> fix the transportation and traffic problems around the airports and the logistical delays first, then brute-force the actual flight time Why this sequence an

> fix the transportation and traffic problems around the airports and the logistical delays first, then brute-force the actual flight time Why this sequence and not the other way around, or both at the same time? The two don't seem to be competing for any resources, other than the highest-level ones like money. In some cases, the airport logistics problem may be intractable or take too long (witness BER). I also suggest your times are slightly off, in the context of the target market. I doubt someone paying that much would need the full hour (though as little as 30 minutes might be a stretch if we're counting departure time not boarding time). I also think, however, that lowering a 4 hour (gate-to-gate) flight from 4 hours to 2 hours is unrealistic, and is too short a flight to make sense for supersonic, anyway. IIRC, Boom was looking to halve the 7-hour JFK-LHR hop, comparable to Concorde. Where it would seem to be far more attractive is the much longer flights, such as trans-Pacific, where the overall time is much longer, a higher portion of gate-to-gate (and door-to-door) time is at maximum cruise speed (shaving 8 hours off a 14+ hour SFO-SYD could save a full day of travel). Even Europe to the US West Coast would be significant, which relates to the premise of the article.