I remember when the 767 first came out (yes I'm that old) an article I read was "why are the flight times longer?". The statement was that transcon (US) the 767 was around an hour longer flight because they were flying slower to optimize for fuel consumption, versus the 707s and DC-8s of the previous vintage.
Don't know if that was correct or not, but that was always my impression.

ReverseFlow wrote:

It's not only flight times but scheduled times have gotten longer. That way the airline has a bigger chance of being on time or even early.

100%. Years ago. AS schedule planning had a come Jesus moment with marketing on this very issue. AS on time one summer was crap. They basically used the minimum, historical enroute times to plan a marketing preferred schedule. That summers 3 rd quarter on time percentage was low 60% range. The amount of money AS spent on re-routing mis connects was epic for a quarter. Plus the DOT on time rankings were just beginning and AS was in the news. After, AS shifted from a fully marketing driven company to a marketing/planning partnership to ensure the best schedule, that could actually be operated, was produced. DOT rankings have helped many airlines see that need to have a balance in their schedules going forward, which in many cases has increased block time.

Acey wrote:

Extending the block time generally works, until you encounter no departure delay and land at ORD 40 minutes early and get to enjoy the penalty box until your gate is open.

Again, 100%. Typically if your holding a good while for your arrival gate, you can thank your increased block time and favorable flying conditions. It’s the lesser of two evils. I hate waiting on the ground stopped, or having ATC orbit the jet around the alley, but only until I’m sitting happily aboard my connection.

EFHK wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

EFHK wrote:

I can't understand the criticism towards this. Scheduled flight times being long enough to guarantee an adequately high on-time arrival rate (and onward connections) sounds like a win-win to me.

Funniest thing is that some companies specializing in EU delay compensation are marketing this phenomenon to press media as "airlines trying to "cheat" with paying delay compensation", and the saddest part is that at least sometimes the press buys it and believes that it's a problem.

But that's exactly what they are doing. Airlines lobbied against having to pay EU compensation and when, for once, the consumer won, the airlines have padded their schedules so they will always make the 'declared arrival time'. It's not a win when you sit down, told your pushback is delayed 40 minutes, you then sit off stand for another 20, and then just happen to arrive 'on time'. You've lost an hour of your time even if technically you've arrived on time. A win-win would look airlines departing promptly, on time, flying aeroplanes which are quicker, getting you to the destination, and/or, your connection/earlier connection quicker i.e. shorter flight times.

I absolutely disagree with this. To me, what is promised to the consumer is an on-time arrival (and onward connections), and anything that the airline can do to secure this is beneficial.

I actually find it absolutely ridiculous to criticize airlines for paying due diligence, and padding their schedules to ensure that they can make the schedules that they're promising for.

I find it ridiculous to defend airlines that waste increasing amounts of my time because they can't get their act together and run an efficient schedule, and further to that, I would much prefer they went a little quicker in the air and get me to my destination quicker. How about we defend them padding schedules to whatever they fancy? They can slow the aeroplane down to a speed which saves them a lot of fuel, make us get to the gate five hours ahead of time for a two hour bolt from say BRU - MAD for example, when it suits them to depart, load the aircraft, who cares if they actually have some delays internally, they have no incentive to be efficient, they've built a wonderful cushion to waste my entire day, but hey, legally they gave an arrival time and delivered on that. And before saying that would never happen, it does, as airlines do whatever they can to avoid paying compensation, and as competition on routes increasingly declines it's happening more and more. Not what I, as a consumer, call a 'win'.

SaintBroseph wrote:

Such a non-issue LOL. Just book an earlier ticket or take the boat like people of yore.

Or we could get from A to B quicker???

eurotrader85 wrote:

I find it ridiculous to defend airlines that waste increasing amounts of my time because they can't get their act together and run an efficient schedule, and further to that, I would much prefer they went a little quicker in the air and get me to my destination quicker.

It has nothing to do with the airlines and everything to do with the airports and Air Traffic Control.

Dublin to London for me is always 45, 50, 55 or 60 minutes flight time according to the pilots. It is in the schedules as 1 hour and 30 minutes. The rest of the time is on the ground at either end getting to and from the runway and gate.

The last Straight Talk with Eurocontrol (it's on YouTube, with Ryanair), Ryanair said a lot of time and fuel could be saved by having a single European sky for ATC, rather than each country being responsible for their own piece. ATC is pretty antiquated.

