I did the 17 hour Sydney to Houston (and 17 hours back again) flight on a United 787 last year. I normally hate long haul flights, being 6 foot and all, as well as routinely suffering from bad neck and back problems from long periods of sitting. But I actually managed to enjoy both flights.
On the trip over, I scored a seat near the galley exit. Meaning no seats in front of me where the overwing exit door was. I could stretch my legs right out, and every hour or so, I could just unbuckle my seatbelt and stand up and do a series of stretches and sit back down again without bothering any other passengers or crew.
On the way back, the plane was nearly empty, so United allocated a full row of 3 seats to everyone in economy. Being able to lie flat was a massive bonus and I slept most of the 17 hours lying down and didn't feel it.
The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems.
The aircraft also cruises higher than most other earlier era jets, so we were usually well above most weather patterns for a very smooth ride. The new cabin lighting also helped to set the mood for sleep and awake cycles while on board. Kudos to Boeing engineers for the design work that went into this.
Which basically sums up as, it is not the long hours flying that is the problem, it is the long hour being stuck in uncomfortable, small, non moving position economy seats that is causing problem.
On one hand we need to cramp as many people as possible to make it cost effective, on the hand passengers are basically torturing themselves. Especially if you are 6 foot plus tall.
Of course, international travel is also cheaper than ever.
The way to be comfortable on a long flight is to pay for it.
You can find premium economy seats to Japan for $1,500 and business class for $2,500. It wasn’t that long ago when those sort of prices were the economy ticket.
I see a good amount of $400 economy fares that’ll stick you on a plane for upwards of 10 hours. It’s an incredible value. A lot of people making that trip can just upgrade to either an extra legroom seat or premium economy and they’ll still be spending less than they did not even 10 years ago.
I'm surprised that this ever became a thing. I've done lots of Sydney to X long haul flights. When the A380 first came out I mentioned the fact of Sydney to London non stop to a stewardess, and she said that it'll probably not happen because of staffing issues: That is, a long haul involves a stop, generally 9 to 12hrs in. At that point the whole crew changes over. However, you can't keep the same crew on call for 20hrs without paying them, even if not actually on duty. That is, the staff requirement doubles for the long haul flights. It must've been worked out tho, to allow this one.
Even on a 12 hour flight the staff are required to rest in the crew rest area. I guess they will either rotate resting staff back on or block out some of business class for crew rest. The real issue is that the staff will have to rest downroute for a long time and be grounded more due to cosmic radiation limits.
All long haul jets have crew rest areas but, having stayed in then myself, I'm not sure if they have sufficient space for multiple crews e.g you would probably need three sets of people on the flight deck unless they rotate the first set back in.
Most long haul flights have 2 complete 2-person flight crews. Generally comprised of Captain, first officer, and 2 second officers. Rotation is such, that at any one time, either the Captain or the First officer is on the flight deck with one of the two second officers.
Critical parts of the flight (such as take off and landing) will have the two most senior pilots in command, but less demanding parts in cruise, one of the second officers will be backing up one of the senior crew while the other 2 crew members have mandated rest.
Because these are 'hot bunks', you only need 2 available for the flight crew at any time. I assume the cabin crew have a similar rotation system.
London to Sydney has good stopover points, since you are over land about half way through the trip. North American to Sydney doesn't have a good stopping place in the middle, if you only have a few more hours to you may as well just get there instead of stopping.
The detour it too far. Remember the earth not flat: the shortest line is curved not straight. The most direct route typically goes too far north. A stop in Russia or China would make more sense, but even than the detour is a bit too much.
> The most direct route typically goes too far north.
This only happens when departure and arrival are both in the Northern Hemisphere, if that's the case, great circle routes appear as curved towards the North when plotted on a 2D map.
But here we are going from Northern to Southern hemisphere, so the great circle route will appear S-shaped, and the middle section will not be very far away from a straight line drawn on a 2D map.
I regularly travel both business class and premium economy, and especially on an overnight flight I feel fresh after business and sore after premium economy.
