If flight times could be halved would that change where you cruise?

[ilikeanswers]

There has been some chatter that supersonic jets may make a comeback so flights that might take 16hrs could end up being 3hrs. I was thinking if that were the case and the prices were reasonable it would change a lot of how I travel. Europe would be a lot closer and the Caribbean which at the moment for me is like a 30hr flight if you included all the time needed to change planes would be much more achievable.

 

Would you change your regular cruising route if you could have shorter flights?

[Heidi13]

Shorter flights will definitely be appreciated, but wouldn't change where we cruise. When long flights are required, we book Business or First and put up with hours in a plane & whatever changes are required.🙂

[chipmaster]

1/2 as long but 3x the price, who would do it, that was what doomed the concord also.

 

Price depends on volume but when you move to faster than speed of sound efficiency and fuel burn go crazy, so even in the booming middle class the number of people that would pay premium first class to travel econ style is limited.  Limited market means low probability, it would be like asking how mainstream can suite only cruise ship be?

[ducklite]

Wouldn't change a thing for us.

 

By the way, I've sat in a Concorde seat.  They had almost no padding and were very narrow--maybe 17".  

Thank goodness the flights were 3-4 hours, because you wouldn't have been able to move to get yourself off the plane had they been much longer.

I'd also say that the cost of those flights was far more than the average person would be willing to pay, and they aren't going to be used from Cleveland to Miami.  

The Concorde catered to business people whose time was money, and whose hourly value was more than the cost of the ticket to their employer.  That is not going to encompass the average cruiser.  There could be a limited market for the luxury lines who include business class air with many of their fares as an upsell.

[ilikeanswers]

31 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

1/2 as long but 3x the price, who would do it, that was what doomed the concord also.

 

Price depends on volume but when you move to faster than speed of sound efficiency and fuel burn go crazy, so even in the booming middle class the number of people that would pay premium first class to travel econ style is limited.  Limited market means low probability, it would be like asking how mainstream can suite only cruise ship be?

 

To be fair there has been a lot of changes to the technology since concord but the question is more about how much of a factor is length of a flght in determning where you travel. I have had converstions with people who say the length of a flight is a factor that prevents them from visiting or returning to certain destinations and I know for myself the length of a flight can be a determining factor. If the price wasn't an issue I would seriously consider a faster option especially for certain destinations that are so far away.

[SantaFeFan]

14 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

To be fair there has been a lot of changes to the technology since concord but the question is more about how much of a factor is length of a flght in determning where you travel. I have had converstions with people who say the length of a flight is a factor that prevents them from visiting or returning to certain destinations and I know for myself the length of a flight can be a determining factor. If the price wasn't an issue I would seriously consider a faster option especially for certain destinations that are so far away.

 

If price was no issue, I think 100% of the travelers would prefer faster options. No one likes sitting in a cramped tube longer than they have to. That is a no-brainer. 😉

 

But to answer your original question, we don't let length of flights determine where we go on vacations. The few hours squeezed in a plane is no comparison to several days enjoying the sights, sounds, tastes and cultural diversity of distant lands. The discomfort is worth it. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by SantaFeFan

[spookwife]

Length of flight determines whether I book coach, business or first class.  Has no other relevance or bearing on anything else

[LoriPhil]

We'd go to New Zealand / Australia if we had zoomie transport.

[DarrenM]

No. It would mean I could sleep in a bit longer before going to the airport.

[Cruiser_1977]

@ilikeanswers I believe you're talking about the news regarding the AS2. That is a business jet (biz jet). It is being planned for London to New York, Dubai or Beijing. The Boeing plan is to run completely on biofuels. The capacity currently is 12 passengers.

Edited September 3, 2019 by JennyB1977

[klfrodo]

14 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

@ilikeanswers I believe you're talking about the news regarding the AS2. That is a business jet (biz jet). It is being planned for London to New York, Dubai or Beijing. The Boeing plan is to run completely on biofuels. The capacity currently is 12 passengers.

 The current Boeing corporate office thinking is that they can reduce liability by limiting the number of passengers when the damn thing nose dives into the ground.

[Zach1213]

3 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

There has been some chatter that supersonic jets may make a comeback so flights that might take 16hrs could end up being 3hrs. I was thinking if that were the case and the prices were reasonable it would change a lot of how I travel. Europe would be a lot closer and the Caribbean which at the moment for me is like a 30hr flight if you included all the time needed to change planes would be much more achievable.

 

Would you change your regular cruising route if you could have shorter flights?

 

Aero engineer here - I know this gets way more in to details than you're looking for, but too bad 😉

 

Since the day after Concorde was retired, there has been chatter about supersonic passenger jets returning. We're nowhere close to it. Two big reasons are the same as always - cost, and noise.

 

The cost of developing and maintaining a Concorde-esque aircraft are high, and the aircraft itself will likely need to be small, like Concorde. Add to that the nearly zero cargo payload a supersonic jet could carry (due to said size) would mean the cost of flying on the jet would, still, be very high and out of the reach of the vast majority of people.

