Strato2 wrote:AEROFAN wrote:BartSimpson wrote:
I'm going out on a limb here: Because it is his opinion.
I, too, see absolutely no need - economically and ecologically - for this project. How much money will have to be spent on the development? How many units will have to be sold to even recoup the development costs, let alone return a decent interest for the manufacturer and the investors? How high will the fares have to be in order to even recoup the operating costs, let alone return a decent interest for the airline? The article in post #1 claims it to be $5,000 - I sincerely doubt the number.
Lastly, in the days of fast global online communication I see not much real need for getting faster across ponds than with what we have today. We have lost supersonic travel 10 years ago, and the businesses are still running fine.
There was no need for the A380 either, but you and many others waxed orgasmic over its development and production even though billions were spent to develop the albatross.
I confidently bet my last dollar that when the technology is developed that allows travel from US to SE Asia in 5 hours instead of the ridiculous 19 hours currently taken, you and other naysayers will be first in line.
Who cares about finances when the future of the planet as we know it is at stake. The A380 was at least environmentally relatively sane project. It was the most efficient widebody at the time for transporting people in relative comfort and if somebody would have had the guts to install 800 seats it still would be extremely economical.
With respect, it must be very difficult for you (and others who believe as you do) to live in fear every moment that the planet will die soon because of human caused climate change.