Absolutely. I guess the point of my post above is that sometimes you can put a little effort in to engineer the best outcome (or just have lady luck smile upon you) in order to make the difference between hours of torture or hours of bliss. Just picking an airline which uses the 787 instead of an older model is huge.
I hope that airlines like Qantas etc. realise that on these extra long flights, people like myself are more than willing to pay a little extra for small comforts like plenty of leg room or space to get up and walk/stretch at regular intervals.
I am assuming that is because most 787 operators are 'full service' airlines rather than budget carriers, who generally run cheaper or second hand 737s or A320s.
Then again, I just came back from Europe in a Scoot 787. Scoot are the 'budget' arm of Singapore Airlines, but I guess with the wealth of Singapore, their budget carrier is the equivalent of most other full service carriers.
I flew once on a business class in a 10+ hour flight. I slept so well. The food was great. It was so relaxing. I bet first class would have been even better. I wouldn't mind flying for 20 hours in a business class.
I haven't downvoted, but I'm having problems with the last sentence
> we need an honest study, and subsequent class lawsuit.
Honest stud exist for many years [0] and it's common knowledge in every tourist guide [1].
Class lawsuit is a very American thing, let's sue everyone regardless of proof or if the condition can be avoided by the persons themselves.
Even the link between flight and DVT is not 100% clear [2], although there seems to be a good mechanism explaining it:
> not all experts agree that air travel is a direct cause of thrombosis due to a lack of large-scale population studies. Such studies are difficult to evaluate, in that the extended period between flight time and presentation of DVT or PE symptoms induces variability.
The conclusion of this [3] research is somewhat disturbing:
> Moreover, given the low incidence of DVT in the general population we may never know if air travel increases the risk of DVT because studies with the required sample size to detect a significantly increased risk are unlikely to be sponsored.
I think you replied to the wrong parent? Can't see anyone talking about class action lawsuits.
Anyway, considering the stringency of aviation regulations designed to mitigate already very small risks, I think it would be consistent to force passengers to get up and have a walk once in a while (if this would indeed mitigate the risk of DVT). Obviously airlines would never take this step, but they could at least recommend it, or the FAA could enforce it.
> The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems.
Also, the 787 doesn't use bleed air from a compression stage to pressurize (risking the intake of various fluids). It just pressurizes fresh high-altitude air electrically.
I discovered that exit row thing for the first time a few weeks ago on my way back from Boston to Los Angeles. I know it's only a 6 hour flight, but having that room to stretch my legs, even with somewhat reduced chair reclining, made so much of a difference. That and today's in-flight wifi, which is outstanding. It blows my mind that I can watch YouTube and read HN during my flight with little to no interruption. Makes a flight blow by like it's nothing.
What would also help with comfort on flights is lumbar support. I don't really understand why airline seats have virtually no lumbar support, but I guess it gives them room to squeeze in some more chairs if they do that. IDK But sometimes it drives me nuts being on a long flight and getting a sore lower back. Sure, I can squeeze a pillow back there if I've got one, but still.
By the way, I discovered that you can get free wifi on a lot of these flights if you use the T-mobile free hour and, once the hour is up, spoof your MAC address and rotate to another T-mobile number. :)
With regards to the seats: it's as if they were designed to be maximally uncomfortable. They're impossible unless you put them in the reclining position, but then you're bothering the person behind you.
Its worth noting that the A380 (which is not carbon composite) also has a ~6000 foot cabin pressure, as does the A350 - they also humidify the air to a higher degree because the components are designed to handle it compared to most older plane designs. Both which help with comfort as you mentioned.
Had a 12 hour A380 flight last year. Lufthansa has some slightly more expensive economy seats on the upper deck in the tail section. Those seats were amazing. I've never had a flight as comfortable as that one and the flight crew was great too.
Thanks for pointing this out — I was about to write that I found the A380 to be the most comfortable airplane for long-haul trips. I also found it to be quieter than the 787, but haven't actually measured if that's actually the case.
I know this might sound privileged, but I fly at least long haul once a year, and for the past few years I decided to upgrade to premium economy, and it has been a massive improvement. I can actually get some sleep, can stretch my legs, and find a comfortable position. Being taller, and a bit bigger, seats in economy just don't allow me to do so.
