4 ms·

I just don't see any pressing need for supersonic jet travel now that in-flight Wi-Fi, hi-res HMDs for your laptop and the Nintendo Switch all exist. And I thin

I just don't see any pressing need for supersonic jet travel now that in-flight Wi-Fi, hi-res HMDs for your laptop and the Nintendo Switch all exist. And I think that trying to justify it in terms of "we have to end the stagnation and go back to a regime where plane speeds increase YoY" is silly: either it provides a compelling service for its high cost (there's no getting around that air drag and fuel consumption increases quadratically with speed) or it doesn't, and personally I don't think it will.

bombcar 10mo ago
There is such a huge market of ways to improve flights that are between "what we have now" and "high price supersonic" that aren't currently being done; indicating that there's not a terribly large market for it. Those who could easily afford supersonic can already afford other luxuries; the only one it gives is time; but if time is of the essence you can save it elsewhere by chartering your own jet.
- AlexandrB 10mo ago
  > chartering your own jet Honestly, this seems like the place to start with supersonic technology. The very wealthy are price-insensitive and would be ok paying 3-4x as much to get somewhere 2x faster. A good place to prove the technology, infrastructure, and market opportunity before cost-optimizing to try to get interest from mass-market travellers.
  - jsrozner 10mo ago
    a good reason to tax the wealthy so hard that they can't own private jets <3
  - bombcar 10mo ago
    The thing is, if you can charter your own jet, you can make it travel on your schedule and suddenly cutting travel time in half isn't quite as important (even rich people sleep sometime). It's a weird niche that is unlikely to be filled for awhile, if ever - partially because the era of the supersonic jet was before the Internet, which now gives even normies telepresence that is "good enough" if not perfect.
kibwen 10mo ago
There's a powerful and outspoken modern cult that worships technological progress, but only for values of "progress" that meet a certain wow-factor/"shininess" threshold. The idea that such progress could ever falter is anathema to such a cohort (which, in their defense, have lived their whole lives in the most technologically anomalous period of the entirety of human history), making them susceptible to scams like Boom. Instead, I'd implore people to consider that true progress is the ability to do more with less, and not merely the ability to do more with more.
- andrepd 10mo ago
  Would expect nothing less from someone self-styling as "rational optimist".
- mlinhares 10mo ago
  Because these are not solutions, they're just fluff. If they were actual solutions these people would kill them because they'd diminish the power their real overlords have. Just look at the whole circus around the hyperloop instead of just building high speed trains.
- TeMPOraL 10mo ago
  > Instead, I'd implore people to consider that true progress is the ability to do more with less, and not merely the ability to do more with more. Being able to do more with less is equivalent to being able to do much more with only little more.
  - kibwen 10mo ago
    And yet all that the aforementioned progress-cultists care about is being able to do a little more, even if it costs much more. The rate of return based on the effort invested is precisely the issue here.
    - TeMPOraL 10mo ago
      AI has some of the most stupidly high rates of return on effort and energy used out of all modern inventions, so I'm not sure what your point is.
melling 10mo ago
“ Blake’s pitch to airlines is enticing: “You’re already flying this route with a 300-seat plane where 80+ people in business class generate most of your profit. Give those passengers a supersonic plane, cut the flight time in half, and charge the same price.”
- BigTTYGothGF 10mo ago
  It's been a while since I've flown. Are ~20% of seats really business class?
  - jsrozner 10mo ago
    Look at a 777-300 on [United](https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-777-300er.html https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-777...) - 60/290 biz/econ (~20%), but the biz seats take up probably 40% of the plane. Estimate 4k for one-way biz ticket and 500 for economy, then that's about 240k from the front and 145k from the back. Actually, I'd expect them to optimize based on space, so if 40% of the plane is biz, then 40% of revenue should come from biz. Perhaps the most profitable routes with this config are 60% revenue from biz; other routes might be more like 2.5k-3k one-way biz.
    - projektfu 10mo ago
      But biz will be half empty or more at full price, so it gets filled with upgrades of coach tickets to reward frequent fliers or full-fare users. The average has to be lower. The biz price may also be optimistic. United EWR-LHR is more like your $2.5k-$3k. Delta has an ATL-LHR option for first/business class with a bed that's more like $8k-$10k, and their Premium Select, which is more like United's business class, is $2.5k. Interestingly, they offer more beds than big seats. I remember pricing out the Concorde years ago, before it was grounded. BA's first class subsonic was $8k, Concorde was $12k. (2001 dollars) If you're paying those rates anyway, it might be worth it to go faster, if you don't mind the relatively small seat and limited food service. Coach was $400-$600.
- VLM 10mo ago
rtkwe 10mo ago
Even with those conveniences IMO that only dulls the tedium of the flight and no matter how comfy the travel is I'm still losing about a whole day at least of just flying across the Atlantic going from the US to Europe and back for a vacation which is pretty valuable with US leave allowances. At the very least there's the market for business travel where workers don't lose whole days to travel.
- strange_quark 10mo ago
  In the age of ubiquitous video conferencing, does it really make sense for business travel?
  - rtkwe 10mo ago
    My work just did a big moderately disruptive shuffling of all the teams to try to localize as many members of each squad as possible in one location and the trend since COVID stopped being as deadly has been a massive wave of RTO so management seems to believe there's benefit in in person meetings or at least professes and acts like they do. I can't assign all of the huge RTO pushes to just management justifying and propping up their office real estate portfolios.
    - strange_quark 10mo ago
      Sure, business travel is definitely still a thing. But every company I’ve ever worked at has sort of accepted that travel days are lost anyways because people come in from all over the country, get in at different times, have delayed flights, etc. My point being that I’m skeptical that companies are going to start paying 2x, 3x, 4x the cost so that their employees can get there a few hours faster, especially when, at least in my experience, it’s hard to get them to even pay for seats with extra legroom.
Espressosaurus 10mo ago
And also the negative externalities. Plane noise is irritating, sonic booms are far worse and spread farther.
randerson 10mo ago
IMHO digital entertainment doesn't make up for being stuck in a cramped cabin for up to 19 hours (the longest international flight) around people (with varying levels of considerateness, contagiousness, and personal hygiene). Not to mention the increased risks of DVT and radiation exposure. I travel each year to see family abroad, a minimum 2-leg trip totaling at least 27 hours. I can't sleep on planes so I arrive exhausted and am useless and cranky for the first 2 days after this trip. I would happily pay 2x the fare to cut that trip in half.
- chrisweekly 10mo ago
  Deep Vein Thrombosis?
- AlexandrB 10mo ago
  If you're flying half-way around the world, sleeping on the plane or a shorter flight isn't going to help much. I've done it twice and the jet lag is killer for the first 2-3 days regardless of how well you sleep on the plane (I usually sleep very well).
- _fizz_buzz_ 10mo ago
  If you can afford supersonic travel, then you could also afford first class. And supersonic travel will probably be like flying economy. The concord was pretty crammed compared to today’s first class.
eleventyseven 10mo ago
> I You are not the only consumer of air travel. Supersonic is not for you, it is for elites willing to spend 4x the ticket price for half the flight time. Concorde tickets were $6000 for D.C. to London in the mid 1990s, so about $12,500 today, and that was for an economy-style seat. It was very popular among a certain segment. East Coast US to Europe in 3-4 hours versus 7-8, West Coast US to Asia in 5-6 hours versus 10-12.... makes it more like a domestic flight.
- ghaff 10mo ago
  My dad got upgraded to a Concorde once (for reasons I don't know) from First Class on (I assume) Pan Am. His reaction was basically meh. Got into London at rush hour and he really wasn't that impressed.

