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.

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.

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.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/here-s-where-qantas-pilot...

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.

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.

This is the great circle route SFO-SYD, Honolulu is pretty close as you can see http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sfo-syd

I just don't see how you could reasonably stop in Russia or China while flying from the US to Sydney.

But yeah, I don't think there exists a NA<->AU route with practical stops in China or Russia https://i.succ.in/6myR8ZFQ.png

The layback seats made me enjoy it far more than even a 5 hour flight.

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.

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.

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.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1989755/ [1] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/travel.html [2] https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thromb... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC434500/

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287629

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.

Edit: Also explains why the cabin fills with jeta fumes when they start the engines while passengers are on board.

[They == people who once worked in aerospace]

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

To abstract away from the above, I find that the mindset going into the flight determines the experience.

It's also more humid. Since the body isn't aluminum, they dont have to worry about it degrading so much from humid air.

Maybe inside surface temperature on carbon fibre is higher (better insulation), allowing for higher dew point [1], thus higher humidity levels.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point

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.

I think you mean less often, as in more fresh air? Recirculation increases CO2 concentration, which causes fatigue.

I do not know whether or not such information is accurate, but there is concern about it on the internet.

Humidity, however, was 10%, and the cabin pressure would also have been lower than at ground level.

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.

Because of a mechanical issue we flew on a 787 out and a 767 back and the difference was night and day.

These cramped seats/long flights probably kill quite a few people.

> 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.

> 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.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1989755/ [1] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/travel.html [2] https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thromb.... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC434500/

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/travel.html

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

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.

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

when i can't stop i buy lounge access and make sure it's fitted with showers. usually in SIN as it's one of the best airports in the world.

and i always take sleeping pills/xanax with me just in case.

if you follow my advice you can make it a bit more bearable even with economy.

It is AMAZING to get a longer layover and hang out, have a swim, shower & real meal!

Being able to walk around and check out different cars is amazing. Dining and sleeper cars are fantastic.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darién_Gap

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub...

The new "enhanced menu and flexible dining service" is as weasely as you'd expect from the corporate naming.

Is it?

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.

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 ...)

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.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(radiation...

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.

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.

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.

Another ref, look at the FAA's data where they measure exposure on different flights: https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oam...

e.g. NYC to Tokyo averages 22 microSV per hour. A chest x-ray is 20 miscroSV.

Importantly - each year simple, normal living exposes you to 3.5 mSv (see the same chart), so you only get 1.5 mSv to "allocate" to other exposures.

In other words you only get 75 chest x-rays per year.

By FAA rates of exposure on trans-pacific flights, you should take max 5-6 of those legs per year.

Don't know how you did your math.

If NY to LA is 3 chest x-rays, imagine 3x as long at a higher altitude and higher latitude.

Obviously, 20h is a bit extreme but it helps me forcing myself into the sleep rhythm that I should be in.

But do keep yourself hydrated and go for a walk around the plane once in a while, it helps.

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 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.

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.

So maybe dial down the arrogance levels a bit before assuming reasons and giving out useless solutions?