Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Other Air Travel including Private & Non-Airline Aviation
Reload this Page >

Why nobody builds commercial airships?

Register
Community
Wiki Posts
Today's Posts
Search

Why nobody builds commercial airships?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 17, 2016, 6:46 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 8
Post Why nobody builds commercial airships?
...or do they?

My point is, what happened to Hindenburg was certainly tragic. But it happened a long time ago. And modern airships don't use hydrogen anyway or anything combustible, well, other than fuel. Are they less safe than airplanes because of something else? Or is it just people in general being conservative and distrusting, which makes commercial airships cost-prohibitive?
Kupris is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2016, 6:58 am
  #2  
nux
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: BA Gold, QF WP
Posts: 12,551
For passenger service, two main reasons would be speed and weather.
nux is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2016, 7:39 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA Gold. UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt (Lifetime Diamond downgraded to Explorist)
Posts: 6,776
Nux said it. Airships are much slower and much more easily affected by weather. I've been in one recently and it's an awesome ride. There is a review in the trip reports sections of FT that documents a ride in I believe Switzerland. It's a great way to travel if you have the time, flexibility & money.

Helicopters are great too but they're pricy and highly affected by weather. I used miles years ago to book a helicopter flight from Manhattan to EWR during a really cheap promotion. The day came for my ride and because of high winds & low cloud cover they canceled and sent me a car service instead. I did fight and got most of my miles back too since 175$ service isn't quite comparable to a 60$ service.
Yoshi212 is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2016, 7:43 am
  #4  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Paris, France
Programs: Over-entitled UA 1PMM; JetSmarter; HHonors Gold
Posts: 9,723
There was just an interesting article on TechRadar about airships.

But airships are back. No longer a steampunk fantasy, there are advanced plans to fill the skies with helium-filled lighter-than-air machines for travel, cargo and even as emergency mobile phone masts.
oenophilist is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2016, 12:56 am
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Yoshi212
Nux said it. Airships are much slower and much more easily affected by weather. I've been in one recently and it's an awesome ride.
Well, that makes sense. Although it seems to be more of a time-consuming flight than fuel-consuming, much unlike helicopters. It's expensive for those to even hover in the air I guess.
Kupris is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2016, 7:59 pm
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: IAD/DCA
Posts: 31,797
something i recalled >
http://www.seymourpowell.com/casestu...cruise-concept (concept)

interesting they also did >
http://www.seymourpowell.com/casestudy/first-spaces (concept)
http://www.seymourpowell.com/casestudy/bell-helicopter (client contract)
Last edited by Kagehitokiri; Jul 20, 2016 at 8:05 am
Kagehitokiri is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2016, 10:48 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 8
It's just a concept though, isn't it?
Kupris is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2016, 9:00 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Yok, NY
Programs: DL PM, SPG Plat, Amex Plat, CSP. FAA Rotorcraft PPL
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by Kupris
Well, that makes sense. Although it seems to be more of a time-consuming flight than fuel-consuming, much unlike helicopters. It's expensive for those to even hover in the air I guess.
Hovering is the most expensive part! Requires more power than forward flight.
salanki is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2016, 10:30 pm
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by salanki
Hovering is the most expensive part! Requires more power than forward flight.
Figures. Good to know, I think.
Kupris is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2016, 11:18 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,338
Another albeit small difference... Helium has less lifting power.
trooper is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2016, 11:51 pm
  #11  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by trooper
Another albeit small difference... Helium has less lifting power.
Compared to hydrogen?
Kupris is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2016, 12:17 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,338
That is my understanding.

(I couldn't just say YES... messages that short aren't allowed! lol)
trooper is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2016, 1:02 am
  #13  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 8
Well, true, but helium isn't flammable. Which is a good thing.
Kupris is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2016, 9:00 am
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: IAD/DCA
Posts: 31,797
Originally Posted by trooper
That is my understanding.

(I couldn't just say YES... messages that short aren't allowed! lol)
5 character minimum, so "yes.." (or "no...")
Kagehitokiri is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2016, 10:30 am
  #15  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 8
Why would such a quota even exist?
Kupris is offline  
Reply



Advanced Search
Reply Closed Thread Share
Forum Jump

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.