bombcar 10mo ago

There is such a huge market of ways to improve flights that are between "what we have now" and "high price supersonic" that aren't currently being done; indicating that there's not a terribly large market for it. Those who could easily afford supersonic can already afford other luxuries; the only one it gives is time; but if time is of the essence you can save it elsewhere by chartering your own jet.

AlexandrB 10mo ago
> chartering your own jet Honestly, this seems like the place to start with supersonic technology. The very wealthy are price-insensitive and would be ok paying 3-4x as much to get somewhere 2x faster. A good place to prove the technology, infrastructure, and market opportunity before cost-optimizing to try to get interest from mass-market travellers.
- jsrozner 10mo ago
  a good reason to tax the wealthy so hard that they can't own private jets <3
- bombcar 10mo ago
  The thing is, if you can charter your own jet, you can make it travel on your schedule and suddenly cutting travel time in half isn't quite as important (even rich people sleep sometime). It's a weird niche that is unlikely to be filled for awhile, if ever - partially because the era of the supersonic jet was before the Internet, which now gives even normies telepresence that is "good enough" if not perfect.

kibwen 10mo ago

There's a powerful and outspoken modern cult that worships technological progress, but only for values of "progress" that meet a certain wow-factor/"shininess" threshold. The idea that such progress could ever falter is anathema to such a cohort (which, in their defense, have lived their whole lives in the most technologically anomalous period of the entirety of human history), making them susceptible to scams like Boom. Instead, I'd implore people to consider that true progress is the ability to do more with less, and not merely the ability to do more with more.

andrepd 10mo ago
Would expect nothing less from someone self-styling as "rational optimist".
mlinhares 10mo ago
Because these are not solutions, they're just fluff. If they were actual solutions these people would kill them because they'd diminish the power their real overlords have. Just look at the whole circus around the hyperloop instead of just building high speed trains.
TeMPOraL 10mo ago
> Instead, I'd implore people to consider that true progress is the ability to do more with less, and not merely the ability to do more with more. Being able to do more with less is equivalent to being able to do much more with only little more.
- kibwen 10mo ago
  And yet all that the aforementioned progress-cultists care about is being able to do a little more, even if it costs much more. The rate of return based on the effort invested is precisely the issue here.
  - TeMPOraL 10mo ago
    AI has some of the most stupidly high rates of return on effort and energy used out of all modern inventions, so I'm not sure what your point is.

melling 10mo ago

“ Blake’s pitch to airlines is enticing: “You’re already flying this route with a 300-seat plane where 80+ people in business class generate most of your profit. Give those passengers a supersonic plane, cut the flight time in half, and charge the same price.”

