What type of detergent are you using? Try liquid detergent, pour it in the empty wash tub (do NOT use too much — very common to use too much detergent), and then start the water fill. After the tub is approx 1/4 full of water and dissolved the detergent, then add the clothes.

Yes, I agree.

The Patriots are the “New England Patriots,” a region, not just a city. Fun fact: they’re the only NFL team with a name tied to neither a state nor a city.

The Pats’ stadium is in the Boston ‘burbs but roughly halfway between downtown Boston and Providence, Rhode Island. Indeed, the team’s private jet is parked at and typically flies out of PVD.

Disagree. Diverse energy sources are needed — pursuing “all eggs in one basket” approach has numerous problems. What we definitely need are cost-effective non-carbon energy sources; renewables AND nuclear are the answer.

Indeed. Modern designs are safer, too.

Biggest world energy mistake over past 30 years has been not building more nuclear power plants. Coal especially and eventually gas should be replaced w nuclear.

Oh, how I wish that my wifi / internet connection / printer driver / mobile phone / laptop / car technology / on-demand TV had the consistent reliability of that old toaster!

Correct. And lest anyone think it can’t go higher, Japan has a debt-gdp ratio of over 230% and they can manage their payments without problem. And lest anyone think their high debt leads to high interest rates, the BoJ benchmark rate is currently -.1% (yes, a negative interest rate — you currently pay Japan in order to carry their paper)

Federal debt is an odd beast, quite unlike any personal or corporate debt. Unlike every other debtor, the national debtor (i.e. the US government) also has the power to create money (via the Fed, usually) and also the power to set interest rates. And a lot of federal debt is actually owed to the debtor (yes, the federal government loans itself money). Furthermore, the debtor lives in perpetuity and can thus rollover repayment in perpetuity, as long as the interest payments to debt holders is made. And unlike private or corporate debtors, the federal government has the power to legally raise more money in order to make its payments.

TU-144 was a fascinating project. It was mostly about PR — there was no financial need whatsoever for supersonic civil aviation in communist states. But the Kremlin felt they needed to keep up appearances w the technologically advancing west. So they commissioned Tupolev (one of two government owned airplane makers, the other being Ilyushin, though I think they ended up using some Ilyushin people) to create a Concorde competitor to display at the Paris air shows. Recall that the US in that era was also developing a supersonic plane via Boeing’s SST (a taxpayer funded boondoggle program that was eventually scrapped before a plane was ever built). Just as there was a “space race” there was a “supersonic race” between east and west.

The Soviets started w military jet engines and built the wings and airframe using what they knew from civil aviation, their space exploration and quite a bit of corporate espionage from the Concorde program. But the wings proved to especially tricky and they had lots of engineering problems. All done, of course, with woefully behind Soviet tech and manufacturing capabilities (employees in the top secret plant would work in a poorly heated hangar on a cutting-edge supersonic plane during the day, and then return home at night to their old, decrepit shanty houses that lacked indoor plumbing).

What emerged was a shoddy, highly unreliable plane (with a cabin noise level that was reportedly deafening) that famously crashed at Goussainville in 1973. Aeroflot scheduled the plane on a Moscow-Almaty route but it was so unreliable and expensive to operate that it rarely made the trip. The bird was eventually (and quietly) abandoned.

Well, yes, this is now a factor too. When Concorde was developed there were no biz jets that could do TATL or Trans-pac. Now there are Gulfstream and Bombardier planes that can do these routes. So if I’m a Fortune 100 CEO or a billionaire, I can choose to fly commercial and maybe get there a little faster if there’s a supersonic option but endure all the hassles and limitations of commercial aviation -OR- I can take a G700 and have a much, much more pleasurable experience (and bring along my wife/lover...and friend or clients...and the family pet. And it’s wheels up exactly when I command).

Different market dynamics. And just looking at cost/distance doesn’t work well. Many short haul flights in the US are crazy expensive because of supply and demand (regional service on UA out of DEN or ORD is a good example).