I wouldn't be passing it to the airlines or the aircraft manufacturers. It is ATC and Airports that are causing the most delay here and that is why "flight times" have increased.

ClassicLover wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

I find it ridiculous to defend airlines that waste increasing amounts of my time because they can't get their act together and run an efficient schedule, and further to that, I would much prefer they went a little quicker in the air and get me to my destination quicker.

It has nothing to do with the airlines and everything to do with the airports and Air Traffic Control.

Dublin to London for me is always 45, 50, 55 or 60 minutes flight time according to the pilots. It is in the schedules as 1 hour and 30 minutes. The rest of the time is on the ground at either end getting to and from the runway and gate.

The last Straight Talk with Eurocontrol (it's on YouTube, with Ryanair), Ryanair said a lot of time and fuel could be saved by having a single European sky for ATC, rather than each country being responsible for their own piece. ATC is pretty antiquated.

I wouldn't be passing it to the airlines or the aircraft manufacturers. It is ATC and Airports that are causing the most delay here and that is why "flight times" have increased.

Not sure about Europe, but in the US, the growth of RJ’s and private jets really strained the system for a long time, and still do.

Before this, turboprop commuters flew at lower altitudes, while jets flew in the 30’s or 40’s. When RJ’s came along, they took up space flying at the same levels as the big jets. This became a real issue, especially in the northeast, where a flight to New York can be slowed to 250kph as far out as Pittsburgh or North Carolina. Adding the overwater routes have eased some of that, until weather starts closing off routings.

To use an example, the “slow” AA ATR turboprop could often fly Indy-O’Hare faster than the United 737 departing at the same time, in good weather and winds.

The ATR would fly to the “Boiler” VOR in West Lafayette, or direct to the Gary Airport, then up the shoreline to join the downwind leg for ORD, where it would be sequenced into openings between the jets.

Meanwhile, the jet would fly IND-Fort Wayne, then to Grand Rapids, where it would get sequenced into the flow. On a busy day, it could be slowed to from FWA in.
If it was a really busy day, the jet could be directed as Far East as Dayton then Toledo, before heading west.

Same for DTW. Depending on winds, the IND-DTW jet usually went east to Dayton, then North, while the turbo went Fort Wayne, then direct to Detroit.

QAT wrote:

Every technical problem listed in this thread is solvable. So the real question is, why haven't they been solved? It is not a law of nature that LAX-ORD takes 4 hours gate to gate. May be relevant that a huge fraction of aviation R&D is spent on meeting government emissions and noise regs instead of benefitting the pax who provide airline revenue.

First, government emissions and noise regs do benefit the passengers who provide the airline revenue, just not when they're in the plane.

Second, improving emissions requirements is needed to address climate change which is real.

Third, flying slower saves the airlines money, which given that most people will buy the cheapest ticket is what they need to do.

PhilipBass wrote:

I don't see much padding on a route like Dublin Faro which at cruise speed would be reached in about 2h12 according to GCMap. the time published is 2h50m.
Dublin Faro would be fairly empty sky with not too many ATC issues.

10-15 min taxi in Dublin, 10 min taxi in Faro. Thats 2,12 + 20 = 2,32.

ClassicLover wrote:

The last Straight Talk with Eurocontrol (it's on YouTube, with Ryanair), Ryanair said a lot of time and fuel could be saved by having a single European sky for ATC, rather than each country being responsible for their own piece. ATC is pretty antiquated.

I wouldn't be passing it to the airlines or the aircraft manufacturers. It is ATC and Airports that are causing the most delay here and that is why "flight times" have increased.

In addition the "single European sky" would also reduce emissions from reducing holding patterns. Up to 10% reduction according to Willie Walsh. (in a recent statement to the Irish legislators)

eurotrader85 wrote:

I find it ridiculous to defend airlines that waste increasing amounts of my time because they can't get their act together and run an efficient schedule, and further to that, I would much prefer they went a little quicker in the air and get me to my destination quicker. How about we defend them padding schedules to whatever they fancy? They can slow the aeroplane down to a speed which saves them a lot of fuel, make us get to the gate five hours ahead of time for a two hour bolt from say BRU - MAD for example, when it suits them to depart, load the aircraft, who cares if they actually have some delays internally, they have no incentive to be efficient, they've built a wonderful cushion to waste my entire day, but hey, legally they gave an arrival time and delivered on that. And before saying that would never happen, it does, as airlines do whatever they can to avoid paying compensation, and as competition on routes increasingly declines it's happening more and more. Not what I, as a consumer, call a 'win'.

