4 ms·

You're nuts. First and business class comforts are about making the best of a bad situation. At equivalent seat prices, nearly everyone would pick the more than

You're nuts. First and business class comforts are about making the best of a bad situation. At equivalent seat prices, nearly everyone would pick the more than twice as fast option. Boom's business model relies on this, obviously, but so do their passenger-seat-mile economics. Boom claims that the per seat fuel consumption (and ultimately the ticket prices) would be same as for business class seats currently. This is possible because making a currently-seven-hour flight in three hours enables them to replace a full flat bed with a recliner seat, saving 2/3 of the floor area per passenger.

lostboys67 10y ago
And that is not counting the OH cost of the dead time flying. Black in the 80's I worked at a place where they looked at chartering a plane for one project - doing some R&D in a deep coal mine. As the cost of the senior engineers at our > 600% oh rate for them to drive to the site was more expensive than a plane charter - we where based at an airfield
1ba9115454 10y ago
That's not what happened. People stopped using Concorde and started using the new comforts of business class on larger albeit slower planes. The per seat fuel consumption is perhaps optimistic on their part.
- markonen 10y ago
  The last Concorde airframe rolled off the factory floor in 1979. It never competed with lie-flat business class seats, and it's not possible to paint the failure as passengers having voted for slower but more comfortable options. The ban on overland supersonic flights simply made Concorde a non-starter. The comfort onboard Concorde was fine. I miss it each and every time I fly transatlantic. But with British Airways and Air France allotted just seven aircraft each, obviously it could never be a mainstream product, no matter how compelling it was from a passenger perspective.

4 ms·

You're nuts. First and business class comforts are about making the best of a bad situation. At equivalent seat prices, nearly everyone would pick the more than

by markonen 10y ago

lostboys67 10y ago
And that is not counting the OH cost of the dead time flying. Black in the 80's I worked at a place where they looked at chartering a plane for one project - doing some R&D in a deep coal mine. As the cost of the senior engineers at our > 600% oh rate for them to drive to the site was more expensive than a plane charter - we where based at an airfield
1ba9115454 10y ago
That's not what happened. People stopped using Concorde and started using the new comforts of business class on larger albeit slower planes. The per seat fuel consumption is perhaps optimistic on their part.
- markonen 10y ago
  The last Concorde airframe rolled off the factory floor in 1979. It never competed with lie-flat business class seats, and it's not possible to paint the failure as passengers having voted for slower but more comfortable options. The ban on overland supersonic flights simply made Concorde a non-starter. The comfort onboard Concorde was fine. I miss it each and every time I fly transatlantic. But with British Airways and Air France allotted just seven aircraft each, obviously it could never be a mainstream product, no matter how compelling it was from a passenger perspective.