United Airlines Wants To Bring Back Supersonic Air Travel (nytimes.com) 131
The airline, which plans to buy planes from Boom Supersonic [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], a start-up, could become the first to offer ultrafast commercial flights since the Concorde stopped flying in 2003. From a report: The era of supersonic commercial flights came to an end when the Concorde completed its last trip between New York and London in 2003, but the allure of ultrafast air travel never quite died out. President Biden mused about supersonic flights when discussing his infrastructure plan in April. And on Thursday, United Airlines said it was ordering 15 jets that can travel faster than the speed of sound from Boom Supersonic, a start-up in Denver. The airline said it had an option to increase its order by up to 35 planes.
Boom, which has raised $270 million from venture capital firms and other investors, said it planned to introduce aircraft in 2025 and start flight tests in 2026. It expects the plane, which it calls the Overture, to carry passengers before the end of the decade. But the start-up's plans have already slipped at least once, and it will have to overcome many obstacles, including securing approval from the Federal Aviation Administration and regulators in other countries. Even established manufacturers have stumbled when introducing new or redesigned planes. Boeing's 737 Max was grounded for nearly two years after two crashes.
Boom, which has raised $270 million from venture capital firms and other investors, said it planned to introduce aircraft in 2025 and start flight tests in 2026. It expects the plane, which it calls the Overture, to carry passengers before the end of the decade. But the start-up's plans have already slipped at least once, and it will have to overcome many obstacles, including securing approval from the Federal Aviation Administration and regulators in other countries. Even established manufacturers have stumbled when introducing new or redesigned planes. Boeing's 737 Max was grounded for nearly two years after two crashes.
Won't happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Two words: Energy Costs.
The greater amount of energy required for supersonic flight will make this a luxury for the rich until the energy powering passenger jets is massively cheaper in general. Don't forget that Concorde tickets were ludicrously expensive, and so was the aircraft, even though they were almost given to the airlines.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Won't happen (Score:4, Interesting)
The laws of physics haven't changed, technology that could be used to make a more efficient supersonic airliner could also be used to make an even more efficient subsonic airliner, yet we haven't made those so cheap that airline passengers feel like they'd be fine with paying many times as much money for a faster flight. Meanwhile the fuels airliners run on are far more expensive than in 1969.
Boom is making a private jet with no delusions of mass affordability, notice the difference - not to say that investor confidence should be any measure of merit.
Re: (Score:2)
yet we haven't made those so cheap that airline passengers feel like they'd be fine with paying many times as much money for a faster flight.
I specifically chose an article [theatlantic.com] from 2011 so that it predates (or was the start of) price gouging for being able to select your seat and paying for your luggage and overhead compartment usage, not to mention no food unless you pay for it.
As you can see, up to 2009, airfare AND real cost per mile both fell by 50% since 1979 (40 years). So, despite laws of physics not changing and the price of oil more than doubling [macrotrends.net] between 1979 and 2009, the prices fell.
I'm not saying all of it is due to making better aircr
Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Modern airliners have a far lower fuel consumption because they have high bypass turbofans. These are only usable for subsonic speeds and modern airliners on average are designed for lower cruise speeds than back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern airliners have a far lower fuel consumption because they have high bypass turbofans.
That is far from the only efficiency improvement made in aircraft design in the last half century.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the main efficiency improvement. That's why a half a century old design is still being marketed - new high bypass engines.
Sure, there are some improvements by using composites and designing wings using computational fluid dynamics, but compared to the engines all these improvements are small potatoes, really.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they haven't. But that doesn't mean that decades of technological improvements haven't changed the picture.
True. Which is exactly why the more efficient engines that will power newer supersonic aircraft have been used on subsonic aircraft for decades now. Also, exactly why the improved fuel and weight and balance contr
Re:Won't happen (Score:4, Interesting)
The laws of physics haven't changed
The laws of physics didn't change when computing ran on vacuum tubes, and that didn't prevent the world to move to transistors, and from transistors to microprocessors.
