111–120 of 488 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Bad" names can attract lots of attention. Perhaps they're more interested in turning heads than setting up the best possible brand connotations.
Brands? Who cares? Are they the cheapest, fastest etc? I don't care which characters constitute their name, nor which bitmap they've chosen for their current logo.
Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.
Nobody cares anymore.
Cause fuel aint cheap like it used to be.
Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.
It gets scarier, they compare it to the Concorde based on price: Unlike Concorde, flying Boom is affordable—the same price as business class. Ok, so the Concorde had some critical engineering faults, making it cheaper definitely sounds more secure.
The plane is made of cardboard and that just doesn't make me confortable....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the problem with those was always the sonic boom created by flying at > 1 Mach. It shattered windows on the ground. Could be wrong tho
Most of that route would be over the Pacific, so it would be fine, too (although ex-West Coast US). It might be a fuel issue on distance, but probably not. Also potentially an ETOPS range issue. However, there are three big issues with transpac: (not impossible issues, but strong reasons why NYC-LON is ideal as MVP) 1) Greater number of destination cities on each side; for transatlantic, NYC-LON really is the main ma…
A lot of really sparsely populated inland. How politically influential are the Siberian fur trappers this route [0] overflies? Enough to counteract the fat overflight fees that Russia likes to charge?
[0] http://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper/rout...
Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.
It describes their values as something like 'fly long distance in the morning, do a bunch of meetings there, and be back before the end of the day'. Does it make sense to travel 20,000km on one day to make a bunch of meetings, spending 15,000$? I feel that better tele-presence just makes more sense.
It describes their values as something like 'fly long distance in the morning, do a bunch of meetings there, and be back before the end of the day'. Does it make sense to travel 20,000km on one day to make a bunch of meetings, spending 15,000$? I feel that better tele-presence just makes more sense.
The telepresence rooms we have at our corp. are 100's of thousands for a room. And you have to have another room on the other end. If it will be a consistent meeting then it makes sense to set them up but for one off meetings at different locations then the cost is not justified. I do see a stereoscopic (3D) 360 VR future someday but we have a ways to go to get the 'presence' of that down to realism still.