DOT Announces 'Return of Supersonic Flight' For Commercial Airlines (forbes.com) 112
The FAA plans to replace its 1973 ban on civilian supersonic flight over U.S. land with a noise-based standard, potentially allowing aircraft to exceed Mach 1 as long as they stay below certain sound limits. The agency aims to finalize the rules by mid-2027, opening the door for companies such as Boom Supersonic and Spike Aerospace to operate quieter next-generation passenger jets over land. Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shared the notice (PDF) published Tuesday by the FAA. Forbes reports: Technological advances "will eliminate the old sonic boom," FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said in a statement. "This means we can ultimately repeal the ban from the 1970s on supersonic flight over U.S. territory while minimizing noise impacts to residents in communities along the route and near airports." The primary reason was public opposition to loud sonic booms. In the 1960s, a plane flying faster than the speed of sound -- about 660 mph at high altitudes -- created shock waves that traveled to the ground and reached human ears as a loud gunshot-like crack or thunder-like boom. Tests during that decade, including the Oklahoma City sonic boom experiments, found repeated booms broke windows, damaged property and generated thousands of public complaints.
In its 1973 ruling, the FAA stated that due to the limits of technology at that time, "a prohibition was needed to protect the public from sonic boom .... by preventing operations of a civil aircraft at a true flight Mach number greater than 1." Several years later, Air France and British Airways introduced Concorde, and were allowed to serve New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport as long as flights remained subsonic over U.S. land. Notably, "the prestigious London-New York service was the only truly profitable [Concorde] route, supported by high-powered business and celebrity travel," wrote a former British Airways network planner for Forbes in 2021.
Several U.S. companies are working on a new generation of luxurious supersonic passenger aircraft with much quieter sonic booms and improved fuel efficiency. In particular, Colorado-headquartered Boom Supersonic says it has pre-orders from United Airlines, American Airlines and Japan Airlines for its Overture jets, which will carry 60-80 passengers. Atlanta-based Spike Aerospace is developing smaller Diplomat jets for up to 18 passengers. Both companies' websites tout future transatlantic flights in under four hours.
In its 1973 ruling, the FAA stated that due to the limits of technology at that time, "a prohibition was needed to protect the public from sonic boom .... by preventing operations of a civil aircraft at a true flight Mach number greater than 1." Several years later, Air France and British Airways introduced Concorde, and were allowed to serve New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport as long as flights remained subsonic over U.S. land. Notably, "the prestigious London-New York service was the only truly profitable [Concorde] route, supported by high-powered business and celebrity travel," wrote a former British Airways network planner for Forbes in 2021.
Several U.S. companies are working on a new generation of luxurious supersonic passenger aircraft with much quieter sonic booms and improved fuel efficiency. In particular, Colorado-headquartered Boom Supersonic says it has pre-orders from United Airlines, American Airlines and Japan Airlines for its Overture jets, which will carry 60-80 passengers. Atlanta-based Spike Aerospace is developing smaller Diplomat jets for up to 18 passengers. Both companies' websites tout future transatlantic flights in under four hours.
US senators ae shiteaters who swallow (Score:1, Troll)
The FAA didn't put regulations togethet in 1973 for noise. They put them in place to prevent Concorde from beating the pants of noncompetitive expensive under-providing US airlines.
For half a decade non-military flight over US land of supersonic aircraft has been banned due to protectionism.
If it was TRULY about the noise, military aircraft would have been included. They never were and 52 years later still are not.
It would be nice to be abused by TSA's "hands of blue" and "random rules" of the day in secu
Re:US senators ae shiteaters who swallow (Score:5, Informative)
Supersonic flight is incredibly noisy, and you don't want it above you.
Its not either or (Score:1)
Back in the day Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were handed their arses by Concorde and didn't like it so yes, part of the reason was US protectionism. Would the ban have happened anyway? Possibly, but the US aircraft industry certainly helped swing it.
Re:Its not either or (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in the day Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were handed their arses by Concorde and didn't like it so yes, part of the reason was US protectionism. Would the ban have happened anyway? Possibly, but the US aircraft industry certainly helped swing it.
