4 ms·

This makes me think of that idlewords talk[0], where the intro talks about the failure of the Concorde. The fact that you could fly to NY in 3 hours instead of

by rtpg 11y ago

This makes me think of that idlewords talk[0], where the intro talks about the failure of the Concorde. The fact that you could fly to NY in 3 hours instead of in 7 made not much of a difference, because with the airport travel time included, you're still going to end up losing a day... Though here they seem to be focusing on effectiveness rather than speed, so that's good. Just interesting to think about the fact that faster planes are only useful at this point if they're much, much faster. [0]:http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm

jdavis703 11y ago
Let's see. You leave for a London airport at 6am London time. You've finally gotten off the train, checked in, gotten through security and are at your boarding gate by 7:30am. Your flight takes off at 8. You fly for three hours landing at 6am NYC time. You take a train into the city, grab a bagel and coffee and are ready for your 8am meeting. That's not quite what I'd consider loosing a day.
- stevetrewick 11y ago
  As a general guide you should aim to arrive: Long-haul and El Al: three hours before scheduled departure European flights: two hours before scheduled departure UK and Ireland flights: 90 minutes before scheduled departure. http://www.heathrow.com/departures/checking-in http://www.heathrow.com/departures/checking-in
  - jdavis703 11y ago
    I usually arrive two hours early for long-haul international flights, and an hour early for domestic (or short-haul). Based on arrivials to the gate, I'm pretty sure others have lot smaller margins.
  - Someone 11y ago
    If they say they need you 3 hours before, that means that they need a bit less time to process everybody, say 2.5 hours. Now, the only thing they need is that the queue doesn't run dry during those 2.5 hours. That means half the passengers can arrive 1 hour 15 minutes later, one in five about 2 hours later. If you are one of them, you help those coming early in the sense that they are less likely to have to waste time waiting in the check-in queues than in the slightly less annoying areas behind it (and of course, the early-comers help you to spend that hour in even less annoying circumstances) And of course, assuming they have the capacity to process all passengers leaving every day, large airports could parallelize processing over multiple check-in queues, get processing time down to 30 minutes or so (using 6 check-in queues and a smart way to distribute load across them), and ask you to be there 60 minutes before departure. I do not really see why they do not do that. There used to be a problem getting luggage on board the right plane, but with modern luggage processing, all bags end up on the same conveyer belt, anyways.
- tajen 11y ago
  Wake up at 4. Take the subway to the train station at 4.45. Reach the train station at 5.15, half an hour earlier in case of subway problems, and walk through the statin to fund the platform. Take the 5.50 train, reach the airport at 6.35. Check-in at 6.55. Go through security early, queue 40 minutes because it's Monday morning, it's 7.35. Submit yourself to the random terrorist check because you look like below 30 years old and in a hurry. It's 7.50. Run through the airport because you're at gate 167. You get your flight and be at work by 2pm, babbling because you woke up at 4 and sweaty because you've almost missed your flight. You'd believe you could reduce the margins for the subway, train, check-in, morning queue and terrorist check, but since you never know when they happen, they might happen all at once (anecdotic experience: I almost missed a SYD-LON flight and I systematically get terrorist-checked), and you don't want to come back to your boss saying you've missed your $3000 flight.
  - iamflimflam1 11y ago
    Get driven to the airport in the limo, express check in and security checks for first class passengers, quick coffee/breakfast in the first class lounge and board at your leisure, arrive at work happy and relaxed... That's why Concorde worked.
  - johnloeber 11y ago
    Concorde tickets, adjusted for inflation, often ran around $8-10k. No Concorde passenger would be taking the subway/train. They would use a fast private driver -- chances are they could even get some shut-eye in the car.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Emirates for example has airport transports (Usually S-class or equivalent) included in tickets that cost less than a third of that.
    - jdavis703 11y ago
      So in other words you're travelling even faster. I'm almost certain that if Concord flew today you'd get express security (even "premium economy" gives you that for international flights). Also in some places taking the train is much faster than driving due to traffic.
Reason077 11y ago
Concorde didn't fail because there wasn't a market for fast travel between cities like London and New York. British Airways had no trouble filling them (at super-premium prices), and it's Concorde operations were quite profitable. The real problem was that there was no market for expensive planes that couldn't operate over land routes, or from many airports, because of the extreme noise and environmental concerns. If supersonic passenger planes are ever going to be a reality again then these are the things that need to be addressed, and thankfully it seems NASA realises this.
- fluffysquirrel 11y ago
  I had never heard that Concorde was "quite profitable"; to the contrary, I believe it was heavily subsidized by its operators' respective governments as a point of national pride. e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-aid-to-concorde.html http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-... http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-01/business/fi-25795_1_supersonic-concorde http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-01/business/fi-25795_1_s...
  - Reason077 11y ago
    Development of the Concorde aircraft itself was heavily subsidised. But in service, it was profitable - at least for British Airways: On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit. Source: http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html

by rtpg 11y ago

jdavis703 11y ago

Let's see. You leave for a London airport at 6am London time. You've finally gotten off the train, checked in, gotten through security and are at your boarding gate by 7:30am. Your flight takes off at 8. You fly for three hours landing at 6am NYC time. You take a train into the city, grab a bagel and coffee and are ready for your 8am meeting. That's not quite what I'd consider loosing a day.

