4 ms·
> “The main issue is fuel economy,” says aeronautics and astronautics professor Mark Drela. “Going faster eats more fuel per passenger-mile. Pretty simple - we
by csbowe 2y ago
> “The main issue is fuel economy,” says aeronautics and astronautics professor Mark Drela. “Going faster eats more fuel per passenger-mile.
Pretty simple - we care more about air travel being cheaper and safer than we care about it being faster.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 2y agoAnd even if not everyone does, operating entire flights at business class+ fares is probably not viable. Especially given that lie-flat seating (e.g. Polaris) with at least decent food is pretty comfortable for the people who are willing to pay a premium.
- devilbunny 2y agoJSX operates an entire airline as business-only. They use CRJ-900s, so not long-range, but there's no TSA (they are technically charter flights, you board at an FBO). You could feasibly run major transatlantic routes once or twice a day like that.
- ghaff 2y agoBA has, as I understand it, gone back and forth on London to New York business only flights. But that's not designing a whole new aircraft for the purpose.
- devilbunny 2y agoA CRJ-900 is a very, very common regional jet. They just changed the seats. I'm not making a comment about the original topic, just the comment that operating an entire airline as business wasn't viable. Not on every route, no, but for the right route? Yeah, there are enough people who fly certain routes and will pay for a better seat that you could fill a plane with them.
- V99 2y agoJSX operates based on a loophole in the part 135 rules, but that only allows 30 seats. A CRJ doesn't have the range for (nonstop) transatlantic, bigger planes would be impractical, and smaller ones with the range won't hold 30 people.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoBut it works. That suggests a rule change is in order.
- devilbunny 2y agoOh, sure. But it's an indication that the market does exist.
- dehrmann 2y agoTrue, but you also need fewer planes if you go faster, though plane costs are linear and fuel costs are square.
- whiplash451 2y agoAt constant demand, going faster does not reduce the number of planes.
- elric 2y agoIt might. Going faster likely increases wear on moving parts, which would presumably result in longer ground times for more frequent maintenance?
- toast0 2y agoSure it does. If you have demand for 10,000 passengers to be transported on a route daily, and a plane carries 200 people, you would need 50 trips. If the round trip is 4 hours, you could do 6 trips per plane and you'd need 9 planes to service the route. If the round trip time is 8 hours, you could only do 3 trips per day and you'd need 17 planes.
- blitzar 2y agoBut then you need more fuel, so fewer passengers and more planes.
- eleveriven 2y agoYep, speed is a luxury, but affordability and safety are necessities
- psytrancefan 2y agoWe take the affordability completely for granted also. It looks like in the 70s a flight from NY to LA was $1000 USD adjusted for inflation. My grandfather took a flight one time in his life, near the end of his life. Why? Because most of his life he couldn't afford it.