3 ms·

> That's cute. Circa 2003 standard round-trip on Concorde was >$10000 (that's around 14k in 2018 USD), discounted "celebration" fares were $7k. For $4k you coul

by dx034 9y ago

> That's cute. Circa 2003 standard round-trip on Concorde was >$10000 (that's around 14k in 2018 USD), discounted "celebration" fares were $7k. For $4k you could do Concorde one way and 747 the other way. I'm aware of that, Concorde represented First class, not business class. I was talking about today's prices for business class fares. Ticket prices have come down over the past 1-2 decades, I wouldn't expect the same prices (inflation adjusted) as with the Concorde. But certainly more than business class fares, therefore my reference to current fares. Regarding profitability, the Concorde was extremely inefficient and very restricted in flight paths. A supersonic jet that is allowed to fly supersonic over land could unlock more profitable routes (e.g. intra-US or EU-Asia), optimising utilisation.

masklinn 9y ago
> A supersonic jet that is allowed to fly supersonic over land could unlock more profitable routes It also won't happen. Especially in the land of NIMBY that is the US. Not only could Concorde not go supersonic over the mainland, it had to slow down to subsonic when crossing FLA between the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico.
- dx034 9y ago
  That was because the boom was so loud with the Concorde. Fighter jet booms regularly cause property damage. Apparently new designs allow for much quieter supersonic booms which would make it easier to allow those. The US isn't just a country of NIMBY, also of capitalism and lobbying. If enough congressmen get free tickets for intra-US flights, the ban will quickly be lifted ;)