4 ms·

To get to low cost you need a lot of routes to fly on. Without a sonic boom can fly over land which opens up more routes. Therefore, the lack of a sonic boom do

by geertj 8y ago

To get to low cost you need a lot of routes to fly on. Without a sonic boom can fly over land which opens up more routes. Therefore, the lack of a sonic boom does contribute to the comeback of supersonic air travel.

baybal2 8y ago
Sonic boom is a joke of a criterion. US is surely a big market, but nowhere as important as it was 40 years ago. US will have a choice: to deny SSTs when the rest of the world flies them, or do not do so. But, cost above everything. You can't get economies of scale for an SST with even less than double the cost of regular business class.
- jrockway 8y ago
  Which countries contain residents that are happy to have their windows broken by sonic booms several times a day? If one exists, then yes, they will be ahead of the curve on SST.
- ghaff 8y ago
  I have no reason to think that the US would uniquely ban the use of technology that Western Europe was fine with. (Though one can certainly imagine e.g. China allowing for noise levels that the US and other countries wouldn't be OK with.) Cost is really the thing though. Produce a modestly-sized supersonic jet that can do trans-Atlantic and equivalent routes that are profitable with business class-priced seats and you probably have a market. Probably. A lot of business class seats today are filled with upgrades and I believe BA has actually cut back on the business-class only routes between NY and LCY.
  - baybal2 8y ago
    You have to make it as cheap as cheap business class to get needed occupancy, AND have as many seats as smallest widebodies. And when you have it, you will have to fly ~7-10 years at loss till you get efficiencies of scale. In other words, it is not happening.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  US will have a choice: to deny SSTs when the rest of the world flies them, or do not do so. Totally okay with that. The rest of the world can pay for vastly increased maintenance costs in neighborhoods around SST airports for the benefit of the rich few who can actually afford to fly on those planes.

by geertj 8y ago

baybal2 8y ago

Sonic boom is a joke of a criterion. US is surely a big market, but nowhere as important as it was 40 years ago. US will have a choice: to deny SSTs when the rest of the world flies them, or do not do so. But, cost above everything. You can't get economies of scale for an SST with even less than double the cost of regular business class.

jrockway 8y ago
Which countries contain residents that are happy to have their windows broken by sonic booms several times a day? If one exists, then yes, they will be ahead of the curve on SST.
ghaff 8y ago
I have no reason to think that the US would uniquely ban the use of technology that Western Europe was fine with. (Though one can certainly imagine e.g. China allowing for noise levels that the US and other countries wouldn't be OK with.) Cost is really the thing though. Produce a modestly-sized supersonic jet that can do trans-Atlantic and equivalent routes that are profitable with business class-priced seats and you probably have a market. Probably. A lot of business class seats today are filled with upgrades and I believe BA has actually cut back on the business-class only routes between NY and LCY.
- baybal2 8y ago
  You have to make it as cheap as cheap business class to get needed occupancy, AND have as many seats as smallest widebodies. And when you have it, you will have to fly ~7-10 years at loss till you get efficiencies of scale. In other words, it is not happening.
gamblor956 8y ago
US will have a choice: to deny SSTs when the rest of the world flies them, or do not do so. Totally okay with that. The rest of the world can pay for vastly increased maintenance costs in neighborhoods around SST airports for the benefit of the rich few who can actually afford to fly on those planes.