
Concorde - cheiVia0
https://chris-lamb.co.uk/posts/concorde
======
idlewords
If you are interested in Concorde, this thread (which starts a little slowly)
eventually ropes in some of the plane's original designers, pilots, and even a
flight attendant. They talk about every aspect of the plane in the best
aviation thread I've ever found online. It's amazing reading.

CAUTION: huge timesink hazard.

[http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-
question.html](http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html)

~~~
q-base
There are lots of strange abbreviations - BUT - Caution very much needed. Only
a few pages in, but how extremely fascinating and interesting! Thanks a lot!

~~~
anexprogrammer
You're unlikely to escape until you reach the end, and it's probably longer
than when I found it some years ago. :p

~~~
q-base
No there are many good hours of reading for sure. This made me laugh:

Ancient tale.

There's this SR-71 Blackbird stooging around Cuba on a top-secret mission, at
FL500+ and Mach 2+.... when they get a call requesting them to change heading
"because of traffic at your altitude". Traffic at THEIR altitude ??

Anyway, they comply, and shortly, yes, there's an Air France Concorde out of
Caracas (Air France flew there in the early days) slowly sailing across their
flight path.

Just imagine... two guys in bonedomes and full pressure suits, in a cramped
cockpit, watching something like a hundred people in shirt sleeves or summer
dresses, sipping their champagne and maybe just starting on their smoked
salmon hors d'oeuvres, flying at their altitude and nearly their speed....

~~~
v768
Something was quite wrong with their navigation if they where around Cuba
between Caracas and Paris! ;-) Not even flying to New York would take you over
Cuba.

------
cr1895
I was fortunate to fly on Concorde with my grandparents once when I was young,
towards the end of its operating life. Things that I most remember:

\- it was tiny inside! the seats were comfortable, but small. 2 by 2.

\- the force with which you are pressed into your seat on takeoff

\- gladly being served a glass of port (I must have been 12-13 at the time)

\- leaving the flight with a bag full of good caviar that was served with the
meal since quite a few people didn't eat theirs.

~~~
mhb
When you were 12, you could tell what was good caviar?

~~~
cr1895
Ha believe it or not yeah; it wasnt the relatively inexpensive black roe you
find in grocery stores, but proper sturgeon caviar. My grandfather loved it
and always used to share some with me when I'd visit. He especially liked
malossal(?) Beluga. I don't think you can even get that anymore.

------
Gravityloss
When USA and Soviet Union were building more impressive fighters and bombers
to threaten each other, Britain and France collaborated on a craft that in
some ways was so much better than anything else, and it was for peaceful
purposes.

I think the most fascinating part was making it really operational and
reliable. That's a very hard problem. AFAIK it has more supersonic time
collected than all the other aircraft combined. And if you look at military
jets, they have a mind boggling amount of maintenance hours for every flight
hour.

~~~
newjersey
I have no idea what ratio is a good ratio and what's a terrible ratio so I
googled it and the first link said the Boeing C-17 globe master iii specs say

only 20 aircraft maintenance man-hours per flying hour

[https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16121/how-
shoul...](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16121/how-should-the-
number-of-maintenance-hours-per-flight-hour-for-the-c-17-be-inter)

I don't know anything about flying but I assume there's a limit to amount of
the parallelization you can do? Can twenty technicians finish the maintenance
in an hour? More importantly, how long can you put off this maintenance? Do I
have to spend this before each flight or can I delay this as a batch process
later in the week?

Sorry for stupid question

~~~
Gravityloss
I think it's a very good question.

For commercial aircraft, this article would suggest massively less wall clock
hours in maintenance than in flight, about a ratio of one to ten (assuming 12
flight hours per day and 16 hour days in maintenance). Maintenance man-hours
would be about three per flight hour. So comparable to the cockpit crew.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks)

A check: 500 hours of flying, 20 hour, 200 man-hour (0.04 h/h, 0.4 mh/h)

C check: 2 years of flying: 2 weeks, 6000 man-hours (0.03 h/h, 0.7 mh/h)

D check: 6 years of flying: 2 month, 50,000 man hours (0.03 h/h, 1.9 mh/h)