So you're saying that a plan that handles 100 people at a cost in today's dollars was 15 to 17 thousand dollars per ass in seat and wasn't that profitable, was putting the US plane makers out of business?
If you hate all things USA, sure, it makes sense that soon everyone would be flying an army of Concordes - gotta make a lot of them, since say a Boeing 747 could handle 3 times the passengers - and everyone would be wealthy enough to afford over 30 thousand dollars for their trip - assuming that the were going to do a round trip.
Do you have a back of envelope plan for the viability of your assertions? Both to making the American options unprofitable, and that the Concorde was going to take over if not stopped by US Lawmakers since we were getting our asses handed to us by one single plane?
Out of curiosity, would you personally pay 30 thousand dollars versus around 500 dollars to go from NYC to Paris and back?
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde was very profitable at those prices. Only in the early days when they hadn't work out how much to charge did it lose money.
Re: (Score:2)
As for why Concorde doesn't fly any longer: It was out of service for a couple of years right when the dotcom bubble formed. The Internet rage convinced a lot of executives it was suddenly cool to be seen on conference calls. Then Sept 2001 happened and flying on a weekly basis became even less attractive. A double whammy.
Concorde needed lots of high-end business travellers but they just weren't around in numbers any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
As for why Concorde doesn't fly any longer: It was out of service for a couple of years right when the dotcom bubble formed. The Internet rage convinced a lot of executives it was suddenly cool to be seen on conference calls. Then Sept 2001 happened and flying on a weekly basis became even less attractive. A double whammy.
Concorde needed lots of high-end business travellers but they just weren't around in numbers any longer.
Yup, that was a part of the problem with the Concorde as well. I think that at least for me, unless time was critical, I'm completely fine wit a slower, and apparently more comfortable ride on a Jumbo.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're a top-level executive type are you? And you creep around on Slashdot too?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're a top-level executive type are you? And you creep around on Slashdot too?
I advise top level executive types. I suppose that if forced to put it in the Standard Hierarchy, I'd be a VP. I'm a pattern weaver polymath.
I'm not certain what your "creeping around" comment means exactly. I've been on Slashdot for many years, and have fun here. Mostly looking for good conversations, and the occasional curb stomping of dolts.
Re: Its not either or (Score:3)
I think the point was that whatever market there was for supersonic passenger aircraft would be served by Concorde as Boeing tried AND FAILED to make a supersonic airliner.
America certainly thought there was a business case for supersonic passenger travel, the 747 was designed with its cockpit up there because they expected to convert them to cargo aircraft once all the passenger market had moved to supersonic aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point was that whatever market there was for supersonic passenger aircraft would be served by Concorde as Boeing tried AND FAILED to make a supersonic airliner.
It was cancelled, not failed. Rising costs, environmental concerns, noise, and the lack of a clear market did it in, not your implied idea that the US could not build one that worked. to wit:
They were correct on the rising costs
They were correct on teh environmental concerns.
they were correct on the noise
They were correct on the lack of a clear market.
That isn't failure, the idea that the USA wan't capable of building an SST is ludicrous, but in the end, they made the right decision.
How many Con
Re: Its not either or (Score:2)
The whole Apollo programme was $25 billion .
Boeing spent the best part of a decade and $1 billion trying to build a SST and never flew one prototype. That has to be the definition of trying and failing.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole Apollo programme was $25 billion . Boeing spent the best part of a decade and $1 billion trying to build a SST and never flew one prototype. That has to be the definition of trying and failing.
Perhaps for you. There was nothing to prevent the Boeing company from continuing to develop and eventually introducing the American version of the SST. And ending the program was not because they couldn't build a functional SST - this was not lack of technology nor ability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
There were some other considerations. Timelines and schedules showed that transatlantic routes were going to be gobbled up by the Concorde and its projected fleet of 150 planes (only 14 were ever bu
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing didn't fail so much as stopped because they saw a fuel-sucking aircraft that could only carry a handful of passengers as having zero financial viability. Boeing could have built one. Nobody seriously believes France and Britain had access to some secret science that the world's largest aircraft company didn't. They just knew it wasn't viable.
