5 ms·

Agreed, and this is why it makes sense to allow the Concorde to (noisily) zoom over the Atlantic while not necessarily subjecting flyover state Americans to son

Agreed, and this is why it makes sense to allow the Concorde to (noisily) zoom over the Atlantic while not necessarily subjecting flyover state Americans to sonic booms from New York to LA. As for the longer flights, the 16 hour Los Angeles->Sydney experience is hellish. Depending on the price, I would certainly shell out to get there quicker.

terravion 10y ago
I can think of a ton more people who want to go from SF to NY (LA to DC, etc) or vice versa for the day than I can people who want to go to London for the day. Flying supersonic, you could actually get some work done on the other end. My guess, is that supersonic flight would be a huge boon to California, making it much more practical to locate 2,000 miles away from the geographic concentration of customers.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Lots of people go between New York and London for quick trips. BA even has business class-only flights between City of London airport and NYC.
ghaff 10y ago
In business or first, I wouldn't describe trans-Pacific flights as "hellish." More like long and boring. But you almost certainly get into range issues with supersonic on those routes. A longer non-stop flight in a premium class is probably going to be preferable to a flight that has to stop in, say, Anchorage to refuel.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I wouldn't be complaining if I didn't fly coach.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Yes, but I think it's fair to say that any supersonic service would cost more than business/first in subsonic planes today. Therefore, it doesn't make a lot of sense to look at supersonic passenger flight as a fix for traveling trans-Pacific in coach.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    So you'd be willing to pay more for a faster flight but you aren't willing to pay more for a better class of seats?
    - njloof 10y ago
      Yes. I can live with a cramped seat for 4 hours, plus I get an extra day at home on each end in place of travel time. And I don't end up at a hotel at 10AM waiting for my room to be ready.
      - ghaff 10y ago
        >plus I get an extra day at home on each end in place of travel time. That seems optimistic. East coast US to western Europe (which is the 3-4 hr scenario you mention for supersonic flight) you're cutting a get-in-late flight (or a redeye) to an SST leaving in the morning to arrive in the evening. Which isn't gaining a day. Returning, you can already get a direct flight from Europe that leaves in the AM and arrives early PM. An SST still isn't gaining you a day. Theoretical long haul routes over the Pacific potentially gain you more but now you're potentially sitting in seats for 8+ hours and it's pretty much a guarantee that no carrier is going to offer that sort of flight with cramped seats.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  I wonder what the hull loss rate is for aerial refueling is (or could be if civilian aircraft were doing it). That might allow significant reductions in departure runway requirements (and noise profile due to increased climb rates) and still give you the range and reserves needed.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Surprisingly, there is research being done into the potential aerial refuelling for civilian aircraft. http://www.cruiser-feeder.eu/ http://www.cruiser-feeder.eu/ If I was a betting man I'd say the chances of it being approved for commercial airliners isn't all that great, particularly not for the purpose of extending the range of thirsty supersonic jets over open ocean routes already more safely operated by regular passenger aircraft.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      FAA approvals are rarely "purpose limited". If aerial refueling is legal for subsonic flight, it's likely to be legal for aircraft capable of supersonic flight as well. I agree that it's an unlikely approval, but probably because of rules around passenger-carrying commercial aircraft engaging in formation flight period, not around the max speed of the aircraft. FAR 91.111.c: (excerpting mine) §91.111 Operating near other aircraft. (c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.

terravion 10y ago

I can think of a ton more people who want to go from SF to NY (LA to DC, etc) or vice versa for the day than I can people who want to go to London for the day. Flying supersonic, you could actually get some work done on the other end. My guess, is that supersonic flight would be a huge boon to California, making it much more practical to locate 2,000 miles away from the geographic concentration of customers.

ghaff 10y ago
Lots of people go between New York and London for quick trips. BA even has business class-only flights between City of London airport and NYC.

ghaff 10y ago

In business or first, I wouldn't describe trans-Pacific flights as "hellish." More like long and boring. But you almost certainly get into range issues with supersonic on those routes. A longer non-stop flight in a premium class is probably going to be preferable to a flight that has to stop in, say, Anchorage to refuel.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I wouldn't be complaining if I didn't fly coach.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Yes, but I think it's fair to say that any supersonic service would cost more than business/first in subsonic planes today. Therefore, it doesn't make a lot of sense to look at supersonic passenger flight as a fix for traveling trans-Pacific in coach.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  So you'd be willing to pay more for a faster flight but you aren't willing to pay more for a better class of seats?
  - njloof 10y ago
    Yes. I can live with a cramped seat for 4 hours, plus I get an extra day at home on each end in place of travel time. And I don't end up at a hotel at 10AM waiting for my room to be ready.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      >plus I get an extra day at home on each end in place of travel time. That seems optimistic. East coast US to western Europe (which is the 3-4 hr scenario you mention for supersonic flight) you're cutting a get-in-late flight (or a redeye) to an SST leaving in the morning to arrive in the evening. Which isn't gaining a day. Returning, you can already get a direct flight from Europe that leaves in the AM and arrives early PM. An SST still isn't gaining you a day. Theoretical long haul routes over the Pacific potentially gain you more but now you're potentially sitting in seats for 8+ hours and it's pretty much a guarantee that no carrier is going to offer that sort of flight with cramped seats.
sokoloff 10y ago
I wonder what the hull loss rate is for aerial refueling is (or could be if civilian aircraft were doing it). That might allow significant reductions in departure runway requirements (and noise profile due to increased climb rates) and still give you the range and reserves needed.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Surprisingly, there is research being done into the potential aerial refuelling for civilian aircraft. http://www.cruiser-feeder.eu/ http://www.cruiser-feeder.eu/ If I was a betting man I'd say the chances of it being approved for commercial airliners isn't all that great, particularly not for the purpose of extending the range of thirsty supersonic jets over open ocean routes already more safely operated by regular passenger aircraft.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    FAA approvals are rarely "purpose limited". If aerial refueling is legal for subsonic flight, it's likely to be legal for aircraft capable of supersonic flight as well. I agree that it's an unlikely approval, but probably because of rules around passenger-carrying commercial aircraft engaging in formation flight period, not around the max speed of the aircraft. FAR 91.111.c: (excerpting mine) §91.111 Operating near other aircraft. (c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.