10 ms·

Reducing flight time is not the same as reducing travel time. The real killer with respect to travel time are layovers airport delays. Cheaper airplanes capable

Reducing flight time is not the same as reducing travel time. The real killer with respect to travel time are layovers airport delays. Cheaper airplanes capable of flying farther will reduce the number of layovers, and the big airlines know this. The market for supersonic planes will be small. On a side note, why aren't there more startups trying to reduce passenger time at the airport instead of focusing on faster airplanes?

jonawesomegreen 8y ago
I think the value proposition is much clearer for 12+ hour flights, mostly on Asia Pacific routes, rather than something like NY - London. Saving 7+ hours flying LA - Sydney or LA - Singapore would be a huge win and I think appeal to people flying business on those routes. It certainly would have for me when I was flying Toronto - Seoul regularly.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Some people would pay a lot to be able to fly from New York to London (or the other way around), have a 2-3 hour meeting and fly back before bed time. Stay in the same time zone and wake up with your own house.
fenwick67 8y ago
> The real killer with respect to travel time are layovers airport delays For international flights, actual flight time can be brutal. I have colleagues who regularly take 14 hour flights. Some people would gladly pay extra to shave a few hours off of that.
- paulcole 8y ago
  Are they paying out of their own pocket? It's pretty easy to say they'd pay if it's the company picking up the tab.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    If a firm can justify 14 hour flights for X people, it can justify supersonic flights for some large fraction of X.
notahacker 8y ago
There's an entire industry of companies dedicated to kiosks, security etc. But the reality of time at the airport is margin to avoid costly missed connections and mandatory security checks which aren't things which can be cut with technology. The bigger problem for a business case for paying extra to fly supersonic is that convenience is as much about timing of landing as length of flight, especially in an era where portable computers and digital connectivity exists and regular long haul flights are generally comfortable enough for the average business class flyer to sleep on. Cutting three or four hours out of an 12 hour flight doesn't sound quite so exciting when you realise that it's a choice between 8 hours in a seat or 12 hours in a lie flat bed with a choice of departure times and arrival airports.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > missed connections and mandatory security checks which aren't things which can be cut with technology Yes they can. Clear makes security a breeze. And small, efficient planes make direct flights competitive with connecting ones.
  - jarito 8y ago
    It really doesn't. All it does is allow you to cut the line. I love Clear, and I use it all the time, but it doesn't make security faster, it just makes it faster for you. If everyone was enrolled in Clear, security would take exactly the same amount of time.
    - kenneth 8y ago
      Well if we're gonna be pedantic about it, clear does make it marginally faster by using biometrics instead of having a human inspect identity docs.
      - stouset 8y ago
        I’ve watched people attempting to use the kiosks. The TSA agents are basically just as fast in the average case, and way faster in the worst case. The biggest delays are people who don’t have their ID and ticket ready when they get to the front of the line, and people who can’t figure for the life of them how to use the kiosks without additional assistance.
echevil 8y ago
I'd really love to see this advancement as most of the flights I take are 10+ hour direct flights. > On a side note, why aren't there more startups trying to reduce passenger time at the airport instead of focusing on faster airplanes? Just thought about it, it could actually be harder for startups to work on reducing passenger time at the airport. A main blocker would be convincing airports (and/or governments) to adopt your solution.
rconti 8y ago
A jet like this, with a smaller capacity, could potentially serve more numerous lower-demand point-to-point routes like the 787 does, versus the hub and spoke served by 747s and A380s. Assuming the 55 seat $5k+ demand is there.
- dingaling 8y ago
  Very few 787s operate point to point. The vast majority displaced 767s on hub runs. We already have very-long-range business jets like the Global and G650ER for when P2P is essential and cost is secondary.
  - kenneth 8y ago
    That depends on whether you're in Asia or the USA. On the USA the 787s are mostly displacing routes that would've been operated with connecting partners (eg United to a bunch of Chinese cities), vs in Asia where they're used on high density high frequency regional routes. The 767 was a great plane for those routes especially on the shorter end (like TYO-SEL or TPE-HKG). The 787 is significantly heavier so performs poorly in terms of fuel efficiently until it's flown a couple thousand miles to make it up in better cruising performance.
mrfusion 8y ago
Something as simple as valet parking could save 45 minutes! Very low tech.
- telotortium 8y ago
  I think most people on business trips where they could be reimbursed for valet parking at an airport probably take Uber or Lyft already, which saves the same amount of time.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Or just taking a limo/taxi to the airport. Solved problem.
kachurovskiy 8y ago
If you look at the airports as shopping malls that also have boarding gates it starts to make sense :)
simonebrunozzi 8y ago
Airports make roughly 1/3rd of their revenues from airline companies, and 2/3rds from renting retail space. They don't have any incentive to make your stay at the airport shorter.