The Concorde consortium, FWIW, felt the same way. The plane we know as Concorde wasn't meant to be the only supersonic airliner when the project started, it was
Re:Its not either or (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in the day Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were handed their arses by Concorde and didn't like it so yes, part of the reason was US protectionism. Would the ban have happened anyway? Possibly, but the US aircraft industry certainly helped swing it.
google or DDG supersonic flight restrictions in the EU, then explain why the US is stupid for restrictions, yet the EU is being sensible.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU didn't exist in the 1970s. Other than that, great comment.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is a set of countries, most of them had restrictions. So yeah you're technically correct, relish in that as the point flies wide over your head.
Re: (Score:1)
Back in the day Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were handed their arses by Concorde and didn't like it so yes, part of the reason was US protectionism.
So it was US protectionism that caused France banned Concord flights over land blocking the use of a French company's product but not Boeing and McDonnell Douglas?
I think you are letting your bias do the talking rather than any of your actually functioning braincells. This had nothing to do with protectionism.
Re:US senators ae shiteaters who swallow (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder why most other nations also had a ban of non-military supersonic flight in place, nations with supersonic passenger jets, a.k.a. France and the United Kingdom, and those without, like Brasil or Germany.
Supersonic flight is incredibly noisy, and you don't want it above you.
From a personal sonic boom perspective, I was riding my motorcycle in the northern PA woods on some abandoned railroad lines. I was riding through a tunnel. at the exit of the tunnel there was a bridge. The rails and ties were gone, so crossing the bridge required precise control since the steel was maybe a foot wide - no room for error. No room to put your feet down to stop and steady
I exited, had about 20 feet to the rail bridge, when an incredibly loud sound and pressure wave hit me. Damn near lost control of the bike on level ground. Damn near pissed myself to be blunt. And knowing what I know, there was going to be a second boom any second, since the military was usually playing chase games when going supersonic. Sure enough, a few seconds later, another very loud boom.
I considered myself lucky, since if that happened while I was on the bridge structure, I would have been in the drink. 20 foot drop onto water and rocks with a motorcycle on top of me. Ain't no-one gonna want to hear booms and pressure, so yes, the reason was the booms, not whatever anti-American excuse OP made up to salve his insecurity and need to hate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think the important question then is... Are you f-ing insane?
Yes. You are talking to a guy who played Ice Hockey until his mid-upper 50's and even now takes my Jeep rock climbing. A lot of people ask my wife if I'm nuts, and why she allows me to do things like that. More on that below.
You were going to drive across a 1' wide bridge on a motorcycle, as if gusts of wind never come through river valleys? Forget compression waves, a frikkin strong breeze would have killed you.
I'm a pretty fair hand at the two wheeled arts, and it's like skydiving, an element of danger is involved. But it's fun as well.
By the way, my wife's answer to the Hockey question is that It really makes for a mellow and non-aggressive husband, and that she likes the way it makes my a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hockey and offroading aren't crazy, they're perfectly normal. Especially if you live somewhere both cold and rural. What you're talking about doing on a motorcycle would give Eval Knievel pause!
Well, as I answered your question, I am a bit of a thrill seeker and you aren't the only person who has called me crazy. Yes, that bridge crossing was dangerous, requires steady hands, balance, and total concentration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other countries started it, but I can't see the US changing their laws just because some godless socialists in Europe did. It may have been a useful supporting argument but I can't see the US saying "well, it worked in the Netherlands, we should copy them".
I've been in policy meetings (non-US) where every single person in the room said we should do the right thing X, but the US does Y which everyone agreed was wrong but no-one wanted to stick their neck out and put their name to doing X. This is how soft po
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde did fly to the US though, it just wasn't allowed to go supersonic over land. Which is fair enough, it didn't go supersonic over the UK or Ireland either, the pilots waited until it was out to sea.
The new tech that has been developed for limiting sonic booms is quite interesting. A combination of lessening the effects and making most of it bounce off the thicker atmosphere at lower altitude, a bit like how a submarine can hide from hydrophones by crossing boundary layers under the sea. Sound doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that's an interesting website. I didn't immediately spot a map of sound levels. Might be an interesting open source project. Some electronics with reasonably well calibrated sound level metering, and an outdoor enclosure for it...