The creation of better/more efficient supersonic airliners is not about violating the laws of physics, but finding better ways to make it happen. The costs of operations and materials today are not the same as how they were in 1969. Different constrains.
technology that could be used to make a more efficient supersonic airliner could also be used to make an even more efficient subsonic airliner,
The development of more efficient subsonic airliners is not mutually exclusive or more efficient supersonic travel. Unless someone finds a way to fly over the athmosphere, a sonic boom will be a concern and subsonic travel will be required across continental mass lands. In this case, supersonic travel would be limited for transoceanic/transcontinental travel.
This isn't a zero-sum game.
Re: (Score:2)
Income inequality (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
technology that could be used to make a more efficient supersonic airliner could also be used to make an even more efficient subsonic airliner,
Nope. As the two required technologies are completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not necessarily true. Drag forces decrease significantly as hypersonic speed increases. There could be legit efficiency gains at the higher ends of hypersonic speeds that would be unattainable at subsonic speeds.
Re: Won't happen (Score:2)
The F-22 is capable of super cruise supersonic travel without afterburners.
The Concorde used afterburners.
That by itself will save tons of fuel. The big issue is still sonic booms. Which means you don't start going faster than sound until x miles off shore.
Which limits utility.
Re: (Score:2)
The Concorde only used afterburners for takeoff and to quickly pass the transonic area. It flew without afterburners the rest of the time and was supercruise capable.
Re: Won't happen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the Concorde stopped flying, the ticket price was $12,000 round trip from JFK to LHR, about twice what a first-class commercial ticket costs today (and every seat on the Concorde was first-class level service--there was no economy class). So the question is, if you are willing to pay full fare for a first-class ticket today, how much more would you pay to have the flight time cut in half?
Since all supersonic travel has to be over open water, I suspect LAX to SYD would be the longest practical all-over
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention, the competition for supersonic airliners isn't subsonic airliners, it's Zoom and Teams.
Re: (Score:2)
The benefits of travelling far that fast are limited anyway. Due to timezones even if you get there faster the jet lag is still going to write off a day.
Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure their backers have examined their figures in far more detail than you ever will.
Perhaps. But the airline industry has a long history of stupid investments and bailouts, so we should not automatically assume that they know what they are doing.
Concorde was a financial black hole. The government subsidies were about $8000 per passenger. British and French taxpayers paid billions to help rich people waste money.
The lesson from Concorde is that far more people care about low ticket prices than about speed. Those who can afford to pay more fly on private jets to avoid ground delays rather than paying for faster airspeed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are rich enough to afford Concorde tickets, you are probably rich enough to charter a private jet. Skipping the security lines, schedules, and connecting flights saves more time than any supersonic flight could.
Re: (Score:2)
Skipping the security lines, schedules, and connecting flights saves more time than any supersonic flight could.
That is nonsense.
A flight from Paris (CDG) to Bangkok (BKK) 11:00 to 12:00 hours.
Same flight back, about 14:00 hours.
No idea what you guys mean with "security line". It is 10 minutes, so what the funk? You have 3 or 4 guys in front of you, which put their stuff on the Conveyor belt, then it is your turn and you put some accessories into plastic pods. Go through and 10 minutes later you are on the
Re: Won't happen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope I have not.
But your example is one of the many cases why most Europeans consider the USA a third world country.
The longest lines are in Bangkok, not because of "security" but passport/immigrations and other silly bureaucracies. So I spent with bad luck 30 mins in the line for passport (into and out of the country), and 10 minutes max, usually 5, at security.
When I fly out of Europe no one cares about my passport, so I only spent 5 - 10 mins insecurity.
Re: Won't happen (Score:2)
Paris to bangcock is over the continent (land) and wouldn't allow supersonic flights. Supersonic only over ocean flights.
Re: (Score:2)
First off all: and wouldn't allow supersonic flights. that is a /. myth. From a plane flying at 37,000 feet, aka 12km hight: you hear nothing. Regardless if it is supersonic or not (and supersonic is only interesting at the moment when the sound barrier is broken - both ways)
Secondly: over the continent Only partly. There is a huge part over the indian ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. [wikipedia.org] Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde was a financial black hole. The government subsidies were about $8000 per passenger. British and French taxpayers paid billions to help rich people waste money.
Where are you getting this? That's not at all consistent with the consensus, which is that it was quite profitable to operate.