 

Sound is the other main reason - due to the "sonic boom", most places won't let supersonic transport fly over populated areas, which is why most Concorde flights were almost completely over the ocean. Unless we find a way to mitigate this, any future supersonic transport will be again limited to trans-oceanic flights, meaning (for example) it could take longer to get from Los Angeles to New York to GET to that supersonic transport than it would to get from New York to London ON the supersonic transport.

 

I'll sit back and await the unpopularity of my answer 😉

 

 

[marco]

In answer to OP's question...probably not. Years ago we sailed O/W on the QE2 and they had a deal to fly the other way on the Concorde.  If I was paying the price irrelevant of the "deal" Cunard offered,  I'd rather spend 7 hrs in business or 1st on a "regular" plane than 3 on the Concorde. Small cabin, small seats.

[Mike981]

I forgot about the noise issue and had no idea about the cargo issue. That would negate it for many. Oh and if the seats truly are that small, it ain't going to work for me. I would only be able to get one cheek in the seat.

I seem to recall a show about the Concord, was there a race to see who could first accomplish the plane?

[Warm Breezes]

If price wasn't an issue then yes.  Then we might talk about flying to Europe or Australia or Hawaii.  My DH is 6'5 and DS 6'8-flying for more than a few hours is not usually an enjoyable experience for them and I'd rather not pay the cost for First Class tickets.

[Zach1213]

35 minutes ago, Mike981 said:

I forgot about the noise issue and had no idea about the cargo issue. That would negate it for many. Oh and if the seats truly are that small, it ain't going to work for me. I would only be able to get one cheek in the seat.

I seem to recall a show about the Concord, was there a race to see who could first accomplish the plane?

 

Well, cargo isn't an issue for people...but it's an issue for the airline. Many people would be amazed at how much cargo is carried below their feet on any given commercial flight (particulary widebody longhauls). Airlines make a lot of money off of cargo (some routes can be operated with almost no people on board and still make money due to cargo), so for example the Concorde was not only expensive to operate but had nothing other than the passengers to make money on, so that was reason number 414,602 as to why fares were so high.

 

That being said, it's often understood that Concorde itself did nothing but lose money for Air France and BA...but if another supersonic transport did come along and there was any hope of it becoming more than a gimic (that is - more than just a few in a fleet of hundreds of aircraft), it would need to have better economics than the Concorde, both above and below the cabin floor.

[HWH]

Yes!! I'd go to Asia and Australia/New Zealand. Living on the east coast of the USA, I've got no problem with an 8-hour flight to Europe, but I'm not ashamed to admit that the thought of a super-long-haul flight makes me uncomfortable, not to mention the fact that, since I'm still working, it's hard to take a vacation long enough to justify spending 3 or 4 days of it in transit.

[DirtyDawg]

4 hours ago, Zach1213 said:

That being said, it's often understood that Concorde itself did nothing but lose money for Air France and BA...but if another supersonic transport did come along and there was any hope of it becoming more than a gimic (that is - more than just a few in a fleet of hundreds of aircraft), it would need to have better economics than the Concorde, both above and below the cabin floor.

 

I saw a documentary the other day and it was about how BA turned their Concorde service into a large profit centre for the airline. Apparently most of the customers were business flyers who had no idea what the flights cost. When BA ask them what they thought they cost, their estimate was way higher than the original fares that BA was charging. The marketing folks wanted to do a large ad campaign explaining the Concorde's value,  but they ended up deciding just to double - ish the fares to what their customers felt the service was worth. The customer is always right! 😉

 

[davekathy]

Wouldn't change a thing for us. 

[ilikeanswers]

 

58 minutes ago, HWH said:

Yes!! I'd go to Asia and Australia/New Zealand. Living on the east coast of the USA, I've got no problem with an 8-hour flight to Europe, but I'm not ashamed to admit that the thought of a super-long-haul flight makes me uncomfortable, not to mention the fact that, since I'm still working, it's hard to take a vacation long enough to justify spending 3 or 4 days of it in transit.

 I am with you on the time limits. It is the long transit that will probably not see me return to the Caribbean or Scandinavia till much later in life. When you have such limited vacation days everyday really counts at I would rather spend it at a destination then getting to it. 

[sverigecruiser]

13 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Would you change your regular cruising route if you could have shorter flights?

 

I love long flights so no.

[sverigecruiser]

12 hours ago, SantaFeFan said:

No one likes sitting in a cramped tube longer than they have to.

 

 

 

I do. More time to drink Champagne!

[PTMary]

33 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I do. More time to drink Champagne!

 

I prefer to drink my Champagne in a nice restaurant, not on a long plane ride in the same seat for hours and hours. But to each their own. 

[Zach1213]

8 hours ago, PTMary said:

 

I prefer to drink my Champagne in a nice restaurant, not on a long plane ride in the same seat for hours and hours. But to each their own. 

 

[sverigecruiser]

10 hours ago, PTMary said:

 

I prefer to drink my Champagne in a nice restaurant, not on a long plane ride in the same seat for hours and hours. But to each their own. 

 

I like that too!

 

I still think that it's nice to sit in the same seat a long time and watch some movies and drink Champagne!