Most of that route would be over the Pacific, so it would be fine, too (although ex-West Coast US). It might be a fuel issue on distance, but probably not. Al

Most of that route would be over the Pacific, so it would be fine, too (although ex-West Coast US). It might be a fuel issue on distance, but probably not. Also potentially an ETOPS range issue. However, there are three big issues with transpac: (not impossible issues, but strong reasons why NYC-LON is ideal as MVP) 1) Greater number of destination cities on each side; for transatlantic, NYC-LON really is the main market. LAX-NRT is probably the best first pass. but LAX/SFO/SEA/LAS/Texas/NY/DC could all make solid claims on being sources of traffic, and there are >10 cities in Asia which would be destinations and fairly far apart? I'd almost certainly prefer a nonstop NYC-PEK to a domestic NYC-LAX, switch to LAX-NRT supersonic, then another subsonic NRT-PEK. 2) A lot of the good cities are inland, so no supersonic for those parts of the flights. NYC-PEK or NYC-PVG (corrected) would be awesome, but there's a lot of inland there. So you're also stuck doing something suboptimal, either connecting flights or operating outside supersonic regime. 3) After a certain point, comfort is a priority over absolute speed. If it lets you accomplish a mission (meeting, etc.) in a single day, that's a new capability. if it means you get 5h of cramped sleep and then another 7h of cramped sleep on the way back, that's not really better for most missions than 8-10h of comfortable sleep in a full-sized suite for the same price. There clearly is a value in 1-4h flights from USA to China/India, but that requires more than Mach 2.2 -- maybe exoatmospheric. Another option is probably "events"; special flights to follow F1 and stuff like that. Concorde did a lot of that toward the end.