Lame sig (Score:2)
Your lame sig is wrong, woke is an adjective.
Re: (Score:2)
> Which is fair enough, it didn't go supersonic over the UK or Ireland either, the pilots waited until it was out to sea.
I've read this, but I can tell you that while it went over the UK it was f---ing loud anyway. If it wasn't supersonic 30 miles from Heathrow (where I used to live), it certainly had the worst jet engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was very loud even at sub-supersonic speeds. The engines were tuned for performance at supersonic cruise speed, and due to the wing shape it needed a lot of thrust and relatively high speeds at low altitude to generate enough lift.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the space shuttle landing at Vandenberg, 200 miles away. We'd always get the double thump from that, and even in the Orange County suburbs it was enough to rattle our windows every time.
It was cool at the time, but it didn't happen very often. Flights regularly going over at supersonic speeds would get old really fast.
Re: (Score:2)
"Supersonic flight is incredibly noisy"
A ban by Mach number permits noisy planes as long as they fly slow... which means that you are exposed to the noise for longer. (Which is why actual airport noise limits are time-weighted.)
The actual problem is the noise, so regulate the noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: US senators ae shiteaters who swallow (Score:2)
The US military has never had a limit on sonic booms it makes, especially if you live near a base.
Re: (Score:2)
They put them in place to prevent Concorde from beating the pants of noncompetitive expensive under-providing US airlines.
the concorde has never been remotely "competitive", it was made for prestige.
Re: (Score:2)
It had no competition. It was both popular and profitable for its time, though.
Re: (Score:3)
The FAA didn't put regulations togethet in 1973 for noise. They put them in place to prevent Concorde from beating the pants of noncompetitive expensive under-providing US airlines.
Have you ever sat directly under s sonic boom? I have. More on that in a minute.
But anti-competition? The Concorde, while an awesome plane, had one big issue. 100 people in very expensive seats. $7000 - $9000 dollars per passenger in the 1990's. Which in 2025 dollars is $15,000 to $17,000 dollars.
Now let's take say, the Boeing 747. While it had multiple variations, 366 passengers plus 5 cargo pallets, and 14 cargo containers for 175 cubic meters of cargo space. One model for the Japanese Market carries
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for playing along - your anti-American perspective noted. but frankly, ye know nought.
i do not agree with his assessment but ... how is criticism of us policy/regulations/politics an "anti-american" perspective?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for playing along - your anti-American perspective noted. but frankly, ye know nought.
i do not agree with his assessment but ... how is criticism of us policy/regulations/politics an "anti-american" perspective?
Has the generalized hatred of the USA reached the point where someone posts a thread named "US Senators ae (sic) shiteaters who swallow", and contains Incredible inaccuracies like our airlines could not compete with the Concorde, blatantly untrue, and that US airlines could not provide.
So anyhow, if you don't like my assessment that US senators enjoy consuming excrement (Politicians are people and citizens as well) and that we are anti competitive, and that rather than accept that a plane that seats 100
Re: (Score:2)
well, for one "america", "american" and "americans" are different things. "american policy" is yet another and the claim that the reason for such a policy was to thwart competition by the concorde makes no sense at all, which is the part i do not agree with.
the rest is ... more or less reality? senators in particular are full of shit, and they are sellouts. probably 100% of them. that they vote most of the time against the interest of american people and in favor of the elite has been long established by ac
Re: (Score:2)
well, for one "america", "american" and "americans" are different things. "american policy" is yet another and the claim that the reason for such a policy was to thwart competition by the concorde makes no sense at all, which is the part i do not agree with.
Correct, because the Concorde really offered no competition, the only possible exception is if someone needed to be in Europe or USA as absolutely soon as possible, and the plane schedules allowed.
the rest is ... more or less reality? senators in particular are full of shit, and they are sellouts. probably 100% of them.
That's a bold claim Cotton. Let's say you aer correct, and probably 100 percent. of Senators are full of shit.
