15 ms·
Alas, while I have been lucky enough to see Concorde fly, I was never fortunate enough to actually fly IN one. Though when I walked through one at a museum som
by cyberferret 9y ago
Alas, while I have been lucky enough to see Concorde fly, I was never fortunate enough to actually fly IN one. Though when I walked through one at a museum some years ago, I thought that even a 2 hour flight in that cramped, narrow cabin would have been a very uncomfortable experience.
Modern subsonic airliners are now capable of far better speeds and efficiencies. Qantas just commenced one of the (if not THE) longest non stop flights from Perth in Western Aus. to London in 17 hours. I myself flew from Sydney to Houston direct in 15 hours last month. The new generation 787s etc., with their carbon fibre construction enabling them to fly at higher altitudes, combined with efficient, powerful power plants are slicing hours off most long routes.
The last time I flew to London (mid 90's), the Singapore-London leg was 22 hours in a 747. To be able to fly Perth-London in 17 hours is a massive improvement of over 20% reduction in flight time in just a couple of decades.
Personally, I would far rather spend 17 hours in a comfy, wide body aircraft than even 10 in a narrow missile. I do realise that modern SST aircraft may be wider and more comfortable than the Concorde, but there are still physical limits to fuselage cross sections and weights that will limit the comfort factor and size IMO.
- rmccue 9y ago> Qantas just commenced one of the (if not THE) longest non stop flights from Perth in Western Aus. to London in 17 hours. It’s beaten out by Qatar’s existing Doha to Auckland service (9025 mi vs 9008).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- byw 9y agoLooks like the Boom jet will be business-class only, with single seats on each side, so it probably won't be a big deal if you are willing to pay up. https://boomsupersonic.com/airliner https://boomsupersonic.com/airliner
- username223 9y agoYep -- $2500 one-way from New York to London (vs. $420 for a normal flight), to save a bit over 3 hours. As Maciej Ceglowski wrote ( http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm ), current subsonic planes are good enough.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoSo about the same as business class?
- rdl 9y agoAt $2500 this will own the business class market, assuming 1x1 seating, even if they were just economy seats with business class service. At minimum a corp traveler is going to cost $1-2k/day to put in London or NYC if based in the other city (and probably more, in forgone productivity), so this might shave one or two days off a short trip.
- dx034 9y agoProbably closer to twice as much. Business class flights for returns within a few days are usually around $4000-6000. This will again allow same-day returns and would probably go for closer to $8k-$10k return. Capacity will be extremely limited, there are >1000 business class seats/day just out of Heathrow to JFK.
- walshemj 9y agoActually modern commercial jets have worse speeds slower than say a VC10
- dx034 9y agoThey could fly faster (most have max speeds >0.9 mach) but are slower to save fuel. The optimal speed would be slightly lower but as airlines and manufacturers have settled on 0.85 mach for long-haul, introducing a slower plane would mess up schedules and could be seen as a competitive disadvantage.
- Untit1ed 9y ago> Qantas just commenced one of the (if not THE) longest non stop flights from Perth in Western Aus. to London in 17 hours. I myself flew from Sydney to Houston direct in 15 hours last month They flew a 747-400 from Sydney to London direct all the way back in 1989 - things haven't changed that much unfortunately :(.
- oakmad 9y agoExcept that flight was specifically to set the record for fastest London to Sydney. They waited for specific weather and carried just the crew ie no cargo or passengers. Interesting story none the less http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Qantas%201st%20England-Aust%20non-stop%201989.htm http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Qantas%201st%20England-Aust%20n...
- Untit1ed 9y agoOh, I'd assumed the Perth->London one was the same sort of deal, but turns out it's an actual route with passengers and food and all. That is pretty impressive.
- Viper007Bond 9y agoCommercial flights have actually slowed down for efficiency reasons. They were faster in the '70s.
- steve_musk 9y agoBut longer nonstop flights mean the longer flights total time is shorter
- masklinn 9y agoETOPS also helps a hell of a lot. In the 70s as a twin-engined craft a 787 would have had to remain within 60mn (single-engine speed) of an airport large enough to accommodate it (or 90 under ICAO rules). The 787 is certified ETOPS-330, it has to be within 6 hours of single-engine flight of an airport. That means significantly less fucky routes.