I think the new A350-900 made the flight better as well, the cabin lighting is much better, and the air quality also feels better.
It's still a lot of money, but I personally think it's well spend.
I am at the stage of my life where I weigh up the extra cost of a good seat vs my health. A bad seat can see me out of action with a bad neck and severe headaches for up to two days. I now often upgrade to Premium whenever I can, and take a full service airline over a budget one. It is well worth the lost days on either end if my health is impacted.
On my last trip to the US, I did the Qantas 'upgrade roulette' thing (they send an email to passengers a couple of days before the flight asking them to bid points and/or dollars to upgrade their seats). I bid the minimum points of 10,000 and the minimum dollar value of I think around $400. The system told me I had a 1% chance of getting the upgrade so I forgot about it. On the morning of the flight, I got an email from them saying I had been upgraded to Business class - worth normally $4000!
Having a lie-flat business class seat for the 14 hour SYD-LAX leg on the A380 was so good, I am considering only doing transatlantic flights in Premium or Business from now on.
If I were the airline,I would reserve some upgrades for people who have never flown business class before, regardless of their bid, to give them a taste of what they’re missing by spending less. I bet that bid system is tracked carefully to see how many bid winners subsequently pay up front for business class.
The bid thing is awesome I have received upgrades too. The airline would of course tell you your odds are 1% for $$$ reasons, buy for some routes, the minimum bid is all it takes. I fly CMB-DOH-AMS a lot, and the CMB route is pretty much guaranteed to get upgraded at minimum bid (~$100 that's well worth it).
This is exactly the conclusion I've come to. Fly economy and you'll waste 24 hours or more (both ways) just physically and mentally recovering from the flight. Put a monetary value on that and it's easy to justify the cost of upgrading.
I've only done business class on shorter flights, and if you have the money, I would definitely recommend it. To me, the extra space in premium as well worth it, and it's not as steep of a price increase versus business.
I agree with you on the full service airlines versus a budget one, to me, travel has always been a privilege and something I save up for. So I've never considered traveling on a budget to save costs.
Business class is far more worthwhile on long flights than short ones in my opinion. The reason is the lie flat seats make it so much easier to rest and sleep, and on short flights you don’t have time to sleep anyway.
I'm rather short, so I prefer to actually not have the galley/emergency exit seat (mostly because I feel it's "less cozy" and weird to have that open space in front of me, but also because the tables+entertainment are usually much worse).
But as for entire rows, I also was once lucky enough to be on a flight (long trip from Europe to Tokyo) where everyone in our cabin at least got an entire rope for themselves. Lying down horizontally across seats was indeed an enormous difference, and I managed to sleep for almost the entire flight as well.
The downside to sitting at the galley exit is that other passengers are constantly walking up to this space to do their stretches or wait for their turn in the toilets. But the 787 has do much room that it wasn't really an issue for me.
I also found the armrest table and entertainment screen a little better. I liked that I could tilt the screen away from me or turn it for better privacy from my neighbour. I also liked that the pop out table could be 'halved' if I just wanted a drink on it or to rest my phone or ipad on it while charging. I still had room beside it to have a pillow or magazine in my lap.
Ah, ok. I only have one experience with such a flight, and there it was much different, but that was also many years ago. They might well have improved it.
Nevertheless, I still felt "exposed", and there were indeed people walking in front of me a lot. So given that I don't need the leg room, it's only fair that someone who prefers having it should get that row...
And as someone who likes the room, I thank you for your kind consideration. My wife is quite short, and she can comfortably sit in the most cramped economy seats for hours without issue. She sometimes even crosses her legs on the seat! But for me, most of those seats are pure torture.
Yeah, this happened to me when I did the 16-hour DWF-SYD route. I was on Qantas and ended up with a row of four or five seats to myself both ways. I also managed to time my sleep so that I slept for the middle 8 hours of the flight, which broke it into two separate four-hour flights.