Also: in Europe, the LCCs have to compete w railways — not so in the US, where airlines largely don’t compete w Amtrak (except in the Acela corridor).

Competition, supply/demand, AND distance (which is a cost function) all impact pricing. And of these three factors, distance is often the least significant variable in the model. Example: the ASM costs in the NYC-LA market are higher than, say, Denver to Billings, MT. But the amount of competition and demand/supply in these two markets varies dramatically, and therefore there are often cheaper fares to fly 2,475 nm from NY to LA than 455 nm from Denver to Billings.

Yes, definitely more affordable now.

Yes, there are unquestionably premium pax who will pay for J (biz class). Airlines love these pax. But the same fuel cost dynamics apply to J as they do to Y (economy). So any J seat in a supersonic will need to have exponentially higher pricing due to exponentially higher costs (which is why Concorde fares on BA were much higher than F fares on subsonic aircraft).

Since Concorde cost the airline nothing to buy (the plane was given to the airline for free), BA was able to make Concorde operationally profitable for a while based on the amount of demand for ultra-premium service on the London-NYC route and some charter business. But the singular nature of the NYC-London market (the province of exclusive bankers, lawyers, and media stars) makes that route unique in the world. AF never really made money flying the Concorde on its regular Paris-NY service.

And not long after the AF crash, the Concordes in operation were facing upcoming D Checks due to the total n of hours in service. A regulatory-mandated D check involves a total dismantling of the airplane for inspections of the airframe. Given the enormous cost of a D check, in most instances airplanes reach the end of their operational life at that point. No way did it make financial sense to do this. Concorde’s days were effectively over.

Yup. And also: trans-pac supersonic flight is especially tough because hauling that much fuel over such a long distance (versus TATL routes) poses its own physical challenges.

The Concorde was given — for free — to BA and AF by the consortium (BAC and Aérospatiale) of government-backed companies that built it.

And this was back when both of those airlines were majority owned by their respective national governments (they were later privatized).

The plane was built by government-backed companies with huge government subsides and then given to airlines which at that time were subsidized by the taxpayers. That’s how they could “make it work”

It does, but the costs of a 4 engine bird and the huge n of seats makes it a challenge for airlines to make the yields hit the mark. There just aren’t many markets where the A380 can consistently make financial sense for airlines that aren’t state subsidized.

A380 is a great airplane, but the economics of it just don’t work in most cases. It was built with the thought that airlines at major slot-restricted airports would need bigger aircraft to move the meat, but markets responded by offering more nonstop flights using smaller aircraft that avoid slot-restricted airports.

Yes closer, but not nearly enough to be even close to parity w subsonic aircraft. The efficiency of the A350, A320neo, and 787 are remarkable. Even the next-gen A330neo promises to be significantly more efficient.

747 is less cost efficient per ASM than modern ETOPS aircraft.

Agree. But it’s often hard to embrace the message of “yeah, this is pretty much as good as it’s ever gonna get.” Not exactly an uplifting message the media might like to sell or that people want to hear. Especially in aviation, where the gains over the past 100 years have been mind-blowing (though in fact most of those gains occurred between 1903 and, say, 1973).

Since the 70s commercial aviation flying technology has mostly been about better safety and fuel efficiency. The first time I flew to Europe was on a 747 in the early 70’s. Now, some 50 years later, the typical economy class passenger experience is pretty much the same (if not worse).

Every person in the media who reports on Concorde and civil supersonic aviation in general should see this graph. What’s dooms supersonic airline flights is not (directly) the laws of physics; it’s the laws of economics.

Flying at supersonic speeds uses exponentially more fuel, whether it was Concorde in the past or vapor ware proposals such as Boom in the future. This means dramatically higher operating costs, which, in turn, results in dramatically higher fares that are just not worth it for 99.9% of the flying public. And that is never going to change.

Given the choice between flying NYC-London for $1000 in 6.5 hours versus $2500 in 3.5 hours, 99+% of people will choose the first option each and every time.