Can you give me a credible explanation of the relevance of US senators who a
Re: (Score:2)
I have a feeling that the new ones will be extremely expensive too. Boom's aircraft is on the small side. They claim it will be net zero, but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Aviation fuel isn't cheap and subject to oil price shocks.
I wish someone would get a radically more fuel efficient design working. Lots of ideas like flying wings, but nothing ever comes of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a feeling that the new ones will be extremely expensive too. Boom's aircraft is on the small side. They claim it will be net zero, but that seems exceedingly unlikely. Aviation fuel isn't cheap and subject to oil price shocks.
I wish someone would get a radically more fuel efficient design working. Lots of ideas like flying wings, but nothing ever comes of them.
Yup, there are differences between subsonic and Mach 2 aircraft that makes them inherently more expensive, and while there have been increases in efficiency in Jet propulsion, it's always going to be more expensive to go supersonic. Just like in autos, the faster you go, the more air you have to push out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've downplayed the flight time on a conventional passenger jet for LHR-JFK by an hour at least and exaggerated the Concorde time by 30 mins.
Concorde's prices were determined by a number of factors such as fuel, but one of main ones was exclusivity/privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've downplayed the flight time on a conventional passenger jet for LHR-JFK by an hour at least and exaggerated the Concorde time by 30 mins.
Concorde's prices were determined by a number of factors such as fuel, but one of main ones was exclusivity/privilege.
You'd certainly have to have ample money reserves to fly the Concorde. It was a thirsty plane. But nothing compared to the Concordski, the Russian version that had to have continuous afterburners to go supersonic.
I suppose some people might find flying on Concorde a status symbol. I just roll my eyes at that. It's like Wristwatch status. Conspicuous consumption. I suppose I just find those types as wasting money, while many others are jealous and hateful of them. It's the old story about lighting cigars
Re: (Score:2)
Also it was loud as fuck.
I used to work under the flight path in darkest south west London. Work regularly stopped at 11 and everyone went to watch the Concorde because there was absolutely no chance of getting anything done with the kind of mind buggering noise it put out on the climb.
Re: (Score:2)
Also it was loud as fuck.
I used to work under the flight path in darkest south west London. Work regularly stopped at 11 and everyone went to watch the Concorde because there was absolutely no chance of getting anything done with the kind of mind buggering noise it put out on the climb.
Related item. One of the objections to the cancelled American SST was that it could interrupt delicate work such as brain surgery, or harm people with nervous problems. My experience with Sonic booms suggests it might have caused some as well.
I've never heard a Concorde, I have heard a 707 taking off, which was really loud, so I can only imagine what the SST would be like, your experience tells me it would be terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
The use-case for Concorde on trans-Atlantic passage was cemented for me when my uncle explained that every time he flew from NYC to London to talk to investors about his company, the stock price went up far more than the cost of his trip on the Concorde, and he could be back in time to sleep in his own bed the same day.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm pretty sure (as others have pointed out) that if it weren't for the Continental-caused accident, the Concorde would likely have flown an additional decade.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard this theory too, including from my own father. Maybe that's how it was portrayed in the British media at the time? I can't really find much evidence for it on the internet though. As far as the written history on the Internet goes, it's mostly about the noise. Maybe hysteria about the topic was whipped up for political reasons, but where's the evidence now?
There certainly were bans put in place for political reasons, such as India and Malaysia banning Concorde because they couldn't get the ac
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they put them into place for noise. At the time most of the major aircraft companies were working on supersonic airliners, and trust me, it didn't go down well with the US aircraft industry any more than British Airways or Air France.
I used to live under Concorde's flight path (UK at the time, about 30 miles from Heathrow.) Every day sometime around 6-7pm it became impossible to watch TV for 30 seconds (or listen to it anyway.) There was no way laws weren't going to get passed against it. The surprise i
More pandering to Epstein class billionaires (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It goes along with gotta have a fart nozzle on your car and annoy everyone around you.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget those loud bass speakers. There's nothing better than the sheet metal buzz of a Honda's car doors.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled "go fast" mufflers.
And it always makes me chuckle when there's a "go fast" muffler next to me at a stop light who tries to overtake my silent EV SUV. They get smoked, and I do it without having my car scream that my penis is 3 sizes too small in the process.