Airlines have gotten their act together, and have chosen to run an on time operation that economically efficient. Running an airline that is late gets expensive.

People hate being late, and that can cause other knock on effects like missed connections, so airlines under promise and try to deliver, and sometimes they overdeliver and actually get you to the gate early.

FWIW, an airline won't pad their schedule to whatever they fancy, since that costs them more. Most labor contracts call for the crew being paid for the actual flight time or the scheduled time, whichever is greater. Additionally, padding the schedule means an airplane cannot fly as many flights a day, which also costs the airline money. It is a delicate balance. Finally, I'm sure that airlines also know that if the schedule takes too much time people will book away, just they know that for a flight that has a poor ontime arrival history passengers will also book away.

FlyingElvii wrote:

ClassicLover wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

I find it ridiculous to defend airlines that waste increasing amounts of my time because they can't get their act together and run an efficient schedule, and further to that, I would much prefer they went a little quicker in the air and get me to my destination quicker.

It has nothing to do with the airlines and everything to do with the airports and Air Traffic Control.

Dublin to London for me is always 45, 50, 55 or 60 minutes flight time according to the pilots. It is in the schedules as 1 hour and 30 minutes. The rest of the time is on the ground at either end getting to and from the runway and gate.

The last Straight Talk with Eurocontrol (it's on YouTube, with Ryanair), Ryanair said a lot of time and fuel could be saved by having a single European sky for ATC, rather than each country being responsible for their own piece. ATC is pretty antiquated.

I wouldn't be passing it to the airlines or the aircraft manufacturers. It is ATC and Airports that are causing the most delay here and that is why "flight times" have increased.

Not sure about Europe, but in the US, the growth of RJ’s and private jets really strained the system for a long time, and still do.

Before this, turboprop commuters flew at lower altitudes, while jets flew in the 30’s or 40’s. When RJ’s came along, they took up space flying at the same levels as the big jets. This became a real issue, especially in the northeast, where a flight to New York can be slowed to 250kph as far out as Pittsburgh or North Carolina. Adding the overwater routes have eased some of that, until weather starts closing off routings.

To use an example, the “slow” AA ATR turboprop could often fly Indy-O’Hare faster than the United 737 departing at the same time, in good weather and winds.

The ATR would fly to the “Boiler” VOR in West Lafayette, or direct to the Gary Airport, then up the shoreline to join the downwind leg for ORD, where it would be sequenced into openings between the jets.

Meanwhile, the jet would fly IND-Fort Wayne, then to Grand Rapids, where it would get sequenced into the flow. On a busy day, it could be slowed to from FWA in.
If it was a really busy day, the jet could be directed as Far East as Dayton then Toledo, before heading west.

Same for DTW. Depending on winds, the IND-DTW jet usually went east to Dayton, then North, while the turbo went Fort Wayne, then direct to Detroit.

Any links on private jets straining the airline system? Twenty years of experience here, we don’t use airline airports, we almost uniformity fly above them, out-climbing them in the process and fly random routes to outlier airports. We do everything possible to get out of the way of slow airliners. I was going into KOPF (Opa Locka) one stormy night, lots of weather around, airliners holding on the arrivals; we snuck into KOPF without delay. In fact, I emailed my incoming F/A that she was going to be holding on an AA flight into KMIAfor 45 minutes; I’d meet her with the rental car. She told the passengers, “my pilot says it’s 45 minute hold”.

USAirKid wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

I find it ridiculous to defend airlines that waste increasing amounts of my time because they can't get their act together and run an efficient schedule, and further to that, I would much prefer they went a little quicker in the air and get me to my destination quicker. How about we defend them padding schedules to whatever they fancy? They can slow the aeroplane down to a speed which saves them a lot of fuel, make us get to the gate five hours ahead of time for a two hour bolt from say BRU - MAD for example, when it suits them to depart, load the aircraft, who cares if they actually have some delays internally, they have no incentive to be efficient, they've built a wonderful cushion to waste my entire day, but hey, legally they gave an arrival time and delivered on that. And before saying that would never happen, it does, as airlines do whatever they can to avoid paying compensation, and as competition on routes increasingly declines it's happening more and more. Not what I, as a consumer, call a 'win'.

