United Adding Supersonic Flights...

Ted said:
That's a good point, and probably the distinction I was missing. As I recall the Concorde had to go subsonic over CONUS, but was known for the M2.0 cruise over water. I remember seeing the M1.6-1.7 number, but that would be much faster over land. I still think they should at least be able to do 2.0+ over water to match/beat the Concorde, although there would be the question of whether the airlines would want to make that speed distinction and efficiency distinction between the routes.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing there is a pretty dramatic improvement in cost efficiency between 1.6-1.7 and 2.0. Recall that the Concorde could never make the economics work (at least not without government subsidies) even at what was considered pretty stratospheric pricing.

I flew the Concorde once from Paris to New York and it was pretty cool. If this actually happens, it will definitely make me break my "no airline flying" rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
X3 Skier said:
So you save 2? Hours NYC-LHR to wait in the massive immigrations queue? And then take the same Heathrow Express to Central London to get a Black Cab that’s stuck in traffic?

This is a viable business?

Cheers
Click to expand...
On the way home you get to divert to Allentown or Stewart because of runway construction at EWR too.

I wonder if they can go supersonic over I-78?
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Can someone clue me in to how to get a job taking large quantities of other people's money and essentially have no responsibility to ever realistically deliver a product?
Click to expand...

Give Elizabeth Holmes a call, she has some experience. It didn’t end that well.
 
Warlock said:
Sort of funny I take the tube from the airport to central London and always seem to arrive at my location when others have Heathrow expressed and cabbed or got back on the tube...sure I am cheep but At one tenth of the price it works for me...I would non rev if seats are available but probably just get on a direct flight from Houston where we live and save time getting there with no connections.
Click to expand...

The first time I flew into London (1978) the tube didn't go all the way to LHR. You took a shuttle bus to the airline offices downtown, then caught a cab to wherever you where going (or the tube). When I came home a month later I grabbed a cab at my hotel and tried to get him to take me to the airline terminal downtown as I had 5 pounds and a few p in my pocket and knew that would be enough to pay the cab fare and tip plus the bus to the airport. I guess he really wanted to go to LHR to pick up a fare for the return because he finally said he would take me to LHR for 5 pounds. I told him to go for it.

From then on it has been the tube or Heathrow Express for me.

We got a big laugh out of the name Boom in a Zoom meeting earlier today. I figured that would be a great name for them when it went Boom! on the first test flight (or, as we called the first test flight of MX before it flew, first crater). Now, if they have the same luck we did at Martin Marietta, it will fly perfectly on the first test flight.
 
RudyP said:
I'm guessing there is a pretty dramatic improvement in cost efficiency between 1.6-1.7 and 2.0. Recall that the Concorde could never make the economics work (at least not without government subsidies) even at what was considered pretty stratospheric pricing.

I flew the Concorde once from Paris to New York and it was pretty cool. If this actually happens, it will definitely make me break my "no airline flying" rule.
Click to expand...

I agree, I’m sure the efficiency improvement with that speed difference is very significant. And if that’s what they need to get past the sonic boom over land regulations, all the better. It’s still a solid 2x+ faster cruise speed than airliners of today.

I never flew on the Concorde, but I was under it flying daily. We didn’t miss it when it stopped. Even as mechanics/gear heads, it was too loud for us.
 
Ex-BA boss Walsh pours cold water on United Airlines supersonic jet plan

https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...ited-airlines-supersonic-jet-plan-2021-06-10/

Supersonic jets do not have a place in the future, Willie Walsh, the former boss of British Airways, said, adding that he would not buy them if he still ran an airline as he dismissed a plan by United Airlines (UAL.O) to bring them back.
​
(He may have been misquoted; I assume he was talking about supersonic airliners.)
 
United has "demanding safety, reliability, and sustainability requirements"?
 
Palmpilot said:
Ex-BA boss Walsh pours cold water on United Airlines supersonic jet plan

https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...ited-airlines-supersonic-jet-plan-2021-06-10/

Supersonic jets do not have a place in the future, Willie Walsh, the former boss of British Airways, said, adding that he would not buy them if he still ran an airline as he dismissed a plan by United Airlines (UAL.O) to bring them back.
​
(He may have been misquoted; I assume he was talking about supersonic airliners.)
Click to expand...



that-is-why-noone-will-remember-your-name.jpg



Not that the chances of the plane entering service are good, but he's looking into the past not at the future...



flyingron said:
United has "demanding safety, reliability, and sustainability requirements"?
Click to expand...



It has one of the best safety records ever. The pilot training is world class.


Sustainability is the latest fad. Business will business.
 
When did "noone" become a word?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top