Pat Flannery wrote:

Monte Davis wrote:
And as I've noted before, Ron Davies of the Smithsonian (formerly an
economist and route analyst for airlines) makes a compelling case that
2- to 4- hour trans-oceanic flights are a poor fit for typical
business hours at one or both ends of most busy routes... and a really
lousy fit for passengers' jet lag.

Much as some would like to believe we don't have fleets of SSTs solely
because of "enviro nutters," the main reason -- sonic booms aside --
is that supersonic drag/aerodynamics/heating sends development costs,
maufacturing costs, and eventually fuel costs through the roof, and so
far not enough passengers have wanted to save a few hours badly enough
to pay for it.

A (in hindsight) pretty hilarious article about how the Concorde was
going to allow people to commute to their jobs on another continent:
http://www.concordesst.com/history/eh6.html

Paraphrasing = "What th subsonic jets did for the transatlantic run, the
Concorde will do for the transpacific run".
Well - that is, if a 707 would fly halfway out and then ditch.
Concorde was barely capable of London/Paris to NYC/Dulles.
It wasn't going to be transpacific anything.

--
Pete Stickney
The better the Four Wheel Drive, the further out you get stuck.