Talk:Longest flights

United claims that as of January 18, 2018 it will have the three longest flights by a USA carrier

SFO and LAX to SIN as well as IAH to SYD I am going to change ranges SFO- SIN 13,593 km ATL- JNB 13,582 km Pacomartin (talk)

Longest non-stop flights operated by U.S. carriers[edit]

The stopping point for this table is the route flown by all three legacy U.S. carriers, LAX-SYD. Pacomartin (talk)

North America is the primary terminus for longest flights in the world with 27 out of 30. U.S. Carriers are a distinct case. It is true that the first 7 carriers in the U.S. table are also in the top 30, and I chose to terminate the table at LAS-SYD which was the original ultra long distance route back in the late 1970s. The table is not very big and is of general interest. Pacomartin (talk)

Longest non-stop flights operated by U.S. carriers

On 1 June 2016, United launched nonstop flights between San Francisco and Singapore. On 1 June 2017, United announced its Los Angeles/Singapore nonstop service. On 7 September 2017, United announced that it will begin daily, nonstop service between Houston and Sydney on 18 January 2018.

Rank (Dist.)	Airline	From	To	Flight number	Distance	Aircraft
1	United Airlines	Los Angeles	Singapore	UA 37	14,114 km (7,621 nmi; 8,770 mi)	Boeing 787-9
2		Houston	Sydney	UA 101	13,834 km (7,470 nmi; 8,596 mi)
3		San Francisco	Singapore	UA 1	13,593 km (7,340 nmi; 8,446 mi)
4	Delta Air Lines	Johannesburg	Atlanta	DL 201	13,582 km (7,334 nmi; 8,439 mi)	Boeing 777-200LR
5	American Airlines	Dallas/Fort Worth	Hong Kong	AA 125	13,073 km (7,059 nmi; 8,123 mi)	Boeimg 777-300ER
6	United Airlines	Newark		UA 179	12,980 km (7,009 nmi; 8,065 mi)	Boeing 777-200ER
7		Los Angeles	Melbourne	UA 98	12,748 km (6,883 nmi; 7,921 mi)	Boeing 787-9
8		Mumbai	Newark	UA 49	12,565 km (6,785 nmi; 7,808 mi)	Boeing 777-200
9		Chicago—O'Hare	Hong Kong	UA 895	12,543 km (6,773 nmi; 7,794 mi)
10	Delta Air Lines	Atlanta	Shanghai	DL 185 (begins 20 Jul 2018)	12,327 km (6,656 nmi; 7,660 mi)	Boeing 777-200LR
11	American Airlines	Los Angeles	Sydney	AA 73	12,051 km (6,507 nmi; 7,488 mi)	Boeing 787-9
	United Airlines			UA 839		Boeing 787-9
	Delta Air Lines			DL 41		Boeing 777-200LR

Copy of table Pacomartin (talk)

References

Questions/Observations to be addressed

Contradictions between "current" and "records" tables

In the By aircraft type section, for the same aircraft (e.g., A220-100), there are several examples of a longer current route than the longest historical route, even though the "records" section clearly says that it includes both current and historical routes. How can this be? Am I misunderstanding the logic of the tables? Also, the tables have different headers, units, and formatting for the same data. Is there a reason for this? It seems that both should use the same formatting in all regards. I don't want to change anything if I'm misunderstanding something. Thanks. Holy (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Holy is correct - the tables should be aligned if the current route is also the longest ever (historic) for a type, it should appear in both tables). Put this on the todo list? --DigitalExpat (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Confirm and Assure Data Accuracy

As Wikipedia's value comes from its confirmed validity, suggest in addition to the vigilant great monitoring of new longest flights by Wikipedia contributors, that we also group verify the entered data (such as distances for example) regularly. Today (Jan 5 2021) all distances for Airlines and aircraft types for non-stop flights (Current) had all entered Great Circle Distances (GCD) against global standard (eg: GCMap.com) - and found 21 of the 65 entries being incorrect by more than +/- 5km. Proof & Citation:data used here --DigitalExpat (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Why limited to 30?

What is the rational on trimming/limiting the longest active flight table to 30? While every table needs its limits, wouldn't this article be equally, if not better, served by having a larger table? (If looking for a round number, you could say "40" but we have the historical edits here on this wiki to support this information, reveal some more interesting longest flights (we're maintaining the data by carrier anyways so no additional maintenance overhead...is there a rationale for not doing this? --DigitalExpat (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No - all the tables should be trimmed and limited to a much smaller number, I would suggest 10 or at the most 15. The more you have the bigger the problem to maintain an ever decreasing relevance and complexity of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia it is not really the correct venue for such exhaustive lists. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the Thoughts Andrew, I appreciate it!! Entirely agree if the case is the article isn't being maintained....but this wiki page seems to be one of the better maintained repositories (and with reputable citations) on the net for this topic in particular. It is evident looking at the edit history that we have the ability to ensure it keeps its accuracy (for example the article is already committed to maintaining a table of 259 International Carriers), it would seem that there is no difference in the maintenance effort required for a list of 10/30/40 for longest active flight.