Airlines have gotten their act together, and have chosen to run an on time operation that economically efficient. Running an airline that is late gets expensive.

People hate being late, and that can cause other knock on effects like missed connections, so airlines under promise and try to deliver, and sometimes they overdeliver and actually get you to the gate early.

FWIW, an airline won't pad their schedule to whatever they fancy, since that costs them more. Most labor contracts call for the crew being paid for the actual flight time or the scheduled time, whichever is greater. Additionally, padding the schedule means an airplane cannot fly as many flights a day, which also costs the airline money. It is a delicate balance. Finally, I'm sure that airlines also know that if the schedule takes too much time people will book away, just they know that for a flight that has a poor ontime arrival history passengers will also book away.

At least in the U.S., we are long past Aircraft and crews flying ten segments a day, like they did in the 80’s and 90’s.

There are still the occasional 8 segment days, especially around holidays, but as we have seen in recent years, it doesn’t take much to turn that into a meltdown. Even Spirit and Southwest finally had to change the way they schedule. In the end though, that reduces efficiency and increases costs. That airplane, airport space rental, infrastructure, etc., still costs the same, or more now, making already thin margins even thinner.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

ClassicLover wrote:

It has nothing to do with the airlines and everything to do with the airports and Air Traffic Control.

Dublin to London for me is always 45, 50, 55 or 60 minutes flight time according to the pilots. It is in the schedules as 1 hour and 30 minutes. The rest of the time is on the ground at either end getting to and from the runway and gate.

The last Straight Talk with Eurocontrol (it's on YouTube, with Ryanair), Ryanair said a lot of time and fuel could be saved by having a single European sky for ATC, rather than each country being responsible for their own piece. ATC is pretty antiquated.

I wouldn't be passing it to the airlines or the aircraft manufacturers. It is ATC and Airports that are causing the most delay here and that is why "flight times" have increased.

Not sure about Europe, but in the US, the growth of RJ’s and private jets really strained the system for a long time, and still do.

Before this, turboprop commuters flew at lower altitudes, while jets flew in the 30’s or 40’s. When RJ’s came along, they took up space flying at the same levels as the big jets. This became a real issue, especially in the northeast, where a flight to New York can be slowed to 250kph as far out as Pittsburgh or North Carolina. Adding the overwater routes have eased some of that, until weather starts closing off routings.

To use an example, the “slow” AA ATR turboprop could often fly Indy-O’Hare faster than the United 737 departing at the same time, in good weather and winds.

The ATR would fly to the “Boiler” VOR in West Lafayette, or direct to the Gary Airport, then up the shoreline to join the downwind leg for ORD, where it would be sequenced into openings between the jets.

Meanwhile, the jet would fly IND-Fort Wayne, then to Grand Rapids, where it would get sequenced into the flow. On a busy day, it could be slowed to from FWA in.
If it was a really busy day, the jet could be directed as Far East as Dayton then Toledo, before heading west.

Same for DTW. Depending on winds, the IND-DTW jet usually went east to Dayton, then North, while the turbo went Fort Wayne, then direct to Detroit.

Any links on private jets straining the airline system? Twenty years of experience here, we don’t use airline airports, we almost uniformity fly above them, out-climbing them in the process and fly random routes to outlier airports. We do everything possible to get out of the way of slow airliners. I was going into KOPF (Opa Locka) one stormy night, lots of weather around, airliners holding on the arrivals; we snuck into KOPF without delay. In fact, I emailed my incoming F/A that she was going to be holding on an AA flight into KMIAfor 45 minutes; I’d meet her with the rental car. She told the passengers, “my pilot says it’s 45 minute hold”.

Great thing about the Internet, this stuff can be at your fingertips.

This is from a Congressional hearing in 2006, but it was becoming an issue before 9/11, with the rise of the CRJ and fractional jet ownership.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHR ... g30652.htm

Most have answered the question, so I will just bite. 25 years ago, airlines pushed their schedules to the extreme. They left little room for error or problems that could compile on a flight. From weather to late departures would tack on big time. Airlines have gotten smart, and padded some time in their schedules. So, if a flight leaves say 20 minutes late, most still arrive on time. Most flights that depart ontime tend to arrive plenty early now. The customer satisfaction getting in 20 to 30 minutes early is well.... Pretty awesome IMO. I can't tell you how many times I got home early and was all smiles.

