News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes. Parent comment

Re:Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes by mapleoin on Monday March 21, 2016 @01:29PM (#11329876)
It gets scarier, they compare it to the Concorde based on price:

Unlike Concorde, flying Boom is affordable—the same price as business class.

Ok, so the Concorde had some critical engineering faults, making it cheaper definitely sounds more secure.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes by petercooper on Monday March 21, 2016 @01:44PM (#11330010)
Prior to the (2000) accident, Concorde had been arguably the safest operational passenger airliner in the world in passenger deaths-per-kilometres travelled with zero
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes by zokier on Monday March 21, 2016 @02:40PM (#11330597)
Isn't the deaths-per-km generally zero prior to the first accident of any airliner?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes by petercooper on Monday March 21, 2016 @02:52PM (#11330717)
How may airliners are in service for 24 years before their first fatal accident? (The 717 is up to 17 years. The A340 is almost at 24.)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes by robotresearcher on Monday March 21, 2016 @05:36PM (#11332319)
There were 14 in-service Concordes. There are hundreds of most airliners.

After the single accident, the Concorde's death per passenger km record doesn't look so hot.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes by robotresearcher on Monday March 21, 2016 @01:43PM (#11329994)
The early promises for Concorde said it would be cost effective too.
[ Parent | on HN ]