Including the whole program cost of course it could be different, but it's not really the whole picture either becaues the program got cut down significantly unexpectedly (well they should've seen the sonic boom issue coming, really) so there wasn't the volume necessary to for more reasonable unit costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting this?
From here [airlineratings.com].
From the link: "the total write-off for the British and French governments was $34 billion, which works out to a taxpayer subsidy of a staggering $8000 for every passenger who ever flew on the Concorde.
it was quite profitable to operate.
With $34B in taxpayer handouts, almost anything is profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if you of course bundle some things up with others and ignore a tonne of other things.
The $34Billion write off there was for the entire program - British Airways and Air France bought the majority of their fleet at full list and then received a handful of other airframes which were not taken up by purchasers after the fuel crisis in the 1970s. So the majority of each fleet was not a subsidised purchase - the manufacturer didn't make any money, but that doesnt mean that the write off was a subsidy for
Re: (Score:2)
>the US government poured hundreds of millions of dollars into their SST program,
>only for it to be completely cancelled before even the prototype stage.
given a choice between wasting hundreds of millions, and $34B, I'll take the former every time . . .
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
We got 30 years of Concorde, Im happy with that.
You got hundreds of billions of dollars of write offs over the same period, for civilian and military investments the US government made which ended in failed or cancelled projects.
I’d much rather have been lumped with Concorde.
Re: (Score:3)
That was development costs in the 60s though. The new one won't cost that much.
Is that why the F-35 is so cheap?
Re: (Score:2)
The lesson from Concorde is that far more people care about low ticket prices than about speed. Those who can afford to pay more fly on private jets to avoid ground delays rather than paying for faster airspeed
But those lessons are specific to costs of operations circa 1969. We have better fuel efficiency, lower energy costs and a greater variety of energy options and materials. Also, travel patterns are not necessarily the same today as with 1969 (we have more transoceanic travel now than back then.)
All of this can go to hell if inventors/companies cannot come up with a way to get supersonic travel down to business class costs. But if they find a way (and there's nothing that says this is axiomatically impossi
Re: (Score:2)
Those who can afford to pay more fly on private jets to avoid ground delays rather than paying for faster airspeed.
I think you're right - mostly. Concorde was a pretty small aircraft (~100 pax), so if they can get a larger one that can go ~Mach 1.5 or so instead of the typical Mach 0.8 or so (and be more efficient than Concorde's M 2+), you're talking about significant time savings off of long-haul flights. I think many people would consider paying a few $100s extra to turn a 16 hr flight into an 8hr flight. (although they might cannibalize some of their higher margin business-class pax that would rather spend the extra
Re: (Score:2)
The Concorde was actually about as long as a Boeing 777, but much thinner. Supersonic aircraft has to be thin and long, and there are airport limits to how long an aircraft can be. Basically the Concorde could be stretched by 25% until it hits this limit so you get maybe 33 rows instead of 26. Even if lowering to Mach 1.5 would make a larger tube with 5 abreast possible, it still only gives you 165 passengers at best while stretching the aircraft to its maximum possible length, requiring a gate usually rese
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde was a financial black hole.
It was, at first. Then they said fuck it and decided to charge enough to cover the real costs, and people still paid it. Oh, here's the line from Wikipedia:
Research revealed that passengers thought that the fare was higher than it actually was, so the airline raised ticket prices to match these perceptions. It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
This is really hard to say because no one in the industry is offering a faster product -- everyone flies in the vicinity of 0.80 mach. So yeah, currently people prefer lower ticket prices to speed because they literally cannot buy speed short of going private. If Boom delivers on going mach 1.7 then we'll actually see how consumer preferences pan out.
At the same time, there are some clues that suggest (not too str
Look at the size of the plane (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I thought, too. I could almost see it working better as a NetJets-style business model, for unique situations, like the time Phil Collins played a show in London, then took the Concorde to New York to play a second show that evening. Given the amount of money he made doing that, paying $10K-$15K per hour in the air (2x-3x Gulfstream prices) makes sense. There probably aren't enough people in the overlapping circles of money-is-no-object people and people who still fly scheduled commercial.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a modern Concord; tiny cabin, limited seating, high speed for convenience, equals inflated prices tailored to those who want to afford it (and who actually can).