An other issue which has received little attention in the thread is that the airline SOP (and adherence thereto) have evolved and have contributed to increase block time. A good example is the requirement for stabilized approach which adds a bit to the flight time. In the good old time, pilots were taking pride in having a continuing decelerated approach which was bringing you on the runway on the right speed preferably with little throttle movement (weather and traffic permitting of course). It was also a lot easier to cheat with the 250kts limitation

FlyingElvii wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Not sure about Europe, but in the US, the growth of RJ’s and private jets really strained the system for a long time, and still do.

Before this, turboprop commuters flew at lower altitudes, while jets flew in the 30’s or 40’s. When RJ’s came along, they took up space flying at the same levels as the big jets. This became a real issue, especially in the northeast, where a flight to New York can be slowed to 250kph as far out as Pittsburgh or North Carolina. Adding the overwater routes have eased some of that, until weather starts closing off routings.

To use an example, the “slow” AA ATR turboprop could often fly Indy-O’Hare faster than the United 737 departing at the same time, in good weather and winds.

The ATR would fly to the “Boiler” VOR in West Lafayette, or direct to the Gary Airport, then up the shoreline to join the downwind leg for ORD, where it would be sequenced into openings between the jets.

Meanwhile, the jet would fly IND-Fort Wayne, then to Grand Rapids, where it would get sequenced into the flow. On a busy day, it could be slowed to from FWA in.
If it was a really busy day, the jet could be directed as Far East as Dayton then Toledo, before heading west.

Same for DTW. Depending on winds, the IND-DTW jet usually went east to Dayton, then North, while the turbo went Fort Wayne, then direct to Detroit.

Any links on private jets straining the airline system? Twenty years of experience here, we don’t use airline airports, we almost uniformity fly above them, out-climbing them in the process and fly random routes to outlier airports. We do everything possible to get out of the way of slow airliners. I was going into KOPF (Opa Locka) one stormy night, lots of weather around, airliners holding on the arrivals; we snuck into KOPF without delay. In fact, I emailed my incoming F/A that she was going to be holding on an AA flight into KMIAfor 45 minutes; I’d meet her with the rental car. She told the passengers, “my pilot says it’s 45 minute hold”.

Great thing about the Internet, this stuff can be at your fingertips.

This is from a Congressional hearing in 2006, but it was becoming an issue before 9/11, with the rise of the CRJ and fractional jet ownership.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHR ... g30652.htm

You made the assertion, please show me where private aviation is a serious traffic problem in those 160 pages.

Here’s the BTS website on delays.

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Delay/ ... Cause1.asp

zakuivcustom wrote:

P.S. I'm old enough to remember CO starting EWR-HKG with 772ER (not 772LR ) and flew on that route in May 2000.

Interesting that you were able to do that, seeing as the route didn't start until March 2001....

LAX772LR wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

P.S. I'm old enough to remember CO starting EWR-HKG with 772ER (not 772LR ) and flew on that route in May 2000.

Interesting that you were able to do that, seeing as the route didn't start until March 2001....

I mean May 2001...typo (I remember it being a few months before 9/11) .

September 1987 was when the DOT started requiring airlines to report the on time data.

That is when airlines started putting out real schedules or even started padding them a bit.

I would go with schedule and miscellaneous flight disruption padding. Also, maybe to a lesser degree but still relevant, back in the day the advertised schedules were a precedent. I don't think before the "on-time arrival" competition commenced (at times even with monthly color graphs in the USA Today newspaper listing the carriers) that any competitor would dare increase their flight times, which would have reflected a slower operation and an uncompetitive schedule.

ClassicLover wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

I find it ridiculous to defend airlines that waste increasing amounts of my time because they can't get their act together and run an efficient schedule, and further to that, I would much prefer they went a little quicker in the air and get me to my destination quicker.

It has nothing to do with the airlines and everything to do with the airports and Air Traffic Control.

Spot on. Everyone hates on the airlines for the incredible job they do with the immense size and complexity of the operation they run. And as I used to tell people when they would listen, very little in terms of IROPs is truly the fault of the actual airline. Airlines have so many regulations and dictates placed upon them, it is amazing it works as well as it does. And in dang near every case, the airline itself is not the fault of the problems that they are expected to compensate heavily for, compensation no other business is demanded to pay...hundreds to even thousands of dollars for a person who gets bumped or sits on the ramp for a while. Ridiculous.