EDIT: this doesn't include unscheduled maintenance.

~~~
Gravityloss
And to compare to military planes, the B-1B:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer)

"With upgrades to keep the B-1 viable, the air force may keep it in service
until approximately 2038.[133] Despite upgrades, the B-1 has repair and cost
issues; every flight hour needs 48.4 hours of repair. The fuel, repairs and
other needs for a 12-hour mission costs $720,000 as of 2010.[134] The $63,000
cost per flight hour is, however, less than the $72,000 for the B-52 and the
$135,000 of the B-2.[135] "

------
reacweb
For me, the sad part of the story of Concorde is that Boeing has failed to
build a supersonic plane and as a revenge has lobbied to prohibit the Concorde
flying over the USA. This protectionism and the petrol crisis have caused its
commercial failure.

~~~
Fuddh
Supersonic flights over land is actually a fairly difficult problem to solve,
as the noise levels are very high. This is a major reason behind why the
Concorde only flew across the ocean.

Nonetheless I did not know Boeing was lobbying against it - that kind of
protectionism does indeed hinder innovation.

~~~
mabbo
Apparently (can't find the article I read on it) the noise would be much less
of a problem today.

The magnitude of the sonic boom is relative to mass, and modern planes are
being built lighter and lighter (to save on fuel). Something like a 50-seat
mostly-carbon-fiber super sonic aircraft at 50,000 ft might well be perfectly
fine to fly over land at Mach 2. The smaller size might also help with the
problem of empty seats. As well, ideas like wings that change shape/angle for
different portions of the flight could also help.

Someone just needs to put down the R&D money and take the risk to build such a
plane.

~~~
brian_cloutier
That doesn't sound reasonable. The sonic boom is caused by (I had thought) air
being compressed at the front of the plane. That would mean the loudness is
determined by speed and shape of the plane.

The only way mass would have an effect is if the exhaust (which heavier planes
presumably generate more of) contributed to the sonic boom, which doesn't
sound right.

I'll believe that modern planes might generate smaller sonic booms, being more
efficient sounds like it's related to how you displace the air, which sounds
very related to the size of the boom, but I don't believe you that mass is
related.

~~~
mcguire
Not necessarily. The amount of air displaced is related to the mass of the
aircraft. A heavier plane displaces more air, leading to a more energetic
boom.

~~~
nf05papsjfVbc
Are you suggesting that if we have two planes of the same size and shape, the
heavier one displaces more air?

I can understand that objects floating on water follow that principle but
that's because they are floating. Once fully suspended in water, I think the
amount of water they displace is just their volume. Shouldn't it be likewise
for aircrafts in the atmosphere?

~~~
mcguire
To maintain level flight, a plane has to generate lift equal to its weight. It
generates lift by forcing a mass of air down. More mass means more air
disturbed.

~~~
nf05papsjfVbc
Interesting. I never thought of it this way. Thanks for helping me see the
missing part of the picture.

~~~
mcguire
When people explain flight through Bournoulli or whatever, they tend to forget
Newton's basic laws, which really are the simplest way to understand flight.
It won't make you an aerospace engineer, though.

------
Tepix
So, is there a replacement coming for the Concorde?

Here's a related obligatory Elon Musk quote from his talk at the 67th
International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico last month:

"Actually, I was sort of thinking, like, maybe there is some sort of market
for really fast transport of stuff around the world, provided we can land
somewhere where noise is not a super-big deal — rockets are very noisy — but
we could transport cargo to anywhere on earth in 45 minutes, at the longest.
So most places on Earth would be maybe 20, 25 minutes. So maybe if we had a
floating platform out off the coast of the USA, off the coast of New York, say
20 or 30 miles out, you could go from, you know, from New York to Tokyo in — I
don't know — 25 minutes. Cross the Atlantic in 10 minutes. Really, most of
your time would be getting to the ship. And then it'd be real quick after
that.

So there's some intriguing possibilities there, although we're not counting on
that."

~~~
masklinn
> So, is there a replacement coming for the Concorde?

Unlikely. Flying supersonic is _expensive_ , and the larger the jet the more
expensive it is.

