[Anonymous]

[Tete_de_cuvee]

Tom has made some interesting comments in this BBC article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16090841

Concorde clearly compromised comfort for speed/time.

There appears to be no real market for true first class comfort when travelling short-haul.

So, when flying, does the adage Time is Money no longer hold?

Does comfort trump time? Is there a market for fast travel again?

Concorde flew for 27 years but after an air crash investigation grounded it in 2000, its carriers British Airways and Air France realised they could generate more revenue by selling first and business class tickets on subsonic planes.

[Tom Otley]

Well spotted.

It’s interesting, because even if constructing such a jet is financially viable, I’m not sure time is money extends beyond a certain price point.

For instance, if you (or your company) can afford to fly you down to Australia in business or first, the rationale is often that you will be rested when you get there and can therefore get on with your work. This makes the expense justifiable.

But if you imagine being able to get down there in 6 hours instead of 24, what price would you be prepared to pay for that saved time? (You’d have jet lag whichever way you went).

I think someone might pay, perhaps double the fully flexible fare – after all, you could go down, have a meeting, and be back within 24 hours instead of a minimum of 56 hours, but then, assuming you’re in business or first today, and your time is that valuable, presumably when you’re not sleeping on the aircraft, you are working, so it’s not dead time.

In fact, speaking with a lot of ultra long-haul travellers, it’s when they get to catch up on relevant reading, think a little more strategically and make some long term plans, much of which would be lost grabbing a few hours sleep on the way down, rather like we do on the flights back from the East Coast of America.

I’m sure we’d all try it once or twice, but after that, I’m not sure the demand would be there….

Not that I’d want to discourage the innovation behind it…..

[LuganoPirate]

I’d love to fly it, but wouldn’t pay double for the pleasure. Maybe once for the novelty but that would be it.

[ConstantFlyer1]

My time on the plane is valuable. On the way out, I’m reading all the documents and briefings that I didn’t have time to before leaving; and on the way back, I’m writing up my reports and outcome documents. Once back, they’re already done, so I can launch straight back into work. I wouldn’t want to fly faster; flights are comfortable enough for me; and on price, you usually get what you pay for. The only thing I’d change is to scrap APD!

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Whether some would pay for speed is irrelevant.

Firstly, no-one will bankroll the development and secondly, the cost of fuel would be too great to make it an economic proposition.

Concorde was a child of the 50s and things have changed a lot since then.

[MartynSinclair]

This discussion is relevant today and irrelevant of whether or not a faster mode of air travel is invented.

A simple everyday hop to Asia; some fly direct for say £4,000 with a comfy bed in 12 hours, some choose one stop with a wedgie bed for £2,000 in say 17 hours and some fly with 2 stops with a comfy seat for £1,200 in say 19 hours.

If Sir Richard can sell space travel to tourists for £200,000 and the Russians can sell a longer ‘Space Holiday” for millionS. I am sure if a new “Concorde” was developed there would be passengers in the short term who would pay for the speed and novelty factor.

Whether it is sustainable in the long term, all boils down to the value factor as well as the USA/FAA giving overfly rights!!!

[LuganoPirate]

Martyn,

There will always be people willing to pay exorbitant sums for a one off unique experience. just wait for the first mishap though and watch the cancellations come thick and fast.

I believe the Concorde was a true groundbreaker and was obstructed by the US thanks to its indigenous aircraft manufacturing industry and their fear that a non US built plane might actually be successful. I remain convinced that had the UK gone into a partnership with the US rather than the French, we’d now have Concorde Mk 5 using fuel efficient engines in planes carrying 450+ passengers at supersonic speed round the world at fares not much above those today.

Humans seems to have a need for speed which defies rationality. Witness Bugatti Veyrons that have a top speed of 300 mph costing over £1 m but which can only be driven at 80mph. Or high speed trains on which we spend billions in order to save 20 minutes.

Governments are now investing billions into new ATC systems and agreeements that will speed us through the air and save 15 minutes on the average European journey, only for this saving to be lost due to increased security queues, baggage delays and congestion getting to the final destination.

Human folly being what it is these planes will probably be built. And if built without to much government interference may actually be a commercial success. But without human folly we wold probably still be riding round in a horse and cart moaning about the cost of feed!

Happy New Year!

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Martyn

You are right that some people will pay a premium to fly direct and others will accept a layover. (I’m quite often one of the latter, especially if I can finesse a day in a place I have not previously visited.)

But I do think that this is a case of different choices within the same paradigm, whereas supersonic travel is a different paradigm.

If we do see supersonic air travel in the future,I believe it would be more likely in the executive sector, than in the airline sector.

The question is who will fund the development and certification of such an aircraft?

The only really new designs (from the west) recently have been the A380, 787 and the Embraer 170/190, as the cost of new designs is so high.

Other aircraft are reworks of existing types, e.g. AWB350, B747-8, the next range of 737s and the A320NEO.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Lugano

I understand your view on the Concorde and Anglo-US co-operation, especially to overcome US ‘not made here’resistance.

However, to be fair the Anglo-French engineering project produced the only viable supersonic transport and also another one produced the channel tunnel, so I do think we ought to give more credit – not always easy to work with each other, but the output is impressive.

[RichHI1]

In fairness the Russians produced a viable supersonic aircraft which suffered at the hands of the French Airforce in the Paris Air show. Not sure I would have wanted to fly it.

I suspect if a European only consortium built a supersonic plane it would face resistance outside of Europe and if the US built one it would face resistance outside of US. Given Europe, the US, Brazil and China all have aircraft industries, how long it will take for a joint co-operation to tackle some of the outstanding issues such as faster travel, less emissions, non fossil fuels etc.

Concorde’s equation wqs always elitist and the Boeing SST was a political piepedream. I can only see supersonic or hypersonic transport becoming a reality when it can deliver faster speeds, a greener agenda and at an affordable price (though I have no doubt the UK willtry and levey increased UKAPD on Hypersinic and the EU will try to ETS it out of existnce, the US will impose draconian noise limits and the Chinese will insist on it having a major Chinese compenent to land there or have over fly rights.
In many ways the political issues are probably more insurmountable than the technical.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Rich

The TU-144 had airframe issues, not viable as a pax aircraft, IMHO, although it has done useful work for NASA as a testbed.

[esselle]

Interesting…
Coming back from JFK on Concorde was tricky timing-wise. Leaving at 14.00, flying for 3 1/2 hours, and loosing the time difference, meant you got back to UK around 10.30. Thus, in to bed around midnight.

Try going to sleep when your body thinks it is 19.00…..So travel at the top end is more often around making a schedule work from a timing perspective, or at least it was for me.

Happy new year to all!

[MartynSinclair]

DoS

There is always the option of an A380 or 787 ELR (extra long range).

Flying to any point on the earth non stop. May not cut a journey time in half, but would certainly provide a time saving for very little extra development cost.

Now that could very well be defined as cruising the skies!

[Binman62]

Having just got off a plane this moring I vote for comfort every time. My biggest gripe was the tail winds which got us into LHR almost an hour early from the US west coast. Both my wife and I commented that it was not long enough at 9. 5 hrs, New BA first with excellent food and wine, dull inflight entertainment and mediocre all male crew.
I can put up with a lot when comfortable so happy to ad time to achieve that. Cost…..well it needs to be ex Euro…..and more so with the weakening euro.

[Author]

Posts