Everywhere I've read is that the aim is to bring it down to business class prices first. To bring it down to economic class is just not possible, and you have to start somewhere in the middle (not executive class, but business class.)
I've travel abroad, to Japan, with my family, and it's a grueling trip. We pay economy class just because, but if we could get the flight down from 11 hours to 3, we'd pay bizness class.
Now imagine all the Chinese and Indian expats in the US traveling to their own countries
Re: (Score:3)
"Aerion Corp., the supersonic-jet developer founded by Texas billionaire Robert Bass and backed by Boeing Co., said it's ceasing operations"
I'm sure those Aerion backers also had confidence in their figures. Don't get me wrong, I hope Boom succeeds. But they haven't flown anything yet. The XB-1 platform prototype, single pilot/passenger, will fly this year, but will be using GE jet engines designed in the 1950's.
The biggest hurdle in my mind, and there are many hurdles, is the design and manufacture of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seven words: decades of materials and engine technology improvements.
This isn't 1969. Boom has a far easier job than BAC and Aerospatiale did, and I'm pretty sure their backers have examined their figures in far more detail than you ever will.
You'd think the hyperloop backers would examine the figures in great detail too and yet
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that Concorde tickets were ludicrously expensive, and so was the aircraft, even though they were almost given to the airlines.
If they thought the best they could do was Concorde level efficiency/cost they wouldn't even try. I'm sure this will end up being more expensive than projected, but that doesn't mean it won't make any sense. Especially long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they would.
The whole trick is to get governments to subsidize it anyway. Then it's a toy fro the rich the rest of us pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they would.
The whole trick is to get governments to subsidize it anyway. Then it's a toy fro the rich the rest of us pay for.
What makes you think the government would subsidize this?
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think the government would subsidize this?
Because governments have a long history of giving airlines massive subsidies and bailouts.
What makes you think, "This time will be different"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: Energy Costs.
I don't know. I'm sure people would happily pay a LOT of money to reduce any time they need to spend on a United flight.
Concorde was already profitable (Score:3)
If I remember correctly, BA managed to get the Concorde to profitability. That is with a supersonic plane based on 1960's technology. People pay extra to save hours, business travellers pay even more if it means they stay a day less.
The problem is that while a modern supersonic jet would be profitable for airlines, it is a huge investment and risk for whoever designs and makes it. Airbus will make more money designing more popular low cost efficient jets, while Boeing will make more money giving little make
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde prices were ludicrous at the beginning. But within 2 years they figured out the pricing and it was somewhere between the cost of a business class or first class ticket.
Of course, it didn't look
Re: (Score:2)
By 2003, prices on the Concorde from JFK to LHR were $12,000 round trip.
Re: Won't happen (Score:2)
The issues that killed the Concorde weren't ticket prices, but small plane size/capacity and no one wanted them in their airports (the sonic boom).
With a half century of technology snd material improvements, it might make more sense than it did previously, but I think public opinion will remain against supersonic airfare for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
A sonic boom happens when you pass the sound barrier, in either way.
And that is far away from any airport.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, someone didn't do very well at physics. A sonic boom occurs the entire time an object exceeds the speed of sound in air, and only appears to last for a moment because the shock wave trails the object but is still moving -- get this -- at the speed of sound. Take NASA's word for it [nasa.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
No it does not.
Sorry, for your lack of understanding of physics :P
The shockwave is created at the moment the sound barrier is broken. And is not recreated all the time the object is faster than sound.
Hint: I lived in an area with 3 idiotic american air fields around. I saw and heard super sonic fighters flying in < 1500 feet dozens of times EVERY DAMN DAY.
There is no boom if the plane is already above super sonic speed. How the funk would that be physically possible?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does: [nasa.gov] "Increasing speeds above Mach 1.3 results in only small changes in shock wave strength," even if the summary "A sonic boom is the thunder-like noise a person on the ground hears when an aircraft or other type of aerospace vehicle flies overhead faster than the speed of sound or supersonic" managed to escape your comprehension.
Not as sorry as you should be concerning yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe read a physics text and find out [lumenlearning.com].
