Hacker News Reader

Comment by neaden | Hacker News Reader

So assuming they are get this to be feasible it seems like their model is that their are enough business travelers who are willing to forgo comfort for a slightly faster trip. My instinct is that no, they would rather have the comfort of a larger plane, but as I'm not an international business traveler I could very well be mistaken.

View on HN

Time is an aspect of comfort. Within reason, I'd much rather have a 5-hour flight with the comfort level of domestic first class than a 13-hour flight with the comfort level of international business class.

(On the other hand, I typically fly internationally in coach, which often has as much seat and leg room as domestic first class.)

What?? What airline has as much leg room in international coach as domestic first? The last international flight I flew my knees literally touched the seat in front of me, whereas my last domestic first class flight had more than enough room to cross my legs comfortably.

The international flights I've flown on KLM feel much roomier in coach than domestic coach typically feels. They might not have the same amount of leg room as domestic first class, but they pass that magic threshold from "not enough leg room" to "enough leg room" for me.

Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Emirate Airlines, Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways

Hmm, that's an interesting interesting list. I have only flown to Europe (from North America) so far. My experience with European airlines has obviously been much different.

My understanding is that many rich people believe their own time is the most precious commodity on the planet.

Also, mach 2.2 is more than "slightly" faster than mach 0.8

I have flown at least one international trip in J every month for the last 2 years. (mostly transatlantic)

I can tell you, if it's truly the same price as J, and you get a domestic FC seat -- it's totally worth it. A typical TATL-EastCoast segment is about 7-9 hours long depending on many factors. If they can cut that to 3 hours, it's a huge win.

First of all, it means that instead of leaving the EU Sunday so I can work Monday morning, I could leave Monday morning about 8AM, and arrive in the USA (assume I have one connection, could be on either side) about 8AM. I've just gained an entire (_weekend_) day of my life back.

Now going home, TATL flights are always overnight. Instead though, I could sleep in a normal bed, get up at 4/5am (I try and stay on EU time anyway for my 5-day trips, get up early, go to bed early), and then land same day and be home before dinner -- and not spend the entire arrival day running on 5 hours of (crap) "sleep".

>Now going home, TATL flights are always overnight.

Not true, at least NY to London. You can leave in the AM and arrive (relatively late) at night.

The parent poster apparently lives in Europe and is "going home" when traveling eastbound to Europe.

Right. And that's not always a red-eye flight.

Oh, sorry, I misread your reply. I didn't know about the non-overnight options in that direction.

As someone who has flown in all different classes on all different lengths of flights (my dad is a pilot) I would choose shorter flights over a better seat literally every time except if it is an overnight flight. There's not that much of a difference to me until I try to sleep and then first class is just so much better.

International flights can be brutally long. Los Angeles to Amsterdam is like 14 hours. I could definitely see a market for this.

Imagine the Pacific flights. How many flights LAX > Tokyo or Hong Kong were there in the 1970s relative to today?

Apparently the Concorde was only purchased/operated by Air France and British Airways, on transAtlantic routes.

The range of the Concorde was only about 4500 miles. That's materially shorter than would have been needed for, say, San Francisco to Tokyo.

The article says that Concorde couldn't fly supersonic over land because of supersonic booms.

The routes given for this plane - across the pacific - are not over land.

Can this plane go supersonic over land?

That remains to be seen.

The problem is not technical, but regulatory. The Concorde's sonic boom was very loud and a big nuisance. That's why it was forbidden.

There are multiple supersonic jets in development (private jets), that all plan on having a much reduced sonic boom that should allow regulations to be lifted. But that will have to be demonstrated to regulators first.

If you can't fly supersonic overland, it severely limits the utility and the possible routes.

Supersonic aircraft are TERRIBLY inefficient when flying subsonic, and use up a lot of fuel when doing so.

But are they very brutal when you are in a nice big comfortable business class seat with room to stretch, more privacy, space to work, and a drink?

I do LAX-DOH every couple of months. It's 16 hours each way, and regardless of class flown it is hell.

Cut it down to five hours, and I'll gladly pay $5000 for a round trip ticket.

Yes. I've taken that flight business - it's absolutely better, but if I had the option of cutting the time down in half for the same price I'd take a smaller seat any day of the week. Not knees-in-my-chest smaller, but traditional first-class seating any day.

As faster satellite wifi becomes a thing the longer flights are tolerable, but it's still time you could be on the ground doing something more useful.

I have flown ZRH-SFO-ZRH 3x a year for the last 10 years, last 2 years in business class. I would definitely take a halving of the flight time over a more comfortable seat.

On the other hand, I'm very doubtful about Boom; the fact that they mostly seem to be talking about the passenger cabin does not inspire a ton of confidence, and even if they get their plane built, I have doubts about their ticket price projections.

I'm more inclined to use terms like boring than brutal.

I suspect that it's highly questionable whether a supersonic design would be able to do the "brutally long" flights without refueling. The market for the Concorde and I imagine the market for this is the CEO/investment banker/international lawyer who wants to do a quick hop from NYC to London or Paris--including day trips.

The big difference was that Concorde mostly existed before the Internet. With email and video conferencing, the need for a lot of these 1-day out and back trips has likely been greatly reduced.

I've been on a transcontinental flight that was empty enough I could take over a whole row to stretch out and could wander around the aisle, and it was still tremendously physically uncomfortable after the first few hours. Even the nicest surroundings on airplanes have less room than the smallest office cubicle.

You're still stuck in a relatively small seat with little chance to walk around, breathing air with close to 0% humidity, a cramped and uncomfortable toilet, a dull roar in the background, and (if you're flying on an American airline) terrible food.

Choose a 787 if you possibly can. Better air pressure, much better bathrooms, high ceiling, and quieter. I'll adapt my schedule to ride that plane.

Edit: also, lovely big windows.

I suspect there are numerous parents who would happily pay more for shorter long haul flights (especially considering that a 12 hour flight is often 20+ when you add in connecting flights and layovers).

As a matter of fact, yes.

It's interesting how our idea of what we accept as "comfort" changes as fewer options are available. Unless I'm flying first/businesss class or on a small jet, "comfort" simply isn't possible when flying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com