Why hasn't air travel got any faster?
Discussion
-The cost of car ownership has gone up, the cost of flying has gone down (from a passenger perspective)
-Not enough people would pay the premium to make it worth the 4 hour flight taking 3 hours.
-Your plane probably quite happily does it in 3 hours but they fly slow to reduce the fuel costs.
-Not enough people would pay the premium to make it worth the 4 hour flight taking 3 hours.
-Your plane probably quite happily does it in 3 hours but they fly slow to reduce the fuel costs.
It did, but then it didn't need to get any faster.
Concord would be an obvious example. Sure, you can spend £10,00 to get to New York in 3 hours if you really need to, but you'll be stuck in a small cramped seat.
Or for also £10,000 you can take 8 hours to get there but in ultimate luxury
Concord would be an obvious example. Sure, you can spend £10,00 to get to New York in 3 hours if you really need to, but you'll be stuck in a small cramped seat.
Or for also £10,000 you can take 8 hours to get there but in ultimate luxury
Aerodynamics is the main reason, faster speeds have obviously been tried but the engineering, aerodynamics and fuel considerations are an order of magnitude more complex and expensive than subsonic travel, unless someone bumps the speed of sound up cant see that changing.
The manufacturers and airlines have concentrated on improving subsonic travel, in terms of comfort, safety and efficiency, and most planes have become variations on the two engines slung under the low wing template as that is what works best, the innovation is still there but you dont see it in wacky configurations, more now in materials, weight saving, comfort and systems.
It still amazes me I can get to the Canary Islands in four hours from Manchester, whilst having a drink and watching a film for £250 or so.
Concorde was an utterly amazing folly really, glad it was made and it advanced the technology a lot, it was an answer to the question of supersonic travel but aside from Joan Collins nobody was really that bothered, better twice the time in more comfort, just get an earlier flight !
The manufacturers and airlines have concentrated on improving subsonic travel, in terms of comfort, safety and efficiency, and most planes have become variations on the two engines slung under the low wing template as that is what works best, the innovation is still there but you dont see it in wacky configurations, more now in materials, weight saving, comfort and systems.
It still amazes me I can get to the Canary Islands in four hours from Manchester, whilst having a drink and watching a film for £250 or so.
Concorde was an utterly amazing folly really, glad it was made and it advanced the technology a lot, it was an answer to the question of supersonic travel but aside from Joan Collins nobody was really that bothered, better twice the time in more comfort, just get an earlier flight !
Shakermaker said:
It did, but then it didn't need to get any faster.
Concord would be an obvious example. Sure, you can spend £10,00 to get to New York in 3 hours if you really need to, but you'll be stuck in a small cramped seat.
Or for also £10,000 you can take 8 hours to get there but in ultimate luxury
But if yu choose to go by boat, you can get to New York in luxury bu it can take seven daysConcord would be an obvious example. Sure, you can spend £10,00 to get to New York in 3 hours if you really need to, but you'll be stuck in a small cramped seat.
Or for also £10,000 you can take 8 hours to get there but in ultimate luxury
Because it became 'fast enough' in the early jet age, and ever since then customers have voted with their pockets to put cheapness over speed.
Even disregarding Concordes, airliners operate at slower cruise speeds now than before the 70s oil shock, to reduce fuel burn alongside more efficient engine and aerodynamic design which also contribute to economy. But commercial air fares are vastly cheaper in real terms. And given the choice almost everyone wants it cheap rather than slightly faster and twice the cost..
Even disregarding Concordes, airliners operate at slower cruise speeds now than before the 70s oil shock, to reduce fuel burn alongside more efficient engine and aerodynamic design which also contribute to economy. But commercial air fares are vastly cheaper in real terms. And given the choice almost everyone wants it cheap rather than slightly faster and twice the cost..
Edited by Lowtimer on Thursday 12th October 17:01
AJB88 said:
MDMetal said:
(from a passenger perspective)
I wouldn't say it has, just that now we now pay extra for stuff that used to be "included" Investment is in lowering the cost of the flight, reducing weight and inefficiencies, using economies of scales to make planes cheaper etc, there's no market for a marginally faster plane.
Depends how you view it but airlines and many people won't pay for something to go faster or get them there quicker now.
Regarding the planes themselves I cannot think of a passenger jet that is set to match Concorde, airlines in the drive for discount have had to reduce "comfort" and enhance efficiency.
Airbus A380 - Amazing investment, airports that needed adjustment to accept it. Unfortunately for Airbus the dream is not really working out that well with minimal ongoing orders (to the extent that Qatar Airways deal could decide the A380's fate). It seems strange but I think the size issue of the A380 massively restricts its ability and the cost for many airlines is prohibitive.
Airbus obviously has not been helped by some recent launches either.
Boeing - Seem more obsessed with getting the US Federal Government to impose import duties on Bombardier currently....than planes.
Regarding the planes themselves I cannot think of a passenger jet that is set to match Concorde, airlines in the drive for discount have had to reduce "comfort" and enhance efficiency.
Airbus A380 - Amazing investment, airports that needed adjustment to accept it. Unfortunately for Airbus the dream is not really working out that well with minimal ongoing orders (to the extent that Qatar Airways deal could decide the A380's fate). It seems strange but I think the size issue of the A380 massively restricts its ability and the cost for many airlines is prohibitive.