stevetrewick 11y ago
As a general guide you should aim to arrive: Long-haul and El Al: three hours before scheduled departure European flights: two hours before scheduled departure UK and Ireland flights: 90 minutes before scheduled departure. http://www.heathrow.com/departures/checking-in http://www.heathrow.com/departures/checking-in
- jdavis703 11y ago
  I usually arrive two hours early for long-haul international flights, and an hour early for domestic (or short-haul). Based on arrivials to the gate, I'm pretty sure others have lot smaller margins.
- Someone 11y ago
  If they say they need you 3 hours before, that means that they need a bit less time to process everybody, say 2.5 hours. Now, the only thing they need is that the queue doesn't run dry during those 2.5 hours. That means half the passengers can arrive 1 hour 15 minutes later, one in five about 2 hours later. If you are one of them, you help those coming early in the sense that they are less likely to have to waste time waiting in the check-in queues than in the slightly less annoying areas behind it (and of course, the early-comers help you to spend that hour in even less annoying circumstances) And of course, assuming they have the capacity to process all passengers leaving every day, large airports could parallelize processing over multiple check-in queues, get processing time down to 30 minutes or so (using 6 check-in queues and a smart way to distribute load across them), and ask you to be there 60 minutes before departure. I do not really see why they do not do that. There used to be a problem getting luggage on board the right plane, but with modern luggage processing, all bags end up on the same conveyer belt, anyways.
tajen 11y ago
Wake up at 4. Take the subway to the train station at 4.45. Reach the train station at 5.15, half an hour earlier in case of subway problems, and walk through the statin to fund the platform. Take the 5.50 train, reach the airport at 6.35. Check-in at 6.55. Go through security early, queue 40 minutes because it's Monday morning, it's 7.35. Submit yourself to the random terrorist check because you look like below 30 years old and in a hurry. It's 7.50. Run through the airport because you're at gate 167. You get your flight and be at work by 2pm, babbling because you woke up at 4 and sweaty because you've almost missed your flight. You'd believe you could reduce the margins for the subway, train, check-in, morning queue and terrorist check, but since you never know when they happen, they might happen all at once (anecdotic experience: I almost missed a SYD-LON flight and I systematically get terrorist-checked), and you don't want to come back to your boss saying you've missed your $3000 flight.
- iamflimflam1 11y ago
  Get driven to the airport in the limo, express check in and security checks for first class passengers, quick coffee/breakfast in the first class lounge and board at your leisure, arrive at work happy and relaxed... That's why Concorde worked.
- johnloeber 11y ago
  Concorde tickets, adjusted for inflation, often ran around $8-10k. No Concorde passenger would be taking the subway/train. They would use a fast private driver -- chances are they could even get some shut-eye in the car.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Emirates for example has airport transports (Usually S-class or equivalent) included in tickets that cost less than a third of that.
  - jdavis703 11y ago
    So in other words you're travelling even faster. I'm almost certain that if Concord flew today you'd get express security (even "premium economy" gives you that for international flights). Also in some places taking the train is much faster than driving due to traffic.

Reason077 11y ago

Concorde didn't fail because there wasn't a market for fast travel between cities like London and New York. British Airways had no trouble filling them (at super-premium prices), and it's Concorde operations were quite profitable. The real problem was that there was no market for expensive planes that couldn't operate over land routes, or from many airports, because of the extreme noise and environmental concerns. If supersonic passenger planes are ever going to be a reality again then these are the things that need to be addressed, and thankfully it seems NASA realises this.

fluffysquirrel 11y ago
I had never heard that Concorde was "quite profitable"; to the contrary, I believe it was heavily subsidized by its operators' respective governments as a point of national pride. e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-aid-to-concorde.html http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-... http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-01/business/fi-25795_1_supersonic-concorde http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-01/business/fi-25795_1_s...
- Reason077 11y ago
  Development of the Concorde aircraft itself was heavily subsidised. But in service, it was profitable - at least for British Airways: On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit. Source: http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html