But, I don't know, I feel like handling long flights is a skill you can develop (as is adjusting to jet lag quickly). I used to fly economy NY to Europe on a weekly basis for work and after doing that a bunch I just don't really get fazed by long flights. I did a Chicago to HK leg in economy without the benefit of getting a whole row and didn't really mind the 12 hours at all.
It’s the other way around for me. I fly internationally for business quite a bit, usually in business class. At first it was cool and the time passed pretty quickly. As time went on though I started hating the flight more and more.
>As time went on though I started hating the flight more and more.
Same here, I wonder if anyone could explain this. I used to think it is cool and fun. Now I hated it so much it is almost depressing. The experience is pretty much the same, but for reason I cant understand flying is very tiring, even though I as just sitting on the flight most of the time.
I find it is the other facets of flying which really get me down and stop me from doing it more. The whole 'security theatre' at the airport, dealing with the nickel and diming of low cost airlines, being treated like a criminal at passport control etc. that turns me off. I still love the magic of being in a tube miles above the earth, and being able to have breakfast on one continent and then lunch in another a magical thing.
I enjoy the totally messed up experiences as well. Few months back I dropped a rhd SUV off at 6pm Friday at Brisbane airport, 16 hours later it was 11am (same day) in Hilo and I was driving a lhd mustang convertible. Got the wipers many times.
For me it developed into the other direction. It used to be a drag but now I look forward to cocooning for the duration with no one able to interrupt (so no WiFi for me, that’s a feature). Get to focus on finishing up that movie edit or code a small project.
To abstract away from the above, I find that the mindset going into the flight determines the experience.
I did London to SF every 6 weeks or so for over a year, and didn't quite get to hating it but did spend an irrational amount of time trying to optimize everything at the end to make it less annoying.
>The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems.
It's also more humid. Since the body isn't aluminum, they dont have to worry about it degrading so much from humid air.
I think it's not so much a question of material degradation due to humidity. The problem is low outside air temperature (-50 deg celsius?) leading to low inside surface temperature leading to condensation which is also a problem WRT cables routed through cabin walls.
Maybe inside surface temperature on carbon fibre is higher (better insulation), allowing for higher dew point [1], thus higher humidity levels.
In the past, it was so tiring when I visited China in economy seats.
I then joined a new company that flies us first class when it’s over 8 hours. It was the first time I actually felt the flight was too short. I can’t believe what a difference in experiences. I arrived completely refreshed.
Oops - I used the wrong word. I should have said replenished or replaced (as part of the pressurisation system's method of pumping new air into the cabin and bleeding off stale air).
One of the features of the 787 is that it not depends on bleed air from first phases of engine compressors. While bleed air is considered safe, there are studies claiming that it can have a small degree of contamination.
There's actually a debate about whether bleed air is safe in certain failure scenarios. In fume events, some of the compounds are alleged to be neurotoxic, leading to the term "aerotoxic syndrome."
I do not know whether or not such information is accurate, but there is concern about it on the internet.
I had a monitor with me on an international flight recently. Once with hit our cruising altitude, co2 was only 800 ppm. Higher than you might want, but lower than a lot of office buildings.
Humidity, however, was 10%, and the cabin pressure would also have been lower than at ground level.
For another data point, I just completed a flight on a United 787 from SFO to Seoul (12-13 hours) - that was a rough flight, almost as bad as my flights from SFO to Haneda (I puked on or from both flights to Haneda), and I had a wicked headache after landing.
I wonder if I have some pressure sensitivity that affects me on these long haul flights, as I haven’t felt it on domestic flights or flights from SFO to Heathrow (or back). In addition, I know I am susceptible to altitude sickness.
Sinus issues that may be small enough not to be noticeable normally can become very noticeable with the pressure difference. Aftermath (or the start of) a cold that you don't notice can be enough. Nausea can be affected by anything that impacts the inner ear, so sinus pressure etc. can have an effect.
Correct. But that you can engineer if you put a little effort in. My last flight from Athens to Singapore a couple of weeks back (a 12 hour flight), the plane was relatively full, but because I was polite to the checkin agent and asked for a paid upgrade to premium (which wasn't available), she booked out the entire row in the centre section for me so I could lie down and sleep.