The market for people willing to pay significantly more for a somewhat shorter
flight is way too small, people much prefer cheaper flights (hence the success
of Ryanair and similar) and those who would/could be willing to pay for it
will use private or shared charter jets instead.

Note that even the POTUS doesn't care, Air Force One is a militarised 747-200.

~~~
grkvlt
I believe Airbus is partnering with a startup that is working on a supersonic
biz-jet called the Aerion. This probably makes more commercial sense than a
large transport - people already willing to spend USD 100 million on a jet
will spend USD 120 million to fly faster and quicker.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerion_AS2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerion_AS2)

~~~
masklinn
Yeah, whether it'll pan out is in question but it makes much more sense for
non-commercial business jets than for regular flyers.

------
DocTomoe
When I was a boy, I had a book. It featured the Transrapid (look it up!), the
Shuttle, the Concorde ... as heralds of the future.

The 2000s, when all of these things slowly were phased out, were a hard time,
making me feel old for the first time. Sure, we got the Internet, we got
vertically-landing rocket boosters, we got huge improvements in medical
procedures ... but they all look so ... non-futuristic.

~~~
dorfsmay
Futuristic things I do today:

Working from home with people thousands of km away, talking to them, looking
at them in the eye.

Working, pairing with other people, while in flight between cities.

Walking around with a phone in my pocket, people can call me wherever I am.

Looking things up from different sources quickly while talking at the dinner
table (use to be single source dictionary + a trip to the library later).

At work, an my kids working together collaboratively on a document.

~~~
tajen
When I was 13, in 1996, I used to dream that everything was possible. I dreamt
of a personal drone that would look at the streets from above (unthinkable at
the time, energy-wise), and a mini-computer in my hands to drive it, so I
would find my way in a new city, find out where my friends were, send them
little objects, do awesome stuff on the little computer, never be idle while
waiting for someone and never miss them just because you were waiting for each
other on the wrong side of the building.

I often wonder what kids can dream of, today, given all of this happened. The
only parts of my dreams which haven't yield are AI and infinite energy.

I'm pretty satisfied with the future we live in. But the global warming is
coming too fast.

~~~
gozur88
>I often wonder what kids can dream of, today, given all of this happened.

Holodeck-type VR, I'm guessing.

------
Tomte
At the technics museum in Sinsheim (Germany) there are a Tupolew Tu-144 and a
Concorde on exhibit. Raised steeply into the sky, and you can walk through the
aisle up to the cockpit!

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_%26_Technik_Museum_Sinshe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_%26_Technik_Museum_Sinsheim)
and
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Concorde...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Concorde_und_Tu-144_Auto-
_und_Technikmuseum_Sinsheim.jpg)

~~~
ant6n
And nearby there's the other aviation museum that has a 747 and the Buran.

------
cstross
Another little-known fact: prior to 2000, the three organizations in the world
racking up the highest number of supersonic flight hours each year were, in
descending order:

1) British Airways 2) Air France 3) The United States Air Force

Military jets don't go supersonic very often or for very l0ng, and virtually
never cruise at Mach 2+. (The striking exception being the SR-71, which --
like Concorde -- is now retired.)

------
cyberferret
An iconic aircraft. I was lucky enough to see one come into our local airport
once, flanked by RAAF Mirage III fighters to mark the rare occasion.
Apparently it was on a private charter by a group of extremely wealthy high
rollers who were flying around the world visiting various casinos. I cannot
imagine a life like that!

------
dancek
> Taxiing to the runway consumed 2 tons of fuel.

Wow. Just wow. These engines are obviously far from their designed power band
when taxiing, but this is incredibly inefficient.

So basically the travellers would cause more pollution in the 10 minutes of
taxiing than in maybe 10 hours of driving a car...

~~~
netsharc
You'd think they come up with a better solution, like using the pull-vehicle
all the way to the runway (or at least to the edge of it...)

~~~
anexprogrammer
They didn't have an APU (weight), so towing to runway would need an external
spin up too. It would probably have no air or hydraulics until it got there.

