The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights • Hacker News Board

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#11

Post by TangoTrotFox » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

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.

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#12

Post by xg15 » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 6:07 PM UTC

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.

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#13

Post by sushisource » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 6:07 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #10

wild_preference wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve long yearned for a flight where we just lay down the whole time, stacked. I’ve envied everyone who could ever sleep in a sitting position.

I'd pay more for a flight where they just sedated me in advance and I woke up at my destination.

Now we're talking. I'll take a vodka and a valium, see you when we land.

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#14

Post by jerhinesmith » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #4

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 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 re…

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.

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#15

Post by xg15 » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

> Singapore is also adding bone-broth teas because they’ll send people to the bathroom more frequently, forcing them to stretch.

I'm sure it's meant well, but this idea fulfills all the bad cliches about Singapore to a point...

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#16

Post by grkvlt » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 6:21 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #10

wild_preference wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve long yearned for a flight where we just lay down the whole time, stacked. I’ve envied everyone who could ever sleep in a sitting position.

I'd pay more for a flight where they just sedated me in advance and I woke up at my destination.

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 ;)

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#17

Post by smashingfiasco » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 6:24 PM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #4

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 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 re…

I’m totally with you. I couldn’t imagine having to live for 20 hours in a plane.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a thing if we had supersonic flight.

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#18

Post by grkvlt » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 6:24 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #5

toomanybeersies wrote: post #4

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 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 re…

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. EDIT: s/direct/non-stop/g

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.

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#19

Post by CydeWeys » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #4

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 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 re…

> 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.

Re: The Science Behind the World’s Longest Flights

#20

Post by Taniwha » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 7:09 PM UTC

amaccuish wrote: post #7

toomanybeersies wrote: post #4

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 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 re…

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.

AirNZ offers a sleeper option in economy called "sky couch"