Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gustomaximus | Hacker News Reader

I love that a small company is and can challenge the big guys faster flight.

For risks, aside from generally achieving the promised goals is there a big risk Boeing or Airbus copy this and have better sale channels to take over this as soon as the concept is proven. Boom development seems to have happened really quickly. I imagine the resources of the bigger companies can throw with their fiance and general engineer/production systems at this quickly if boom proves the concept.

View on HN

For the end consumer in this realm there is only victory, regardless of what happens to Boom. If 4 hour transatlantic flights become a viable option again I frankly don’t care who succeeded or failed to get to that point.

I do enjoy watching companies like Boom, because this is the kind of underdog chutzpah that the word “courage” is supposed to describe.

4 hours combined with airport waits ends up becoming something like 6 hours right?

Is there a big difference in practicality between 6 hours and 10 hours? Feels like you still lose the day to travel for the most part.

If you have your routine down, fly during the work week (most business travel), and have precheck you can pretty reliably have your wait down to 45 minutes. I fly a lot and usually breeze through the airport.

Sometimes I go through the airport in 45 minutes or even a lot less, but I still get there three hours early because the risk of not getting through in 45 minutes, and the problems it causes if I don't, are too great. Getting through in 45 minutes four times out of five doesn't help me if I miss my flight and all my travel plans are ruined the other one time out of five.

I think that there should be city center terminals at which you do check in. Then a bus would take you to the airport. The terminals could be nice, with free breakfast, and you'd sit down at a table with your laptop after going through check in. And when the bus came, you'd get on it stress free. If an airline did this, they could save a lot of passenger time and stress and it would probably be cheaper and better for the environment then faster planes.

And the idea is all the passengers would be on the bus so they would delay departure if the bus was delayed?

I don't think it would help much to put the check-in in the city centre though - getting into a city centre is just as prone to delay as getting to an airport, and I'd still need to leave hours for that possibility.

Yes, all passengers would be on the buses and if a bus was delayed they would delay the plane.

Oops, I forgot that in the US you don't have subways. Here in Europe, there are never, ever, delays going to the city center.

> Here in Europe, there are never, ever, delays going to the city center.

Two words guaranteed to strike terror into the heart of Londoners: "tube strike".

(I'm all for subways but let's not pretend they're 100% reliable when they run on Victorian technology and have various sorts of regular delay inducing incident)

Sure, but I'm guessing this happens rarely enough (once every couple of years) that it would fall under the same category of "severe thunderstorms", i.e. an act of God that was going to delay everything no matter what you would do.

I’m British, but I still wouldn’t bet thousands of pounds worth of travel plans on absolutely being able to get into London without delay.

I forgot you guys were still technically in Europe, sorry.

Why are you being so snide and unpleasent?

To take London, a very exceptional case IMO, and present it as an example of European transport is not very meaningful. England is really much more like America in this regard, you even have American style suburbs. It is not really a counter example to say that London hasn't got a reliable subway line. And I think that it is perhaps a little arrogant to think that London in any way represents Europe. Most european cities have a series of subway lines which cross in the center. The center is therefore easily reachable by all. However, the outskirts are not, due to the need to change trains. My suggestion of putting terminals in city centers, rather than in the airport at the outskirts of the city, is therefore reasonable within the context of Europe. London being an exception, due to your professed lack of functional public transport, is a pity, but it is not a counter argument.

> Most european cities have a series of subway lines which cross in the center.

But London has the most extensive subway system in Europe and of course the lines cross in the centre.

But I was saying you were being snide because you were saying the UK is leaving Europe, which of course it isn't. You're trying to sneak in a mean political point there.

Here it is!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_London_Air_Terminal

Or rather, was.

Is that possible for international flights? My impression is that you're kinda forced to get there super early. But maybe I'm doing this wrong.

I'm also used to doing international flights from cities where the airport is super far away. For example Charles De Gaulle is still a 45 minute train ride away from a lot of useful stuff. DFW's a bit out there too.

The dream is obstensibly Shinkansen-style "get there in the morning, leave in the evening and be back before bedtime" flows. Is that doable with smaller international flights already?

Depends on the airport. 100% possible at LCY, which is also only 20m from Canary Wharf.

It really does. I can reasonably go to Houston Hobby or Austin Bergstrom and with Precheck expect to be at the gate within 15 minutes of when I walked in the door (assuming no checked baggage). DFW or O'Hare or George Bush is an entirely different ballgame.

SFO - less than 60 minutes from SOMA to seat with (1) precheck, (2) no check in bags.

I usually get into the airport a few minutes before boarding. My emplacement process is usually ~20-25 minutes with no wait.

Yes, a big difference. Currently, if you're based in London and have meetings in NYC you can fly out in the morning and take the evening flight back but won't be at home for the night. With a 4 hour flight (preferably out of London City where you can arrive 25 min before departure) you can fly out in the morning and be back at night. That way they can at least get some time to spend with their families. Some people would spend a lot of money for that.

A note for comparison on use of LCY: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/62...

In short, the largest plane that can take off from there is an A318, and it immediately has to go refuel at Shannon.

LCY has a short runway and particularly strict noise limits, it’s not especially obvious that fast aircraft would be able to operate from it.

When an aircraft is fast in the air it doesn't mean it has to be fast at the runway.

For example the takeoff and landing speed of a F16 is almost the same as any other commercial plane (~270 km/h).

You are comparing apples to oranges. Takeoff speed of similarly sized plane to F16, Cessna is around 100km/h.

Concorde's take off speed was 400 km/h. Delta wings don't have same amount of lift, hence higher speeds.

Similar?

The F16 is about twice as long (49 feet / 15 meters) a Cessna (28 feet / 8.3 meters) and weights about 8.5 times as much unloaded: Cessna 2200lb / 1000kg and the F16 18,900lb / 8,570kg.

Fair enough. A bit larger, but lighter (17.68 m, 12,850 lb) Learjet 45 has landing speed of 200 km/h.

A Cessna 172 is in the 1700lb range empty.

Yeah I looked at a few Wikipedia entries and decided to use a number at the higher end in an effort to not appear to be cherry picking.

I was only replying to the fact that you cannot tell by top speed what runway is needed and what sound it makes.

Plus you avoid jet lag.

Yes, there is. If it's 6 hours you can make it two way for a meeting in one day without breaking your sleeping schedule.

If it's 10 hours, you can't.

You can if you sleep on the return flight (or sleep on the first flight and have time in your schedule to shower/change after you land).

The advantage is not with when you sleep, it's with where. With 6 hour flights you can sleep in your bed at home. You can't do that with the 10 hour flights unless you break your sleep schedule.

I fly internationally regularly for work. I get to the airport early have a coffee and get some work in. Then on the plane i connect to the wifi and continue to work. This way i don't lose any time. It's just a regular work day except I've crossed a sea and continent.

Are you arguing for or against the viability of this idea? I genuinely cannot tell.

I'm giving another perspective to inter-continental air travel and the idea that travel time is lost time. To clarify I'd take a shorter flight if available purely for my spinal health but it's possible to make international travel work. Timezones are a bigger concern than travel time.

Airbus/Boeing are not known for quick delivery. It took >8 years to get the 787 from launch announcement to a customer, and that's after who knows how many years of internal studies and research.

I think the revenue from this would be a drop in a bucket compared to what Boeing pulls from conventional subsonic jetliners. Also, their entire engineering paradigm favors slow & conservative development. See how ULA has struggled to catch up to scrappy SpaceX.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com