Engines and intakes were designed to be supersonic efficient, which meant they
were horribly inefficient at subsonic and taxi speeds. SR71, XB70 and similar
big supersonics of that generation had similar, but worse, issues. Being
military it didn't matter - they used to just in-air refuel the SR71 right
after takeoff!

~~~
mikeash
The SR-71 also had the problem that its fuel tanks wouldn't seal when the
plane was cold, since naturally the whole thing was designed for sustained
cruises with skin temperatures of hundreds of degrees. As a result, it leaked
fuel like crazy before takeoff.

------
markonen
I'm lucky enough to have flown on the Rocket once. A fun added benefit is that
in any typical company I will still (after 13 years) retain the bragging
rights for highest altitude (55500 feet / 17 km) and speed (Mach 2 at 1330 mph
/ 2140 km/h).

~~~
markonen
Here's a photo from the flight deck I snapped after that flight:
[http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-
Airways/Aerospatiale-...](http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-
Airways/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-102/1335572)

~~~
dan1234
To think, these days the flight crew would be disciplined for even allowing
someone into the cockpit.

~~~
raverbashing
You can if the aircraft is on the ground (if you ask nicely), which seems to
be the case of the picture

------
pseingatl
Don't forget that Richard Branson offered to keep Concorde flying under the
Virgin colors, but this was too much for BA to stomach. Didn't Sukhoi have a
project for a supersonic business jet? Concorde flew briefly into Miami as
well. I don't know how long it took them, but LHR-MIA is something like 10
hours subsonic. They also flew to someplace in the Caribbean regularly.

~~~
peteri
Used to fly to Barbados from Heathrow, which is why I had my honeymoon there.
When we booked it's retirement hadn't been announced if I wasn't already
travelling by Concorde I would done the LHR-JFK Concorde with QEII back round
trip.

I think flight time was around 4 hours, looking at the other folks arriving in
reception hours after us all looking shattered after a 9ish hour flight was a
great experience.

Would do it again tomorrow if I could worth every penny.

~~~
robotresearcher
There's a Concorde on permanent display at the airport in Barbados.

~~~
peteri
Didn't know that if I'm ever back there again I'll make a point of visiting,
Thanks

------
bboreham
I lived and worked within ten miles of London Heathrow airport when Concorde
was flying; not under the flight path but off to the side. Every time Concorde
took off you had to cease conversation until it passed; it was that loud.

~~~
alan_cx
Me too, and I still miss it.

~~~
gaius
And the Vulcan. Beautiful sound, beautiful plane.

Its said that once a USAF pilot saw the Vulcan manoeuvring and remarked that
it was awfully big for a fighter...

~~~
arethuza
Saw a Vulcan doing aerobatics fairly low over the wee Scottish village where I
grew up probably late 70s - an absolutely unforgettable sight and the NOISE -
like a thousand tormented demons howling at once.

Not sure if the Vulcan was supposed to deter the Soviets with its nukes or
simply scare them to death.

Edit: The Vulcan wasn't just loud in the "strategic bomber" sense of loud - it
also sometimes generated a completely unearthly howl that it is famous for.
Combine the engine noise and the howl and it really was quite a monster.

~~~
mathw
I think awareness of the Vulcan's purpose coupled with that howling was the
big thing for me when I saw it fly after they restored one. What an incredible
machine.

Just a shame it was originally built to kill millions of Russians. I know
military investment produces all kinds of awesome technology, but... we could
be better than that. And that's something Concorde felt like it represented.

~~~
arethuza
Och yes - I passionately hate what these things were intended to do but I
can't help be fascinated by the engineering and history of it all.

~~~
gaius
It was _intended_ to deter aggression, which it did successfully!

------
cstross
> BA's service had a greater number of passengers who booked a flight and then
> failed to appear than any other aircraft in their fleet.

All Concorde tickets were first class; first class tickets on flag carriers
are fully exchangable without rebooking fees, and the carriers will honour
each others tickets -- if you have a first-class ticket on Air France and the
flight's cancelled they'll ensure that some other (any other) airline with a
free first class seat will carry you instead.

So first-class tickets are popular with people who _really_ need flexibility,
and if you were flying JFK-LHR you might as well book a Concorde seat because
if you missed the speedbird you could just waltz aboard the next departing
747.

