Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Floating Cruise Ship
- Thread starter Mr. Anderson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
watcher2001 said:
I get your point and (partly) agree:
* if it's for business, you want to get it over ASAP;
* are you travelling for the travel or the destination? I personnaly hate travelling, but enjoy the destination much more (being in a "boat" with fellow travellers from my country does not appeal to me one bit - but that's just me)
Keep in mind the 18 hour trip coast to coast. I can see this departing DC at 7PM. Settle in for dinner at 8PM or 9PM. Do a show or some gambling till mid-night. Wake up after a good eight hours sleep. By the time you shower and pack, you have only four hours till you land in SF at 10AM their time. Ready to start your day.
If the cost is even near traditional jet flight, meaning something like $1200 R/T (unrestricted fares), I think that it would be well worth the comfort.
If the cost is even near traditional jet flight, meaning something like $1200 R/T (unrestricted fares), I think that it would be well worth the comfort.
The vehicle just gets me from Point A to Point B. The actual travelling part of my trip is NOT my trip. I don't fly to Thailand because I want to be on the airplane. That's not even 5% of the reason I travel, let alone 100% If I could get to Point B in a microsecond, I would. I'm interested in the destination, plain and simple, whether it's a vacation or a "business" related trip.
Abstract said:
Right, but there's something to be said for the trade-off between comfort, speed and price. If all that matters to you is speed, you'd gladly travel in a coffin (with an oxygen tank, of course...or at least a couple of holes punched in the top) if you could get from LA to NY in three hours. I'd rather take the comfort upgrade and spend six hours on an airplane. Some people sacrifice a bit more on the price end to upgrade to business or first class and increase the comfort level. This "cruise ship" is an extension of that...people will sacrifice the speed in order to increase the comfort level even more. It still doesn't have to be the focus of the trip, but in most cases, given equal prices, I would take a luxurious 18-hour cruise-ship experience over a 6-hour cattle-car 747 experience.
It has nothing to do with being the "reason" for your trip (though for some people it may be)...it's about your quality of life getting to your destination.
Abstract said:
oh come on... you know it's "not the destination, it's the journey"
...
it's nice to be comfortable when en route but that bling-bling blimpy thing is a bit much. interesting idea though.
Blue Velvet's "women and children first" made me do a real "LOL"
Chip NoVaMac said:
Don't expect to do any gambling within U.S. airspace. Hope that doesn't put too much of a crimp in your plans.
I'd still like to see their plan for crossing the Rocky Mountains at 8,000 feet (without getting snagged on a mountain, that is).
Just for fun, I did the math on cabin sizes comparing an Airbus A319 (which carries 124 passengers) to this floating cruise ship (which carries 120 passengers).
The A319 cabin is 78 x 13 feet (I know the width isn't constant, but this is the max, so let's estimate), or 1014 square feet, or just over 8 square feet per passenger.
The Aeroscraft cabin is 125 x 82 feet, or 10,250 square feet, or about 85 square feet per passenger.
So you get about ten times the space you're used to getting on an airplane. I know it's a very rough estimate, but it's something to think about...
The A319 cabin is 78 x 13 feet (I know the width isn't constant, but this is the max, so let's estimate), or 1014 square feet, or just over 8 square feet per passenger.
The Aeroscraft cabin is 125 x 82 feet, or 10,250 square feet, or about 85 square feet per passenger.
So you get about ten times the space you're used to getting on an airplane. I know it's a very rough estimate, but it's something to think about...
People keep mentioning the price of Helium...they're not going to vent it each time they land. That Helium is designed to stay in the ship for its entire lifetime. It's designed to require propulsion to fly so landing will just require lowering speed. Helium is considerably cheaper than the aluminum(or whatever it is they've constructed this out of).
whocares said:They're trading comfort for money, not time.
Until someone figures out that they can fit far more seats in there just like the new Airbus and 747s of the past where the idea was to give passengers more room until economics kicked in.
Of course. But it's a balance of all three factors. Different factors will carry different weights for different people. All I'm saying is that a lot of people really hate to fly in the cattle car they call coach on an airplane...the comfort level is too low for them. There are two ways out of that: One way is to give some on the price end to upgrade to business or first class. The second is to give some on the speed end in return for a more comfortable trip. Currently, trains and ocean liners are options here, but the amount of speed you have to sacrifice is often too much. This new floating airship greatly reduces the amount of speed you have to sacrifice while maintaining much of the comfort increase.whocares said:They're trading comfort for money, not time.
My argument was simply that there are multiple factors...speed is not the only one. As Abstract said, if he could get to Thailand in a microsecond, he would. And I would agree with that. But how much would you give up on the price and comfort ends to get that quick travel time (if it were possible)? You can only give so much on the price end...cash is not infinite. So if you don't have enough cash (or do, but don't want to spend it) then you start giving on the comfort end. Would I travel in a coffin if I could get to Thailand in a microsecond? Of course...the speed is so high that I wouldn't notice the discomfort. But what if traveling in a coffin only saved you half the time? Nine hours in a coffin for me...I don't think so. Eighteen hours in coach class on an airplane...that I could deal with, but it's not fun. Fifty-four hours on an airship...if I wasn't constrained by time, it would certainly be an enticing option.
Okay, I've certainly said too much now. Back to your regularly-scheduled programming.
Applespider said:
Fortunately, the load capacity is only 28,000 lbs., so you can't really pack in any more people, or it won't float.
WildCowboy said:
I get your point. I hate cattle-class and wish I were wealthy enough to afford a business-class upgrade. But I'd still settle for cattle-class if it takes ½-⅓ of the time...
I mostly travel by train in Europe. It betters air-planes in comfort and time. Low cost companies can be cheaper, but you just can beat London Waterloo-Paris Gare du Nord in 2.5 hours flat. The Eurostar and TGV *rule*.