What would you like aircraft manufacturers to do next

Real World Aviation
#1

Aircraft manufacturers are currently creating some marvels of technology but would would you like them to do next.
Please tell the community in the same way as below. If you don’t know how to click the link:

What I would like to see.

Boeing

A narrow body jet airliner to replace the 757.

Airbus

A A380 neo.

Bombardier

A new turboprop airliner to compete with the saab 340.

Lockheed

A hypersonic resonance manned plane.

Anyone

A supersonic airliner

Now I know that some of these are not possible or are just plain stupid but it is just what I would like to see. I also know airbus has unveiled the A380 plus but that is different to what a neo would be.

1 Like
#2

Totally agree with you on this one.

5 Likes
#3

I would like the Concorde back in service. That’s an amazing feat of engineering, far more impressive than any other aircraft flying today.

6 Likes
#4

I would love the Concorde to come back but hey there is a plane called boom that is like the Concorde but a little bit better

1 Like
#5

It’s a pipe dream… but a completely electrical long-haul range aircraft.

4 Likes
#6

What is, are you talking about boom.

1 Like
#7

If airlines ever have enough to pay for fuel that the Concorde takes up

1 Like
#8

757 replacement please!

2 Likes
#9

The Concorde is no longer (not that it ever was) economically feasible. It was extremely fuel inefficient. Also, people would rather spend 6 and a half hours in comfort on a larger plane that 3 hours on the cramped Concorde. It sure was a feat of engineering, but it would not be profitable in today’s aviation market.

3 Likes
#10

Please remember this is only dreams not what is possible but no one say things like flying cars please.

#11

It was always the popular plane amongst people, far more than the B747. It was the plane everyone wanted to fly.

In the US it wasn’t used that much apart from New York so your perceptions would be far different. People where I live always talk about the aircraft as it was built in Filton (Bristol) so it’s a part of their younger years, such an advanced aircraft, possibly too advanced for the time.

2 Likes
#12

In it’s day, yes, that was the case. But today, the comfort of modern jetliners outweighs the time that they take. These days, you can do almost anything from a plane. So why spend 3 hours cramped in when you can spend six hours on a plane in comfort and still be able to get work done?

2 Likes
#13

Because it takes half the time to reach your destination. Go to New York in the morning and be back in the evening. Perfect for business people.

2 Likes
#14

The issue is that it was ridiculously expensive to fly on, I think it was $9000 for a round trip from NY to London.

1 Like
#15

Business travelers were, and would definitely be willing to pay the price for the convenience of the Concorde.

2 Likes
#16

I believe you mean Lockeed…

1 Like
#17

You mean the company would pay for it :)

1 Like
#18

Precisely. Less travel time!

1 Like
#19

Yes I do auto correct did that.

#20

Companies pay for business and first class fares, this is no different. The RRP for an average fare in those classes is likely around that but there are sales, companies likely won’t go shopping around for the best deal and will be paying close to that. The flight time being so short was another willingness to pay for it as they wouldn’t lose their employees for too long and have to pay for more accommodation etc. For an average person though I will agree that it was expensive but it was one of those things that people wanted to do if they could afford it. Like owning a Rolls Royce for example, it certainly was more used for publicity as it was so widely admired by people hence most are in museums now with dedicated centres to visit them.

1 Like