4 ms·
The math doesn't scan out on that, it sounds good for pitches and articles but is kind of nonsense once you think about it imo. It's going to cost way more than
by rtkwe 9mo ago
The math doesn't scan out on that, it sounds good for pitches and articles but is kind of nonsense once you think about it imo. It's going to cost way more than just 2x to run the supersonic jet along the same route per flight just in fuel and maintenance and you're cutting out all the low fare passengers they cram in the back so they need to make up even more money than just the fuel costs and running additional flights per day doesn't address the issue because the cost per trip is increasing so running more trips just keeps incurring those same costs.
- avidiax 9mo agoIt won't change the economics of the current class of aircraft. They will still need to have business class seats to pay for the economy cabin. You will probably end up with 5 or 6 tiers of service instead: Supersonic: Business + First Subsonic: Economy + Eco+ + Business + First Supersonic First will be a Veblen good that has a high price floor (like $30k). Business for time sensitive business passengers, and it's actually an Economy Plus seat for ~$15k. It's very hard to resist marketing some service differences, particularly when you have two classes of users with different needs (speed vs. prestige).
- rtkwe 9mo agoThe pitch quoted from the post I was responding to essentially said it was going to siphon all the business class fliers from normal flights: "Give those passengers a supersonic plane, cut the flight time in half, and charge the same price." There's no way businesss travellers would choose subsonic travel if supersonice was the same price for half the time. We agree I think that there wouldn't be a similar price between the sub and supersonic travel options. The economics of running the routes can't work out to a similar price to existing offerings.