alt Hacker NewsUnless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.
Replies
Could be useful for hub and spoke type systems, where you fly from a smaller city to the main hub, and catch a connection from there.
Even then there are lots of flights in Europe that are between cities less than 1 hour apart.
This idea generally makes more sense in Europe than the US, I think.
> 125 miles … That’s less than two hours of driving.
I don’t know where you live or what you drive, but I just punched in a destination 200 km away as the crow flies, the Alps are in the way and I’m looking at five hours of driving.
Also, water.
Without noise, over time, travel will change.
There are a fair number of connecting flights that this is a good fit for. For example, I fly out of Madison, WI regularly and almost always connect through Chicago, which I believe is right around the 125 mile mark.
Depending on the cost, and availability, 125 miles gets you within easy public transit range of NYC from Boston.
Now, of course, most of the hassle of getting to NYC from Boston is transit to and from the airport. And of course, transit from JFK, Laguardia, etc into the city.
There are at least 5 capable airports/airstrips closer to me than Logan or T.F. Green. Only one of them, Worcester, offers NYC flights. Worcester is almost an hour from me on average, and a bit more expensive. It’s an hour from takeoff to landing (I’ve arrived 10 minutes before takeoff, at the PARKING LOT many times without it being an issue).
If they can get this in and out of even smaller airports, like in Stow, MA, which is beyond capable, it will be a gamechanger.