"You may have heard of the common term 'sonic boom.' A common misconception is that the sonic boom occurs as the plane breaks the sound barrier; that is, accelerates to a speed higher than the speed of sound. Actually, the sonic boom occurs as the shock wave sweeps along the ground."
Perhaps you have a different definition of "misconception" in your branch of
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Angelo, did you figure out how it was physically possible yet?
Rolls Royce just had their best year ever in 2020 (Score:2)
That's what's going on here. Ludicrously expensive luxuries are back on the table, paid for by you and me in the form of longer work hours for less pay, higher education and healthcare and housing costs, and increased food prices due to market consolidation.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"The reason Concorde prices were expensive was because demand was higher than the available seats."
That is false. If prices were high because demand was higher than available seats, then airlines would have bought more airframes. A correct understanding of the price requires knowledge of fixed and variable costs, subsidies, and customer psychology.
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde tickets were ludicrously expensive
...and yet people still bought them. Improvements in technology will probably make it less expensive to run, but the real question is how badly will enough people want or need to go that fast in this age of internet teleconferencing? And if this is a reduced noise supersonic, it may even be allowed to fly supersonic over the continental US. Really, half of what killed Concorde was having so few viable routes left after supersonic flight was banned over the US.
But Concorde never had any Pacific routes. In f
Re: (Score:2)
Seattle to Japan is about 7750km, so that extra range should open up a whole new market.
Long range air planes (actually all passenger planes) are required to have a fuel reserve of 45 minutes when they reach destination. So it is unlikely that the new planes really open new routes. At least not non stop.
Re: (Score:2)
> will make this a luxury for the rich
A plane full of highly profitable customers?
Why would anyone else care? If it takes 8 hours to get to Tokyo I'll do a bit of work and then sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: Free Marketing.
United Airlines has put no money down on an order of 15 planes that don't yet fly.
The news at 11 was sponsored by United Airlines.
BTW, I've nothing against United Airlines, as a Star Alliance Gold member (Krysflyer) they're my preferred go to for US and Transatlantic flights, but this was so obviously marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
https://veja.abril.com.br/wp-c... [abril.com.br]
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thu... [forbes.com]
not allowed at US airports (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
congress banned supersonic flight over US soil in 1973.
But this time it's different, a US corporation is planning to do it. Not those pesky French/British.
Re: (Score:2)
But this time it's different, a US corporation is planning to do it.
Even corporations though will struggle battling the mighty NIMBY forces of affluent neighborhoods who don't want multiple sonic booms over their homes each day. Flying out of Dulles and JFK requires any aircraft to cross over some of the most affluent counties in the United States.
Would also add that in the 1970s, the US aerospace industry was on track to introduce their own supersonic transport. Those plans were blown up however by the heavy supersonic restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to be quite easy to take off from JFK and go over water before crossing the speed of sound. Might be a little detour when heading to LA, though, so not sure if it's worth it.
Dulles is further away to the ocean, but again shouldn't be a real problem for transatlantic flights.
A lot of big cites are close to the ocean anyways.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it wasn't justified. I live hundreds of kilometers from major eastern US/Canada airports and can still hear planes from my bed around 10.30-11pm when they must be heading to Europe. And this is with all windows closed. So of course even noisier airplanes can be a nuisance.
But still, somehow people in France and the UK were more accepting of the noise. Because the Concorde was their invention probably has something to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you are mixing up sonic boom with super loud.
A sonic boom is a boom, lasts 2 or 3 seconds, then it is over. And yes, that is super loud, too.
But super loud in your example means: you are basically looking from behind into the engines. That lasts for minutes: and is _really_ super loud.
However at that time it was not focused on climb angels and directions to avoid echoing the engines all over the city.
Re: (Score:3)
Advancements may fix this, but realize that swapping the Boeing 737 engines to more efficient engines is what stated the entire Boeing crash debacle. (short version: the newer, more efficient engines were larger and didn’t fit under the wing.
Indeed but you're missing the obvious: Energy efficient engines was Boeing's answer to customer demands. This story on the other hand is the customer demand. United isn't stupid. They know that either a) they are making this announcement to bilk investors, or b) they think they have a market for a less efficient design.
