4 ms·
It was not just not economically practical: it wasn't practical. Yes, the flights were shorter, but between 9 hours cramped in a tight fuselage with little ent
by aredox 3y ago
It was not just not economically practical: it wasn't practical.
Yes, the flights were shorter, but between 9 hours cramped in a tight fuselage with little entertainment and 12 hours in a comfortable chair with headroom and entertainment, I would have taken the latter. There's a sweet spot abive the even more comfortable but vastly slower passenger liners, but Concorde was too extreme - and I guess the suborbital flights imagined by Musk are too far too.
- jnsaff2 3y agoIt is incredibly cramped inside. I stepped into one in Duxford museum and especially the windows are tiny, the looking at the curvature of the earth thing would have been pretty hard. https://external-preview.redd.it/K5Z9Kd7AkxJz-eQm5I97pZYIDTarvgUMacdk2DBLDo8.jpg?auto=webp&s=b44b87e22f5e90de20705c98dd2103290420e0d3 https://external-preview.redd.it/K5Z9Kd7AkxJz-eQm5I97pZYIDTa...
- ghaff 3y agoMy dad traveled to the UK all the time through JFK. He got upgraded to the Concorde once and his reaction was that he actually preferred first class on a 747--and that was at a time with less comfortable seating than exists today. Very few people really benefit from the faster flight time, especially if it doesn't have the range to do trans-Pacific. As you say, ocean liners are mostly too slow for anyone who is working but I was surprised to learn recently that they're not necessarily much more expensive than a business class flight.