My cousin (mid 40s) developed blood clots in his legs from a long flight to Europe.
The clots passed through his heart, and lodged in his lungs.
He's alive, but struggles for every breath he takes.
Yeah, we need an honest study, and subsequent class lawsuit.
These cramped seats/long flights probably kill quite a few people.
To whomever downvoted this, DVT is absolutely a real thing and absolutely life threatening. Your heart doesn't have the pumping capacity to pump blood out of your lower legs so your body is designed to use calf muscle expansion and contraction to move the blood. If you sit idle for many hours the blood pools in your lower legs and your chance of a quite literally life threatening blood clot skyrockets. If you develop such a clot and get on anti clotting meds in time you'll probably be on them for the rest of your life. Voice of experience here. Getting up and walking around on a long flight is a really good idea. Can also happen to those who camp out in a chair without moving for 8 hour gaming or coding sessions.
I grew up flying from San Diego to Singapore and learned by watching others to get up, walk around, and stretch. I recently took Southwest's 6 hour flight to Maui and the flight attendants made an announcement discouraging "aisle aerobics". I guess on their tiny single aisle 737s it causes too much congestion.
You can flex your leg muscles without moving your legs. I wonder if this is enough to pump your blood around and if every hour there should be an alert telling you to do this.
> Avoid sitting still. If you have had surgery or have been on bed rest for other reasons, try to get moving as soon as possible. If you're sitting for a while, don't cross your legs, which can hamper blood flow. If you're traveling a long distance by car, stop every hour or so and walk around.
If you're on a plane, stand or walk occasionally. If you can't do that, exercise your lower legs. Try raising and lowering your heels while keeping your toes on the floor, then raising your toes with your heels are on the floor.
I'm a doctor, but maybe not in the same country as you. I'd be surprised if doctors in your country put people on permanent anticoagulation just because of a DVT with a known trigger of a long flight.
1 point by 2rsf 2 hours ago | parent [-] | on: The World's First 20-Hour Airline Flight
> To whomever downvoted this
I haven't downvoted, but I'm having problems with the last sentence
> we need an honest study, and subsequent class lawsuit.
Honest stud exist for many years [0] and it's common knowledge in every tourist guide [1].
Class lawsuit is a very American thing, let's sue everyone regardless of proof or if the condition can be avoided by the persons themselves.
Even the link between flight and DVT is not 100% clear [2], although there seems to be a good mechanism explaining it:
> not all experts agree that air travel is a direct cause of thrombosis due to a lack of large-scale population studies. Such studies are difficult to evaluate, in that the extended period between flight time and presentation of DVT or PE symptoms induces variability.
The conclusion of this [3] research is somewhat disturbing:
> Moreover, given the low incidence of DVT in the general population we may never know if air travel increases the risk of DVT because studies with the required sample size to detect a significantly increased risk are unlikely to be sponsored.
Happened to a family member of mine as well. After a long flight, they ended up going to ER for a few days to deal with the clots, and was put on blood thinners for the rest of their life.
Anticoagulation normally, six months of pills or injections for the first vein clot (deep vein thrombosis or DVT) and then lifelong if you develop another one. If the clot travels to your lung and is big enough it can kill you (pulmonary embolism). For big life threatening clots to the lung there are invasive procedures to suck them out but these are risky.
My father has DVT and it's the reason he can't ever visit me on the other side of the planet. He'd have to go to a doctor to get a shot to thin his blood or something like this otherwise he's running danger of exactly what you're describing.
I personally got these leg assisting stockings that my doctor told me to use in long haul flights, and carry aspiring with me to thin my blood. I also try to regularly stand up and walk around
I fly between Singapore and SF a couple of times a year on United and Singapore Airlines' direct flight. Granted, I take business class every time, but I actually enjoy it, despite my hatred of flying and its long duration. It's calming to know that you can't go anywhere and communications is relatively tough (even though you can get Internet connectivity), so doing things like reading a book or binge watching movies doesn't feel so wasteful, it's relaxing.
