3 ms·
> the entire premise of 2-3 hour faster flights over the atlantic is just not that appealing Clearly you don't have kids.
by ghc 2y ago
> the entire premise of 2-3 hour faster flights over the atlantic is just not that appealing
Clearly you don't have kids.
- kachapopopow 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ghc 2y agoThose are pretty short flights though. My kids get antsy when the flight is 7+ hours. I agree though that short (<6h) flights are no issue.
- stetrain 2y agoOr aren't interested in buying $10k+ tickets for their kids. For most people this would simply not be an option.
- notahacker 2y agoAnd for many people in that bracket there's the possibility a chartered private jet will be better for their kids to sleep on, and they might more than make up the time going to the nearest airfield to their actual destinations rather than NYC-LHR
- ghc 2y agoI was assuming the end goal was to make supersonic flight way cheaper than it was for Concorde?
- stetrain 2y agoEven if Boom achieves their goal of bringing a certified airliner to production, it's still going to be a relatively small plane. 64-80 passengers according to their website. That means the cost of the plane, crew, fuel, etc. will be split among a small number of passengers. Fuel burn at supersonic speeds is also going to be higher per passenger mile than traditional airliners. No matter what this is going to end up as a premium option with a premium price tag. Modern high capacity airliners are optimized for efficiency and that translates to low ticket costs.
- ghc 2y agoI'm sure you're right that they're overselling with the vision of bringing tickets down to $100, but if what you say about number of passengers is strictly true no airline would fly the Embraer 175 or CRJ-900, right? According to the data I could find, the Overture is advertised as having fuel efficiency similar to the Embraer 175, while carrying the same number of passengers.