In other news a good friend of mine drives a 5L V8 bi-turbo mercedes. He gets around 1/5 of the fuel economy of my 900cc 3cyl. He happily pays more for wanting that experience. I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
United isn't stupid.
Facts not in evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
United isn't stupid.
Facts not in evidence.
Don't confuse them giving the middle finger to customers, not giving a shit about maintenance or their staff, and their general customer satisfaction with stupidity. You want evidence: They routinely post yearly earnings per share of $11 ($3bn profit).
You don't run a profitable business (especially in the airline industry) by being stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It took several lawsuits to get the supersonic Concorde allowed in just 2 US airports - Dulles and JFK. People didn't want the sonic boom noise and as the article said, congress banned supersonic flight over US soil in 1973. Another problem with the Concorde was that it took a ridiculous amount of fuel to get to supersonic speeds. The plane couldn't carry enough fuel for a transpacific flight. Advancements may fix this, but realize that swapping the Boeing 737 engines to more efficient engines is what stated the entire Boeing crash debacle. (short version: the newer, more efficient engines were larger and didn’t fit under the wing. New mounting pods shifted the new engines forward changing the center of gravity and reducing the stability of the plane resulting in Boeing building the MCAS system and bullying its way through the FAA to avoid complete recertification of the 737 airframe)
The 737 issue is a completely different kettle of fish. The problem was the 737 was designed in the 60s before high bypass turbofans, rather than modify the landing gear (which would have been expensive) they just slung new engines too far forward and tried to compensate for the instability with software. The impetus behind this was that Airbus had slung new engines onto the A320 family without having to engineer anything because that design was from the late 70s. The problem with a future SST is economic,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
United? (Score:2)
Even Popular Mechanics ... (Score:2)
This concept [cleantechnica.com] has better chance to succeed than supersonic air travel. The market is too small. Except for the AirForce no one can justify plunking down dollars to chase after supersonic flight
Even Elon Musk is going, if you are going to burn tons and tons of carbon do it for some realistic goal, like establishing a mars colony or something.
They could buy a 727 with a bunch of spare parts! (Score:4, Interesting)
https://everything2.com/title/... [everything2.com]
"TWA Flight 841 has actually had two incidents - in 1974 and 1979. The latter is decidedly less morbid.
During a flight from JFK International Airport to Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, TWA 841, a Boeing 727, deployed one of its slats while cruising at 39,000 feet. This, as some of you will know, is very bad. Not many of you are likely to know why, however, so permit me to explain..."
Boom! (Score:2)
United Ordered Concordes too (Score:2)
https://simpleflying.com/unite... [simpleflying.com]
We know where that ended up.
Concorde is ancient tech history (Score:2)
It's tempting to AssUme this will fare similarly but Concorde engines were of designs now considered primitive (kudos for pioneering FADEC) and the airframes were built of metal instead of modern composites.
Dissing a design more than half a hundred years newer based on that fossil is rather silly and poorly informed. In it's time it was glorious, but the old men of that time are dead and the young men of that time are old.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but Concorde was a commercial success. It made a lot of money on the one route it could regularly operate on. So those comparisons are in effect saying the new designs will work out fine.
On the other hand, the check-in/security/boarding times have all got longer and longer. Particularly security at both ends. It destroys the day, and the following day too.
That's the real problem to solve.
Great news, everyone! (Score:2)
We found a way you can spend much less time riding on a UA flight.
Staying in touch (Score:3)
Today, those people can sit in a first-class cabin and stay connected for their entire flight. A billionaire CEO is no longer out of touch while they are in the air - So the "need for speed" is no longer as important as it once was.
In that market, people will choose something like this over being crammed into a supersonic airliner to save 3 hours.
https://c.ekstatic.net/ecl/air... [ekstatic.net]
Re: (Score:2)
last time I checked (Score:2)
...the airline industry was having enough trouble flying SUBsonic without crashing.
AFAIK, operating planes in supersonic realms involves technical precision and perfection at least an order of magnitude better than subsonic. Which means a cost fact of what, 50x?
Re: (Score:2)
[snark]
and they have just as much to show for it as United.
[/snark]
Re: (Score:2)
He is not senile. He is brain-damaged. Really. He had two brain operations due to damage from I believe it was aneurysms. I don't know which is worse, though.