It's not pandering (Score:2)
Concorde was LOUD! (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't just the sonic booms, this plane was just all around loud. It was a civilian plane afterburners! As somebody who lives about 500m directly under one of Heathrow's landing flight paths, I'm happy it's not coming over anymore.
I've always liked this video though. It starts off so quiet, suburban and banal, and then Corcorde roars over and shatters the scene, setting off a car alarm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Of course, there are lots of videos like this one too, also setting off car alarms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But Concorde didn't use afterburners during landing. Very occasionally on a go-around it did but that was rare - this is "abort the landing", not "we need you to circle longer"
Concorde did use reheat on takeoff. That was for up to about 2 minutes on hot days, more usually around 90s. Concorde didn't carry enough fuel to run the afterburners unnecessarily. (Around 60s is acceleration
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I wasn't clear: Concorde was loud, irrespective of whether the throttle was fully on and afterburners lit, or not.
I'm also glad we don't get any 747s anymore, which were quieter than Concorde. 777s are definitely the ones I've noticed to be loudest these days, especially when planes are coming over every three minutes from 04:30-05:00 in the morning. They're offensively loud compared to the 787s and A350s, and even A380s. But this is a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the days when car alarms were going off repeatedly all day long over the entire city in every city in the world. Anytime something slightly heavy drove passed would be enough to trigger them off. It was a fad for a while to have the alarms wired to motion sensors.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't just the sonic booms, this plane was just all around loud. It was a civilian plane afterburners! As somebody who lives about 500m directly under one of Heathrow's landing flight paths, I'm happy it's not coming over anymore.
The Concorde's engines were adapted from military engines, the Rolls Royce Olympus which powered the Avro Vulcan bomber, so yeah, they were F-ing loud.
Question is, can we develop quieter engines these days? Modern high bypass turbofans (like the RR Trent) are way quieter than their older counterparts. Especially the older low bypass turbofans (I.E. on the 727s)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes! I remember being at an air show on a small RAF base and a Vulcan did a low-level turning pass with the belly to towards the crowd. It was probably one of the loudest things I've ever heard. Military engines certainly have different priorities to civilian ones.
Unacceptable (Score:3)
I will not accept one more surcharge, fee, tax or fine in the name of environmental protection if rich people get to fly supersonic over millions of people's heads and homes. Planes need to be quieter, not "louder, but not as loud as previous supersonic planes". FUCK THESE PEOPLE.
Re: (Score:2)
Boom Supersonic is claiming that they will use 100% sustainable aviation fuel. In theory that means it will be waste products from food production, and stuff grown to produce it. In practice, sustainable aviation fuel looks like another scam to greenwash a very polluting product.
Re: (Score:1)
I will not accept one more surcharge, fee, tax or fine in the name of environmental protection
So you would rather contribute to the world burning instead of addressing the actual problem with a solution the French used in 1793 to address the problem of a ruling class? Why contribute to the race to the bottom.
Oh fun fact the place where the certain solution from 1793 happened is called "Place de la Concorde"
Re: (Score:2)
You drooling idiot can keep accepting blame while the people who blame you fly supersonic so that they can be back from brunch in London for their meeting in NY or vice versa the same day.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said accepting blame. I heard someone murdered someone today, I guess that means its time to go on a killing spree. Come join me in the race to the bottom like the moron you are.
Cost (Score:2)
It was cost that killed Concorde, it burned too much fuel to be viable.
(well the tire burst on takeoff didn't help)
Re: (Score:2)
Virgin Airways wanted to buy the BA planes to keep them flying and offered to, but BA just didn't want to give them a public relations win so refused to sell. Shambles all round.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but the reason why "cost" played a role (believe it or not when the cancelled Concorde it was breaking even give or take) was because it was limited on what routes it could fly because of, well, you guessed it, "sound".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the reason why "cost" played a role (believe it or not when the cancelled Concorde it was breaking even give or take) was because it was limited on what routes it could fly because of, well, you guessed it, "sound".
It was also extremely expensive, and didn't carry that many people - only 100.
