[donalhunt]

"the average supersonic flight time on the transatlantic routes was just under 3.5 hours." (NYC -> Paris)

Flying subsonic requires you to be at the airport 60-90mins before the flight too (though i know some airports have that as low as 45mins).

Still a considerable reduction to the "in the air" time.

[ghaff]

When the Concorde was flying, my dad was flying first class from JFK to Europe on a regular basis. He told me that at one point he got upgraded to a Concorde flight which was normally something like a 30% premium over first class at a time when tickets tended to cost more than today. (So probably something equivalent to maybe a $10K ticket today.)

He told me that it was a cool experience once. But now, rather than having a relaxed first class meal on an overnight flight [EDITED: He may have taken daytime flights], he was getting into London in the middle of rush hour. He could probably have flown the Concorde had he wanted to but didn't have any real interest in taking it again.

And, today, with modern lie-flat business class and entertainment systems, there's even less reason to fly supersonic IMO, unless you're a CEO, lawyer, investment banker etc. flying from NY to London to have lunch with someone, seal some deal, and be back home for dinner.

[fragmede]

> And, today, with modern lie-flat business class and entertainment systems,

AND teleconferencing. Having a team, and not just CEO/lawyer/ibanker/etc, in NY working with a team in London is far easier today, compared to before the era of cheap video conferencing. Still too far from the real thing, but jetting over to the Atlantic for a quick conversation to clear something up, and coming right back isn't as necessary as it once was.

[ghaff]

And also presumably handling physical documents and such.

Coming out of the current situation I certainly hope that travel gets back to some semblance of normal. But I do expect that we'll probably collectively decide that some of the in-person ritual can be cut back on.

[chiph]

Dad got to fly it once too. Air France was about to go on strike at any moment and the agent at CDG looked at the clock, looked at dad, looked back at the clock, and changed the ticket to Concorde.

He said it was an amazing experience. But he'd never pay for a ticket himself, and the company was pretty tight with expense money, so they weren't going to do it either.

[mpclark]

I remember people flying out to NY on Concorde from the UK (left at about 11am?), getting in almost a whole day of business, and then flying back 'slowly' on a 747 overnight. Was still expensive though!

[jjk166]

The same argument would suggest that spacious and luxurious ocean liners would be much preferable to flying across the ocean in a cramped tube. Sure flying is a cool experience but unless you're a CEO, lawyer, investment banker, etc do you really need to be in London by tomorrow morning?

[twic]

If you only have a week of leave to take, going from Paris to New York by liner means you'd need to arrive and immediately hop on a ship back. If you're quick, you might just have time to get a bagel with schmear and almost run over.

To me, there's a significant difference between a trip where you can get up at home early in the morning but get to bed in your hotel late the same evening, and one that is even a few hours longer. There is a much less significant difference between that and one a few hours shorter - if i arrive in the early evening, i'm still not going to do much with the day. The next significant difference is when a trip is short enough to do the outbound and return legs in one day, and still have a useful stay. Concorde wasn't quite fast enough to that.

[mastax]

If ocean liners cost significantly less than flight and only took twice as long I think they would be quite popular indeed. However the real trade-off is not comparable to Concorde.

[jjk166]

Ocean liners did cost significantly less than airliners in the beginning. A transatlantic ocean liner ticket in 1950 cost about $1200 in 2020 dollars while a one way flight to europe in 1950 cost around $3000 2020 dollars.

Taking a 5 day longer trip to save $1800 is equivalent to getting paid $360 per day. If your salary is less than $90,000 per year, you'd be better off taking the ocean liner.

[ghaff]

And in the 1950s--at least before the very end of the decade--you're talking prop planes likely with fueling stops in Gander and/or Shannon. So transatlantic air travel was probably not the most comfortable experience.

[trhway]

well, people in Russia do take long train rides like even from Moscow to Vladivostok - 7 days - instead of air. And 2-3 days train rides are nothing exceptional. When you have more time than money...

