3 ms·

The article's about the FAA ban on supersonic travel over the US - there is currently no ban on transoceanic flights.

melling 10y ago
Please read what I wrote again. I said nothing about flying from NYC to Europe or LAX to Asia. The point is that you can fly supersonic from NYC to Asia and from LAX to Europe. NYC and LA are huge markets, and probably where you'd expect a lot of people willing to pay the extra cost of supersonic flight. NYC to London wasn't enough of a savings with the Concorde for many people. NYC to Tokyo/Shanghai/Beijing/Sydney/Singapore/Seoul/Mumbai would probably have more value, for example. Also, LAX to London or Paris is about 10.5 hours. I'd think a market that cuts that to under 5 hours would exist.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  Ah, I apologize - I definitely did swap NYC and LAX when reading your comment.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  Pretty much the only land a great circle JFK-NRT flight passes over is northern Ontario, Nunavut/NWT/Yukon, a little bit of Alaska, and Kamchatka. A great circle JFK-TPE changes that to Quebec, Nunavut, far-east Sibera, and Manchuria. (Of course, planes would take different routes for reasons like 'weather patterns' and 'restricted airspaces' and similar.) So basically my point is this: the FAA has no jurisdiction over the vast majority of those routes.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gsnedders 10y ago
  > Also, LAX to London or Paris is about 10.5 hours. I'd think a market that cuts that to under 5 hours would exist. And very crudely, I think about 20% of the great circle route is over the US and hence in the FAA's jurisdiction. They're already allowed to fly supersonic over much of Northern Canada, and the great circle comes over Hudson Bay and to North Dakota (passing near Winnipeg)—that's the only section outwith the FAA's jurisdiction where they are not already allowed to fly supersonic I believe.

Please read what I wrote again. I said nothing about flying from NYC to Europe or LAX to Asia. The point is that you can fly supersonic from NYC to Asia and from LAX to Europe. NYC and LA are huge markets, and probably where you'd expect a lot of people willing to pay the extra cost of supersonic flight. NYC to London wasn't enough of a savings with the Concorde for many people. NYC to Tokyo/Shanghai/Beijing/Sydney/Singapore/Seoul/Mumbai would probably have more value, for example. Also, LAX to London or Paris is about 10.5 hours. I'd think a market that cuts that to under 5 hours would exist.

fisherjeff 10y ago
Ah, I apologize - I definitely did swap NYC and LAX when reading your comment.
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
Pretty much the only land a great circle JFK-NRT flight passes over is northern Ontario, Nunavut/NWT/Yukon, a little bit of Alaska, and Kamchatka. A great circle JFK-TPE changes that to Quebec, Nunavut, far-east Sibera, and Manchuria. (Of course, planes would take different routes for reasons like 'weather patterns' and 'restricted airspaces' and similar.) So basically my point is this: the FAA has no jurisdiction over the vast majority of those routes.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gsnedders 10y ago
> Also, LAX to London or Paris is about 10.5 hours. I'd think a market that cuts that to under 5 hours would exist. And very crudely, I think about 20% of the great circle route is over the US and hence in the FAA's jurisdiction. They're already allowed to fly supersonic over much of Northern Canada, and the great circle comes over Hudson Bay and to North Dakota (passing near Winnipeg)—that's the only section outwith the FAA's jurisdiction where they are not already allowed to fly supersonic I believe.