Apart from fuel efficiency improvements, there hasn't been much innovation in the commercial commercial aerospace industry, with the exception of Boom's supersonic passenger airplanes which is just now starting to become a reality.
Top tip : if you are flying internationally avoid Uas airlines where possible. The US airlines are built around domestic flights. They treat international flights as "long domestic ".
By contrast some airlines are built around long-haul (international) flights, with domestic either not there at all, or just a feeder.
Don't get me wrong, economy is still economy. But an economy seat on Emirates is better than economy on United or Delta (well, last time I flew those anyway.)
Perhaps the biggest innovation though is seat-back entertainment. Done well, it makes a huge difference to long-haul flights.
For trains, you would be hard pressed to find a route that is not significantly slower today than 60 years ago.
Your gas car's maximally efficient speed is about 35 mph.
Modern jets are built to fly slightly slower than early jetliners, both in normal operation and at top speed. The reason is fuel economy, but the difference is real.
I don't understand the need for all the smoke and din in this argument thread. Old passenger jets flew a little faster than modern ones and that's okay!
That’s my point. It. Is. Not. A. Measurement. Of. Speed.
It's dependent on the speed of sound, which is only dependent on temperature, not specifically altitude contrary to popular belief.
Why is everyone trying to ackshewally this? The stat's are publicly available. Aircraft are optimized for a particular speed range and that impacts the designed cruising speed as well as Vs and VNE.
It took 64 years (until 1997) to again reach the 1933 speed of the Flying Hamburger [0] - 138 minutes from Hamburg to Berlin. Trains today need about 115 minutes.
Maybe for domestic flights but for international flights (especially if you live in Australia) it would improve the flying experience. I've noticed a big difference on my body when flying 8hr vs 12hrs.
It may not seem like a big difference but those extra 4hrs put a massive strain on your body and mind.
I would be more inclined to travel overseas if travel times were shorter thus making me a more frequent customer and bringing the airlines more money.
It's more that you just run in to real limits of physics; many planes already fly at mach 0.8 to 0.9, and going faster than sound is always going to be difficult because of the sonic boom. Realistically, there just isn't that much you can do without solving that first, which is a difficult problem to solve in a practical way. And even if you do, the fuel efficiency is always going to make it much more expensive.
Those have been huge, and are a primary driver for new airplane designs. The reason is simple. Back in the 80s, fuel was 40% of the operating cost.
The 757 came about because of new, more efficient engines and a more efficient wing. If my brain hasn't fully rotted away yet, it offered a 35% reduction in fuel costs.
The 737MAX was green-lighted because it offered a 15% improvement in fuel consumption. That's Big Money for the airlines.