5 ms·
> On any american flight (not to alaska/hawaii) i doubt the greater efficiencies at 60+ thousand feet would be worth the fuel to get there with a supersonic win
by ccakes 4y ago
> On any american flight (not to alaska/hawaii) i doubt the greater efficiencies at 60+ thousand feet would be worth the fuel to get there with a supersonic wing. These would only be 2 or 3-hour flights at most anyway.
Hi! There are many of us who exist outside of the US and would be open to planes flying faster because the world is super big. Thanks for listening
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Hi! There are many of us who exist outside of the US and would be open to planes flying faster because the world is super big. Sure, but that isn’t particularly affected by restrictions on supersonic flight over the US.
- ballooney 4y agoYes it is. (London-LA semi-frequent flyer).
- jessaustin 4y agoLos Angeles is not "outside of the US". Besides, less than 20% of that trip is in USA airspace. Slow down when you hit North Dakota... https://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper.html?route=EGLL-KLAX&aircraft=&speed= https://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper.htm...
- MichaelZuo 4y agoCanadian regulations invariable follows US regulations. So in this case yes the FAA would have to make the change too.
- jessaustin 4y agoSuggestions about how Canada could improve really ought to be directed to the Canadians. They might be amenable to different policies in sparsely populated regions like Hudson Bay. Continental USA has no analogous areas. Non-Americans who wish to complain about USA have a broad range of topics from which to choose; there's really no need to complain that USA regulates the operation of airlines in USA airspace.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoI only commented on what is the current dynamic. Your thoughts on why there ought to be a different dynamic is interesting, but it doesn't seem like something anyone could predict.