4 ms·

> it's impossible to commercialize supersonic flight without breaking some laws of physics Then those "laws" have been duly broken. https://en.wikipedia.org/w

> it's impossible to commercialize supersonic flight without breaking some laws of physics Then those "laws" have been duly broken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
Those laws were temporarily broken, then they shut down due to soaring maintenance costs and low ridership... hardly a success story.
- mpweiher 6y ago
  Research revealed that passengers thought that the fare was higher than it actually was, so the airline raised ticket prices to match these perceptions. It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde "Laws" that can be broken hardly seem to qualify as "laws of physics". An increase in maintenance costs due to the planes being very old and out of production also doesn't qualify: British Airways and Air France were able to operate Concorde at a profit, in spite of very high maintenance costs, because the aircraft was able to sustain a high ticket price. Its estimated operating costs were $3,800 per block hour in 1972, compared to actual 1971 operating costs of $1,835 for a 707 and $3,500 for a 747; for a 3,050 nmi London–New York sector, a 707 cost $13,750 or 3.04c per seat/nmi, a 747 $26,200 or 2.4c per seat/nmi and the Concorde $14,250 or 4.5c per seat/nmi. So 50% more expensive per seat/mile than a 707 and twice as expensive as a 747.
  - MegaButts 6y ago
    If it were truly profitable it would still be in operation. The evidence doesn't even need to be explained, unless you believe the airline industry willingly abandoned a profitable product.
    - tomatocracy 6y ago
      There's been a lot of speculation as to why it was ultimately cancelled and whether it was or wasn't profitable. BA certainly claimed it was profitable at the time of withdrawal which was blamed on the airworthiness certificate being withdrawn by Airbus (who bought Aerospatiale) who refused to supply more spare parts. The speculation is more that it wasn't as profitable for BA as first class on a B747-400. It may well not have been profitable for Air France by the end though.
      - strig 6y ago
        Also the crash that left over 100 dead.
        mpweiher 6y ago
        Caused by runway debris from a Continental Airlines DC-10.
      - gsnedders 6y ago
        My understanding is Airbus hadn't really wanted to keep dealing with it for a while, and once Air France pulled out Airbus took that as a reason to step away. I believe it had been losing money for Air France, and the cost to retrofit aircraft to avoid another incident inevitably worsened that.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  And that's probably why they are focusing in operation costs. The plane is lighter and supposedly more durable, the engines are simpler...
smt88 6y ago
I don't think the issue is whether a supersonic jet can be funded, built, and operated. It's whether demand can pay for the resulting costs. Part of the calculation is that supersonic flight is so energy-intensive that we'd need a major breakthrough in fuel extraction/storage/efficiency. More fuel weighs more, whether stored as a liquid hydrocarbon or as a battery.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  Right now we are in the middle of a large transformation of the passenger flight industry. If the number of passengers falls dramatically, smaller long-range passenger planes may be a better option. COVID will eventually go away, but wouldn't you pay some extra money to be locked in a pressurized can with fewer, sparsely spaced, people for a shorter time?
  - sushid 6y ago
    Sure, but it looks like according to Wikipedia, Concorde's flights cost 30x an equivalent economy class flight. Would you want to pay 30x the price for the perks you listed?
  - smt88 6y ago
    > but wouldn't you pay some extra money to be locked in a pressurized can with fewer, sparsely spaced, people for a shorter time? I wouldn't. Some people would, but considering that Spirit is the fastest-growing airline in the US (or was), I think low prices are more important than any other feature of a plane ride. I think Boom and its competitors are targeting people who would otherwise use a private jet and can afford $30k tickets. If they're targeting typical consumers, I think they're already doomed.
  - projektfu 6y ago
    I was going to save for a Concorde flight for the novelty, but $12,000 was not really in my price range for routine use. OTOH, I can see that it was only 50% more than the $8,000 rate for BAL First Class. It’s also well within the cost of long range business jet flights. If that’s your expectation, those flights are for you.
notahacker 6y ago
Concorde was a multibillion dollar government research programme which built hardly any aircraft and still had to give away some of them for £1 due to absence of commercial demand. Noise, lack of range and cost meant that even after 14 aircraft had been effectively given away, they spent most of the time on the ground because of the difficulty of finding more than a couple of viable routes. Sure, some people paid for tickets, but it's a stretch to call that 'commercialization' in the context of the impossibility of ever recovering the programme's losses.