[vaccarium]

We generally don't, most of the passengers on these trains only go part of the route. Train trips taking 2-3 days (like Moscow to Urals) used to be more common, but flying has become cheaper years ago.

[gambiting]

I think it's the opposite. If I'm a regular "grunt" employee being sent to say Canada for a conference, you can be 10000% certain I will refuse to go if it involves spending weeks on a ship somewhere. I have a family and life outside of work, having to take two 8-hour long flights just to be somewhere for work is hardly acceptable as it is. I'd be far more keen to go if the travel time didn't require adding another day on each side of the trip.

[Symbiote]

In some countries, the law or standard practise is to pay or give time off in lieu of pay for travelling. An 8 hour weekend flight means a day off when you're back.

My previous contract had these terms, although I rarely claimed all the time off to which I was entitled. It seemed a bit ridiculous when I'd already bent the travel rules as far as they could go, in order to take a holiday abroad after most trips.

https://www.peninsulagrouplimited.com/guides/travelling-for-...

[ghaff]

In the US, for better or worse, this sort of thing is usually pretty much agreed to informally with one's manager for salaried (exempt) employees. Formal contractual agreements are probably much more a Europe thing. To be honest, I've always been fine. I've taken time off around business trips and I've taken what time off in the system that's seemed reasonable. I've admittedly rarely been in a system where time-tracking was formal because of client billing--and even in that case I was still salaried so it didn't matter.

[ghaff]

There's a big difference between saving a few hours and saving a few days. The ship will likely also be quite a bit more money and have a very limited set of departures. And somehow I doubt very many companies are going to give you that time off and pay for your trans-Atlantic trip on the Queen Mary 2. I doubt most companies would be big on you taking a trans-continental train trip in the US for business either. (Though I've taken overnight trains in Europe.)

[jjk166]

The queen mary 2 is expensive today because it is nothing but a luxury tourist trip. Back in 1950 when there was serious ocean liner travel, an ocean liner ticket was much less than a transatlantic flight. Trains were also substantially cheaper. It is only absurd today to travel long range by ship or by train because people overwhelmingly paid a premium for faster travel to the point that the market for the other methods collapsed.

[ghaff]

I suspect that it's mostly that air travel has gotten a lot cheaper relative to other modes of travel. It's true that you can't really travel "in the back of the bus" in an ocean liner any longer but I doubt if roughly equivalent first class tickets and dining are all that more expensive today. (Although I haven't done the calculations.)

[jjk166]

Even today, when there is essentially no utilitarian travel by ocean liner, a transatlantic crossing in a balcony room on the QM2 is $800. An economy flight from new york to paris on Air France is $849. First class is $9,262.

[mikepurvis]

> quite a bit more money

You can get a taste of this when you look at the cost of long distance rail— for example, a trip like The Canadian (four days in total), which VIA understandably sells as a cruise ship type experience rather than practical travel:

https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/ro...

Obviously some of the cost difference is just the massive economy of scale enjoyed by airlines, but at the end of the day there are certain fixed costs associated with being in their care for such a long period of time. Even with a cheap ticket where you don't get a sleeper bed and have to buy/pack your own food, they still have to staff the train that whole time.

[ghaff]

The last time I needed to go to Chicago (from Boston), just for kicks I looked at taking a sleeper train. There was really no way I could justify either the time or the money for a business trip.

I did take the overnight from London to Edinburgh a year or two ago. It was actually pretty convenient but it still almost certainly cost more than flying.

[LyndsySimon]

> somehow I doubt very many companies are going to give you that time off and pay for your trans-Atlantic trip on the Queen Mary 2.

Honestly, I'd guess that depends on your job function, whether you can work effectively remotely, and the cost of the ticket.

As a remote employee, I can totally see justifying it to my employer. It wouldn't be typical, but if it costs about the same and the trip there and back would involve me getting as much or more done than I normally would... I'd definitely pitch the idea, and don't see any reason why it would be out of the question.

In fact, I'm making a mental note to investigate the cost when/if I need to attend a conference or something in Europe.

[ghaff]

Of course, who knows if the option will even exist any longer. Costs cover quite a range but they're probably more than a business class ticket and there are relatively few straight ocean crossings (vs. longer cruises).

[Scoundreller]

On the eastward leg, I guess it’s a difference of sleeping on a lie-flat seat vs. sleeping at home (unless you get one of the few daytime flights).

But if you arrive in the morning in London, isn’t that rush-hour too?

[ghaff]

Possibly. This was a long time ago and I have no idea what specific flights he tended to take. Maybe it was a daytime flight. (When I'm going to London these days, I tend to take a daytime flight if possible even though it means getting up at some truly god-awful hour in the morning. I'm too old to take red-eyes unless I have absolutely no choice. And then I try to upgrade.)

[harha]

Boarding closes somewhere between 30-15mins before the flight, if you travel without luggage I’m pretty sure it should be possible to be at the airport around 45 mins before the flight and still make it, especially in an all business class configuration with fast track.

On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York).

I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable.

[LyndsySimon]

> Boarding closes somewhere between 30-15mins before the flight, if you travel without luggage I’m pretty sure it should be possible to be at the airport around 45 mins before the flight and still make it, especially in an all business class configuration with fast track.

Given the cost premium associated with the Concorde, I seriously doubt if it were flying today passengers would be going through the "regular" TSA lines. The airline would certainly pay for a separate line just for SST passengers with a much shorter delay, and would likely shorten the time between ending boarding and being in the air as much as possible.

Most travelers on an SST wouldn't have checked baggage - the whole point is to get there and back as quickly as possible, after all. It really should be a matter of "arrive, go directly through security, board, and depart".

Regional airlines have much this type of experience today. I can fly from my home town of Harrison, AR to Memphis, TN on Southern Airways for $98 round trip. That's departing Sunday evening and returning Wednesday afternoon. There is no TSA in HRO, and that airline has its own terminal that bypasses TSA in MEM. You can easily arrive ten or fifteen minutes before your flight boards, with checked baggage, and comfortably make it. This is something of a special case - FedEx corporate is in Memphis and Harrison is the general office for one of its subsidiaries, FedEx Freight, so there is probably enough business travel to keep daily service profitable. I believe FedEx also keeps a small number of company cars at the Memphis terminal for employee use. For the airline, Harrison is one of two fuel stops between Dallas and Memphis, so any business they're able to pick up is gravy. It also means that a single person can fly from my small town to Dallas and back on short notice for about the same cost as driving.

Given that domestic regional airlines can offer such fast service today, I don't see why a well-funded premium international route couldn't do the same. It just doesn't make sense to when travel time isn't the selling point.

> On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York).

My last international flight was from Virginia to Montreal, and customs on both legs was relatively painless. A previous flight on that route had my group pulled aside going into Canada by customs due to some confusion over the boxes of conference swag we had with us, but even that only took fifteen minutes or so to work out. We shipped it next time.

> I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable.

Yep - while the change in business culture was likely the biggest reason for the demise of transatlantic SST service, the fact that time in the air is just not a big part of overall time spent traveling for most people is why they couldn't shift their market focus.

[dmurray]

How does HRO have no TSA?

I flew out of Merced airport a few years ago, on one of four half-full 20-seater flights departing that day. There was one airport or airline employee, who checked me in, took my luggage and then went outside to refuel the plane. For that complement there were six TSA agents in perfectly pressed blue shirts - and I expect six more on the other shift.

[LyndsySimon]

Beats me. It’s been a couple of years since I flew from there, but they had a “secure area” and a metal detector, but no one was ever manning it.

In fact, the first time I flew from there to Memphis, I checked a handgun in my luggage. They asked me if it was unloaded, put the little slip in the case... and handed it back to me. I handed it off to an employee for stowage when we boarded - but “stowage” in this case means “behind a cargo net at the rear of the plane, accessible from the cabin.

I may stop by there tomorrow just out of curiosity, to see if anything has changed. I seriously doubt it has; it’s still the same airline. They’re tiny planes - I want to say 12 passengers or so.