Only limiting information (eg for example now when we have a new top 30 flight, the old one simply drops off into oblivion... having a longer list I see as only benefitting (more secondary information possible (continent pair frequency, trends over time based on age of the route). Looking at other Wiki articles like "Longest Road Tunnel" (Table is ~100 rows?)"Busiest Cruise Ports" (96 rows) "busiest airports in the United States" (61 rows) it does seems 30 to be an arbitrary number. Agreed though that maintained (and thus accurate) information is paramount, but the maintenance cost between 30 and 35 or 40 is marginal I would suggest... --DigitalExpat (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oblivion is fine. This is an encyclopaedia not a directory, where do you propose to stop - your argument could go on for ever. If anybody cares what the 40th or the 50th longest flight is Wikipedia is not the correct place to store that type of information. Also just because other pages have something does not make it right or sensible my advice would be to be very careful of relying too much on such arguments. And I would disagree that this page is particularly accurate or well referenced. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Love your thoughts Andrew, thanks for the reply!... I think we're thinking along the same lines - the table needs to stop where it stops being maintained/maintainable (and therefore inaccurate/unreliable - the opposite of what an encyclopedia should be). I think that an encyclopedia with 1000 (verified) pages of facts is more valuable than one with 100, or 10, or 1....). As Per the Wikipedia's purpose statement: "Wikipedia is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written". As long as the list is maintained and retained to be accurate, I think a list of knowledge about the flights has lots to offer to the world and to wikipedia.

On your second point, Just to clarify, I didn't say the page is accurate or well referenced, I said the article is "one of the better maintained repositories (and with reputable citations) on the net". Yes definitely more maintenance and citations are certainly needed here, but let's do that and make it the quality wikipedia article (and if it can be more comprehensive (and cited), all the better I'd suggest. I don't think reducing the amount of information in the article (unless it is unreliable, in which case we should tag it as citation needed, and set out about fixing it!) is in alignment with the spirit of Wikipedia to be the largest, most comprehensive encyclopedia ever written..." I can see from your past contributions (and those of many others), you've made the article an excellent one to date, I'd love to see it continue to grow to the next level is what my question is truly about.... All the best - DigitalExpat (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I found solid citations and sufficient references to expand Wikipedia's knowledge from 30 to 35 with informational authority (see updated article). Will need to ensure we continue to maintain this list (especially as COVID19 fallout continues and potentially scheduled flights become de-scheduled/ended... For what it is worth, I have a start on additional flights, but I don't have conclusive evidence there aren't more fitting. My research as it stands now could be:

1. 36 - YYZ to HKG (AC & CX)
2. 37 - TPE to JFK (CI & BR)
3. 38 - EWR to MUM (UA & AI) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalExpat (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Continuing the conversation here regarding the question of length of the Longest Flights Table: On Jan 15 2021 Change# 1000524063 was made to expand the Wikipedia with the information of "Top 30 Longest Active Flights" → "Top 35 Longest Active Flights" with the honest intent of improving the article/expanding Wikipedia in alignment with the 5 pillars. On Jan 16,The change was reverted with the comment "Although this was discussed increasing the length of this table was not agreed by consensus - in fact quite the opposite. The enclyclopadiaicness of the 35th in any list is most highly questionable". So in a desire to address this, I am reopening this thread here in the Talk Page to see about reaching a consensus. (Note that it wasn't the intent to forgo/override a consensus, no ill will was intended, merely was following the Wikipedia Guideline of "Be Bold".

So am now reinstating this thread to see what Consensus can be reached here (which Andrewgprout correctly referred to in his comment, and I respect and value this Wikipedia tenet of course). At the moment, I'm working to understand why we wouldn't want the article to be more definitive on the topic (but still within reason) by expanding the maintained/cited active record list by 5). There has been a lot of great contribution to make the article how good it is today, I'd like to see it improved even more and I'm working to understand why adding more collated/referenced/cited information into the article is not-desired/should not be added to Wikipedia. But I respect the opinion and experience of all contributors to the article and will see what this consensus can be reached on the topic? Let's have some more discussion on this change so as to avoid a case of reverting only due to no consensus since only 2 people are currently posting on this matter. I respect Andrewgprout and all the great contributors to the article! Thanks - DigitalExpat (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

In an interest to gather a wide consensus as possible on the above question as rightfully suggested by Andrewgprout and to respect the significant contributions over the years I've enjoyed this article, I'm tagging that top 15 contributors to the article over the last 5 years to seek their (along with anyone else who is active on this article of course! ( like Holy)) opinion if they please? By all of us working together, I think we make Wikipedia (and this article) better! Marc Lacoste 92 editsC933103 56 editsIrehdna 50 editsAndrewgprout 46 editsAzboi 37 editsAirportlover147812 36 editsGbrkk 33 editsWallacevio 30 editsJmg38 25 editsCaradhrasAiguo 24 editsEh Oh Canada 23 editsAaryan Bali 23 editsBenjamin "Jeffrey" Powell 19 editsPacomartin 18 editsThenoflyzone 17 edits --- DigitalExpat (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I am much less active on Wikipedia in recent days, but from when I'm involved in the article, I think it make sense to have a shorter list although remaining unchange is also okay, but I would favor a system that cut-off using distance or flight hour instead of numbers of flights on the list, and for the number to be constantly reviewed such that the list won't get too long after more ultra long haul flights are launched. Also, please be noted that the list was separated from another article only a few years ago, if you want to ping users who're involved with editing and updating the article I woild recommend you to ping also those who have made contribution to the original article. C933103 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I stopped following this page some time ago as it was already bloated, and it become worse since (By airline! it will never end. Next step: by tail number!). It would be so much better to rely on a single source to link to, to keep a short list here as a reminder (between 10 and 20). For now, it's mostly WP:SYNTHESIS and borderline WP:NOTDIR/WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would just leave it at 30 since that seems to be the norm at this point; any longer definitely seems unnecessary. Alternatively, maybe reduce it to 20 or 25 since those are more "normal" numbers. Clearly there's no problem with maintaining the main list at its current length, so why delete all the accurate info that's been collected? The lists for direct flights with stops and discontinued flights, on the other hand, seem extraneous, and maintaining the list by airline seems nigh impossible to maintain accurately and potentially violates the aforementioned policies. Gbrkk (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)