I fly that route often as well (and indirectly too when the directs were cancelled a few years back) but the difference from business to economy for those flights is like night and day.
I did the Newark to Singapore flight in Singapore Air in B class which was the previous record holder. Lie-flat seats makes a huge difference. I got a solid 6 hours of comfortable sleep. Plenty of food and drink. Movies, internet. It was pretty nice.
I used to have to fly to SG, through SF or LA, about every two-three weeks back in the late-90s/early-2000s; you don't have to transfer at Narita or Taipei any more?
From the west coast, there are non-stop flights to SG from LAX, SFO and SEA.
There are rumours that either Air Canada or SQ will create a direct flight to Vancouver as well, which I will welcome with open arms :) I live in Vancouver and need to go to Singapore once a month, so I still need to connect - usually through Hong Kong or Taipei and sometimes through Seoul and Narita.
I'm from New Zealand and live in London. Generally visit home once every 1-2 years. It's basically 24hrs of travelling, as they're near enough each other's antipodes - not quite, France is more like NZ's in Europe, the UK is a lot closer to the pole than we are, but I digress...
It sucks. It's so god-damn awful. A lot of people in this thread are talking about direct flights they've taken and how they're not so bad, but trust me, when you change in SIN, or KUL, or HKG, or LAX, or whatever, and you still have to get on another 12 hr flight to AKL, it's horrible. And then there's the carbon... Nothing I can really do about it though, and you get "used" to it of a sort, but trust me, 27 hrs of continuous travelling and a 12hr body clock adjustment are the worst.
I suppose I should caveat that I can't afford the pointy end of the plane - return business class fare is min £4500
Oh totally, you can take the edge off a bit, but fundamentally it's unpleasant. I try and shower if I have time in the change. I also fast for 12 hours before breakfast time at the destination. In my experience this cuts down the amount of days it takes to feel 'normal again'.
Even better pro-tip: SIN has a rooftop hotel with an outdoor pool, spa, shower, restaurant & bar. $20SGD entry. They even had a deal with free meal & drink a while back.
It is AMAZING to get a longer layover and hang out, have a swim, shower & real meal!
I have to fly from Australia to the US and back around once per year (in cattle class). Usually around the 10h mark between MEL/SYD and SFO I just want to get off the damn plane. 20h sounds like torture, though maybe less so in Business class.
Addis Ababa to DC was a 17½ flight when I took it. Since it lands in Rome or Dublin to refuel, it doesn't count as a non-stop flight but on the fuel stops they don't pull up to the terminal. You're stuck in the plane so it's only slightly better than being in the air. It did cure me of my previous hatred of coast to coast flights in the US. They seem so short now. Used to be I'd always arrange a stop half way.
Not entirely clear how you'd use rail infrastructure to go from Addis Ababa to DC, so if you need the aviation infrastructure for intercontinental travel, its cheaper to use the same infrastructure for both. Kinda like the classic problem of "why don't rockets use atmospheric oxygen for the first 5% of their flight" well, its just not worth it.
Another BIG problem is urban people think rails go everywhere and connect everything. An interesting geographic feature to google for is "darien gap" in Panama. Most people refuse to believe there is no road connection between north and south America... We don't even have paved roads crossing Panama in 2019... We're simply not going to have high speed rail between the USA and Cape Horn in our lifetimes due to engineering challenges.
One of those interesting engineer's daydreams is building a rail connection across north and south america. Imagine a really cool bridge across the panama canal.
The problem is there's no market. High speed (human) cargo gets put on the planes because the countries need aviation infrastructure for intercontinental trade anyway. Low speed (metal ore or bulk grain) cargo takes boats which use about half the energy and cost of rail with essentially zero environmental or property tax impact (well, zero compared to rail or road, anyway). So what has to move faster than people but slower than coal... well... nothing, I guess. So no market means no infrastructure.
Indeed. Unfortunately there’s an anti-rail movement that fights any expansion of it, large or small. It’s too bad because between post 9/11 security and airlines adding fees while reducing seat pitch and services it would be really nice to have an alternative.