~~~
yitchelle
Lifetime first class ticket by American Airlines would allow you unlimited
flight on the concorde?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAirpass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAirpass)

~~~
cstross
US internal first class is not the same as full-fat intercontinental first
class on a flag carrier. (It's barely up to regular business class.)

I _do_ know a guy who was booked JFK-LHR in business class in the 90s and
whose flight was overbooked; BA offered free first class upgrades to anyone
who was willing to travel on the next departing flight with seats so he
volunteered, and was most surprised to get home two hours early!

------
makerofthings
I never got to fly on one, but I live near to one. You can go and sit in the
pilot's seat if you want :
[http://book.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/runwa...](http://book.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/runwayvisitorpark)

------
gaur
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement)

> It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons
> usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde
> that the airlines could make more profit carrying first class passengers
> subsonically.

Sad.

~~~
SFJulie
It was withdrawn because USA had no such to this plane and they were pissed,
so FAA forbid concorde to fly over their country, and always made clear they
would revoke the tolerance for landing near the transatlantic anytime soon.

USA is okay for being the first, but not the other country. They look like
France (and UK) of the colonial times.

So fun that a nation became what they fought against.

[https://www.contrepoints.org/2016/07/30/261731-usa-letat-
a-t...](https://www.contrepoints.org/2016/07/30/261731-usa-letat-a-tue-vol-
supersonique)

~~~
mathw
The Concorde was forbidden to fly overland in the USA because the sonic boom
is horrible for the people underneath it. And it's even horribly loud flying
subsonic.

We won't get supersonic commercial flight again without going suborbital
(which seems likely to happen at some point, just land SpaceShipTwo somewhere
else... like Australia), or someone figuring out how to design an airframe
which dissipates the boom before it hits the ground.

People are working on that, though.

~~~
SFJulie
Well, I have been looking at a map of USA ... It is a big country with a looot
of space with inhabited zones.

I have a picture for you to compare how small France is compared to USA
[http://www.wanderingfrance.com/blog/images/143.png](http://www.wanderingfrance.com/blog/images/143.png)

Oh, and the mirage and rafale find inhabited places everyday to make their
sonic bangs, so I am sure it can be done in the USA too and that their
military planes are doing so too.

------
CalChris
I knew a woman who worked for a Dot Com back in the day. She flew on the
Concorde to Paris for _meetings_ because it was important.

~~~
chiph
Dad got to fly it once. He had tickets on another Air France flight but
because of a strike (it _is_ France) it was cancelled. A German coworker
started yelling at the ticket agent, who after a few minutes of this abuse,
shrugged and upgraded dad, then walked off.

------
Graham24
My brother used to work for BA ticketing (DBA) and he told me that Concorde
was profitable towards the end of its life and always full.

I think he said that it was the charter flights that brought it the money.

~~~
djaychela
They ran them from Bournemouth Airport where I live, and they were always
popular. I went down to watch it take off once, and the noise and jet blast
was incredible - MUCH more than any other plane I've seen take off from there,
like being blown by a hairdryer all over.

My most lasting memory of it, though was the pollution - the air was brown
behind it when it initially thrusted up, and the smell was really intense. A
great machine, but not a friend of the environment, sadly!

~~~
anexprogrammer
They struggled to get them in and out of regional airports.

Can't remember runway minima etc, but I remember watching one leave Leeds-
Bradford that also ran some charters near end of life.

Right to the end of the runway, then full short takeoff tactics. Spin up
engines _and_ fire reheat on the brakes, then release. Noise and smoke as
you'd expect - engines were in the power and on reheat before it even moves.
One thing afterburners can never be is environmental.

Still managed to look like it used most of the runway before unsticking!

~~~
justin_hancock
Bournemouth has a long runway, legacy of its WWII roots. It was chartered for
£60,000 for some 20-minute subsonic flights. There were also some day trips to
Cairo from Bournemouth.

~~~
anexprogrammer
They're very similar to each other. Both count as short to Concorde, rotate at
250mph+ and wings that don't generate that much lift.

------
sarreph
> The fastest transatlantic airliner flight was from New York JFK to London
> Heathrow on 7 February 1996 by British Airways' G-BOAD in 2 hours, 52
> minutes, 59 seconds from takeoff to touchdown. It was aided by a 175 mph
> tailwind.

0_O - I think they invented the first commercial, non-viable time-travel.

------
skykooler
> To prevent excessive exposure, the flight deck comprised of a radiometer; if
> the radiation level became too high, pilots would descend below 45,000 feet.

I don't think that's the proper wording; I'm pretty sure there were other
things on the flight deck besides a radiometer.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Sure, but at least they got to use the word "comprised"!

