6 ms·

nope. commercial and private jets generally cap out around mach 0.9 i am very rusty on the economics and details of supersonic commercial flight, but the gene

nope. commercial and private jets generally cap out around mach 0.9 i am very rusty on the economics and details of supersonic commercial flight, but the general gist as i recall is: - going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify for how much time it saves. there is less case in the 2000s for "having to be in london in 3 hours from NY" than there previously was, too. - noise restrictions and such limit the usefulness of planes that are set up to fly that fast as people don't like being underneath constant sonic booms, so the routes that supersonic passenger flights were relegated to are mostly over water. it is just way cheaper and easier to fly subsonic, and if you're on a private jet anyway it's not like you're uncomfortable while traveling.

ghaff 2y ago
And the range in which supersonic really gets interesting (to wealthy people/execs) is trans-Pacific. My dad got upgraded to the Concorde once from NYC to London and his reaction was more or less eh. Glad to have done it once but I'm now arriving in London at rush hour rather than having a nice dinner in first class.
- chgs 2y ago
  There ar every few day flights from the US to Europe. A lunchtime flight arriving at 8pm is far nicer than 5 hours sleep on an overnight flight or the 7am flight. West bound being able to leave the office at 6pm and be in New York to pay the kids to bed is great.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Yes, the question is how many thousand dollars out of your own pocket great which would be the situation with most people.
    - chgs 2y ago
      It’s not about most people, it’s about the 1500 in C/F
      - ghaff 2y ago
        I'm not sure the people who pay full-boat fares for business and first today is a sufficient market for a new supersonic plane and a viable set of airline routes (within the range of the plane which probably doesn't include trans-Pacific).
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify Worse: drag in the transonic regime is generally worse than subsonic or supersonic.
teractiveodular 2y ago
Air travel is more popular than ever and 2024 broke basically all records. Why would there be less case for faster flights? Supersonic flight will be the preserve of the 0.1%, but the vast majority of private jets can't fly trans-continental (without stops along the way) and there are people out there paying $50k per flight for Etihad's The Residence suites. So, yes, there are people who will pay for this.
- adastra22 2y ago
  Would you pay $5k to fly basic economy? Air travel is popular, but extremely price sensitive. Ryanair and its ilk have shown that people will suffer humiliation to save even $50 on ticket prices. Supersonic will have to serve the rich, who are willing to pay to fly private. But how big is that market? Especially if you’re still going to raise prices 2-3x?
  - teractiveodular 2y ago
    Some passengers are extremely price sensitive, but full-service airlines make 80% of their profits from the 10% sitting up in the pointy end. It already costs 4x more to fly biz than economy, and 9-11x more to fly first (actual first class, not US domestic).
  - chgs 2y ago
    There are thousands of business and first class seats sold between London and New York every day, most in the 5k plus per leg range.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Would they pay that much to fly economy, for a flight half as long? I'm skeptical. (Comparable first-class tickets would be $20k - $50k.)
- bangaroo 2y ago
  the way i've heard it explained is functionally that the ultra rich are either leaning towards things like those private suites onboard a large plane, or flying in a private jet. people don't mind the experience of flying in a plane or the time it takes for the most part - they mind being uncomfortably crammed into a seat for hours on end with another person spilling into their lap in a loud, stuffy cabin. otherwise, it's just hanging out in a different place than you usually do. at the point you're paying for a resort hotel room with a shower, bed, privacy, internet and a tv in the air... who cares if you spend a few extra hours? the only example of a supersonic airliner that i can point to, the concorde, was actually fairly uncomfortable and cramped because of the way it was designed. it's likely (though i've been wrong before) that future supersonic planes would make similar tradeoffs to try and minimize weight and drag and maximize fuel economy - you will trade comfort for speed. i think most of the people you're talking about would prefer 8 hours in a private hotel room (or full on private jet) with a full bar, bottle service, a shower and fancy meals to 2-3 hours cramped in a relatively small cabin after the novelty wears off. given how much easier it is to effectively meet across the ocean without traveling, the market for ultra-fast flights to get a one-day trip over with is also likely smaller. i can't say i know any of these facts for certain, but previously when discussing the return of supersonic flights with folks who know better than i, this was the general sentiment. it makes reasonable sense to me on its face.

