Why don't we have supersonic transatlantic planes?

[padanarm]

After the demise of concord, why don't we have superfast, supersonic transatlantic passenger aeroplanes?

[ACtheTROLL]

been there tried that ... didn't work - try something else

it's all about efficiency - big planes - low emissions
more efficient than blasting a few elites over the atlantic

[jno]

too expensive. It was developed according to the pre-1970s model of air transport: small planes, but spacious and comfortable, and costly, for the rich few. Concorde added 'fast' to the list. But it coincided with the first jumbos, which changed the economics of it: cramming people in but charging them much less. (Actually, it took jumbo-owners a few years to realise the possibilities. It was originally planned as a cargo plane, hence the bubble on top for the pilot.)

[padanarm]

Speaking as a child of the sixties, the future is crap. Whatever happened to jetpacks and robots and bases on the moon.

[jno]

the future arrived exactly as planned, padanarm, my home is just like this

http://www.miqel.com/images_1/random_image/r1/ waterproof-home-of-the-future.jpg

[padanarm]

jno, would it be too personal to ask why your wife has to hose down the couch?

[jno]

it got dust on it when we used it for teleportation.

[padanarm]

You call it teleportation. We know what you mean, squire. Nudge, nudge, whor!