Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "No Audible Boom from First Test Flight of Supersonic Passenger Plane" video.

  1.  @manofsan  If it's a big enough deal that you need to be face-to-face, it's a big enough deal to take an overnight flight and get there the next morning. The number of people that have to be there on such a short time frame is just not ever going to be large enough to make this make sense.
    6
  2. IKR, if they're going to start a nuclear holocaust, the least they could do is be considerate with the sonic booms.
    6
  3.  @DavidMcdonald-df8tb  There's plenty of people that would rather take the train. I think the notion of having a network of high speed rail that is a replacement for air travel is unlikely to ever happen. However, for shorter segments, high speed rail could be. There are areas where high speed rail could work, you've got a corridor on the East Coast roughly from D.C. to somewhere north of NYC that could benefit. There's Vancouver B.C. to Portland, OR. There's presumably another one from Southern California to somewhere in Northern California. Most of the rest of the country, would likely be better off served with what we've currently got.
    3
  4.  @TheEulerID  That's not how US English typically handles stuff like this. It's a good example of how futile it is to try to dictate how language is used. They renamed the Sears Tower years ago, and I wonder how many people even accept the change. And yep, the HMS Victory would probably sound weird, but it's consistent with how US English handles those things.
    2
  5. It's old technology, there's no assembly line for it and it already has a bunch of issues in terms of noise, fuel efficiency and that they were permanently grounded due to that crash. Sometimes, just rebuilding older technology can make sense, but the Concorde had a bunch of issues and was meant to usher in a new age of supersonic flight, which ultimately didn't happen. Now, there's little point in having it at all as folks can work on flights, and teleconferencing has greatly reduced the need to travel that quickly.
    2
  6.  @manofsan  It would be more cost effective to just return the legroom and make the seats wide enough for adult humans. Plus, it's not really that big of a deal, I've been on a few trans-pacific flights that are just about as long as they routinely do, and with adequate legroom and width, it wouldn't have been bad at all. I mostly just chill out and nap.
    2
  7.  @DavidMcdonald-df8tb  Would they? Perhaps masochists would, but you can take a train ride without being SAed and humiliated. Plus, it's only about 350 miles between the two cities and by the time you account for the time to get through security, a high speed train would probably get you there faster. This is one of those things where I keep hearing people saying that people don't want to take those train trips, but we don't really know, because it's not been a practical thing since we forced the railroad companies to fund airports and New England does see a bunch of people choosing trains over planes.
    2
  8. It's normal US English to do that. It's the Concorde unless it's "a Concorde" or "this Concorde." Same goes for "The Yankees" rather than "Yankees." Or as they're more commonly known "Those jackasses."
    1
  9. @ I can't remember ever having heard "The USA." But, I rarely, if ever hear "US" without it being "The US."
    1
  10.  @DR_1_1  TBH, these are things that mostly get decided based on feeling. It would be weird not to include the in the name when most other planes do.
    1
  11. You misunderstand. The boom is the conic boom from the money leaving the investors' wallets at supersonic speeds.
    1
  12.  @tanukisan7x  Yep, it was always going to end, and there's a reason why it wasn't replaced with a more modern design. Starting in the '90s they started to see the ability to conduct business online and by the time the Concorde was finally removed from commercial service in 2003, businesses had plenty of ability to teleconference and that has just gotten stronger and stronger since then. At this point, you can get internet service for basic tasks on a flight, and you can either work or sleep en route to where you're going.
    1
  13. Mostly business people with an urgent need to get there, most other folks wouldn't have been able to afford it anyways. But, if you've got a serious issue at a factory that requires somebody on one side of the Atlantic to show up, the cost of at ticket can be a lot less than idling an entire plant.
    1
  14. I think there was a time like in the '60s when super sonic flight made some sense. But, at this point, teleconference and remote sensing technology is to the point where you don't necessarily always ahve to go to do business, a lot of that can be done using teleconferencing and people have the ability to do office work while on the flight as well. Physically moving people that fast is just not a common enough need for this to gain much traction, unless it can also be cheaper or more environmentally friendly, which it won't just due to fuel consumption alone. .
    1
  15. The J isn't silent, where else does that h sound come from?
    1
  16. A quieter boom does make it a bit easier to market, but the whole concept made far more sense before the Internet allowed people to do most of the stuff that might need to be done on such an urgent basis online.
    1