It wasn't a competitive business model, versus more fuel efficient jumbo jets carrying three times (or more) people.
Now let's just adopt the anti American attitude here. If this was a good idea, Europe would be no longer using any subsonic planes internally, only subsonic planes to go to the stoopid USA. It would be Concordes or their successors only in Europe.
And Europeans would clamor to pay the price, eat up the fuel,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a prestigious service for Air France and British Airways. When they decided to stop flying Concorde, Virgin Atlantic wanted to buy the aircraft and keep flying them. Of course, BA refused to sell them and made sure that every single one ended up beyond the point where it could be returned to service, because they didn't want anyone else to operate a supersonic service.
Re: (Score:2)
That and tickets themselves were really expensive. Something like $9k for NY to London in 2000s era money.
Re: (Score:2)
Street fighter (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And then.... FIGHT!
Making America Noisy Again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Booms are complicated (Score:4, Insightful)
Rockets routinely achieve speeds higher than Mach 1 and you never hear the boom. Mainly because the boom is in the direction they ae flying - up.
Vehicles cause noise. Noise is a sound wave in the media(air). Normally that wave is faster than the vehicle. The 'boom' happens when the surface of the moving vehicle hits the sound wave and pushes it.
If you shape the surface of the vehicle, you affect what happens when it hits the sound wave. There are a ton of things you can do to it - deflect the sound (often up), break it up into smaller sections, or even stretch it out so you get a less loud but longer sound.
Frankly it is amazing that it took us this long to figure out something this simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Took you way too long to get off your ass and help them do it.
Where were ya? What happened?
Re: (Score:2)
Lies coming out of thin air (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It took a long time for a few reasons. You can reduce the boom with an exotic shape vehicle, but then it starts to suck as an aircraft. Less lift, awkward to use existing airport facilities, difficult to take off and land, pilots need a lot of training etc.
To be commercially viable it has to carry a reasonable number of people, in relative comfort, and be relatively fuel efficient for a supersonic aircraft.
Some of the tech to enable that is relatively recent, or still in development. Engines in particular.
Now do ... (Score:2)
Tests during that decade, including the Oklahoma City sonic boom experiments, found repeated booms broke windows, damaged property and generated thousands of public complaints.
Not so many complaints until grifters tried to collect compensation for thunderstorm damage. The FAA just denied the claims and they got pissed.
For the rich... (Score:4, Informative)
So the rest of us are going to get to experience the joys of sonic thumps so that the 0.1% can get across the country an hour quicker?
You and I are never going to be able to afford a ticket on a "luxurious supersonic passenger aircraft" that seats 18 or 60-80 passengers. But we get to experience it. Whadda ya bet that the approved routes won't go over Mar a Lago, Malibu, or Los Altos?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's hard to contemplate this other than some sort of lobbying effort that paid off. I'm fully in support of firms like Boom & Spike doing research and development on this, and would even say the FAA could issue experimental waivers of the type described in the summary. But why at this point is there a need to change the existing rule? The only thing not related to being bought off, is to say the firms trying to build these aircraft need investment dollars and the risk of them not being able t
Enormous Nothingburger (Score:2)
Jet fuel is set to skyrocket by August and I don't think jet travel will remain affordable for most of society. Looking at the proportion of the airplane that is Economy Plus, or Economy Plus-Plus, about 5%, I don't think there's enough demand for a tremendous amount of supersonic travel between any two cities besides perhaps NYC and LA, and NYC and Atlanta/Miami
Catering to the rich (Score:2)
This will simply ensure that the lower end of the wealthy class ( those who can't afford their
own private jets ) won't have to fly with the commoners since the pricing for said privilege
will be well beyond commoner means.
Though, someone else stated it earlier in the discussion, I will simply laugh at all the celebrities
who demand everyone -else- conserve energy, save the planet, drive electric, etc, etc. while they
jet about the planet in an aircraft that will consume even more fuel ( while carrying fewer pe
More stress for the peasants (Score:2)
They live to long anyways. Stress via noise is a nice way to fix that.
How does it work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no ocean between New York and Seattle alas.
Poor Name Choice (Score:2)