3 ms·

A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing for approximately everyone who needs to fly.

by nom 2y ago

kachapopopow 2y ago
Reminder that these flights will not be accessible to normal people except for rare circumstances same way concord was effectively an attraction rather than a tool.
short_sells_poo 2y ago
This. If time didn't matter, people would use trains instead of short distance flights. And many do! Many European cities that are a 2 hour flight apart also have an ~8-9 hour train connection, which is much less hassle and stress than the flight, but people who have to travel a lot will care about the time savings of even a few hours because it adds up over time. Lots of people have to regularly travel between Europe and US, and if they can save 50% of the travel time, it ends up being a significant amount of time. I believe the market for these flights aren't families going on a holiday, rather people who have to travel on business 3-4 times a month.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  "have to" being, to some extent, a function of these flights being priced at a heavy discount relative to their environmental impact.
  - short_sells_poo 2y ago
    That's a fair statement. I'm not well versed enough in commercial aviation to be able to judge how much flights would cost with externalities priced in.
    - Earw0rm 2y ago
      It's debatable. The IEA have an estimate of €190 per tonne. Which is €400 per passenger on a return transatlantic flight (assuming no mark-up). But there are already some taxes and surcharges on flights, and some of that is carbon-related, so a "full cost" price wouldn't be €400 more than today's. AIUI they use a "harm" model to try and land on that number, i.e. X gigatons of carbon => Y amount of climate change => Z economic damage. Another way to look at it is "if each tonne of carbon can be burned only once, and in a scenario where future carbon is committed towards manufacture renewables (or nuclear capacity), how many kWh of renewable/nuclear electricity can be bought with 1t of carbon". That yields a much larger number. Or you can look at it through a carbon capture and storage lens. Industrial CCS yields a much lower number, but it's talking about capturing from factory boiler exhaust streams, where you can have the plant capture the CO2 at source. Not an option on a jet airliner. Direct air capture (ground-based stations mopping up aircraft exhaust) is an order of magnitude more expensive, currently in the $1000/tonne range, you're trying to vacuum gas out of the air that's at a 400ppm concentration by mass.
ceejayoz 2y ago
Concorde would probably struggle in the post-9/11 airport security world; the days of showing up at the airport just before the flight are long gone for most folks. A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing on its own, but probably not at a significant price increase.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > days of showing up at the airport just before the flight are long gone for most folks I show up 20 minutes before boarding, often later, at my small-town airport. For international flights out of JFK, I’ll show up 2 to 3 hours before, but there is still a world of difference between a lounge you can walk around and shower in and even the most luxurious lay-flat suites. NYC > SFO is 2 hours at Mach 1.7; if I’m not checking a bag that’s an entire day returned both ways.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Boom isn’t gonna be at small town airports anytime soon. The lounge thing, IMO, is also a challenge for Boom. It’s gonna be a cramped plane. The folks shelling out that sort of coin for a flight expect certain amenities on it.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Boom isn’t gonna be at small town airports anytime soon If I’m carry-on only, I try to show up to domestic flights out of JFK an hour before boarding. Between Digital ID and Clear, it’s a fuss if security takes longer than 15 minutes from entering the airport. > folks shelling out that sort of coin for a flight expect certain amenities on it Less cramped than Concorde. At $20k NYC <> SFO, I could see it selling out. You’re only on board for 2 to 3 hours. At $10k or less (Concorde was $13k, inflation adjusted) it’s crossing into prices paid for a lay-flat seat as it is.

A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing for approximately everyone who needs to fly.

by nom 2y ago

A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing for approximately everyone who needs to fly.

Reminder that these flights will not be accessible to normal people except for rare circumstances same way concord was effectively an attraction rather than a tool.

short_sells_poo 2y ago

This. If time didn't matter, people would use trains instead of short distance flights. And many do! Many European cities that are a 2 hour flight apart also have an ~8-9 hour train connection, which is much less hassle and stress than the flight, but people who have to travel a lot will care about the time savings of even a few hours because it adds up over time. Lots of people have to regularly travel between Europe and US, and if they can save 50% of the travel time, it ends up being a significant amount of time. I believe the market for these flights aren't families going on a holiday, rather people who have to travel on business 3-4 times a month.

Earw0rm 2y ago
"have to" being, to some extent, a function of these flights being priced at a heavy discount relative to their environmental impact.
- short_sells_poo 2y ago
  That's a fair statement. I'm not well versed enough in commercial aviation to be able to judge how much flights would cost with externalities priced in.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    It's debatable. The IEA have an estimate of €190 per tonne. Which is €400 per passenger on a return transatlantic flight (assuming no mark-up). But there are already some taxes and surcharges on flights, and some of that is carbon-related, so a "full cost" price wouldn't be €400 more than today's. AIUI they use a "harm" model to try and land on that number, i.e. X gigatons of carbon => Y amount of climate change => Z economic damage. Another way to look at it is "if each tonne of carbon can be burned only once, and in a scenario where future carbon is committed towards manufacture renewables (or nuclear capacity), how many kWh of renewable/nuclear electricity can be bought with 1t of carbon". That yields a much larger number. Or you can look at it through a carbon capture and storage lens. Industrial CCS yields a much lower number, but it's talking about capturing from factory boiler exhaust streams, where you can have the plant capture the CO2 at source. Not an option on a jet airliner. Direct air capture (ground-based stations mopping up aircraft exhaust) is an order of magnitude more expensive, currently in the $1000/tonne range, you're trying to vacuum gas out of the air that's at a 400ppm concentration by mass.

ceejayoz 2y ago

Concorde would probably struggle in the post-9/11 airport security world; the days of showing up at the airport just before the flight are long gone for most folks. A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing on its own, but probably not at a significant price increase.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> days of showing up at the airport just before the flight are long gone for most folks I show up 20 minutes before boarding, often later, at my small-town airport. For international flights out of JFK, I’ll show up 2 to 3 hours before, but there is still a world of difference between a lounge you can walk around and shower in and even the most luxurious lay-flat suites. NYC > SFO is 2 hours at Mach 1.7; if I’m not checking a bag that’s an entire day returned both ways.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Boom isn’t gonna be at small town airports anytime soon. The lounge thing, IMO, is also a challenge for Boom. It’s gonna be a cramped plane. The folks shelling out that sort of coin for a flight expect certain amenities on it.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Boom isn’t gonna be at small town airports anytime soon If I’m carry-on only, I try to show up to domestic flights out of JFK an hour before boarding. Between Digital ID and Clear, it’s a fuss if security takes longer than 15 minutes from entering the airport. > folks shelling out that sort of coin for a flight expect certain amenities on it Less cramped than Concorde. At $20k NYC <> SFO, I could see it selling out. You’re only on board for 2 to 3 hours. At $10k or less (Concorde was $13k, inflation adjusted) it’s crossing into prices paid for a lay-flat seat as it is.