It's alright Gerry just having a lend matey. Seems like only about 5 posters ever contribute these days cheers

Yeah, most have disappeared off (no surprise there is an attrition rate) and there have been few to replace them since Australia introduced more hoops and more cost. Maybe we should just let it die?

Some times its full. Usually on full flights Take the off peak flights I take and its empty.

The use of premium services has been in decline since the GFC. A lot of companies stripped away the use of business class during this time and never saw a reason to return them.

The purpose for a company to use business class on long haul is so their staff can arrive there fresh, ready to roll, but when the cost difference of business class v economy far exceeds the cost of an extra night in a hotel to recover, then the hotel option is preferred.

Interestingly the biggest cost to airlines is fuel and most fuel is consumed on take off. If Qantas can charge the same for a 0 stopper and a 1 stopper, Perth London, they are going to save money.

Word association is still rockin.

Some do, some don't - but I've seen no stories of airlines hurting because they can't sell biz class seats, so they are selling well enough.

Yes, but the extra time in the hotel isn't always viable, and getting good prices for business class is one of the things that a company travel section will do for you. Let's just say they don't pay list price.

And then there are the circumstances when you can charge the eventual customer for Biz class, and force the workers into economy ...

And this is kind of the point - if they focused on the comfort aspect of the whole journey, they could get more payback than the emphasis on time, particularly for these long flights.

Which is balanced by having to carry more fuel and so less passengers/cargo. I'm not sure the cost of the decent/assent etc. would negate the costs of hauling that extra fuel.

Here's the tipping point from something I found:

FFS

If there wasn't the market for them or they are not viable, why are Airbus and Boeing developing, and actually selling, ultra-long range aircraft?

Overall, these 2 companies know what they are doing and have both been very successful at selling aircraft into every sector of the industry

Obviously the market is there and PER-LHR is part of that market. If people don't want to fly direct then book a flight that transits through the land of sand, SIN, HK, KL etc

... and in todays news

Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines rising costs may force airlines to stop serving free wine to passengers on long haul flights

Cathay Pacific Airways and Singapore Air that are battling excess capacity and declining premium traffic.

But you are assuming travellers who travel for work set their own policy on travel and can book whatever ticket they like. They don't, the are restricted by budgets and costs, and a travel policy is set right across the board, usually by someone who doesn't travel

The only way I can see a premium long haul service becoming popular again is by bringing the cost back towards economy. You can justify a 20-30% uplift on cost, not a 300% uplift. The beanies just say **** that.

I think this one is open to a long ended debate among the aviation experts.

Fuel is one thing, there's all sorts of other costs such as landing costs payable to the airport, ie Dubai and Singapore.

I found this - interesting - no simple answer on that one.

If the total distance is long enough, flying it in several trips is more fuel efficient. In this answer I have used Breguet's equation to calculate the fuel required to fly a fully loaded A320-200 over 2000 km and 5700 km. The first trip needs 5 tons of fuel while the second needs 18.1 tons. This means the longer trip needs 27% more fuel per km of distance because more fuel is transported and the aircraft is heavier over most of the trip.

However, flight through lower, denser air is less efficient in terms of distance flown per unit of fuel burnt, so you need to find an optimum between flying mostly near the ground and flying with a heavier aircraft. On the other hand, the lighter aircraft will climb much faster, so the time spent at low altitude is lower per climb segment in case of the staged legs.

In the end, if the total distance is big enough to allow for several hops while still only a fraction of the total flight time is spent at lower altitude, the overall fuel consumption is easily lower.

Yeah, I saw that. It read to me as US airlines trying to excuse their terrible service by saying that their asian competitors (who are fast encroaching on US business) would have to give up being a good at service and decline to US airline standards. I doubt it - who the hell is going to be first to get rid of the wine and seat back TVs?

Someone somewhere must have the stats on business tickets sold?

Try this on for size:

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/...0527115106.jpg

Nah, my point is the cost isn't always what you think. For instance, I remember a scenario where me and the customer were going around the world, stopping in at various places. His travel people got him a quote on economy tickets for x amount. My travel people were more on the ball and found a business class ticket, for the same route (but stopping in Singas), for less than the economy ticket price. He got onto his travel people, shouted, and got them to get the same ticket.

Business class tickets have the expectation of flexibility and late booking worked into them, economy costs extra for that

As I say, depends on who's paying, .... and the £2k extra can be worth it when the consequence of the reason for the meeting can have many more zeros in it.

I wouldn't say that is strictly true. Prior ULR models have not been commercially successful...not the 772LR and especially not the A345-500. And airlines which bought these, then found they couldn't make any money with them and tried to sell them find they have no buyers. Presumably the 787 and 359 will be more efficient, you'd expect that...but they will be still at the mercy of fuel prices to quite a degree.

It's not bu!!sh!t - it's fact.


Those Dreamliners are pressurized at a much lower altitude so there's more oxygen in the cabin. They also have things like bigger windows, auto tint depending on the time zone etc. I fly via Singapore, so the 13 1/2 hours from there to London is a killer anyhow. The fact that for only another 3 hours or so you can do it in one hit is gold.

Indeed. The scientific facts speak for themselves.

Plus, personally even if it means flying BNE-PER first to get a non stop flight that avoids the camel infested hellhole of Dubai, count me in.

Don't hold back, tell us what you really think ...

Personally I've always found that a stopover, even only 10 hours in an airport hotel bed, half way along the journey makes it easier on me.

What about the return journey? Presumably customs clearance will be required in PER...while I know they're setting up some slick setup in PER that is still a PITA I can gladly do without. Rumour is this flight will operate MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL so if on one flight number may not be required for MEL.

One problem I can see is if there is a need for a diversion. Heading North, towards the end of the flight it will be over Europe so lots of diversion options. Heading South, the final part of the flight will be over the Indian Ocean, so not many options - Exmouth, maybe Jakarta

I've put me hatred ofDubai on here many times!

I don't do stopovers, my limited leave time is too precious, just get me to where I want to be.