4 ms·

It is more the price / demand curve , I.e how many will pay a cost of the flight and is that sufficient demand for to recoup the costs . Emirates (also ethiha

It is more the price / demand curve , I.e how many will pay a cost of the flight and is that sufficient demand for to recoup the costs . Emirates (also ethihad ) have for example this ultra luxury suite with its own shower and bedroom in normal flights they sell for like 20k+/per . It is targeted towards people who have chartered a private jet (100-200k+) and by most accounts the service is successful. However it just 1-2 suites in few select routes . My point is it may not be typical business class passenger that is the target market, perhaps it those taking a private jet between these two destinations and they will definitely pay a lot . Look at this way the “billable rate “ for a moderately sized company senior management would be in the range in thousands of dollars/hour, so 10-15 hours saved could be one way to price this service . The key question is does it require million people / year or only thousand/ year to break even . You can easily do the latter , million people a year would be quite difficult.

logifail 3y ago
> Look at this way the “billable rate “ for a moderately sized company senior management would be in the range in thousands of dollars/hour, so 10-15 hours saved could be one way to price this service Thanks to in-flight wifi you can still be working (and therefore be billing) while travelling.
- manquer 3y ago
  You could also not travel and do the meeting virtually . People billing thousands of dollars an hour are not opening a laptop traveling or not, they have enough executive assistants for that.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Most executives I know who travel are meeting with a bunch of customers if they're going that far. By and large, the idea that "OMG I'm losing 4 hours of billable time" isn't very broadly applicable--if, indeed, it ever was.
    - manquer 3y ago
      That is because they don't bill by the hour, The billable hour is a simple model to visualize the opportunity cost. People at this level[1] want to get things done quickly, if they can pay to avoid loosing a half a week for couple of meetings traveling back and forth, they won't hesitate to. [1] Any level really, but executives can both afford to and get a return on this kind of expense
      - ghaff 3y ago
        My point is that if you're going to spend the time to travel to another continent, a few hours on each end don't really matter much. There's a good chance they'll be at their destination for a the better part of a week. That's been my experience when I've traveled with execs. Personally I'll probably take a more comfortable trip over an incrementally faster trip. But that's just me of course. (Unless it possibly avoids a red-eye.) Business-class trans-Pacific is a bit boring but it's not really that painful. (As I wrote elsewhere, my dad also used to prefer routinely flying first class in a 747 vs. taking the Concorde.) Comfort isn't just about speed.
        manquer 3y ago
        > the better part of a week. People do that because it takes 15 hours to travel. 100 years before people will go visit say family for few weeks or even months because travel was slow, now we fly for thanksgiving and back at work the following week. Travel behavior changes depending on the mode of transport and cost of it. > incrementally faster trip it is not incremental, we are not shaving couple of hours, it is radically faster trip, 15hr -> 1 hr is a huge difference. > prefer routinely flying first class in a 747 vs. taking the Concorde Concorde was quite popular for that one route though, that was not enough to save it. The challenge then was not there were not other economically viable routes - there were, it was just that nobody was allowing supersonic flight over land, for example San Fransisco -> New York route would have been very successful. With 2.5 hour on a Concorde a flight you can work (i.e. do meetings) in both cities (esp NY->SF) on the same day. It is a 5 hour flight now you can really work in one city the day you are traveling.

logifail 3y ago

> Look at this way the “billable rate “ for a moderately sized company senior management would be in the range in thousands of dollars/hour, so 10-15 hours saved could be one way to price this service Thanks to in-flight wifi you can still be working (and therefore be billing) while travelling.

manquer 3y ago
You could also not travel and do the meeting virtually . People billing thousands of dollars an hour are not opening a laptop traveling or not, they have enough executive assistants for that.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Most executives I know who travel are meeting with a bunch of customers if they're going that far. By and large, the idea that "OMG I'm losing 4 hours of billable time" isn't very broadly applicable--if, indeed, it ever was.
  - manquer 3y ago
    That is because they don't bill by the hour, The billable hour is a simple model to visualize the opportunity cost. People at this level[1] want to get things done quickly, if they can pay to avoid loosing a half a week for couple of meetings traveling back and forth, they won't hesitate to. [1] Any level really, but executives can both afford to and get a return on this kind of expense
    - ghaff 3y ago
      My point is that if you're going to spend the time to travel to another continent, a few hours on each end don't really matter much. There's a good chance they'll be at their destination for a the better part of a week. That's been my experience when I've traveled with execs. Personally I'll probably take a more comfortable trip over an incrementally faster trip. But that's just me of course. (Unless it possibly avoids a red-eye.) Business-class trans-Pacific is a bit boring but it's not really that painful. (As I wrote elsewhere, my dad also used to prefer routinely flying first class in a 747 vs. taking the Concorde.) Comfort isn't just about speed.
      - manquer 3y ago
        > the better part of a week. People do that because it takes 15 hours to travel. 100 years before people will go visit say family for few weeks or even months because travel was slow, now we fly for thanksgiving and back at work the following week. Travel behavior changes depending on the mode of transport and cost of it. > incrementally faster trip it is not incremental, we are not shaving couple of hours, it is radically faster trip, 15hr -> 1 hr is a huge difference. > prefer routinely flying first class in a 747 vs. taking the Concorde Concorde was quite popular for that one route though, that was not enough to save it. The challenge then was not there were not other economically viable routes - there were, it was just that nobody was allowing supersonic flight over land, for example San Fransisco -> New York route would have been very successful. With 2.5 hour on a Concorde a flight you can work (i.e. do meetings) in both cities (esp NY->SF) on the same day. It is a 5 hour flight now you can really work in one city the day you are traveling.