ghaff 2y ago

And the range in which supersonic really gets interesting (to wealthy people/execs) is trans-Pacific. My dad got upgraded to the Concorde once from NYC to London and his reaction was more or less eh. Glad to have done it once but I'm now arriving in London at rush hour rather than having a nice dinner in first class.

chgs 2y ago
There ar every few day flights from the US to Europe. A lunchtime flight arriving at 8pm is far nicer than 5 hours sleep on an overnight flight or the 7am flight. West bound being able to leave the office at 6pm and be in New York to pay the kids to bed is great.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Yes, the question is how many thousand dollars out of your own pocket great which would be the situation with most people.
  - chgs 2y ago
    It’s not about most people, it’s about the 1500 in C/F
    - ghaff 2y ago
      I'm not sure the people who pay full-boat fares for business and first today is a sufficient market for a new supersonic plane and a viable set of airline routes (within the range of the plane which probably doesn't include trans-Pacific).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify Worse: drag in the transonic regime is generally worse than subsonic or supersonic.

teractiveodular 2y ago

Air travel is more popular than ever and 2024 broke basically all records. Why would there be less case for faster flights? Supersonic flight will be the preserve of the 0.1%, but the vast majority of private jets can't fly trans-continental (without stops along the way) and there are people out there paying $50k per flight for Etihad's The Residence suites. So, yes, there are people who will pay for this.

adastra22 2y ago
Would you pay $5k to fly basic economy? Air travel is popular, but extremely price sensitive. Ryanair and its ilk have shown that people will suffer humiliation to save even $50 on ticket prices. Supersonic will have to serve the rich, who are willing to pay to fly private. But how big is that market? Especially if you’re still going to raise prices 2-3x?
- teractiveodular 2y ago
  Some passengers are extremely price sensitive, but full-service airlines make 80% of their profits from the 10% sitting up in the pointy end. It already costs 4x more to fly biz than economy, and 9-11x more to fly first (actual first class, not US domestic).
- chgs 2y ago
  There are thousands of business and first class seats sold between London and New York every day, most in the 5k plus per leg range.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Would they pay that much to fly economy, for a flight half as long? I'm skeptical. (Comparable first-class tickets would be $20k - $50k.)
bangaroo 2y ago
the way i've heard it explained is functionally that the ultra rich are either leaning towards things like those private suites onboard a large plane, or flying in a private jet. people don't mind the experience of flying in a plane or the time it takes for the most part - they mind being uncomfortably crammed into a seat for hours on end with another person spilling into their lap in a loud, stuffy cabin. otherwise, it's just hanging out in a different place than you usually do. at the point you're paying for a resort hotel room with a shower, bed, privacy, internet and a tv in the air... who cares if you spend a few extra hours? the only example of a supersonic airliner that i can point to, the concorde, was actually fairly uncomfortable and cramped because of the way it was designed. it's likely (though i've been wrong before) that future supersonic planes would make similar tradeoffs to try and minimize weight and drag and maximize fuel economy - you will trade comfort for speed. i think most of the people you're talking about would prefer 8 hours in a private hotel room (or full on private jet) with a full bar, bottle service, a shower and fancy meals to 2-3 hours cramped in a relatively small cabin after the novelty wears off. given how much easier it is to effectively meet across the ocean without traveling, the market for ultra-fast flights to get a one-day trip over with is also likely smaller. i can't say i know any of these facts for certain, but previously when discussing the return of supersonic flights with folks who know better than i, this was the general sentiment. it makes reasonable sense to me on its face.