My seat was an aisle seat a couple rows back from a door. They opened it for a short period while we were on the ground. Even though we were on an airport tarmac, the "fresh" air was nice.
They will fly with only 50 people on board. In order to make this test more realistic, they should put inflatable dummies in every unoccupied seat and assign most of reporters to economy class.
They point out in the article that one of the sticking points is that modern aircraft actually can't do that. This test flight will only have a few passengers and a few bags.
They're mostly testing the physiological effects of long flights to determine if it is even worth developing/buying the planes that would be capable of a full load flight at 20 hours.
The jet lag angle in the article was really odd to me. Impacts on the crew, blood clots mentioned in the comments here all make sense. Jet lag though shouldn't be any different on a 20 hour flight than it is going the same distance with a 3 hour layover.
It's still pretty different. With the quick stop, you're still descending, experience the sea level pressure, having to wake up, walk around, change planes, experience sunlight, etc. It starts readjusting your circadian rhythm.
On long flights, I wish they would give me a job to do while on the plane, helping the stewards pick up trash, cleaning the toilets ... anything, just so I could move like a normal human being is supposed to.
There should be a program where they can train people you as a cabin steward 'aide' or something.
(I know I know it would be impossible because of: regulations, safety, security, reasons ...)
On a Virgin Australia flight they had a little "bar" area which was basically just an open standing area where you could chat with other passengers...next to an open liquor cabinet. The booze was probably not great for jetlag but I found a couple hours of standing and chatting was a great way to break up the trip and get blood flowing a bit.
Ever flown with a child? Grab a kid and walk up and down the aisle with them. Don't have a kid, just walk up and down the aisle anyways. People might look at you funny, but who cares.
We recently had made a transatlantic flight with our two very small children.... it was actually relaxing when, at some random point, they just fell asleep and we could sit for a while instead of moving all the time, also walking throught the plane just as you described.
I do the 15 hour flight between SFO -> TLV (United) and back about every 8 weeks. It's really not bad. I always go on a little sleep deprived and I just sleep about 9 hours of it.
The first time I flew long haul (Amsterdam - Bangkok) I was so excited about the trip that I wanted to go there well rested. So of course I went to bed early and got up after about 10 hours of sleep. Biggest mistake in all of my flying, sat in my chair for 12 hours being bored out of my mind.
I have to take long haul flights about once a quarter.
Yes, they can be enjoyable, especially if you can swing upgrades, but keep in mind a 16 hour flight with the 787 at a higher altitude than normal and usually at somewhat higher latitudes (still sub arctic), is the equivalent of something like at least a dozen chest x-rays. It's goes up exponentially if you do fly over the arctic to save fuel costs.
If you didn't know, flight attendants are classified as radiation workers.
I have trouble getting too excited about them even if in business class.
You could take a dozen of flights daily for the rest of your life with little to no implications to your health (with respect to radiation dosing) [0]. The occupational limit for nuclear workers is 50 mSv. A single flight is 0.001 hourly. You spend 100% of a calendar year on plans, and only get 8.76 mSv exposure.
It seems like you're claiming 1,000 chest x-rays/ year is fine.
An x-ray still damages your dna, guaranteed, and your cells then have to repair it. The older you are, the harder that is to do, and the more times your cells have to repair dna, the more you age [David Sinclair's theory of aging anyways]
I don't think you will find a health practitioner who would think that's safe for 1 year, let alone decades of doing it.
If you look at the chart, you are ordinarily exposed to "natural background radiation", which is 0.01 mSv.
1,000 chest X-rays per year would be 60 mSv -- which is over the 50 limit for nuclear employees. A chest x-ray isn't really comparable to an hour spent on a commercial flight: it's sixty times as much radiation.
LA - NY is multiple chest x-rays (see the chart from the poster below you, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/medi...). There is no such thing as a standard hour either - altitude and latitude are the biggest factors - long haul flights have it worst.
Let's drop the nuclear worker max as if it should bear on normal folks: Well known doctors like Peter Attia, Rhonda Patricks, and others I've heard on podcasts recommend max 5 mSv per year as limit that risks health and accelerating aging.
