https://www.thecgo.org/benchmark/congress-should-legalize-su...
Over the time the overland ban has been in place, commercial airline speeds have stagnated and even regressed. Before the ban, speeds kept increasing. From the Boeing 314 Clipper to Concorde was only 37 years. Now that Concorde has retired, we are flying slower than the cruise speed of the Boeing 707 in 1958.
(1) The linear extrapolation of maximum speed over time--a trend that is driven almost entirely by the Concorde--to 2,500 miles per hour today is ludicrous. I thought this was a joke when I first read it but the author seemed to take it seriously.
(2) The decrease in speed (which is slight, ignoring the Concorde) has more to do with deregulation and airlines competing on price post-1978 than with the speed limit. Flying somewhat slower is more fuel efficient, and when customers choose flights based on cost being fuel efficient means being competitive. The author makes no mention of this factor.
It may be reasonable to remove the speed limit, but it would almost certainly not result in a broad renaissance of supersonic commercial flight. As a niche for the rich, like the Concorde was, maybe. But the majority of travelers are still going to select cheaper subsonic flights, and PR pressure to fly more fuel efficient planes will also bolster subsonic flight.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-azure-iot-takes-to-...
This is such a horseshit motivated reasoning claim. The speeds had nothing to do the sonic boom ban. Before the ban, the jet airliners maxed out around Mach .90. Nowadays, jet airliners max out around Mach .90. The supersonic airliners were a commercial failure. The 747 can cruise at Mach .92. Newer airlines forgo that because even the 747 never flies at that speed, because it is fuel inefficient.