Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Travel News' started by whatmeworry, Jun 25, 2012.
Oh boy oh boy!
'Son of Concorde': London to Sydney in four hours gets closer
I would like to think they are correct but I won't hold my breath.
I’m not sure if I’d even have enough money saved up by the time this thing is commercial.
If this does work out it'll let those who missed out in the Travel Regrets thread finally be whole again, as well as the newer generation of travellers like myself be awed
But more realistically I don't think it will become a reality at least in any reasonable definition of the near future and have to agree with Sandilands's remark. With the legendary delays of the A380 and 787, trying to get a supersonic jet off the ground (literally) will be another beast entirely, in my non-aviation-technology-literate opinion.
Unfortunately I probably will have breathed my last before this happens.
What is this hypersonic, scram jet? They've been banging on about such things since I was a lad - not a wee lad, just a lad.
Sent from the Throne
Surely the fuel issue, which the article ignores, is just as big an impediment to this happening as the sonic boom. If the new plane is as thirsty as Concorde was, then I don't see it as having any chance.
From the news articles I have read it is a 12 seat aircraft.
I don't think it will be ever seen as a commercial airliners.
App price $80M, not sure what currency but which ever one it is probably out of most peoples buying power.
Has Virgin Galactic even started yet? I know they took reservations and all that, but has it passed certifications and etc? Has it missed the mark yet?
Perhaps that would offer the best glimpse of how a supersonic future flight could work, with a mothership taking you to a high altitude to launch from, hurtle towards your destination almost in space and then land on the other side of the world. If so, Virgin Atlantic would be in a very good position… though those tickets are at the $200k mark! Bit much for a business trip…
At $200K it is outside the reach of us mere mortals, but for the super rich, where $200K is earned in a few hours, the time saving of a SYD-LHR trip in 4 hours rather than 24 hours could easily be justified.
As for son of Concorde, I really hope this gets off the ground (pun intended), but I do have my doubts. These days it seems that no airline manufacturer seems to be able to get projects done anywhere near on time, and considering the problems SST had last time around (effectively barred from most of the worlds usual air routes at supersonic speeds) it's going to take a whole lot of convincing various regulatory bodies around the world that this time SST won't have the same problems as last time. Plus there is the problem that ticket prices need to be at levels that are actually affordable and yet airlines can still make a profit on.
But once planes get fast, reliable wifi meaning with private suites, people can do video conferencing just as easily as they could at home, for business trips would it really matter how long the flight was?
Imagine doing a 4hour status credit run on that!
The question could then be asked, why is the person flying in the first place? Considering that everything can be done via video conferencing and such?
Don't get me wrong, I love travelling, but after a while it does get tedious even in the higher classes, so if I had the money to jump on board an SST I would probably do it if it meant a 4 hours trip instead of a 24 hour trip.