Boeing plans non-stop flights from Sydney to London by 2020 on the 777-8LX jet

Read more:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/boeing-plans-non-stop-flights-from-sydney-to-london-by-2020-on-the-777-8lx-jet/story-e6frfq80-1226283768233#ixzz1nf1uSDAd

I will say that 19 hours on an airplane is a very very long time. The trade off of saving a 24 hour journey to a 19 hour non-stop may be a tough one. I think I would rather 24 hours for the journey with one stop over compared to 19 hours non-stop.Amazing that this is becoming a real possibility now as some won't mind 19 hours on an airplane....I find 14 hours on one leg hard enoughCheers

The mental aspect of such a long flight might be difficult to handle. I bet people would start to freak out, especially those that don't handle tight confines well.

I will say that 19 hours on an airplane is a very very long time. The trade off of saving a 24 hour journey to a 19 hour non-stop may be a tough one. I think I would rather 24 hours for the journey with one stop over compared to 19 hours non-stop.Amazing that this is becoming a real possibility now as some won't mind 19 hours on an airplane....I find 14 hours on one leg hard enough

The proposed Sydney to London flight, at 19 hours is not that far from some current routes. The longest flight I have ever taken was New York to Bangkok direct - a flight of about 18 hours. I believe the flight is almost 3 hours shorter coming back, due to winds. I don't think TG offers this flight anymore, but I am sure there are other examples.The Vancouver to Hong Kong flight I have taken many times is about 14 hours. To be honest, once I get past that 8 hour mark, it doesn't really matter whether it is 8/12/14/18/19 hours - it's just long.

The longest I've done is 14 hours (a number of times) from Auckland to North America and Sydney to North America.....That is about my limitCheers

I think honestly people would want it. After stopping in Singapore once, I think most people would like a through flight.That is why large aircraft are not doing so well right now. An aircraft of about 200-350 passengers would be enough to cater for long haul routes, perfect for the 777.I think large aircraft like the A380 and the 747-800 are better suited to roles such as Tokyo-Osaka, London-New York. etc

I brought this up with my Girlfriend and she is on the side that she would rather a 19 hour flight to London instead of 24 hours with a stop over. If we plan a trip to London in the next year we might just have to go on seperate planes...I would rather fly the NZ1 flight from Auckland to Heathrow via Los Angeles, I would spend a day in LA with family, then continue onto London from LAX. That way you break it up:http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ANZ1

I brought this up with my Girlfriend and she is on the side that she would rather a 19 hour flight to London instead of 24 hours with a stop over. If we plan a trip to London in the next year we might just have to go on seperate planes...I would rather fly the NZ1 flight from Auckland to Heathrow via Los Angeles, I would spend a day in LA with family, then continue onto London from LAX. That way you break it up:http://flightaware.c...ive/flight/ANZ1

Well if I was on your side I would definitely be visiting Ronald Reagan's museum. If you were of the other side you would be hitting Hollywood!!!I have no opinion either way. Stopping at a half way place can be nice. But having the option to go straight through eliminates a lot of problems.

The mental aspect of such a long flight might be difficult to handle. I bet people would start to freak out, especially those that don't handle tight confines well.

19 hours in steerage class would be brutal, especially if you can't sleep on planes.But 19 hours in 1st class, that I think I could handle.

Never done anything above 8 hours so can't say I have experience of layovers but in cattle class 19 hours would be a real struggle. Would rather have the layover and the chance to have a proper break.

Girls.19 hours ain't so bad if you have a couple of beers.Anyhow there is less chance of your luggage going bye bye if you go straight.For me I prefer a stopover for the sake of a stopover. Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Kota Kinabalu, it really pays to get out there and see something on the way.

19 hours ain't so bad if you have a couple of beers.

LOL....I think I'd rather be sedated for a 19 hour flight :( Wasn't that a Ramones song???Cheers

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by ytzpilot

19 hours won't be so bad in a humid 787. It will have more humidity, more air pressure and it has some kind of turbulence dampeners.Seeing how all the other Boeing aircraft are being updated with the newer tech, I would say the new Long Distance 777 will get it.And I doubt regular scheduled airlines will not configure their aircraft for 'long distance' routing. They will make the seats more comfortable.

Don't know if it still is but the longest flight in the world non-stop was singapore to newark direct on an all first/business class 340-500. I could handle that...If I had to make a right when I passed through the entry door I would have a real problem though!

19 hours won't be so bad in a humid 787. It will have more humidity, more air pressure and it has some kind of turbulence dampeners.Seeing how all the other Boeing aircraft are being updated with the newer tech, I would say the new Long Distance 777 will get it.And I doubt regular scheduled airlines will not configure their aircraft for 'long distance' routing. They will make the seats more comfortable.

AFAIK the new 777 will still have a metal fuselage, so higher air pressure is out, and higher humidity probably as well.