I don't think anybody really enjoys long haul flights, but personally, I especially dislike them. I'd much rather break my flight up into <8hr segments. I guess with everyone trying to squeeze as much of their vacation time though, it's more efficient to take a single 20 hour flight than two 10 hour legs with a 3 hour layover.
A while back, I flew to Vietnam from New Zealand. My flight there was AKL-HKG-SGN (11h30m, 2h40m). My return flight was HAN-SGN-KUL-OOL-AKL (2h, 2h, 8h, 3h). Total flight time is about the same, but the total trip time including stopovers was 18 hours to Vietnam, and 24 hours on return. I found it so much more pleasant to be able to get off the plane, stretch my legs, and eat some real food every few hours. I really don't enjoy long flights at all and I don't think the couple of hours it saves is worth it. 4 hours is the limit for me being comfortable on a flight, after 8 hours I'm feeling quite uncomfortable but I'll manage, and 12 hours is the absolute limit for me for flying. 20 hours on a plane would be absolute torture.
I really don't see the point in these excessively long flights either, you usually have to layover somewhere anyway, these ultra-long flights are most often to a hub like DOH or DXB, where you then need to connect to your final destination.
Flying from Auckland to London, I'd much rather take AKL-HKG-LHR (12hr, 12hr) than AKL-DOH-LHR (18hr, 8hr). I'd even pay a premium of a couple of hundred bucks for it, although conveniently basically every option with one stopover from Auckland to London is about the same cost (I really don't know how it's profitable to fly from NZ to England for US$450 though, that's insane, I'm fairly sure freighting 100kg to London would cost more).
Agreed - if you fly Economy. For example, Asia to Europe it's quite pleasant to stop over in the Gulf (sorry, non-Gulf carriers :-)
However, if you fly Business (or even First), my, are these long flights pleasant.
Also, if you wish to minimise the number of take-offs and landings (eg out of a fear of flying, rational or not), non-stop flights are the way to go, obviously.
As someone who also flies from NZ to London every now and then, I would love a non-stop flight from, say, London to Sydney, and then a short hop from there to NZ (the city I'm actually flying to couldn't handle a plane big enough to fly from London, sadly, so it's a minimum of one stop).
That would be quicker, I'd be able to optimise my sleep better, and at least in business class it would be reasonably relaxing. Also, some stops can be quite stressful - LAX, in particular, is awful (Sorry, Air New Zealand, but I'll probably never fly you again while you go through LAX!).
Also, several parents I've talked to would definitely prefer a single long flight to several shorter ones, given e.g., the stress of getting all your stuff + kids off and on the plane without losing them, the distress of ear pressure during takeoff and landing, etc.
If you have status with an airline, then stopovers become more relaxing with access to lounges (food, drinks, internet etc.) plus many have areas where you can get some sleep, so economy might become more feasible.
If you don't have airline status, get a Platinum Amex for ~$500/year, which gets you Priority Pass and Centurion lounge access (among a raft of other benefits that are out of scope for this comment). To your point, stopovers become enjoyable; I no longer mind multiple legs when traveling internationally, and I plan my flights based on the stopovers with the best lounges I can access.
> I really don't see the point in these excessively long flights either, you usually have to layover somewhere anyway, these ultra-long flights are most often to a hub like DOH or DXB, where you then need to connect to your final destination.
Not necessarily. I live in NYC, and the ~20 million people that live here in the metropolitan area with access to these three international airports definitely benefit from long non-stop flights directly to destinations of interest, like Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, Mumbai, Delhi, Seoul, Singapore, and Dubai. There are no non-stops to Australia quite yet (too far), but they're coming in a few years!
If you live in a big international city and want to go to another big international city, which is a common travel pattern, then these nonstops really are nonstop, no connecting flights necessary.
Especially on long distance trips, I try to avoid layovers because of the uncertainty it introduces. If I could be guaranteed that my first leg would leave and arrive on time, then I'd happily book two legs with a break in-between over one long flight.
I fly regularly from LON to NZ to visit family. I would also happily pay extra for the break in the middle. Hell I've even paid for business sometimes, since it's so bloody long.
I wish there was an overnight ferry option of flying, where the cabin is just bunk beds, like russian sleeper trains.
