The Benefit Of An All Night Flight?

[Ukridge]

Yesterday I chatted with a colleague who just returned last week from the capitol of the former colonies on the “earlyâ€￾ flight. This is the flight that leaves Washington in the morning and arrives in London in the late evening – time if I may mention again that is quite conducive to a night of good rest. A few months ago I posted a question on this august forum concerning the popularity of this flight and why United does not fly this segment with a 777 as does BA.
Since my expertise stops at merely framing the enquiry I will have to defer to those of you who know, but I was puzzled by one of the responses. Although I cannot remember the poster, this individual maintained that “businessmen and women prefer to fly through the night and to do business during the next day.â€￾ Yet now we see that United may be considering matching BA out of Washington with a 777. I am sure that other carriers are offering the same arrangement out of New York but perhaps on different aircraft than a 777.
The real puzzlement lies in the postulation that the passenger prefers to fly all night. Is this an immutable law of nature? Is there an international accord that has many national signatories cementing this as what must be done? I think rather not.
Lets look first at the passengers east of the large body of water and then west of said pond. I now have the chance to take a late afternoon flight from London. This gives ample time for office work during the day and to set off for Heathrow in the afternoon so nearly a full day has been accomplished in harness. I arrive in Washington in the early evening and am in a good position for the next day’s tasks. On the last day, I can spend the evening prior late in the office, meet with colleagues, and get a steak that is actually (unlike on the continent) cooked to an adequate level of doneness, get a decent night of sleep and work on the aircraft the next day. Upon arrival, I put into stable at a late, but reasonable hour and am in fine fettle for the next day. For many (and I stress many) with whom I have spoken, this arrangement is ideal.
For those who reside on the west side of the water I marvel at how they fly all night and then stagger in at noon London time. They have slept fitfully if at all on the airplane and are now trying to do business at five or six in the morning their body-clock time. Well, I can report with accuracy their status if we empanel a 3 o’clock in the afternoon meeting! Had they arrived the evening before they as well would have had a night of rest and albeit an early wakeup for them, at least be in fighting form.
I do not pretend to tell the flying public how to arrange their work and travel affairs. It just seemed that this idea must be growing in popularity as both United and BA seem to be plying the route at this time. I of course may be wrong, but this seems very much like one of those situations that because it was always done that way….. Someone had mentioned staffing issues. I am sure that this may play a role but in the competitive market of today for the airlines, they certainly need to look at times and markets that they previously had not before. If United changes its early flight to the 777 (although it does not yet seem so) this must be an indication that I am not alone in this thought.
Any ideas?
Cheers

 

[phllax]

It's not about what's best for the passenger, but what's best for the airline's bottom line.

Eastbound departures in the morning to Europe means that the aircraft overnights in Europe. Evening departures mean that the airplane gets a higher rate of utilization. For example, a UA aircraft doing IAD-LHR at night might have a day that looks like this:

LHR-IAD-ORD-IAD-LHR (4 segments)

The flights that leave in the morning have much less utiliation
Day 1: IAD-LHR (1 segment)
Day 2: LHR-IAD-LAX-IAD (3 segments)

As you can see, UA could squeeze 4 segments out of 1 aircraft on the normal overnight schedule, whereas they could only get 3 segments per day on a morning Eastbound departure to Europe.

The story is quite different for European carriers. Those with morning departures from the US can easily have those aircraft arriving in Europe at night continue onto the Middle East, Africa, or India and Asia on overnight flights.

 

[FWAAA]

While I agree that some people may well prefer to fly USA-UK during the day (arriving at Imperialism Central around dinnertime), one problem is that the airplane must then sit in Great Britain until the next day, as a departure one or two hours hence would arrive back in the Rebel Colonies too late at night.

Airlines prefer to keep the big birds flying rather than sitting. Redeyes to LHR and morning/afternoon returns to USA generally results in more efficient aircraft utilization. In a perfect world, daytime USA-UK pax would pay more to cover the lost use of the plane while it parks at LHR overnight. Perhaps they do.

I generally prefer to fly fly at night since I sleep very soundly while reclined in F or J. Back of the bus fliers may well prefer to fly during the day, since it is harder to get a good night's rest while sitting upright and crammed into a coach seat.

I also tend to fly LAX-MIA-LHR (more FF miles that way) and the MIA-LHR flight is certainly long enough to get a good night's rest. Even more so when flying LAX-LHR nonstop (leave the Left Coast at dinner time, arrive LHR in mid-afternoon).

 

[Ukridge]

Interesting points. I have to say how informative this board can be at times. More passengers should read it as it would certainly increase the understanding as to why somethings are the way they are in the air transportation industry. Some items of note however..

Phllax: "It's not about what's best for the passenger, but what's best for the airline's bottom line"
Perhaps true in the broadest sense but is it not the passenger who in the end determines on what product and service to spend his money? I find this to be rather the nub of the matter instead of the frequently trumpeted "the person of affairs prefers this." Even if they did "prefer" it, (which as you can see I doubt) they sure as the blazes are not productive in a work environment the next day after having flown all night and then coming into the office.

"The story is quite different for European carriers. Those with morning departures from the US can easily have those aircraft arriving in Europe at night continue onto the Middle East, Africa, or India and Asia on overnight flights. "
This is an excellent point and one that I have completely overlooked. This may allow BA to run the early morning flight with a good load/good profit and then turn the aircraft to Africa/Middle East/Orient. An advantage of geography perhaps?

FWAAA: "I generally prefer to fly fly at night since I sleep very soundly while reclined in F or J. Back of the bus fliers may well prefer to fly during the day, since it is harder to get a good night's rest while sitting upright and crammed into a coach seat."
How true. I do not sleep well on the aircraft no matter what class. In reference to Phllax's comment, I would like to see a study of how many are really effective the day after an all night flight. Yes, there are always the superhumans who never have a problem but the rest of humanity seems to have its limits!

Of course over the course of today and tommorrow one would simply be better avoiding the Metropolis altogether as it is rather tense at the moment.
Cheers