Re:A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about th...
by consp on Friday February 08, 2019 @03:47AM
(#19112487)
The planes of the day were not capable enough for the trips and the planes which could in the years after had beds and many staff as well and were not cheaper by any means. You are comparing apples and oranges by comparing a modern blimp to an old one. I do not say it will be cheap (probably not) but the comparison is wrong.
Re:A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about th...
by Johnny555 on Friday February 08, 2019 @09:05AM
(#19114172)
The OP was describing Hindenburg-era travel:
...or 24 hours on a slow blimp with a bed, the ability to walk around, and social areas. Kind of like a cruise ship in the sky.
So I compared to the Hindenburg. He can already get the "cruise ship in the sky" experience in an A380 in business class where he can find spacious seats that lay into a bed, private suites, a bar, showers, etc. But it's not cheap in an airplane, and won't be cheap in an airship.
At the price you'd have to pay for day or two blimp ride, you'd probably be able to fly first or business class. Would you rather sit in a 500mph plane for 7 hours in a business class seat (which folds out into a bed), or ride in a 100mph blimp for 35 hours, even if you can walk around?
The Hindenburg carried 50 - 70 passengers with a crew of 40 - 60. Even if it's cut in half, that's an awfully high passenger to crew ratio (an airliner has a ratio of around 20 - 30 passengers per crew member). Even if fuel costs are minimal, you're sitting in an expensive aircraft for a day or so -- the airship may cost a fraction of the price of an airplane, but it travels at a fraction of the speed.