The Concorde took less than 3½ hours and seated a maximum of 128 passengers.
“55 -seat passenger plane that it says will halve flight times and will be faster...”
55 seats is a problem, unless you charge $10k per seat.
5.56mm
They think it wise to name it “Boom”?
Two things:
1. Probably not the best idea to name your aircraft company “Boom”.
2. Why does the DM call the Concorde “infamous”. Did it rob a bank or something?
Only 20 or so Corcordes were ever built, and I think 1/3 never saw service.
Touhh to compete with telecommuting
Unless it’s a trip to visit a honey pot.
I do that route frequently. With a tailwind (usually eastbound), the actual flight time is very often under 6 hours already. But the problem with air travel, at least on that route which is so profitable for airlines because of the business customers, is not so much the actual time in the air. Rather, it is the getting to the airport (which can be a nightmare in NY), getting from the airport on the other end (Heathrow is far from the “City of London” where a lot of the business happens), passport lines (can be long upon arrival in the UK), time on the tarmac on either end and circling Heathrow if the flight gets there too soon or at a busy time of day. Also awful is the fact that the vast majority of flights there are overnight and it is too short of a flight to get much sleep. All these miseries would remain even if the time in the air was 2 hours shorter (and of course it would only make sense for day flights). Now if you could fly to China super fast, I could see that making more sense.
Would it land in NYC before it takes off in London?
Ninety minutes from New York to Paris....well, by ‘76 we’ll be A-OK.