The future of Long Haul - Opinions?.

[MrMango 671]

Dang, can't find it now. I saw a link about a NASA fixed wing supersonic that may be in the future for air travel.

I saw it too a few days ago.

 

They have a design that will mitigate the "boom" with something much less offensive, and have been testing it in wind tunnels now.

[MrMango 671]

Perhaps it had to do with the path it took. I certainly heard it whe I was in the Corporate office in Orlando. (We were looking out for it) But it was a pretty rare event. My landings at JFK all seemed to be over the sea, but perhaps a take-off would disturb the rich on Long Island. The point was, Concorde was blocked for 3 years while UK authorities had to go through the courts and the only route where it could make the big bucks (LHR-JFK, ferrying Sting and other rock stars in a hurry) denied to it. Yet ultimately it was accepted with little concession. A false impression perhaps but from the other side of the pond it looked like sour grapes were involved. It was always 'rumoured' the Americans stole the design technology that got around the sonic boom problem some years previously. Oh the old tomahto, tomato arguments.

Actually it was not the Feds who blocked it, but the owners who owned JFK who insisted that they and all others, follow the law with noise suppression, and it was published years in advance.

 

 

And now you seem to agree with me that the only route that made sense was London paris - JFK?

 

Who would say that a multi billion US$ development for only one route makes a great bird?

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

Actually it was not the Feds who blocked it, but the owners who owned JFK who insisted that they and all others, follow the law with noise suppression, and it was published years in advance.

 

 

And now you seem to agree with me that the only route that made sense was London paris - JFK?

 

Who would say that a multi billion US$ development for only one route makes a great bird?

 

As you showed in your last two responses, the problem with supersonic airplanes was environmental (noise), hence it restricted routes, hence there was no market for further development.

 

Thanks for the added info on the NASA design.

[jacko 8,815]

Actually it was not the Feds who blocked it, but the owners who owned JFK who insisted that they and all others, follow the law with noise suppression, and it was published years in advance.

 

 

And now you seem to agree with me that the only route that made sense was London paris - JFK?

 

Who would say that a multi billion US$ development for only one route makes a great bird?

I don't recall I disagreed. I said LHR-JFK was the most lucrative route, perhaps LHR-LA too but I don't think Concorde had the legs and also would have had to go subsonic over the USA.

Yeah, not commercial sense to design an aircraft for only one route, be it LHR-JFK or Cape Canaveral to Cape Canaveral.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

I don't recall I disagreed. I said LHR-JFK was the most lucrative route, perhaps LHR-LA too but I don't think Concorde had the legs and also would have had to go subsonic over the USA.

Yeah, not commercial sense to design an aircraft for only one route, be it LHR-JFK or Cape Canaveral to Cape Canaveral.

 

But there was a huge roadblock. Worldwide, there is no standard for how loud a supersonic boom can be. Overland supersonic flight is banned in the United States and Europe, and if that can’t be changed, a supersonic commercial airplane is an economic non-starter.

 

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Search-for-Quiet-SST-180952125/#iKIvidFriDHVuZzM.99

[MrMango 671]

I don't recall I disagreed. I said LHR-JFK was the most lucrative route, perhaps LHR-LA too but I don't think Concorde had the legs and also would have had to go subsonic over the USA.

Yeah, not commercial sense to design an aircraft for only one route, be it LHR-JFK or Cape Canaveral to Cape Canaveral.

Ok, but in hindsight, London, Paris to JFK and Washington DC, were the ONLY route that ever made economic sense.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

Ok, but in hindsight, London, Paris to JFK and Washington DC, were the ONLY route that ever made economic sense.

 

Only because of the restrictions I pointed out.

 

I remember back in the day there was this concern that sonic booms would keep cows from producing milk.

 

In Europe, Germany to be precise, in 1984. Military jets all over. None of those broke the sound barrier? Was there a shortage of cow's milk in Germany during the Cold War?

 

These jets fly at such altitude that by the time the sound reaches the ground it is not that loud. Yes you can hear it but that high up it just makes you turn to look. Sure, if there were hundreds of flights a day, perhaps there would be a reason to complain but a few flights a day? Really? This is the problem? A few flights a day? Especially if people pay extra for the extra speed?

 

Nobody bitched when the space shuttles broke the sound barrier. I did not hear of one reasonable environmentalist that thought it was a problem.

 

NASA has a big political hurdle to overcome.

 

Perhaps nowadays Asia is open too. Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Korea..... Oh, might disturb some whales.

 

Cows were unaffected.

[MrMango 671]

 

Only because of the restrictions I pointed out.

 

I remember back in the day there was this concern that sonic booms would keep cows from producing milk.

 

In Europe, Germany to be precise, in 1984. Military jets all over. None of those broke the sound barrier? Was there a shortage of cow's milk in Germany during the Cold War?