Diazepam is definitely useful, and 5-10mg ought to be enough to let you have a decent rest on flights between 6-12h long, I've found. But you'll probably be a bit groggy on arrival, so depending on your immigration status and the target nation, this may be something to consider ;)
I used to hate long fights, but now with a bit of Alprazolam I can take the "short cut". The 14 hour flight Chicago to Seoul seems to take only 6 hours instead of the normal 14 Hours.
Now I don't care about Ecomomy seats, etc. I'm asleep most of the time.
A loosely related interesting fact. When you go on long international trips you're more likely to go on older planes than would be used for short domestic trips.
Really counter intuitive since you'd think you'd want the tip top newest beasts for the long international flights, but the main wear and tear on planes is in pressurization cycles. International flights experience a single pressurization/depressurization for a long trip, whereas domestic flights experience numerous pressurization cycles over a much shorter period of time meaning they cycle through them much faster. The planes used on the long international trips end up being flyable, safely, for much longer.
That depends, Europe to/from Asia, whatever airline, it's uncommon not be on a 787/a350 which are very new or a380 (ranging from 2-10years old), occasionally have to suffer a max 15 year old 777/a330 (some airlines are still ordering these new though), but rarely gets worse than this. Most short/regional 737/a320 seem older than above. Going west from europe to say Canada or states I admit is a different story old 757s, a340, 737 on long hauls, 747s, ran by terrible airlines like Air Canada, Air Transat, United and so on, even when they run new metal its terrible legroom.
I'd prefer no break, but then I am pretty used to sleeping and reading on long flights, and no break lets me manage my time better.
When I was a kid, QF1 was 36 hours Sydney->London, with stops at Singapore, Bombay, Bahrain, and Frankfurt. Though it was fun to get off the plane briefly I would happily have avoided them even back then. Now even one stop is generally intolerable.
I love reading stories like this as commercial flying has always intrigued me. Geez, has it come a long way! Still remember a flight I had from Europe to Australia when it was such a novelty to smash alcohol cause it was so readily available and then going to the back of the plane to smoke!
At the same time reducing bathrooms (a350-900 for example), i.e. increasing passengers per toilet. Logic ain't with this airline, the glory days for SG are well gone.
> Beverages are being selected to not only improve hydration
They don't need new types of beverages to improve hydration; water is already optimal. What they need is to give people sizeable plastic water bottles with a screwtop on request rather than a tiny plastic cup. I always end up waking at 4am parched from the dry air and weighing whether I should wake both my poor neighbors so I can get up and track down a flight attendant. And then bring three spillable cups back to my seat.
(Bringing your own bottle is great if you remember to do it, but it's often hard to refill on the plane depending on how they are serving water.)
Some of the described problems are unique to flight (low air-pressure, dehydration, etc), but a lot of them sound like they would apply similarly to other very long stretches of travel by vehicle. (E.g. the bits about exercise). Maybe it would be interesting to research how people on very long train or bus rides deal with those.
A while back, I flew to Vietnam from New Zealand. My flight there was AKL-HKG-SGN (11h30m, 2h40m). My return flight was HAN-SGN-KUL-OOL-AKL (2h, 2h, 8h, 3h). Total flight time is about the same, but the total trip time including stopovers was 18 hours to Vietnam, and 24 hours on return. I found it so much more pleasant to be able to get off the plane, stretch my legs, and eat some real food every few hours. I really don't enjoy long flights at all and I don't think the couple of hours it saves is worth it. 4 hours is the limit for me being comfortable on a flight, after 8 hours I'm feeling quite uncomfortable but I'll manage, and 12 hours is the absolute limit for me for flying. 20 hours on a plane would be absolute torture.
I really don't see the point in these excessively long flights either, you usually have to layover somewhere anyway, these ultra-long flights are most often to a hub like DOH or DXB, where you then need to connect to your final destination.
Flying from Auckland to London, I'd much rather take AKL-HKG-LHR (12hr, 12hr) than AKL-DOH-LHR (18hr, 8hr). I'd even pay a premium of a couple of hundred bucks for it, although conveniently basically every option with one stopover from Auckland to London is about the same cost (I really don't know how it's profitable to fly from NZ to England for US$450 though, that's insane, I'm fairly sure freighting 100kg to London would cost more).