- craftyguy 9y ago> modern subsonic airliners are now capable of far better speeds and efficiencies No modern subsonic airliner is capable of the speeds that the Concorde flew at. > I would far rather spend 17 hours in a comfy, wide body aircraft than even 10 in a narrow missile You must not have flown recently, or have been weathly (or fortunate) enough to not be in the 'economy' class. I'm not even super tall, just over 6ft, but I cannot fit in a standard seat on these 'modern' airliners. I too have been in a Concorde at a museum, and would prefer 10 hours in a sardine can to 17 hours in a sardine can.
- acchow 9y agoIf you have cost in mind, you shouldn't be comparing 10 hours in a Concorde with a normal economy class flight. The supersonic sardine can will cost more than a lie-flat bed with private curtain in a subsonic plane.
- craftyguy 9y agoGood point. A traveler can only dream, right?
- notahacker 9y agotbf, Concorde also took 17 hours to go to Australia, and that was when it was actively bidding to set a speed record, due to the need to divert and refuel unlike today's 787, as well as restrictions on supersonic flight overland. Coolness value of Concorde aside, I'd definitely prefer the business class in the 787.
- boznz 9y ago>Personally, I would far rather spend 17 hours in a comfy, wide body aircraft than even 10 in a narrow missile. Personally, I would rather spend 3-4 days in an airship with a bedroom and a bar and a view.. Not everyone is in a rush.
- windlep 9y agoAnd if it had conference rooms, high-speed internet, a fitness room, and the slower trip helped minimize jet lag... I'd be quite happy with that as well.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoYou might as well stay at home then.
- nate_meurer 9y agoYes, or an ocean liner. I dearly hope I live to see the resurrection of an affordable North Atlantic passenger line.
- tim333 9y agoThere are a few passenger services from $1000 or so. I'm not sure it was ever really cheap https://thecruisepeople.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/atlantic-container-line-announces-new-trans-atlantic-passenger-service-starting-in-march-hamburg-antwerp-liverpool-halifax-new-york-baltimore-and-return/ https://thecruisepeople.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/atlantic-co...
- icebraining 9y agoI doubt it was that expensive. I know families who migrated from Europe to the US in the 50s/60s, and I'm pretty sure they didn't have (inflation-adjusted) $1000/person. It was probably easier to find work on a ship to pay for the trip, at least for able-bodied men.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago> Personally, I would far rather spend 17 hours in a comfy, wide body aircraft than even 10 in a narrow missile. If we are talking business class, I would agree. For economy class, well, there isn't much comfort beyond the entertainment center anyways.
- cletus 9y agoSingapore to London on a 747 is 12 hours not 22. Typo? Or you’re misremembering. I’ve flown this route many times. Travel times haven’t really improved in 40+ years. A quick search shows a 747 flew at ~614mph and a 787 at 583.
- cyberferret 9y agoApologies - definitely mis-remembering. It was nearly 2 decades ago. I might have been thinking of the total flying time from Sydney to London.
- johnny_reilly 9y agoWell, be satisfied. You're right! I have flown on Concorde (from London to New York). It was cool to have done it, but as a very tall fellow I'm bound to say that much of my memories are of being quite uncomfortable with the amount of space I had. Smaller than your average Ryanair flight these days. I like the airship idea from another poster!
- cyberferret 9y agoThanks for the first hand account! The most notable thing for me when walking through the museum exhibit of Concorde was that I would not stand up straight in the cabin, which would have really made things super uncomfortable for me. One of the things on my 17 hour 787 flight recently was that I could walk to the galley exit area and perform full stretches in all directions every hour. Not being able to do that would have been really bad for my body and for my sense of claustrophobia. +1 for the airship idea too - I would book a ticket in a flash.
- telesilla 9y agoI've flown the 17 hour route from Doha and Auckland several times and prefer it, but I'm lucky to be an easy sleeper. I'll definitely be keen on the Perth-London flight: may I recommend if you do, fly to Perth from the east Australian coast around sunset with a window set. I've never seen such visual magic from a plane before.
- chiph 9y agoDad got to fly it one time. He was on a business trip to France, meeting up with a German colleague for the visit. When he was done and arrived at CDG for the flight home, it turned out that Air France was going on strike and he was going to be stuck in Paris for a few days until everyone went back to work (not the worst place to be stranded...) But his German colleague, who wasn't so much German as Prussian, felt this was unacceptable and went up to the counter and started yelling at the ticket agent. After 10 minutes of this, the agent shrugged and got dad the last seat on the Concorde (he was watching the clock for when the strike was to start anyway, so what did he care). Dad was 6'3" (190cm) so it was a tight fit. But he said it was a memorable flight and something he was glad to have gotten the ability to do.