Quote:
Originally posted by Tony Shepps
I went and got the company line on this beast. It's slated to go mach .95. It's also quieter than previous commercial jets, and has a longer range, thus possibly avoiding hubs on cross-country flights.
|
It also flies higher, avoiding the congestion of those many other and slower airplanes. Current airplanes can often only fly as fast as the one ahead of it.
Reducing flight time may no appear a great advantage. However when you pay the Concord $5000 to reduce the flight time by more than half; compared to a $100 to take 20% of the flight time.
Some were taking the flight from Allentown to San Jose CA, doing their business, and getting home on the red eye that night. 20% reduction in flight time is a major requirement to those cross country, and more important, Trans-Pacific passengers - especially without paying $4000 more for the Concord.
What's more, I don't think the Concord runs profitable. I believe BA and Air France ran it as a loss leader. It can only operate supersonic over oceans. Extensive research has attempted to reduce the sonic boom problem and high fuel consumption - with no improvement. Then there is the ozone layer - which supersonic planes hurt. Just another reason why Reagans hypersonic plane was flawed in conception and why airplane manufacturers are hestitant to full the upper atmosphere with more supersonic planes.