Exactly. I think my last TATL flight was over 5k euro. I would much rather pay the same or even more to be there in 1/2 the time. If they can get people to pay the ridiculous fares for J and F, they can get them to pay for SST.

Indeed. Look at the number of flatbeds on multiclass widebodies - AF has 89 J and C combined on A380, EK has 90, QF has 86. It would not be technically hard to fill an A380 both decks with 200 or 250 business class flat beds and drop cattle class altogether. No one has done this. 747-s, 777, A340 and other widebodies usually have about 50 J or J and F combined. All-J services with 100 flatbeds are SQ A340 (sometimes struggling) and the 767s of Maxjet and Silverjet (bankrupt). Whereas there is an all-J plane of 32 flatbeds (318).

Now, imagine a SST for 30-50 seats like this:
http://www.apg.jaxa.jp/info/prm/006/01.html

Would it be plausible?

I don't even need a great seat. If you can get me to Europe in 3 hours or Asia in 6, I am willing to have non-flat bed, non-wonderful seats and pay for the saved time. I don't think airlines would operate 32 seat planes (unless people were willing to pay like 50k/seat). I recall and article about development of supersonic private jets. Perhaps there would be a market there to acquire a few of those and sell seats on a per trip basis instead of just fractional ownership.

If there are so many people willing to pay a huge premium to get there in less time, why didn't the Concorde experiment last longer?

I think there are a few people scattered about -- including a couple here -- who would pay a lot more. But probably not enough to make it financially viable.

Very Interesting!

Wow, I think the research group is coming close to finding a potential niche market for the next generation SST. Following some of the other posts, my immediate thoughts is that if an A318 Elite type SST is developed and operating in some of the same markets as subsonic jets, wouldn't that bring down the cost of travel overall by creating competition via speed?

I emphasize again - BA already does (318). The 32 seat 318 is the real replacement of 100 seat Concorde, not 100 seat 767s of Max-and Silverjet.
Or indeed design a plane like the JAXA proposal. The cabin width of 239 cm (narrower than Concorde or CRJ, wider than ERJ) would not accommodate 4 abreast, but would be slightly better than coach for 3 abreast. The size is wider than Gulfstream 550 and narrower than Dassault Falcon 900, so it can accommodate comfortable interior for the private jets as well. So a single airframe can fit both tasks decently, depending on the interior installed.

Well, LH uses PrivateAir to operate 48 pax 737-700s between MUC, DUS to JFK and IAD. NH uses 48 pax 737-700s on their ANA Business Jet between NRT and Mumbai. There are definite markets out there which are contract or mainline operated in mainline equip. trying to simulate private jet attributes. This is a very interesting discussion.

Going back into history again, when BA and AF operated Concordes, they were also operating 747s in the same markets. There were FC fares offered on the 747s that were lower than the Concorde fares. Am I right?

read that when the dash 8's are used instead of some 550mph jet, there is usually no need to change the schedule because they can use alternate runways most of the time, and the 100 or so mph slower makes no difference.

on a longer run note, iad-lhr, we usually get hung up for at least 30 min at each end, and sometimes for an hour. i presume the concords got special clearance, but that would get old fast if 30% of the flights were clearance specials.

i am amazed at the number of people who claim they would not mind spending 20-30 grand to get there 3-4 hrs faster. are all these people spending their own money? or daddy's money, or is it company money. i do not have a quarter mil to cut my 10 trips down by a total of 40 hrs.

Actually, I'm asking a different question in my previous post in relationship to history. BA and AF charged lower fares for premium service on subsonic flights compared to Concorde flights serving the same travel markets back in the day. Your comparison between Dash 8 service and RJ/other service in the Northeast Corridor is a different kind of travel market.

In a previous post, a next generation SST having qualities like the BA A318 Elite, would provide direct competition in those travel markets, thus potentially bringing down the overall cost of travel, or at least, F and C class travel in those markets. The objective of that is to have more premium service available to more customers at a lower price by creating competition via speed and matching that to capacity in corridors that can support multiple premium services.

I would be interested in seeing some market research for this. Or at least an FT poll :D

e.g., How much of a premium would you pay to fly A to B in half the time?

0%
25%
50%
75%
100%+

Concorde competed against this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pECy...eature=related
I could not find any images of BOAC 747 first class.

Doesn't fit the business profile of the airlines...they are after seat sales and capacity, not speed or even comfort. Look at the 757!

They are building them for revenue, not speed.

I would even suggest that most aircraft are SLOWER now than they were 25 years ago. Mid/short aircraft especially..I think the 727 and MD series were faster than many of the airbuses and 737s used today.

Great topic. It's a question I've been asking myself. When I was 6, it took 13 hours to travel from Japan to New York. 15 years later, it still takes 13 hours. Same cramped seat.

Plus, one has to factor in the airport side of the issue.

I doubt an airport will spend millions in lengthening runways or any politician to deal with hazardous noise conditions within their constituents, especially with those airports within a populous metropolitan area.

Plus, a lot of the widebodies also act as freight carriers, not just passengers. I don't think air carriers care about how faster it gets there when you can't load up anything :D

What posts #32 and #36 are referring to is the research being done to develop a next generation SST that will address all of the environmental concerns you're raising that the Concorde and 60s SST technology could not address back in the day.

Regarding widebodies acting as freighters, that's true only to an extent. The A380 will be better off as a passenger jet rather than a freighter because it's tougher to load its upper deck with cargo. The cargo operators have all canceled their orders, only passenger versions are being produced.

Having said that, will we see A318 size SSTs operating with Very Large Aircraft on the same corridors marketed specifically for these planes? Further research will be quite revealing.