3 ms·

We don't even have a Concorde though. It's genuinely frustrating to me honestly. I feel like the level of advancement during that time was truly fascinating and

by erklik 4y ago

We don't even have a Concorde though. It's genuinely frustrating to me honestly. I feel like the level of advancement during that time was truly fascinating and it impacted people's life. Today, what do we have? Another iPhone? More faster computers? It's all incremental. Why can't we fly on a Concorde? (I know why obviously). I guess I am sad to see that tech that truly changed people's lives doesn't happen as much anymore.

bigDinosaur 4y ago
We didn't actually regress in terms of supersonic flight though, it just got relegated to specialist uses such as military. The actual advantage of the Concorde specifically was less than imagined - basically: would you prefer 7 hours in business or first class on a slower but vastly more spacious jet, or 3.5 hours on a much more cramped one? The Concorde was very fast but ordinary passenger jets are also quite fast, they're no slouches!
- aleksklarksr 4y ago
  No, jets are slow and they getting slower to be even more economic. 800 km/h is just a fraction of 3500 km/h that planes can do. Bureaucrats are the ones who restricting progress to the point there will be no Wrights, or Jacques-Yves Cousteau or any other inventors. Everything restricted and regulated, controlled.
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    It's not and never will be cheaper to fly at 3500km/h compared to 800 km/h though. Would you pay the extra to shave off a few hours?
- vidarh 4y ago
  It's a problem across any number of areas that an incremental improvement of the same percentage becomes less valuable to most of your potential market as the starting point improves, even as the cost of the improvements often goes up.
- techdragon 4y ago
  But we don’t get 7 hours in a more spacious jet. First class may be getting roomier in the most luxurious of first class having airlines. But many airlines ditched first class and their business class didn’t get more room when they added bigger planes, they simply adjusted the row placements, maybe one or two rows more business class on their busy routes that could justify it. Airlines seating (minus first class) has on average become smaller in both business and economy class during the same timespan that relegated the Concorde to history. The airlines decided what they wanted. For most of this time airline tickets weren’t as competitive a market either with more flag carriers and less budget airlines cutting the costs at the bottom of the market. Apparently people are happy choosing both slower and cheaper even if it costs them legroom (up to a point obviously, since Ryanair famously wasn’t allowed to try the standing room only short haul <2hr flights)
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > The airlines decided what they wanted. Per your next sentence, customers decided what they wanted. Which was to pay less. >For most of this time airline tickets weren’t as competitive a market either with more flag carriers and less budget airlines cutting the costs at the bottom of the market.

by erklik 4y ago

bigDinosaur 4y ago

We didn't actually regress in terms of supersonic flight though, it just got relegated to specialist uses such as military. The actual advantage of the Concorde specifically was less than imagined - basically: would you prefer 7 hours in business or first class on a slower but vastly more spacious jet, or 3.5 hours on a much more cramped one? The Concorde was very fast but ordinary passenger jets are also quite fast, they're no slouches!

aleksklarksr 4y ago
No, jets are slow and they getting slower to be even more economic. 800 km/h is just a fraction of 3500 km/h that planes can do. Bureaucrats are the ones who restricting progress to the point there will be no Wrights, or Jacques-Yves Cousteau or any other inventors. Everything restricted and regulated, controlled.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  It's not and never will be cheaper to fly at 3500km/h compared to 800 km/h though. Would you pay the extra to shave off a few hours?
vidarh 4y ago
It's a problem across any number of areas that an incremental improvement of the same percentage becomes less valuable to most of your potential market as the starting point improves, even as the cost of the improvements often goes up.
techdragon 4y ago
But we don’t get 7 hours in a more spacious jet. First class may be getting roomier in the most luxurious of first class having airlines. But many airlines ditched first class and their business class didn’t get more room when they added bigger planes, they simply adjusted the row placements, maybe one or two rows more business class on their busy routes that could justify it. Airlines seating (minus first class) has on average become smaller in both business and economy class during the same timespan that relegated the Concorde to history. The airlines decided what they wanted. For most of this time airline tickets weren’t as competitive a market either with more flag carriers and less budget airlines cutting the costs at the bottom of the market. Apparently people are happy choosing both slower and cheaper even if it costs them legroom (up to a point obviously, since Ryanair famously wasn’t allowed to try the standing room only short haul <2hr flights)
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > The airlines decided what they wanted. Per your next sentence, customers decided what they wanted. Which was to pay less. >For most of this time airline tickets weren’t as competitive a market either with more flag carriers and less budget airlines cutting the costs at the bottom of the market.