Anyone fancy this one?

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

17 hours is a long time to be stuck on a plane!  I've done 16 hours to Singapore on a 747 and that was with a stopover in Bahrain .Can't be good for your health i'd have thought. You'd need to go for a good walk every so often and watch what you breathe in.The 787, fine aircraft that it is, is not exactly known for having a promenade deck! LOL ,  It's the Jurassic park question, we know we CAN do it, but SHOULD we?  Great achievement though in all fairness. 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/first-direct-flight-australia-london-053300375.html

[Andrew Godden 943]

Nothing new to Australians, we have been doing this sort of non-stop flying for years. Non-stop currently, SYD-LAX is about 14 hrs, SYD-DFW is about 15 hrs, and MEL-LAX is about 15 hrs. Admittedly this PER-LHR extends the non-stop flying to 17 hrs, but really, in the bigger scheme of things, an extra 2-3 hrs is nothing. I was based in New York for six months working on a project and did a return trip between my Sydney office and the New York office every fortnight, about 20 hrs flying time each way with a 1 hr stop over in LAX. Oh, and when arriving in SYD, straight off the plane and into my office for a full two days work before leaving mid morning on the third day for the return trip and into the New York office the next morning.

 

This is just another flight!

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

5 hours ago, dodgy-alan said:

17 hours is a long time to be stuck on a plane!  I've done 16 hours to Singapore on a 747 and that was with a stopover in Bahrain .Can't be good for your health i'd have thought. You'd need to go for a good walk every so often and watch what you breathe in.The 787, fine aircraft that it is, is not exactly known for having a promenade deck! LOL ,  It's the Jurassic park question, we know we CAN do it, but SHOULD we?  Great achievement though in all fairness. 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/first-direct-flight-australia-london-053300375.html

 

Interestingly, just yesterday on PBS I heard an interview with a researcher discussing the Odds of getting sick on an airline flight and risks involved. Basically, if you arent sitting next to or within a few feet  (a meter or so...) from an infected person your risk is Very low. Airliners circulate new air quicker than most buildings do, you are breathing cleaner air on average in an airliner than in an office setting.

[allardjd 1,853]

3 hours ago, Captain Coffee said:

Airliners circulate new air quicker than most buildings do, you are breathing cleaner air on average in an airliner than in an office setting.

 

There are really at least three ventilation situations in airliners...

• On ground, engines not running
• On ground, engines running, not pressurized
• In flight, pressurized

I'm pretty sure the ventilation characteristics are different for all three, though the latter two are close, probably the only difference being the cabin pressurization outflow valves wide open or throttling.  Anyway, probably standing in the boarding lines and in the line in the aisle to disembark might well be the highest risk.

 

John

[brett 2,308]

Flying non-stop it might be a bit of a long flight but throw some sleep in there and it's a doable. I flown longer ones but they weren't nonstop, either way it makes for a weary day and like like Andrew said we humans are capable of some long work loads without caving. If it's for vacation the excitement would wash it away until you got home again.

 

Throw in First Class and it would be a walk in the park. 

 

I would gather most people prefer not to travel when sick so I think the chances of catching a bug would be better hanging out with your kids when they come home from school.

[allardjd 1,853]

1 hour ago, brett said:

I would gather most people prefer not to travel when sick so I think the chances of catching a bug would be better hanging out with your kids when they come home from school.

 

While I agree entirely with the part about kids bringing home germs from school (the only things kids willingly share), I think a lot of folks travel sick because they've made their reservations and other trip plans in advance and the hassle and expense of canceling or rescheduling drives them to go anyway, sick or not.

 

Still better than Greyhound...

 

John

[dogtrack 346]

7 hours ago, brett said:

I would gather most people prefer not to travel when sick so I think the chances of catching a bug would be better hanging out with your kids when they come home from school

 

...and lets not forget the "mingling" with high numbers of already sick and those carriers about to become sick, that infest the confined space of  Airport waiting/working areas.  Who did you just brush up against.... ?

 

Sorry, just couldn't resist .

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Yep, surfaces are the biggest concern I'd think. Wash hands, wash hands, wash hands, and never touch your face with unwashed hands...and you are probably going to be 99% protected from all but a direct sneeze.

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

Regarding aircraft ventilation. I was somewhat amused when we flew out to the Scilly Isles from Lands End a few years ago. It was a scheduled airline flight in a BN Islander. The only aircraft I've ever flown in where there was a notice in the cabin saying , "Please do not open the windows in flight!"   

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Just now, dodgy-alan said:

Regarding aircraft ventilation. I was somewhat amused when we flew out to the Scilly Isles from Lands End a few years ago. It was a scheduled airline flight in a BN Islander. The only aircraft I've ever flown in where there was a notice in the cabin saying , "Please do not open the windows in flight!"   

 

Considering how slow they fly and how small the cabin, I'm certain it had happened at least once before placards were affixed.