<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>freehunter</author><text>Traveling for business, I&amp;#x27;ve paid extra for a flight that cut my coast-to-coast travel time from 8 hours to 6 hours (can&amp;#x27;t get nonstop flights to LA from my airport). That was the difference between &amp;quot;do I visit my client today for a few hours or do I go straight to the hotel and see them tomorrow&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;The difference wasn&amp;#x27;t worth paying Concorde prices, but it was an extra $200 and since my billing rate is over $500&amp;#x2F;hr and considering the hotel prices in LA, the client was happy to pay it if it meant seeing me the same day I flew in.</text><parent_chain><item><author>TeMPOraL</author><text>I think there are thresholds there. Reducing a 12-hours long flight to 8-hours long flight makes no practical difference to people traveling. Cutting it down to 6 hours might start. Cutting it down to 2-3 hours (or under an hour, as SpaceX is proposing) enables new use cases for which people might be willing to pay premium. Suddenly, a company can send someone to a meeting&amp;#x2F;conference on the other side of the world and have them back the same day.</text></item><item><author>Retric</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s that simple, if you asked someone if they would pay 50$ to save 8+ hours off a long flight I think a significant portion would say hell yes.  So, it&amp;#x27;s more a question of cost vs. saved time.&lt;p&gt;50$ seems crazy as supersonic flight is going to use far more fuel, but it also means the aircraft, pilot, and flight attendants can make more trips.  So, a minimal cost increase might be possible.</text></item><item><author>JanSolo</author><text>Concorde was a fantastic technological achievement; It&amp;#x27;s beautiful and revolutionary. My heart really wants it to be successful.&lt;p&gt;However, my head tells me that no amount of tweaking or tuning will change the fundamental problem with Concorde. 
The root problem with this aircraft is that people prefer cheaper flights over faster flights.&lt;p&gt;The real success that we can take from the Concorde program was that some of the technology found its way into the A300 program and its derivative, the A320.&lt;p&gt;Cheap, reliable aircraft are what people want. Fast, expensive ones are cool, but not really economic.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Concorde ‘B’</title><url>https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sambe</author><text>Almost everyone I know who flies recreationally would pay to reduce 12 to 8, and I have done so myself. Maybe those routes&amp;#x2F;budgets are not a big enough proportion of the overall flight volume?</text><parent_chain><item><author>TeMPOraL</author><text>I think there are thresholds there. Reducing a 12-hours long flight to 8-hours long flight makes no practical difference to people traveling. Cutting it down to 6 hours might start. Cutting it down to 2-3 hours (or under an hour, as SpaceX is proposing) enables new use cases for which people might be willing to pay premium. Suddenly, a company can send someone to a meeting&amp;#x2F;conference on the other side of the world and have them back the same day.</text></item><item><author>Retric</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s that simple, if you asked someone if they would pay 50$ to save 8+ hours off a long flight I think a significant portion would say hell yes.  So, it&amp;#x27;s more a question of cost vs. saved time.&lt;p&gt;50$ seems crazy as supersonic flight is going to use far more fuel, but it also means the aircraft, pilot, and flight attendants can make more trips.  So, a minimal cost increase might be possible.</text></item><item><author>JanSolo</author><text>Concorde was a fantastic technological achievement; It&amp;#x27;s beautiful and revolutionary. My heart really wants it to be successful.&lt;p&gt;However, my head tells me that no amount of tweaking or tuning will change the fundamental problem with Concorde. 
The root problem with this aircraft is that people prefer cheaper flights over faster flights.&lt;p&gt;The real success that we can take from the Concorde program was that some of the technology found its way into the A300 program and its derivative, the A320.&lt;p&gt;Cheap, reliable aircraft are what people want. Fast, expensive ones are cool, but not really economic.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Concorde ‘B’</title><url>https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b</url></story>