Euro expansion?

[Hitman]

The point is we can cross the Atlantic under 3 hours since late 1960ies and a commercial jet did that for 27 years. So tech is not the problem. The other problems are all conjunctural and solvable.

No, we CAN'T cross the Atlantic in 3 hours. The problem isn't tech, the problem is that the tech is VERY EXPENSIVE. BAC/Aerospatiale made a LOSS on developing Concorde which is why no other manufacturer has ever built a SST. The market for such a plane isn't big enough to justify the massive expenditure (we're talking TRILLIONS of $ here) of developing one.

The problem is physics and this is NOT a conjectural or solvable problem. Regular subsonic aircraft run into compressibility around Mach 0.85; no amount of power increase will get them through this barrier, not in one piece anyway. You have to radically re-design the aircraft to go any faster, which means reducing the aircraft cross-section and re-designing the wings for high-speed rather than low-speed efficiency - both of which result in a smaller aircraft carrying a smaller payload. You also need exponentially more power which means engines with higher fuel consumption, which means you have to carry more fuel, which means a higher ratio of fuel (expense) to payload (income).

Concorde's design went past any compromises needed to become transsonic and went all-in on being supersonic (Mach 2.0). Only by being radically different in performance could they charge a premium to operate profitably, but it required massive subsidies from the UK and French Governments to be built in the first place. It is grounded permanently not for technical reasons, but because it isn't economic to make the modifications required to be certified by aviation authorities again. The days of supersonic commercial travel are over.

 

[♪alt13]

No, we CAN'T cross the Atlantic in 3 hours. The problem isn't tech, the problem is that the tech is VERY EXPENSIVE. BAC/Aerospatiale made a LOSS on developing Concorde which is why no other manufacturer has ever built a SST. The market for such a plane isn't big enough to justify the massive expenditure (we're talking TRILLIONS of $ here) of developing one.

The problem is physics and this is NOT a conjectural or solvable problem. Regular subsonic aircraft run into compressibility around Mach 0.85; no amount of power increase will get them through this barrier, not in one piece anyway. You have to radically re-design the aircraft to go any faster, which means reducing the aircraft cross-section and re-designing the wings for high-speed rather than low-speed efficiency - both of which result in a smaller aircraft carrying a smaller payload. You also need exponentially more power which means engines with higher fuel consumption, which means you have to carry more fuel, which means a higher ratio of fuel (expense) to payload (income).

Concorde's design went past any compromises needed to become transsonic and went all-in on being supersonic (Mach 2.0). Only by being radically different in performance could they charge a premium to operate profitably, but it required massive subsidies from the UK and French Governments to be built in the first place. It is grounded permanently not for technical reasons, but because it isn't economic to make the modifications required to be certified by aviation authorities again. The days of supersonic commercial travel are over.

Trillions?

It was all down to Cost: The Airlines were not making back the money spent on the safety modifications and other upgrades, with some other big costs coming up (tens of millions, before any life extension programme), BA need to write off £84M now rather than £150M in 3 or 4 years. Air France wrote off a large sum of money too.

With the premium first class market non-existant post 9/11, there was no hope of paying back the modification cost to start with, forgetting about any further investment that was required to keep the aircraft in the air. Day to day the aircraft still broke even, but could no longer pay back any big expenditure items, so its days were numbered. It is a sad time, but the inevitable really only came forward a few years from the ends of its technical lifespan.


The development costs of Concorde were around £1.134 billion, which was funded by the UK and French governments. The cost to build the 16 production Concordes was £654 million of which £278 million was recovered through sales returns (this included spares, technical support, etc.). This debt was also funded by the 2 governments.

Because of the premium rate that passengers would pay to fly on Concorde (First Class +20%), the aircraft only needed to be around half full to break even and turn an operating profit.

Seems doable if you have the market. NBA could be a big help filling planes on a regular basis.

 

[BTP]

No, we CAN'T cross the Atlantic in 3 hours. The problem isn't tech, the problem is that the tech is VERY EXPENSIVE. BAC/Aerospatiale made a LOSS on developing Concorde which is why no other manufacturer has ever built a SST. The market for such a plane isn't big enough to justify the massive expenditure (we're talking TRILLIONS of $ here) of developing one.

The problem is physics and this is NOT a conjectural or solvable problem. Regular subsonic aircraft run into compressibility around Mach 0.85; no amount of power increase will get them through this barrier, not in one piece anyway. You have to radically re-design the aircraft to go any faster, which means reducing the aircraft cross-section and re-designing the wings for high-speed rather than low-speed efficiency - both of which result in a smaller aircraft carrying a smaller payload. You also need exponentially more power which means engines with higher fuel consumption, which means you have to carry more fuel, which means a higher ratio of fuel (expense) to payload (income).

Concorde's design went past any compromises needed to become transsonic and went all-in on being supersonic (Mach 2.0). Only by being radically different in performance could they charge a premium to operate profitably, but it required massive subsidies from the UK and French Governments to be built in the first place. It is grounded permanently not for technical reasons, but because it isn't economic to make the modifications required to be certified by aviation authorities again. The days of supersonic commercial travel are over.

What are your credentials in the industry?

 

[Gameface]

Trillions is a lot of money.

 

[Jazz4ever]

I would be for a partial integration. For instance having the Jazz go to Lithuania and play a team with a rabidly backed fan base would be a lot more interesting than the Bobcats with 10 people in attendance, watching Al Jefferson throw up push shots. Due to the distance I don't think a full integration is possible, or anything playoff related, but having 5 or 6 games each year is explorable.

 

[Revolution 9]

Europe would have it's own league, and only come here once or twice per season.
The same for us. We'd meet them in the Finals for a true World Title.

 

[BTP]

Europe would have it's own league, and only come here once or twice per season.
The same for us. We'd meet them in the Finals for a true World Title.

Wouldn't work...
The talent would land in the USA and no increase of overall talent wouldn't make a European League profitable.

 

[♪alt13]

Wouldn't work...
The talent would land in the USA and no increase of overall talent wouldn't make a European League profitable.

It's not talent that matters it's the hype, the marketing, the experience of the NBA Playoffs.

 

[Stoked]

Biggest drawbacks are the amount of travel time. That would be really hard on a time to travel by plane for 12 hours then have a game the next day.

Also this would further dilute the talent pool.

 

[BTP]

Am I the only one who read "time travel" ?

 

[Gameface]

How would tax rates work? How would players feel about the possibility of being traded from, say, L.A. to Spain?

 

[Harambe]

How would tax rates work? How would players feel about the possibility of being traded from, say, L.A. to Spain?

Very valid questions.

1. How do tax rates work for the Raptors?
2. They'd still be playing in the NBA, so I'd hope they wouldn't mind all that much. I think most NBA players have more than one "home" anyway.