Actually, on my last jetBlue flight, the F/O made a big speech before the flight in which she promised to put the pedal to the metal, and she said something about "bootin' and scootin'", whatever that means. I wish that I had taped the speech.

However, I didn't take her statements literally. I just thought she was a tad nutty.

And after all the bootin' and scootin' we ended up getting diverted with a 5 hour delay on the ground.

I often find the last QF domestic flight of the day is a good 10 minutes quicker (on a 50 minute flight) to 15 minutes quicker (on a 80 minute flight) than the rest. Most of this extra time is gained while in the air.

considering it takes 45 minutes to load the darn thing...and 12 to 15 minutes to get off.....are we really that concerned about shaving a few minutes off an 8 hour flight....even less concerned about saving time on a 16 hour epic to sydney. figuring immigration, baggage and getting past the hotel hawkers...i find a few more minutes in the airplane...almost refreshing !!!

when you have time to spare....go by air.

Probably doesn't want to get fired for using too much fuel.

You do the technical staff at Boeing a disservice. Boeing understood exactly what the issues were and that the Sonic Cruiser was a non-runner. It was a creation of the Marketing Department as a spoiler when the A380 was making all the running as the future of long-haul transport, to divert attention away when Boeing had nothing to offer. Now they do.

Indeed. The original 707 with turbojets cruised at a higher speed, and its wing was optimised for it, you will notice it is swept more than is done on current aircraft. A DC8 with turbojets actually broke the sound barrier in a shallow dive. And fastest of all was the Convair 990 (990 km/h cruising speed), but that never worked out properly and sold badly.

Turbofans came along within a year or two of the introduction of these aircraft, and were so much better that most of the original aircraft were re-engined in short order. It must have been costly but even at 1960s fuel prices it was worthwhile.

Fair enough. "Many FT posters got this right before Boeing admitted it publicly" would have been more accurate. Their hoop-la at the time, "look how much faster, no more fuel" ignored how much less fuel would be needed if it wasn't faster - given all the new technology that had been developed since the previous generation of aircraft. As you say, this was marketing talking, not the tech folks - who are good, but who can only design what they're told to.