Because perhaps the boot of the government isn't quite as heavy on this side of the pond, yet. Perhaps because this is a *big* place and cars are used to transport more than a couple of people a few km.
It didn't. Your taxes did.
The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack. Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic airliner.
You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger airliner faster.
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: (snip)
747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile basis, it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully loaded. In recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a whole lotta 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in 'preservation pack' status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes. Now that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are being brought back out of storage. At one point, they were gonna modernize the 747 fleet, but it will probably never happen, because Boeing would rather sell new planes, and Airbus is nipping at their heels. But the long delays in the Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at least partially blamed on the airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a lot of money to keep airplanes with a lot of lifespan left sitting in the desert. Another air disaster or major fuel cost spike, and there will be multiple airlines going belly-up.Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller with the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing services. A lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to. Plus, of course, with the general economic downturn, there are a lot fewer executives. Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from here on out.
-- aem sends...
I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.
So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/
That wasn't the issue.
It's an old plane. There are cheaper now. Do you notice any cheaper Concordes flying?
Because many routes are itty-bitty. A 747, no matter how loaded, doesn't make sense from JFL to ALB.
I thought most would already be belly-up. My bet is that they all have some pretty long term fuel contracts sewn up.
That market was never enough to justify the Concorde.
I don't buy that conclusion.
Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the Dunning- Kruger effect?
-- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org *lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor
It WOULD have made sense. For a limited market of people with money in a hurry IF they had allowed supersonic flight over land.
As it was, many routes were so restricted it offered no time advantages at all.
Probably crimps are the best solder-free connections.
-- Frank Erskine
Apologists, no. Bashers, certainly.
Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day (waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational solution (if you can call it that).
There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got supersonic flight banned.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
MRD.
-- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org *lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor
Fast it was, but poor design NO.
As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in that environment.
Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in another continent and be home for tea.
Dave
Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...
The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely different class of aircraft.
We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....
-- Tony Sayer
It was .. for what it did...
-- Tony Sayer
I dunno. Spot welds?
-- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org *lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor
Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.
Or Envy...!
-- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org *lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor
My understanding (possibly wrong) was the itty-bitty 777 is significantly cheaper to run. ISTM that it wasn't so long ago that twin jets weren't allowed to do transatlantic flights, but on the more recent UK-USA flights I've done it's nearly always been a 767 or 777
-- Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com
Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing but ego bloat.
Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french landfills.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.