 

These jets fly at such altitude that by the time the sound reaches the ground it is not that loud. Yes you can hear it but that high up it just makes you turn to look. Sure, if there were hundreds of flights a day, perhaps there would be a reason to complain but a few flights a day? Really? This is the problem? A few flights a day? Especially if people pay extra for the extra speed?

 

Nobody bitched when the space shuttles broke the sound barrier. I did not hear of one reasonable environmentalist that thought it was a problem.

 

NASA has a big political hurdle to overcome.

 

Perhaps nowadays Asia is open too. Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Korea..... Oh, might disturb some whales.

 

Cows were unaffected.

The so called "noise restrictions" were generic, and it forced an entire class of ships to not fly in the US.

 

The restrictions were far more than the sonic boom.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

The so called "noise restrictions" were generic, and it forced an entire class of ships to not fly in the US.

 

The restrictions were far more than the sonic boom.

 

Go back to what I posted earlier. Supersonic travel is restricted over the USA and Europe.Has been for decades.

 

Try to keep up please.

 

The FAA did this in the 70's. Could change. Trump could change it. Congress could fix it for good.

 

http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/26/how-the-faa-killed-supersonic-flight

 

https://thepointsguy.com/2016/12/supersonic-flights-over-land/

 

"It’s been over 40 years since the Federal Aviation Administration banned supersonic travel over the United States, but that could change if some members of Congress have their way."

[jacko 8,815]

 

Only because of the restrictions I pointed out.

 

I remember back in the day there was this concern that sonic booms would keep cows from producing milk.

 

In Europe, Germany to be precise, in 1984. Military jets all over. None of those broke the sound barrier? Was there a shortage of cow's milk in Germany during the Cold War?

 

These jets fly at such altitude that by the time the sound reaches the ground it is not that loud. Yes you can hear it but that high up it just makes you turn to look. Sure, if there were hundreds of flights a day, perhaps there would be a reason to complain but a few flights a day? Really? This is the problem? A few flights a day? Especially if people pay extra for the extra speed?

 

Nobody bitched when the space shuttles broke the sound barrier. I did not hear of one reasonable environmentalist that thought it was a problem.

 

NASA has a big political hurdle to overcome.

 

Perhaps nowadays Asia is open too. Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Korea..... Oh, might disturb some whales.

 

Cows were unaffected.

Concorde flew at 60,000 ft!

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

Concorde flew at 60,000 ft!

 

Yes, the sonic boom at ground level must have been deafening.

 

[yselmike 393]

Yes, the sonic boom at ground level must have been deafening.

 

The Concorde problem was sub sonic it was outrageously loud on take off,and a lot of noise was produced by the pro and anti brigade.

[Butch 3,456]

The noise restrictions were not applicable just to the sonic boom, I was always under the (possibly mistaken) idea that it only went Supersonic over water. I know that noise restrictions did away with the VC10 as the Conway Engines were too loud for local environments such as LHR, that, and an ageing airframe (also I believe a VC 10 almost hit mach 1 on an occasion and had a high speed cruise of M.094.

 

Anyway, the future of Long Haul won't include supersonic. We need to ask if the investment needed from the manufacturers would be returned, and perhaps until engine and airframe technology gets to a point where creating supersonic capable airliners with a low fuel burn becomes relatively cost effective I don't think we'll see it.

 

Maybe we'll see more long haul direct flights, saving fuel on landing and take off, and the Airlines becoming more flexible according to passenger demand, as we have already seen in some cases, noteably EVA cancelling flights with low numbers to shunt them onto another later service. (Cebu Air are notorious for this as well, internal RP flights getting shunted).

 

Either way I believe the next 5 years will herald some big changes in Long Haul flight as the sector becomes more competitive.

[MrMango 671]

The noise restrictions were not applicable just to the sonic boom, I was always under the (possibly mistaken) idea that it only went Supersonic over water. I know that noise restrictions did away with the VC10 as the Conway Engines were too loud for local environments such as LHR, that, and an ageing airframe (also I believe a VC 10 almost hit mach 1 on an occasion and had a high speed cruise of M.094.

 

Anyway, the future of Long Haul won't include supersonic. We need to ask if the investment needed from the manufacturers would be returned, and perhaps until engine and airframe technology gets to a point where creating supersonic capable airliners with a low fuel burn becomes relatively cost effective I don't think we'll see it.

 

Maybe we'll see more long haul direct flights, saving fuel on landing and take off, and the Airlines becoming more flexible according to passenger demand, as we have already seen in some cases, noteably EVA cancelling flights with low numbers to shunt them onto another later service. (Cebu Air are notorious for this as well, internal RP flights getting shunted).

