The Joyce B/S barometer, page-49

You can find crap on the internet to support any hair brained theory. Well done.

I go to the source:

https://services.boeing.com/flight-operations/flight-data-analytics/fuel-dashboard

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/services/enhance/fuel-efficiency-solutions

(Again the FAA and EASA the other two large reliable sources)

Of course its complicated and newer aircraft show gains in their optimal fuel efficiency ranges, given time spent in longer time spent flying at Long Range Cruising speeds, but those benefits begin to get reduced at the longer end, as efficiencies gains in take offs are lost by heavier take offs, loosely summarised in:

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_10/pdfs/AERO_FuelConsSeries.pdf

....and the weight of extra of the fuel carried in additional fuel having to be carried, to carry the extra fuel itself:

Lets keep it real simple for you. The Boeing 777 is one of the most common LONG RANGE passenger jet in the skies. Here is the fuel efficiency distance graph from Boeing:


Real simple. At distances above 3000 nautical miles, it becomes less fuel efficient and extrapolated with the figures for landing/takeoffs, which obviously depend on the fuel carried for the additional leg, it becomes increasingly more efficient to make a stop for fueling. Undeniably the new planes Qantas is getting will extend that out a little, I will try to get figures for those to appease you.

At the end of the day, to suggest foregoing a stop off on a Sydney to London is not massively INEFFICEINT in terms of fuel efficiency is absolute rubbish. You will no doubt persist in the 'if I say it enough it becomes true' vein.