Airbus obviously has not been helped by some recent launches either.
Boeing - Seem more obsessed with getting the US Federal Government to impose import duties on Bombardier currently....than planes.
A B737-800 cruising with a full load of passengers from London to Tenerife at FL370 with be cruising around Mach .77-.78. The available speed range is in the region of Mach .75 to Mach .81, without getting too close to the low-speed buffer or high-speed buffer of Mach .82. In reality, due to airways capacity controllers will request that aircraft all fly either slower than a specific Mach number, an exact Mach number or any speed greater than a specific Mach number. Due to slight variances in speeds on different types (we're talking 0.01 Mach in "cruise economy") everyone will be sitting around Mach .77 to Mach .79.
If you took two aircraft on identical days and flew one route at M.77 and the other at M.78, the difference in flight time would be about 10 minutes over the course of a standard, non NATS HLA, European routing from London to Tenerife. This is governed partly by ATC but mainly aerodynamics, which haven't changed much since the earlier 90's.
Now if they brought Concorde back it would be a different story, but nowadays with a majority of aircraft across Europe in either A320 family aircraft or B737 family aircraft, flight times aren't going to change much.
If you took two aircraft on identical days and flew one route at M.77 and the other at M.78, the difference in flight time would be about 10 minutes over the course of a standard, non NATS HLA, European routing from London to Tenerife. This is governed partly by ATC but mainly aerodynamics, which haven't changed much since the earlier 90's.
Now if they brought Concorde back it would be a different story, but nowadays with a majority of aircraft across Europe in either A320 family aircraft or B737 family aircraft, flight times aren't going to change much.
Ninja59 said:
Depends how you view it but airlines and many people won't pay for something to go faster or get them there quicker now.
Regarding the planes themselves I cannot think of a passenger jet that is set to match Concorde, airlines in the drive for discount have had to reduce "comfort" and enhance efficiency.
Airbus A380 - Amazing investment, airports that needed adjustment to accept it. Unfortunately for Airbus the dream is not really working out that well with minimal ongoing orders (to the extent that Qatar Airways deal could decide the A380's fate). It seems strange but I think the size issue of the A380 massively restricts its ability and the cost for many airlines is prohibitive.
Airbus obviously has not been helped by some recent launches either.
Boeing - Seem more obsessed with getting the US Federal Government to impose import duties on Bombardier currently....than planes.
Having my first A380 flight I preferred it to the dream-liner, the dream-liner has some neat tech but the A380 is so big the turbulence just seemed like a small wave it was noticeably different to fly in due to it's size but yes it needs some modifications to make best use of and works best on high capacity routesRegarding the planes themselves I cannot think of a passenger jet that is set to match Concorde, airlines in the drive for discount have had to reduce "comfort" and enhance efficiency.
Airbus A380 - Amazing investment, airports that needed adjustment to accept it. Unfortunately for Airbus the dream is not really working out that well with minimal ongoing orders (to the extent that Qatar Airways deal could decide the A380's fate). It seems strange but I think the size issue of the A380 massively restricts its ability and the cost for many airlines is prohibitive.
Airbus obviously has not been helped by some recent launches either.
Boeing - Seem more obsessed with getting the US Federal Government to impose import duties on Bombardier currently....than planes.
MDMetal said:
-The cost of car ownership has gone up, the cost of flying has gone down (from a passenger perspective)
-Not enough people would pay the premium to make it worth the 4 hour flight taking 3 hours.
-Your plane probably quite happily does it in 3 hours but they fly slow to reduce the fuel costs.
Flying a 4 hour journey in 3 hours isn't just a case of putting your foot down. An aircraft that is designed to cruise at ~ M0.8 will not happily cruise at > M1.0!-Not enough people would pay the premium to make it worth the 4 hour flight taking 3 hours.
-Your plane probably quite happily does it in 3 hours but they fly slow to reduce the fuel costs.
A 4 hour flight isn't a 4 hour flight though? Drive to the airport, allow time to park, 3 hour check in, then once on the plane it's at the mercy of ATC and making the slot, then disembark, await luggage and you could still be a hour or 3 away from your destination by car/coach/train.
gord115 said:
We've just got back from Tenerife, the flight took 4 hours.
When I last went in 2002 and before that in 1992 the flight also took 4 hours.
In 1992 my 205 gti had 130bhp. My golf r has 300 bhp.
Why have cars got so much faster but other modes of transport haven't?
And yet driving from Cardiff to Coventry used to take me 90 minutes in my 1.9D Clio in 1999 and takes me at least150 minutes now no matter how much power my car has.When I last went in 2002 and before that in 1992 the flight also took 4 hours.
In 1992 my 205 gti had 130bhp. My golf r has 300 bhp.
Why have cars got so much faster but other modes of transport haven't?
Jet engines actually generate a s
tload more peak thrust now, make a lot less noise, and are considerably more efficient. Sadly for tourists squashed into planes like sardines the actual cruising speed is a factor of aerodynamics, and as others have stated once you go supersonic things get a lot more complicated, expensive, inefficient, and noisy.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff