[pfdietz]

Concorde failed because of the technology. It was hugely expensive and consumed mass amounts of fuel (13x the fuel per passenger of a 747-200). It used 2 tons of fuel just to taxi to the runway for takeoff!

I dispute that airlines were actually interested in a Concorde B. The economic problems of supersonic flight would have remained.

There's a reason Boeing abandoned any pretense of interest in SST after Congress declined to fund it.

[checker]

Yeah I'll take decent in-flight internet connectivity over massive amounts of fuel being consumed to get to the destination faster.

[CapricornNoble]

I'd like the option of supersonic travel for transoceanic voyages. I'm looking at plane tickets back to the East Coast from Japan.... Tokyo to Dallas alone is ~12hrs, total travel time ~24hrs across 3 flights. Flying to the other side of the planet faster would be far more valuable to me than even browsing HN while airborne (I tend to sleep through my flights, no matter how long, anyway).

[pfdietz]

Given that Concorde's maximum range is less than the distance from Tokyo to Dallas, I suspect you'd end up saving little time on that leg with it, as you'd add an extra stop. The rest of your trip sounds like mostly waiting in airports. How does an SST help with that? If anything, the lower traffic on expensive SST flights would tend to make the flights less frequent, increasing those waits. It might end up taking longer.

[rbg246]

I totally agree but at what price point.

I do think supersonic was just priced out of the market. Would you pay twice for the time saving?

[CapricornNoble]

Doubling the price of the peasant seats would be roughly equivalent to the price of business class. If that cut my total travel time in half...yeah, I think I would fork over the money for that.