BigTTYGothGF 10mo ago
It's been a while since I've flown. Are ~20% of seats really business class?
- jsrozner 10mo ago
  Look at a 777-300 on [United](https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-777-300er.html https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-777...) - 60/290 biz/econ (~20%), but the biz seats take up probably 40% of the plane. Estimate 4k for one-way biz ticket and 500 for economy, then that's about 240k from the front and 145k from the back. Actually, I'd expect them to optimize based on space, so if 40% of the plane is biz, then 40% of revenue should come from biz. Perhaps the most profitable routes with this config are 60% revenue from biz; other routes might be more like 2.5k-3k one-way biz.
  - projektfu 10mo ago
    But biz will be half empty or more at full price, so it gets filled with upgrades of coach tickets to reward frequent fliers or full-fare users. The average has to be lower. The biz price may also be optimistic. United EWR-LHR is more like your $2.5k-$3k. Delta has an ATL-LHR option for first/business class with a bed that's more like $8k-$10k, and their Premium Select, which is more like United's business class, is $2.5k. Interestingly, they offer more beds than big seats. I remember pricing out the Concorde years ago, before it was grounded. BA's first class subsonic was $8k, Concorde was $12k. (2001 dollars) If you're paying those rates anyway, it might be worth it to go faster, if you don't mind the relatively small seat and limited food service. Coach was $400-$600.
VLM 10mo ago

rtkwe 10mo ago

Even with those conveniences IMO that only dulls the tedium of the flight and no matter how comfy the travel is I'm still losing about a whole day at least of just flying across the Atlantic going from the US to Europe and back for a vacation which is pretty valuable with US leave allowances. At the very least there's the market for business travel where workers don't lose whole days to travel.

strange_quark 10mo ago
In the age of ubiquitous video conferencing, does it really make sense for business travel?
- rtkwe 10mo ago
  My work just did a big moderately disruptive shuffling of all the teams to try to localize as many members of each squad as possible in one location and the trend since COVID stopped being as deadly has been a massive wave of RTO so management seems to believe there's benefit in in person meetings or at least professes and acts like they do. I can't assign all of the huge RTO pushes to just management justifying and propping up their office real estate portfolios.
  - strange_quark 10mo ago
    Sure, business travel is definitely still a thing. But every company I’ve ever worked at has sort of accepted that travel days are lost anyways because people come in from all over the country, get in at different times, have delayed flights, etc. My point being that I’m skeptical that companies are going to start paying 2x, 3x, 4x the cost so that their employees can get there a few hours faster, especially when, at least in my experience, it’s hard to get them to even pay for seats with extra legroom.

Espressosaurus 10mo ago

And also the negative externalities. Plane noise is irritating, sonic booms are far worse and spread farther.

randerson 10mo ago

IMHO digital entertainment doesn't make up for being stuck in a cramped cabin for up to 19 hours (the longest international flight) around people (with varying levels of considerateness, contagiousness, and personal hygiene). Not to mention the increased risks of DVT and radiation exposure. I travel each year to see family abroad, a minimum 2-leg trip totaling at least 27 hours. I can't sleep on planes so I arrive exhausted and am useless and cranky for the first 2 days after this trip. I would happily pay 2x the fare to cut that trip in half.

chrisweekly 10mo ago
Deep Vein Thrombosis?
AlexandrB 10mo ago
If you're flying half-way around the world, sleeping on the plane or a shorter flight isn't going to help much. I've done it twice and the jet lag is killer for the first 2-3 days regardless of how well you sleep on the plane (I usually sleep very well).
_fizz_buzz_ 10mo ago
If you can afford supersonic travel, then you could also afford first class. And supersonic travel will probably be like flying economy. The concord was pretty crammed compared to today’s first class.

eleventyseven 10mo ago

> I You are not the only consumer of air travel. Supersonic is not for you, it is for elites willing to spend 4x the ticket price for half the flight time. Concorde tickets were $6000 for D.C. to London in the mid 1990s, so about $12,500 today, and that was for an economy-style seat. It was very popular among a certain segment. East Coast US to Europe in 3-4 hours versus 7-8, West Coast US to Asia in 5-6 hours versus 10-12.... makes it more like a domestic flight.

ghaff 10mo ago
My dad got upgraded to a Concorde once (for reasons I don't know) from First Class on (I assume) Pan Am. His reaction was basically meh. Got into London at rush hour and he really wasn't that impressed.