Originally Posted by
davidj1
Great strides being taken in aviation.
However am I the only one thinking we need to pull back the focus solely on range and start considering speed again? Like the Concorde?
People here and others are horrified at the though of spending 18+ hours in an aircraft non-stop, when they really don't need to if speed was increased.
There is a myriad of other advantages, say if a 15 hour flight was reduced down to less than 10 hours. For example, ROI per aircraft would increase (from running more sectors), less staffing costs per flight, potentially lower catering requirements etc. I don't think fuel burn would decrease unless new tech comes into play.
I think there is always going to be discussion on speed versus non-stop and comfort. Someone from a generation older than me who actually flew Concorde London-New York said that they were not comfortable but that was offset by the ability to get to New York in approx 3 hours. For whatever reason, there does not seem to be as much interest by airlines in investing in aircraft with that type of speed, at least not now. So some have opted for very long distance instead, SQ and QF with their recent PER-LHR. I suppose another factor is price and if airlines don't think there will be premium pax who want to pay for the fares that come with it.
If SQ bought these aircraft, they must have the numbers that will allow for profit on the routes they fly.