Airplane has MTC...yeah, the airline controls their repairs, but really...do they? The FAA, etc. (aka government) rules dictates what can be deferred and what cannot. (Don't get me wrong, I do not have an issue with safety being first, just making the point of who truly controls the process ultimately.)

Crew times out...government rules.
ATC...routing/wheels up/ground stops, etc...government owns the ATC system.
Weather...see above.
TSA (who can never be blamed in reality as the station eats the delay regardless)...government.
...and the list goes on.

99.9% of reasons pax wet their nappies is ultimately forced upon the airlines in many ways, by the governing authorities, short of a gate agent or ground handling team taking longer than it should due to inefficacy or poor work habits that get pax nappies wet and sometimes expensive free travel through vouchers...just about every other reason ultimately falls on big brother's dictates and oversight or control.

Yes, as with any business, things can always be better...but the airlines take a lot of heat that isn't their fault in reality. And yet, even adding a whopping 2-10 minutes to flight times by pulling back a couple hundredths of a mach to save a few greenbacks on fuel to help their extremely meager margins is yet another complaint by the people who don't want to pay more than a taxi fare in a big city for their world hopping endeavors in many cases.

But on a happier note...Merry Christmas everyone. Safe travels and stay well.

Growing airport size and number of departure/arrival aircraft has alot of matters. As a person who frequent fly out from Singapore changi, occasionally my flight had to queue for 30mins or more for departure. Not even mention that now they closing one runway for T5 construction, basically all aircraft need to taxi for 20 to 30mins to takeoff runway. This mean that my short haul flight is definitely will be delayed on arrival even with all the padding. And this will last for another 3 to 5 years

PhilipBass wrote:

I don't see much padding on a route like Dublin Faro which at cruise speed would be reached in about 2h12 according to GCMap. the time published is 2h50m.
Dublin Faro would be fairly empty sky with not too many ATC issues.

Looking at recent Aer Lingus flights, the average is about 2h 30m. The scheduled block time is 3h 05m. A 20 minute taxi is not uncommon out of Dublin, that's already 2h 50m. With a 5 minute taxi in Faro that only leaves 10 minutes to account for any further delays, slots, ATC speed constraints and upper winds. A 50kt headwind would be enough to bring that up to 3h 05m.

USAirKid wrote:

Polot wrote:

I think he was making a joke about the movie Airplane! (Which is 87 minutes long and release in 1980 and features the fictitious airline TransAmerican). The flight was going LAX-ORD though not the other way around.

Surely you cant be serious about which way that plane went... My memory is fading.

I am... and don't call me Shirley!

One point in addition to the ones already mentioned (ground taxi, congestion, cost index, slower mach numbers) is the EU regulation on passenger rights (EC directive No. 261/2004). It gives passengers the right to claim compensation between 250€ and 600€ for flights delayed by more than 3 hours.
The "smart" move by airlines consists in defining schedules with lots of spare time in them, e.g. 45 minutes for an intra-EU flight. This way, the flight can be delayed by up to 3:44h (relative to the internally scheduled flight time) without entitling the passengers to a compensation.

Hendric

25yrs ago you would have been better treated onboard that shorter flight.

USAirKid wrote:

QAT wrote:

Every technical problem listed in this thread is solvable. So the real question is, why haven't they been solved? It is not a law of nature that LAX-ORD takes 4 hours gate to gate. May be relevant that a huge fraction of aviation R&D is spent on meeting government emissions and noise regs instead of benefitting the pax who provide airline revenue.

First, government emissions and noise regs do benefit the passengers who provide the airline revenue, just not when they're in the plane.

Second, improving emissions requirements is needed to address climate change which is real.

Third, flying slower saves the airlines money, which given that most people will buy the cheapest ticket is what they need to do.

The purpose of R&D is to enable better tradeoffs at lower cost. Anyone can build a Concorde; the technology exists for the taking, but it would take R&D to build one that can make money.

Suppose Company X and Company Y announce new airliner programs with equal development budgets. X says "Our airplane will meet all emissions regulations but will get you from LAX to ORD in 2 hours instead of 4." Y says, "Our airplane beats the emissions regulations by a factor of 2, but it will still take 4 hours to get from LAX to ORD." Which company would you buy stock in?