I've done the 17h flight across hemisphere several times, how is that going to be significantly different from 20h? What are they expecting to learn that the last few years of these long haul flights hasn't taught us? I imagine it's more about the plane than the passengers.
On short flights (<=3 hours), I'll generally take the window seat since there's built in entertainment (I'm perfectly content to just look out the window instead of watching TV on shorter flights). But on flights longer than 3 hours, I've started taking aisle seats and getting up and just walking around for a minute every 30 minutes. That does wonders for me.
Cramped seats aside, the thing that made long flights a lot more tolerable for me is getting (muscle)relaxing medicine (something like Xanax) prescribed by my doctor. It calms me down and if I take a bit more I can sleep wonderfully and eradicate jet lag.
Obviously, 20h is a bit extreme but it helps me forcing myself into the sleep rhythm that I should be in.
I once took a flight from Dallas to Sydney that had to stop in Brisbane for more fuel (due to winds or something it didn't have enough fuel to get to Sydney). That was probably about 20 hours in total.
Yep, every UK company I've worked at for 20 years has had a strict "economy only" policy, unless you're at something like VP level.
There have been times when I've had to take 3 economy flights in a row to get to a destination, travelling over 24h straight.
Travelling long-haul in economy if you're anything near 6 feet tall is absolutely fucking miserable. But not everyone has the luxury of easily getting another job, so what can you do?
The only upside is that after doing it long enough you gain status (but it takes a looong time flying economy), then you tend to get free upgrades a lot more often, and you can use your airlines to get a free upgrade on the rare occasions where the moon and stars align and the airline says there is availability.
I have a rule - I don’t fly long haul economy for an employer, ever. Premium Economy is the minimum tolerable, and if it’s more than once a quarter, I only fly business. No exceptions.
I also agree that Premium Economy is the "minimum tolerable" - it's still not exactly pleasant for long haul, but at least you have enough space to be relatively comfortable. Sleeping is still pretty difficult though.
I have the same Premium Economy rule nowadays, but I now have the luxury of being able to do that; earlier in my career, I didn't.
But yes, it’s about how often you fly. Once or twice a year on a midhaul day flight like Uk to east coast or Mid East in a good economy plane (qatar a350 for example) is fine. flying 30 times a year then just say no. It’s not worth the damage to your health.
I can also ponder about other useless conundrums, such as if my job were to require me to come up with non-sense analogies that have no basis in reality.
The airplanes literally have >10x as many seats for economy. You know, airplane seats don’t get spaced out in ways that are literally hazardous to human life on accident. And as a culture, we decided things that threaten human life enough are worth making illegal even if they infringe on personal freedoms. Lots of people wouldn’t wear seatbelts or helmets without them.
IOW: it is absolutely the airline’s fault. And one of them, Spirit to be exact, is pushing the boundaries even further. Is there a limit to how far this will go? Probably not, left on its own.
And no, my job doesn’t ask me to smoke 40 packs a day, amazingly, and the two things you listed are not equivalent. It was, at one point in history, not unreasonable to ask employees to fly to other locations on company dime. It is slowly becoming unreasonable because there are no checks preventing this and people literally can’t just stop flying, this isn’t a real solution, the world would collapse with the absence of air travel, we can stop entertaining this thought.
On the trip over, I scored a seat near the galley exit. Meaning no seats in front of me where the overwing exit door was. I could stretch my legs right out, and every hour or so, I could just unbuckle my seatbelt and stand up and do a series of stretches and sit back down again without bothering any other passengers or crew.
On the way back, the plane was nearly empty, so United allocated a full row of 3 seats to everyone in economy. Being able to lie flat was a massive bonus and I slept most of the 17 hours lying down and didn't feel it.
The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems.
The aircraft also cruises higher than most other earlier era jets, so we were usually well above most weather patterns for a very smooth ride. The new cabin lighting also helped to set the mood for sleep and awake cycles while on board. Kudos to Boeing engineers for the design work that went into this.