3 ms·
There's no technical reason that prevents Airbus or Boeing from building a supersonic airliner. The problem is not the supersonic plane itself, that's 70 years
by Xixi 8y ago
There's no technical reason that prevents Airbus or Boeing from building a supersonic airliner. The problem is not the supersonic plane itself, that's 70 years old tech: it's the cost of operating one profitably. Supersonic jets are gas-guzzlers while the airline industry is a low-margin industry. If airlines can't turn a supersonic airliner in a money printing machine then there's no business case in building one to begin with.
- ryanwaggoner 8y agoI agree, but they’re going to try and innovate their way out of that. Which might even be possible, but not cheaply and quickly, which is my main beef with them.
- FiveSquared25 8y agoTrue that
- ghaff 8y agoI would even go out on a limb and say that someday supersonic flight will be so relatively near to the economics of subsonic flight that it's often the norm. (In the same way that, in the US, you don't see a lot of props on regional flights any longer.) [ADDED: And yeah much higher drag at higher velocities, etc. but let's stipulate "tech."] However, it's a huge economic hill to climb. Long haul flying is already pretty comfortable if you spend the money. Even on United which has been upgrading domestic routes. Of course, faster is better. But lie flat seating, decent food, and even mini-rooms go a long way towards making lengthy flights comfortable. So you basically have to get close to those price points, which is the high end of the volume market. A few hours aren't worth that much even to most relatively wealthy folks.
- FiveSquared25 8y agoThey are if you paying millions a year. Athletes, big corporates, etc.
- ghaff 8y agoThose aren't the high-end of the volume market. They're the private jet market which is circa an order of magnitude more expensive and correspondingly smaller.