ThisIsTheWay 6y ago

Those laws were temporarily broken, then they shut down due to soaring maintenance costs and low ridership... hardly a success story.

mpweiher 6y ago
Research revealed that passengers thought that the fare was higher than it actually was, so the airline raised ticket prices to match these perceptions. It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde "Laws" that can be broken hardly seem to qualify as "laws of physics". An increase in maintenance costs due to the planes being very old and out of production also doesn't qualify: British Airways and Air France were able to operate Concorde at a profit, in spite of very high maintenance costs, because the aircraft was able to sustain a high ticket price. Its estimated operating costs were $3,800 per block hour in 1972, compared to actual 1971 operating costs of $1,835 for a 707 and $3,500 for a 747; for a 3,050 nmi London–New York sector, a 707 cost $13,750 or 3.04c per seat/nmi, a 747 $26,200 or 2.4c per seat/nmi and the Concorde $14,250 or 4.5c per seat/nmi. So 50% more expensive per seat/mile than a 707 and twice as expensive as a 747.
- MegaButts 6y ago
  If it were truly profitable it would still be in operation. The evidence doesn't even need to be explained, unless you believe the airline industry willingly abandoned a profitable product.
  - tomatocracy 6y ago
    There's been a lot of speculation as to why it was ultimately cancelled and whether it was or wasn't profitable. BA certainly claimed it was profitable at the time of withdrawal which was blamed on the airworthiness certificate being withdrawn by Airbus (who bought Aerospatiale) who refused to supply more spare parts. The speculation is more that it wasn't as profitable for BA as first class on a B747-400. It may well not have been profitable for Air France by the end though.
    - strig 6y ago
      Also the crash that left over 100 dead.
      - mpweiher 6y ago
        Caused by runway debris from a Continental Airlines DC-10.
    - gsnedders 6y ago
      My understanding is Airbus hadn't really wanted to keep dealing with it for a while, and once Air France pulled out Airbus took that as a reason to step away. I believe it had been losing money for Air France, and the cost to retrofit aircraft to avoid another incident inevitably worsened that.
rbanffy 6y ago
And that's probably why they are focusing in operation costs. The plane is lighter and supposedly more durable, the engines are simpler...

smt88 6y ago

I don't think the issue is whether a supersonic jet can be funded, built, and operated. It's whether demand can pay for the resulting costs. Part of the calculation is that supersonic flight is so energy-intensive that we'd need a major breakthrough in fuel extraction/storage/efficiency. More fuel weighs more, whether stored as a liquid hydrocarbon or as a battery.

rbanffy 6y ago
Right now we are in the middle of a large transformation of the passenger flight industry. If the number of passengers falls dramatically, smaller long-range passenger planes may be a better option. COVID will eventually go away, but wouldn't you pay some extra money to be locked in a pressurized can with fewer, sparsely spaced, people for a shorter time?
- sushid 6y ago
  Sure, but it looks like according to Wikipedia, Concorde's flights cost 30x an equivalent economy class flight. Would you want to pay 30x the price for the perks you listed?
- smt88 6y ago
  > but wouldn't you pay some extra money to be locked in a pressurized can with fewer, sparsely spaced, people for a shorter time? I wouldn't. Some people would, but considering that Spirit is the fastest-growing airline in the US (or was), I think low prices are more important than any other feature of a plane ride. I think Boom and its competitors are targeting people who would otherwise use a private jet and can afford $30k tickets. If they're targeting typical consumers, I think they're already doomed.
- projektfu 6y ago
  I was going to save for a Concorde flight for the novelty, but $12,000 was not really in my price range for routine use. OTOH, I can see that it was only 50% more than the $8,000 rate for BAL First Class. It’s also well within the cost of long range business jet flights. If that’s your expectation, those flights are for you.

notahacker 6y ago

Concorde was a multibillion dollar government research programme which built hardly any aircraft and still had to give away some of them for £1 due to absence of commercial demand. Noise, lack of range and cost meant that even after 14 aircraft had been effectively given away, they spent most of the time on the ground because of the difficulty of finding more than a couple of viable routes. Sure, some people paid for tickets, but it's a stretch to call that 'commercialization' in the context of the impossibility of ever recovering the programme's losses.