
When the Hindenburg Was the Height of Luxe In-Flight Dining - js2
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/05/19/528508054/photos-when-the-hindenburg-was-the-height-of-luxe-in-flight-dining
======
madaxe_again
I think there's room for an airship renaissance, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, speed doesn't matter as much as it did, particularly for tourists -
if I can take two days crossing the Atlantic in luxury rather than crammed
into a tiny seat, at a not-huge price differential, I'm game.

Secondly, communications. Easy enough (albeit still pricey) to use the likes
of iridium for internet everywhere. No longer so important to reach your
destination fast.

Thirdly, technology. No longer does the thing need to be stuffed with hydrogen
- rather helium. Give it a little while and we can stuff it with vacuum in
spun carbon vessels. In place of the fossil driven air-screws, make the entire
thing a fat flying wing, cover the top in PV, use electric propulsion.

Finally, given the ever increasing popularity of cruises, I can see people
paying serious money for an inland cruise over the alps etc.

Additionally, even the Hindenburg was arguably safer than a modern airliner.
If the latter catches fire or crashes, the likelihood is 100% mortality for
the souls aboard - whereas an airship allows for slow ditching or even
emergency parachute pods.

Please, somebody, tell me why this is a bad idea.

~~~
anovikov
Because of staff salaries and operating costs that will need to be covered
with 10-20% the number of tickets sold, because the thing is many times
slower. It might make 150 flights one-way per year vs ~700 for a jet. So the
ticket will be much, much more expensive.

~~~
mmphosis
Not just on airships, but running transports without zero on board staff might
have added benefits and efficiencies. I know that in Vancouver the Sky Trains
ran without on board staff.

If the airships can be run like transit in Switzerland then the costs of
traveling through airports can be removed.

<rant> Adding six or more hours, or more days in expensive hotels if the dates
and times are bad which they usually are, to air travel and all of the new
hassles is less and less worth the bother. Having to arrive 3 hours early,
lining up early to check-in, possibly paying for and trusting the airport with
larger baggage, lining up again and going through security, lining up again to
board the plane. Queuing again out to the runway. Do all of that again when
you land. All of this with the possibilities of flight delay, cancellation and
other changes that airlines will foist upon paying clients. I think travel
should be like riding the bus, you show up, you swipe your phone / ticket /
pass and go. </rant>

If done right and at low cost, I would like to see airships displace jets.

~~~
anovikov
Well, down here in Europe this works exactly like this. You arrive to the
airport, scan your printed boarding pass once, go through gate and pass your
bags through xray (no taking off shoes), then go to boarding and scan pass
again. No arriving 3 hours early, usually no lines, no extensive security
checks. It is normal to arrive 40 minutes before takeoff if i have to check in
or 25 minutes if i am already checked in (i have a VIP pass at the airport so
i never stand in lines, but that's cheap). About half of the time nobody even
asks for my passport, at least when i fly within Schengen.

What you described is the American TSA hell, this is not normal everywhere in
the world.

~~~
moritzplassnig
It heavily depends on the airport. E.g. TXL is horrible (depending on the
terminal) and even an hour before at peak times isn't enough. Time of the day
(e.g. mornings are usually peak times) matter as well.

Luggage drop-off is usually until 45min before departure, same as in the US.

Would love to see some data that quantifies that and recommends when to be at
the airport depending on which terminal/gate, status (e.g. priority or TSA
Pre), checked in or not, luggage drop-off or not, etc.).

------
WalterBright
The fear of hydrogen lifting gas is overblown. The Hindenburg burned largely
because the canvas was painted with highly flammable paint that was chemically
similar to rocket fuel.

We regularly fly in airplanes full of fuel, and if they catch fire in flight
the odds of any survivors is extremely poor.

Hot air balloons, with no hydrogen, catch fire now and then and everyone dies.

~~~
theGimp
That's a disingenuous claim.

Planes have big engines and can generate a great deal of lift. That means
their fuel can be housed inside safe tanks of metal.

An airship needs to have thin lining around its lifting gas in order to fly.
One can make the argument that recent progress in materials engineering makes
it possible to have material that is thin but strong -- and I know next to
nothing about the state of materials engineering -- but that does not change
the fact that for the past few decades, a hydrogen airship would have
introduced a great deal of risk for no good reason.

~~~
yongjik
> That means their fuel can be housed inside safe tanks of metal.

I think the point is moot: at a typical speed where airline accidents happen,
these metal tanks will be punctured and catch fire.

~~~
jonas21
But the point is that the Hindenberg suffered a catastrophic fire _without_
colliding with anything.

~~~
greglindahl
TWA 800 didn't collide with anything.

------
tyingq
Dining on a Boeing Business Jet (converted 737):
[https://corporatejetinvestor.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/...](https://corporatejetinvestor.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Dining_Area_BBJ1_9HBBJ.jpg)

~~~
akhilcacharya
Probably similar on the Trump 757

~~~
drdeadringer
Do we have pictures of Air Force 1 dining?

~~~
positr0n
Not Air Force 1, but here is his private jet:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/7602997572...](https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/760299757206208512)

------
_h_o_d_
There are rumours that Sergei Brin is making a dirigible
[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/serge...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/sergey-
brins-zeppelin/524568/)

And David Brin (no relation) talks about using them in his books Earth (1989)
and Existence (2012)

------
rubyn00bie
I for one would love to live on an Airship. It's the one fantasy/sci-fi thing
I don't think I've seen any work on but that I personally want more than
anything else.

I read, somewhere, about theoretical floating cities being possible on Venus I
believe due to the denser atmosphere and I thought it was brilliant. I just
wish we could do it somewhere, where the surface was hospitable instead of
instant death (not that either is much closer to being reality right now than
the other).

------
gumby
I hope airships return -- for freight. In Africa it's difficult to build rail,
so landlocked countries suffer. Airships would be perfect.

~~~
ams6110
Are they actually competitive with freight aircraft? Something like an older
DC-3 or C-47 can land and takeoff on short, rough airstrips and are used
extensively for shipping goods in remote areas of Alaska. They only need a few
crew and are very durable. Don't know how the operating costs compare though.

~~~
digi_owl
I think the idea for using airships is that you could basically attach any old
container underneath it, effectively using it as a flying container crane.

------
ant6n
[http://www.airships.net](http://www.airships.net) is a great resource to
learn about the airships, both the technical aspects and the life on board. It
seems every article's comments is a discussion about whether and that we
should ot could start building Zeppelins again. Makes one wish to be in a
position like Elon Musk.