~~~
fnj
Used it grammatically wrongly.

------
arnold_palmur
If you are interested in the Concorde, do yourself a favor and listen to this
Omega Tau episode [http://omegataupodcast.net/166-flying-the-
concorde/](http://omegataupodcast.net/166-flying-the-concorde/)

------
costcopizza
Any recommendations for a great documentary on this fascinating plane?

------
gambiting
"Taxiing to the runway consumed 2 tons of fuel."

This always bothered me - how come it's easier/cheaper to burn 2 tonnes of
fuel, than just tow the damn thing to the runway?

~~~
yaakov34
2 tons of fuel cost around $2000 (obviously this would vary, but that's the
sense of it), a single seat on the Concorde cost $6000+ one-way towards the
end of its service. Apparently the economics of a) retrofitting an auxiliary
power unit to the Concorde so that it could be towed with engines off and b)
adding personnel to the ground crew for towing the airplane did not make
sense. And even if the airline cared greatly about the environmental impact, 2
tons for a few Concorde flights is a tiny fraction of even a single airline's
fuel usage.

------
jstoja
Nowadays we're on the edge to re-using rocket launcher and still not
rethinking about how this Concorde could be improved and re-made viable... Too
bad...

------
mrfusion
I've always been curious to see the fuel usage numbers between a normal jet
and a vehicle that goes into space on a ballistic trajectory?

It seems like the latter would need less fuel because it only fights the
atmosphere on launch and then glides through a near vacuum most of the way.

But perhaps the additional speed requirements cancel the drag savings?

------
Ne02ptzero
Here's a video about the Concorde history, especially why did it commercially
failed:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE)

------
spitfire
If you go look on your nearest bay of pirates you can find a 3 hour video
covering an entire flight of Concorde from the cockpit. Details preflight,
taxi takeoff, fuel management, flight stages and everything.

------
manish_gill
Here's a tour inside the cockpit of the Concorde:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOeqH8YEviA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOeqH8YEviA)

------
Fuzzwah
For anyone else who didn't know that "normal" flight from JFK to Heathrow is
just over 8 hours.

Googling for this helped put the sub 3 hour 1996 concorde flight into
perspective.

~~~
isostatic
Sadly not. 8 hours going west, 6 hours going east. An ideal flight is about 12
hours, giving uninterrupted 8 hours of sleep as well as time for a movie,
dinner and breakfast. Even better if there's no jetlag. London to Joburg for
example.

East cost flights to Europe are horrible.

~~~
seszett
> _An ideal flight is about 12 hours, giving uninterrupted 8 hours of sleep as
> well as time for a movie, dinner and breakfast. Even better if there 's no
> jetlag._

Well... after having done Paris/Réunion a couple of times, a 12-hour flight
with little jetlag, I must say this was a pretty terrible experience. The
problem with sleeping for me isn't the length of the flight, it's the general
noisy environment and uncomfortable seats with little room for legs (even if
I'm not that tall), the upright posture, etc. Also, you don't get time for a
movie but for three or four of them.

I've always liked the Paris/Montreal flights much better simply because
they're short enough that you don't get bored as much.

~~~
kleiba
Couldn't agree more to the "uncomfortable seats with little room for legs"
part. I always envy people who aren't as tall as me and seem to be able to
actually get some sleep in.

That said, after having done Europe<->Australia and North America<->Australia
a couple of times, the prospect of a 12 hour flight doesn't really sound that
bad any more ("Only 12 hours? Sweet!").

~~~
mcguire
6'5" (1955mm) here. I don't sleep on airplanes. I did get a lot of work done
coming back from Amsterdam.

------
lstodd
Volunteer Tu-144 restoration project

[http://77106.livejournal.com/](http://77106.livejournal.com/)

