaysUpThere]

For a flight that long they would probably need 3 crews!

Should still only need 2. If they need any longer, they will actually "start" at different times - one will do all the planning and pre-checks. The other just arrives at the airport and departs immediately as pax and start "flying" some hours later. The second crew generally land and do any "post" work and admin.

Trouble starts with delays though. An additional 2nd officer (cruise jockey) may add hours of rest time for senior crew.

 

[AlwaysUpThere]

SQ's A345 being 2 class wasnt their choice - weight considerations came into play though. They have 2 galleys to serve business class.

CX had the same dilemma with their A346. While bigger (longer) than the A345, it has less endurance but still has weight issues. The key issue is not that they CAN'T fill the plane with passengers, its that companies will pay a greater premium for the faster cargo capabilities. So, there is a trade-off between pax and cargo.

CX did it by having less Y seats with greater pitch, their new J, they introduced the "self serve bar" to strech and did not have an F. F, per square foot of cabin space & weight, is not economical!

SQ followed suit.

What will QF do?

 

[NM]

For a flight that long they would probably need 3 crews!

Should still only need 2. If they need any longer, they will actually "start" at different times - one will do all the planning and pre-checks. The other just arrives at the airport and departs immediately as pax and start "flying" some hours later. The second crew generally land and do any "post" work and admin.

Trouble starts with delays though. An additional 2nd officer (cruise jockey) may add hours of rest time for senior crew.

There is probably no reason they can't operate with 4 tech crew for the longer flights in the same way as QF does for its current 14-15 hour flights. QF operates slightly differently to other airlines, in that the use Second Officers while many long-haul operators have two crews.

On current long-haul ops, QF will have 1 Captain, 1 First Officer and 2 Second Officers. The Captain and FO occupy the left and right hand seats for take-off and landing. Once established in cruise, one them will take a break and a SO will occupy the right seat. At all times either captain or FO are on the flight deck.

It only requires 2 pilots on the flight deck to fly modern airliners, including A380 or 777-200ULR. So a complement of 4 tech crew can operate very long flights, permitting extended rest breaks for 2 at a time. Perhaps they may change the mix slightly to 1 Captain, 2 FO and 1 SO, but I don't think there would be a need to do that.

The SO concept is not used by many airlines, bur QF has used it very successfully for a long time. Its an integral part of the training and seniority process for QF tech crew. An SO is a FO-in-training, and a FO is a Captain-in-training. All are qualified pilots, but SO's may not yet be type-rated for the specific aircraft.

 

[AlwaysUpThere]

There is probably no reason they can't operate with 4 tech crew for the longer flights in the same way as QF does for its current 14-15 hour flights. QF operates slightly differently to other airlines, in that the use Second Officers while many long-haul operators have two crews.

The "Ultra" routes have quite different needs to normal long-haul. Qantas is no different to most airlines operating long haul in "modern" aircraft operate with this type of crewing. Most carriers doing trans-Pac, trans-Atlantic and Asia-Europe operate with 1 Captain, 1 FO and 1-2 SOs.

I'll pass on my experience and understanding here...

With the advent of "ultra-long-haul" (16-18 hrs) in recent years - since the introduction of the A340-500 & -600 series in 2002 and the concurrent opening of polar routes by the Russian and Chinese authorities - two seperate crews have been used, not the make up you have suggested NM. That is, at least two pilots with command authority - captains. This was also documented in the SMH at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088487963602.html?from=storylhs Two FOs and 1-2 SOs.

This process and routing was pioneered by Cathay Pacific and the respective governments and aviation authorities since their first non-stop New-York to Hong Kong flight in July 1998 (which coincided with the opening of Hong Kong's Check Lap Kok Airport).

One captain is the Pilot-in-Charge for the first part of the flight and the other for the second. The other crew members operate in a similar roster.
The key factor is the total duty hours. No matter whether the tech-crew are "at the wheel" or sleeping in the crew-rest area, they are considered to be working and so there is a limit to the total hours they can work before a complete rest must be undertaken. Hence the very expensive cost of diversions - often a new crew must position to the diverted airport to fly the aircraft to the original destination as the crew have "run out of hours".

Another issue with the Polar route is the level of solar radiation the crews are exposed to - a number of organisations are undertaking research to assist the airlines and the crews (and frequentflyers!) understand potential hazards.

 

[infoworks]

I am in the non-stop camp, but airlines do need to find that balance that gives us passengers the opportunity to move about a bit without feeling we are interrupting the aircrew's lives, have a more decent range of in-flight movies, DVDs, magazines etc, menu and timing flexibility.

 

[tuapekastar]

Working this idea in reverse, if we got a 10% (of the full fare) discount for every stop we made then I reckon a 10 stop each way return flight would suit me just fine!!

On a serious note, a non stop flight would not particularly bother me, but I wouldn't pay extra for it, happy to go with a stop and pay normal fare.

 

[NM]

Working this idea in reverse, if we got a 10% (of the full fare) discount for every stop we made then I reckon a 10 stop each way return flight would suit me just fine!!

