>we're seeing less improvement because no one, in terms of passengers, wants to pay for the cost involved to really inovate. We tried this with the Concorde. T

>we're seeing less improvement because no one, in terms of passengers, wants to pay for the cost involved to really inovate. We tried this with the Concorde. The pricing was terrible and it was a turkey in the sky that even rich people didn't care enough to use frequently. Saving x amount of time for y dollars didn't work. As a side note, I saw a Concorde at the Air and Space museum recently. Its huge. About the length of a 787 and with less than half the seating capacity. From a cost perspective, there's no way something like would ever be financially sound. How many people are in such a hurry and willing to pay such a premium? Just because speed has reached a status quo of speed vs fuel, doesn't mean you can't innovate in other ways. The interior and driving experience of a 2015 Honda Civic is far, far better than the 1979 Civic. Yet they both do the same 65 mph on the expressway and both are cheap. Blaming consumers is short-sighted and unfair here. The industry competes largely on fuel efficiency anyway. The 787 is 20% more efficient than the 767, for example. Nicer entertainment systems and creature comforts are an added bonus.