 

Either way I believe the next 5 years will herald some big changes in Long Haul flight as the sector becomes more competitive.

As I remember, that is against regulations.

[Brown1950 67]

As I remember, that is against regulations.

 

With your knowledge of the aviation industry perhaps you could explain in a little more detail why is it against regulations Airlines cancelling flights (low season)

and consolidating ?

[MrMango 671]

 

With your knowledge of the aviation industry perhaps you could explain in a little more detail why is it against regulations Airlines cancelling flights (low season)

and consolidating ?

I was in the airplane brokerage business and one of my partners was an Americans Airlines pilot and as I remember, there was a regulation that said only certain things could cause cancellations, and low bookings at flight times was not one of them. He had just completed a coast to coast flight with about 10 passengers, so I asked him why didn't they just cancel it, and he stated that they could not do that.

[Brown1950 67]

I was in the airplane brokerage business and one of my partners was an Americans Airlines pilot and as I remember, there was a regulation that said only certain things could cause cancellations, and low bookings at flight times was not one of them. He had just completed a coast to coast flight with about 10 passengers, so I asked him why didn't they just cancel it, and he stated that they could not do that.

Well your reply tells me you have no idea how the airlines operate especially in relation to airline slots.

[MrMango 671]

Well your reply tells me you have no idea how the airlines operate especially in relation to airline slots.

 

My reply was a direct answer to a question, which I answered, and slots had nothing to do with the qeuestion.

Edited August 1, 2017 by MrMango

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

 

My reply was a direct answer to a question, which I answered, and slots had nothing to do with the qeuestion.

 

It was a fair response. You did not pass what you were told off as your own.

 

No shame in not knowing things and offering up what others have told us in response to our trying to learn things.

[4wheels 119]

The noise restrictions were not applicable just to the sonic boom, I was always under the (possibly mistaken) idea that it only went Supersonic over water. I know that noise restrictions did away with the VC10 as the Conway Engines were too loud for local environments such as LHR, that, and an ageing airframe (also I believe a VC 10 almost hit mach 1 on an occasion and had a high speed cruise of M.094.

 

Anyway, the future of Long Haul won't include supersonic. We need to ask if the investment needed from the manufacturers would be returned, and perhaps until engine and airframe technology gets to a point where creating supersonic capable airliners with a low fuel burn becomes relatively cost effective I don't think we'll see it.

 

Maybe we'll see more long haul direct flights, saving fuel on landing and take off, and the Airlines becoming more flexible according to passenger demand, as we have already seen in some cases, noteably EVA cancelling flights with low numbers to shunt them onto another later service. (Cebu Air are notorious for this as well, internal RP flights getting shunted).

 

Either way I believe the next 5 years will herald some big changes in Long Haul flight as the sector becomes more competitive.

 

I can speak with firsthand involvement. With the addition of the Dreamliner and A-350,long haul direct flights as you say will be the norm,bypassing hubs. Long,thin routes are perfect for both aircraft.The current example with Delta is with the arrival of the A-350,and even before,we are bypassing NRT as a hub and flying directly to cities in Asia. That's where our A-350s will fly-the Pacific. Phasing out the few remaining 744s this year with the addition of the new airframes.

[Butch 3,456]

As I remember, that is against regulations.

It might well be, but that still does not stop EVA and others like Cebu Air from doing it. They may do it under the premise of "maintenance" or "failure", either way it happens. as with any industry (and mine is certainly no exception) the regulations can easily be circumvented by way of an excuse, work around or equally feeble reason.

[Brown1950 67]

It might well be, but that still does not stop EVA and others like Cebu Air from doing it. They may do it under the premise of "maintenance" or "failure", either way it happens. as with any industry (and mine is certainly no exception) the regulations can easily be circumvented by way of an excuse, work around or equally feeble reason.

And for some airlines to fly from LHR with empty planes to keep valuable 'slots' !

[MrMango 671]

It might well be, but that still does not stop EVA and others like Cebu Air from doing it. They may do it under the premise of "maintenance" or "failure", either way it happens. as with any industry (and mine is certainly no exception) the regulations can easily be circumvented by way of an excuse, work around or equally feeble reason.

OK they may be able to break the rules, but they will get caught sooner or later.

 

Then they will be repercussions.

 

[4wheels 119]

Another reason for operating a flight at a loss,i.e.,low load factor,is that plane and crew have to operate a return flight or onward flight. Having a crew or plane out of place requires more than just rebooking passengers at the next or onward station.

[Brown1950 67]

Another reason for operating a flight at a loss,i.e.,low load factor,is that plane and crew have to operate a return flight or onward flight. Having a crew or plane out of place requires more than just rebooking passengers at the next or onward station.

Deadheading with flight crew on other airlines ???