On a serious note, a non stop flight would not particularly bother me, but I wouldn't pay extra for it, happy to go with a stop and pay normal fare.

But would you pay more for it if it also meant a better seat, more leg room etc, along the lines of several airline's premium economy.

I certainly would not pay more if it was the same seat. But for a more comfortable experience, I would be willing to go non-stop and pay a premium price.

 

[tuapekastar]

Yes, NM, I would definitely pay a premium for the extra room, and go non-stop. And looking back at the thread, mea culpa, I should have re-read the OP which stated this, rather than just look at the poll.

On a similar theme, anyone know if QF have ever given serious consideration to a premium economy class, particularly as they have so many long-haul flights? Obviously if they have, then they've dismissed the idea for whatever reason.

 

[QF WP]

The problem with QF not offering what their OW partner (BA) does on many common sectors (along with United's Economy Plus); is that they are losing patronage. I'd much rather fly BA's WT+ ex-Aust to SIN, BKK and LHR [as well as LHR to HKG], knowing full well it costs more but with the absolute certainty that I have the extra legroom [over Y] and the possibility of an op up to J; rather than hope that my Plat status gets me an upgrade to Skybed (on the day) on QF. Qantas lost me on these routes once I had compared WT+ against QF Y (particularly the lack of significant cost differential and SC's).

I thought (but I'll be corrected by NM or others) the reason that they didn't go to the 3/4 class configerations, was because they already had orders in place with Boeing?airbus for "old" 2/3 class configs.

 

[Dave Noble]

I probably wouldn't; When I travel to LHR via EH, I take the afternoon flight to SIN , then overnight at the transit hotel and take QF31 in the morning to LHR

That way I avoid an overnight sector and can spend a night in a bed

On a non stop LHR-SYD vv I can see the FAs trying to get the blinds closed straight out of the origin and for the whole journey to be in dark

Dave

 

[icarus]

I'm in the "I'd rather disembowel myself with a rusty spoon" school of thought on this one.

Maybe it wouldn't be completely hellish in Business and First, but travelling cattle class I'd much prefer to be able to get out and stretch my legs and maybe have a shower, than to sit through the whole trip in one sitting with nothing to do except wait for the thrombosis to reach my brain.

 

[serfty]

... , than to sit through the whole trip in one sitting with nothing to do except wait for the thrombosis to reach my brain.

yeeuch, what an image. :shock:

 

[Mal]

On a similar theme, anyone know if QF have ever given serious consideration to a premium economy class, particularly as they have so many long-haul flights? Obviously if they have, then they've dismissed the idea for whatever reason.

Hehe. Not really relevant, but IIRC on the "Airbus 380" documentary shown on Discovery Channel, Geoff D looks mighty impressed when looking at a "premium economy" area on the said plane.

IIRC (again lol), They even make a comment about it.

Maybe that's a sign?

 

[NM]

Hehe. Not really relevant, but IIRC on the "Airbus 380" documentary shown on Discovery Channel, Geoff D looks mighty impressed when looking at a "premium economy" area on the said plane.

IIRC (again lol), They even make a comment about it.

Maybe that's a sign?

Lets hope so. I believe a lot of people would be willing to pay a premium for a premium economy seat/cabin/service on the kangaroo and pacific routes. As much as I would love automatic allocation to that cabin as a Platinum status FF, I believe it should be kept for people paying a premium for it.

Also would be good to offer an upgrade option from Discount Y to Y+ for 50% of the cost (points) of a Discount Y to J upgrade. But still offer the Discount Y to J upgrade option.

 

[icarus]

... , than to sit through the whole trip in one sitting with nothing to do except wait for the thrombosis to reach my brain.

yeeuch, what an image. :shock:

Trenchancy was the aim!

Hmm, does that mean that the concept of disembowelling oneself with a rusty spoon is less repellent?

 

[serfty]

...

Trenchancy was the aim!

Hmm, does that mean that the concept of disembowelling oneself with a rusty spoon is less repellent?

Nahh, just less creditable. i.e. can see oneself being seduced by a violent Stephen Seagal while DVT engages my limbs as more likely than not noticing a rusty spoon being stuck up my nether regions.

 

[Damien]

If I was flying cattle class, there is no way you could make me do that flight as a non-stop, regardless of whether there was extra room or not.

I could handle it in business of first, but think I would still prefer to stop.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Also would be good to offer an upgrade option from Discount Y to Y+ for 50% of the cost (points) of a Discount Y to J upgrade. But still offer the Discount Y to J upgrade option.

Careful what you wish for.

When Air NZ recently introduced premium economy, the cost of upgrade stayed roughly the same but only got you from economy->premium economy, to get to business is double.

 

[NM]

Careful what you wish for.

When Air NZ recently introduced premium economy, the cost of upgrade stayed roughly the same but only got you from economy->premium economy, to get to business is double.

Yes, I was being careful, knowing full well what an upgrade from WT on BA does for you. Hence my comment regarding leaving the Y->J the same and adding a Y->Y+ for half the points. QF upgrades are already very high priced in terms of points.