Would You Sit 23 Hours In A Metal Tube?

[PeterRS2]

Qantas has long planned for a Sydney/London route without stops in Singapore or Dubai. It has ordered 12 specially modified A350-1000 planes with extra fuel tanks and more space in cabins for passengers. The first test flight of the ultra-long haul aircraft flew from Toulouse to Melbourne on Thursday. That flight took just over 19 hours. The first of the new versions will be delivered to Qantas in April 2027 with scheduled flights due to start in October. The outward flight against the prevailing winds is scheduled for 23 hours.

These ultra-long haul A 350s have an extra fuel tank with 20,000 litres of fuel. Seating has been reduced accordingly and also to allow for such a long time in one space. Passenger load will be 238 against 300 for a regular A350. Naturally the seats in the first half of the aircraft will have additional benefits. Although the 100 or so basic economy passengers will have quite a generous 33 inches of pitch, I for one could not imagine a flight of that length, the more so as being non-stop Qantas will charge extra for it.

Qantas future plans include Sydney and Melbourne non-stops to New York.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/24/qantas-project-sunrise-airbus-a350-1000ulr-ultra-long-range-france-melbourne-test-flight 

This week's flight only had the full Qantas logo on the wing tips.

[FunFifties]

I probably wouldn't do it. Not so much because of the anticipated discomfort, but because I would miss out on my usual stopover in Bangkok where a nice two hour massage at S'Sense is my usual remedy to cure sore and stiff joints caused by the 11 hour flight from my city 

 

[TMax]

I could probably do it in business class (or first) but absolutely no way in cattle class, at the moment 7 hours is more than enough for me. Then again that's Qantas and I would rather walk than fly them or their other mob Jetstar. 

[Keithambrose]

10 minutes ago, TMax said:

I could probably do it in business class (or first) but absolutely no way in cattle class, at the moment 7 hours is more than enough for me. Then again that's Qantas and I would rather walk than fly them or their other 

First class fare is estimated to be £14,000! I doubt that Aios will be available! There is a sort of gym area on board to enable some form of workout.

 

I recently  flew Sydney/Perth/Melbourne/Sydney, mostly business class, with Qantas, using Avios, and was impressed. Excellent service, good food, comfortable,  the Sydney/Perth leg was an A330. Perth/Melbourne  was economy, no avios business  seats, but i booked the exit row, and it was fine. Choice of meal, not Michelin standard, but offered, and wine, plus a refill. Better than most European airlines.!

[PeterRS2]

I only once flew Qantas from Bangkok to London. I was switched from a Finnair flight in biz class when it had a major delay. I thought the service, comfort, food and wines were alll excellent.

[floridarob]

I've done the SQ flight from New York to Singapore a number of times in Business each way....18-19 1/2 hours ....I prefer that than the typical 12-14 hr flights via Tokyo from the US.... I feel more rested on the longer flights.

[Pete1111]

I recently listened to Fran Leibowitz talk about flying non-stop to Australia, how long the flight was.  Sounds dreadful.  She's a smoker.  I'm not, but i get claustrophobic.

[jimmie50]

I did one trip of 14 hours from San Francisco to Hong Kong on Cathay Pacific on my way to Bangkok.  More recently did San Francisco to Singapore for 20 hours.  I wasn't sure about it when I booked that flight, but it wasn't so bad.  I am doing that same route on my upcoming trip to Cambodia.  San Francisco to Singapore; Singapore to Siem Reap.  

[unicorn]

It's definitely doable in business class, and better than the alternative of multiple flights with a minimum of 2 hours' connection time with each flight change. If one had to go in the main cabin, I suppose it would be preferable, if one has the time, to break the flights into multiple flights, with overnight stays in airport hotels along the way (still quite a bit less expensive than flying business). I've done that before. 

It's so risky to use the airlines of the Persian Gulf countries, and probably will be until Trump leaves office. On our recent trip to Indonesia (started Jakarta, ended in Denpasar/Bali), we did meet one couple who flew via Doha, but that seems rather risky. We flew via Singapore. I suppose that flights on Qatar Airways and/or Emirates are probably good bargains today, but quite dicey. Australia is so far from Europe and North America, making super-long flights often the best option.

[daydreamer]

I would gladly take a longer segment if it would reduce the number of flights to reach Bangkok.  Between the layover time spent on the ground, time to climb to altitude, and descent time for landing, several hours are wasted with each extra flight segment of a trip.

I just looked at an upcoming reservation from the east coast US to Bangkok.  Printed total time on the ticket, including three flights and two layovers is 27 hours, 50 minutes.  This is actual time spent traveling, disregarding time zones.  And I chose the shortest trip duration available, many were more hours, some considerably more.

Then add 90 minutes on each end, and the door to door travel time is 30 hours, 50 minutes.  That's a pretty darned long travel day.  Business class makes it tolerable.  Economy class makes it hellish.  That's why I choose business class flights to Thailand.

 

[PeterRS2]

Travelling to Europe last year, for some reason I still do not understand there were no mileage business class seats on Qatar even though I gave them a four month window. So I took Cathay Pacific through Hong Kong. CX used to fly up over China and then across Russia. So the flight was little more than 11 hours. With Russian airspace closed, the CX A350 had to fly under Russia with a flight time of just under 14 hours. Fortunately the newish 10 part serial The Day of the Jackal with Eddie Redmayne was on the extra large vdo screens and kept me sane!

[unicorn]

12 minutes ago, PeterRS2 said:

Travelling to Europe last year, for some reason I still do not understand there were no mileage business class seats on Qatar even though I gave them a four month window. So I took Cathay Pacific through Hong Kong. CX used to fly up over China and then across Russia. So the flight was little more than 11 hours. With Russian airspace closed, the CX A350 had to fly under Russia with a flight time of just under 14 hours. Fortunately the newish 10 part serial The Day of the Jackal with Eddie Redmayne was on the extra large vdo screens and kept me sane!

I realize that Russian airspace is closed to airlines of NATO members, but is it also closed to Chinese airlines such as Cathay Pacific?

[PeterRS2]

The return flight from Melbourne to France landed yesterday. Flying against the prevailing winds, the flight time was 24 hours 24 minutes, an hour longer than predicted.

All passenger aircraft have to carry additional fuel to allow for problems at the destination airport. Two years ago my flight from Taipei tried to land at BKK several times in bad weather. It failed and we had to fly up to wait at Chiang Mai for an hour. I wonder how much extra fuel that modified A350 Australia/France carried?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/28/qantas-plane-flies-for-more-than-24-hours-in-record-breaking-flight