Originally Posted by tristan727
But, is that from a technical, or economic & political perspective you're saying that? I'm only curious as to reasons why - I don't think they should re-instate Concorde, but instead use whatever remaining scientific, originality and ingenuity still exists from a period when we use to justly be proud of our lead in those areas, to build a successor. Sadly this seems to be limited to inventing Dysons these days.
Limited market is a problem. Almost all recent aircraft development has been driven by the airlines' desire for lower seat-mile costs. Passengers have generally shown that they will go for the lowest possible cost, no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient, which is why AA is removing MRTC and SouthWest can route people though the middle of nowhere. (Please don't flame me)
In order to make a plausible case for a new SST, you'd need a long overwater flight with a lot of money at both ends. CDG/LHR-JFK apparently wasn't enough, and the only major opportunities I can immediately think of are LAX-NRT/HKG. Perhaps any budding aviation economists can comment?
Finally, I suspect that when another supersonic civil aircraft is finally built, it may be a business jet. IMHO, bizjet economics verge on the barking mad anyway, so this would be the perfect way for CEOs to show off...