jonawesomegreen 8y ago

I think the value proposition is much clearer for 12+ hour flights, mostly on Asia Pacific routes, rather than something like NY - London. Saving 7+ hours flying LA - Sydney or LA - Singapore would be a huge win and I think appeal to people flying business on those routes. It certainly would have for me when I was flying Toronto - Seoul regularly.

njarboe 8y ago
Some people would pay a lot to be able to fly from New York to London (or the other way around), have a 2-3 hour meeting and fly back before bed time. Stay in the same time zone and wake up with your own house.

fenwick67 8y ago

> The real killer with respect to travel time are layovers airport delays For international flights, actual flight time can be brutal. I have colleagues who regularly take 14 hour flights. Some people would gladly pay extra to shave a few hours off of that.

paulcole 8y ago
Are they paying out of their own pocket? It's pretty easy to say they'd pay if it's the company picking up the tab.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  If a firm can justify 14 hour flights for X people, it can justify supersonic flights for some large fraction of X.

notahacker 8y ago

There's an entire industry of companies dedicated to kiosks, security etc. But the reality of time at the airport is margin to avoid costly missed connections and mandatory security checks which aren't things which can be cut with technology. The bigger problem for a business case for paying extra to fly supersonic is that convenience is as much about timing of landing as length of flight, especially in an era where portable computers and digital connectivity exists and regular long haul flights are generally comfortable enough for the average business class flyer to sleep on. Cutting three or four hours out of an 12 hour flight doesn't sound quite so exciting when you realise that it's a choice between 8 hours in a seat or 12 hours in a lie flat bed with a choice of departure times and arrival airports.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> missed connections and mandatory security checks which aren't things which can be cut with technology Yes they can. Clear makes security a breeze. And small, efficient planes make direct flights competitive with connecting ones.
- jarito 8y ago
  It really doesn't. All it does is allow you to cut the line. I love Clear, and I use it all the time, but it doesn't make security faster, it just makes it faster for you. If everyone was enrolled in Clear, security would take exactly the same amount of time.
  - kenneth 8y ago
    Well if we're gonna be pedantic about it, clear does make it marginally faster by using biometrics instead of having a human inspect identity docs.
    - stouset 8y ago
      I’ve watched people attempting to use the kiosks. The TSA agents are basically just as fast in the average case, and way faster in the worst case. The biggest delays are people who don’t have their ID and ticket ready when they get to the front of the line, and people who can’t figure for the life of them how to use the kiosks without additional assistance.

echevil 8y ago

I'd really love to see this advancement as most of the flights I take are 10+ hour direct flights. > On a side note, why aren't there more startups trying to reduce passenger time at the airport instead of focusing on faster airplanes? Just thought about it, it could actually be harder for startups to work on reducing passenger time at the airport. A main blocker would be convincing airports (and/or governments) to adopt your solution.

rconti 8y ago

A jet like this, with a smaller capacity, could potentially serve more numerous lower-demand point-to-point routes like the 787 does, versus the hub and spoke served by 747s and A380s. Assuming the 55 seat $5k+ demand is there.

dingaling 8y ago
Very few 787s operate point to point. The vast majority displaced 767s on hub runs. We already have very-long-range business jets like the Global and G650ER for when P2P is essential and cost is secondary.
- kenneth 8y ago
  That depends on whether you're in Asia or the USA. On the USA the 787s are mostly displacing routes that would've been operated with connecting partners (eg United to a bunch of Chinese cities), vs in Asia where they're used on high density high frequency regional routes. The 767 was a great plane for those routes especially on the shorter end (like TYO-SEL or TPE-HKG). The 787 is significantly heavier so performs poorly in terms of fuel efficiently until it's flown a couple thousand miles to make it up in better cruising performance.

mrfusion 8y ago

Something as simple as valet parking could save 45 minutes! Very low tech.

telotortium 8y ago
I think most people on business trips where they could be reimbursed for valet parking at an airport probably take Uber or Lyft already, which saves the same amount of time.
ghaff 8y ago
Or just taking a limo/taxi to the airport. Solved problem.

kachurovskiy 8y ago

If you look at the airports as shopping malls that also have boarding gates it starts to make sense :)

simonebrunozzi 8y ago

Airports make roughly 1/3rd of their revenues from airline companies, and 2/3rds from renting retail space. They don't have any incentive to make your stay at the airport shorter.