Entropy & Speed: You Told Airlines To Slow Down

Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Currently humans are quite limited in terms of the amount of energy we use. The Sun emits more energy then we could ever need. We just can't capture and store it at scale.

The fundamental properties of the universe we exist in dictate everything in our reality. From our immune system to how our own cells convert glucose into energy. We're honestly a bunch of atoms, molecules, and cells that bump into each-other. The interactions are subject to the laws of physics. No amount of VC funding can change this. See #theranos.

And in this world with fairly limited energy storage options - A world subject to the laws of physics and market demands -> Flight must be efficient.

Some of the best innovations in flight come from looking at nature. Some winglits on aircraft are inspired by the tips of bird wings. These aerodynamic features curtail drag from something called a wingtip vortex. I'll skip the detail, but those little wing tip features save fuel. These Aviation Partners Boeing "split scimitar" winglets also look rad - at least to me.

In commercial aviation - much like our cellular evolution - the most reward lies within conservation of energy. Low cost carriers like Ryanair - Europe's Favourite Airline create more value than say long haul international First Class. Rich people do have a lot of money, but regular people still have more. Much more. Flying regular people around using less fuel is the result of airline deregulation. It's what the market wants.

Note: There is absolutely tons of value in premium travel offerings -> from domestic short haul first class to long haul international business class. When I say first class above, I'm referring to the long haul flights with caviar service, even a shower in some cases. In the premium heavy transatlantic market, nicer seats with better meals make airlines a ton of money. But you won't find a true first class on every flight. British Airways , 法航 , and 汉莎航空 have quite a few transatlantic routes with limited or no true first class offering. American Airlines , United Airlines , and Delta Air Lines , the other big three on transatlantic travel phased out first class on their long haul flights, focusing on business class.

Some form of extra leg room, premium economy, or lay-flat business class seat are almost ubiquitous now. And there may be more value in credit card points than flying of any kind, but that's a whole other can of worms... ANYWAY

Elites hate you flying. The type of people who can fly private here and there or true long haul first class. I don't mean well off people per se, I mean the type of people who can throw $Ms in investment at things they fancy. They want to go back to a world of empty airports and high fares - where travel is faster and glam for them. Bullocks to the rest of you. This is the art of the Boom Supersonic con.

Is their CEO Blake Scholl really the only person asking, "why are planes flying slower today than yesterday?" - He's not. And in fact the main reason a jet flies a little more slowly today than in "the good ole' days " has everything to do with you.

You told airlines to slow down. You told them to make seats smaller. You told them to charge for checked bags, you told them to cut free meals and drinks. You told airlines this every single time you went to book a flight and chose the cheapest option from a search aggregator.

"Basic economy" exists in America thanks to Spirit Airlines growing like a weed and American Airlines , Delta Air Lines , and United Airlines didn't want to be left behind.

Many rich people hate this. They hate that their voice is smaller than yours. They hate having to share this magnificent blue dot with the rest of you. Boom can opine about making the world a smaller place for everyone, but the people bought into the project don't care about you at all. They want to fly across The Atlantic in 3 hours. They have some almost psychotic desire to spend only 24 hours in Tokyo.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to fly across an ocean to spend 24 hours in Tokyo is philosophically wrong on so many levels. From energy use, to leadership, to living life well. Spend a few days in Tokyo. Just do it.

Flying is deeply energy intensive - don't waste that gift. A train doesn't have to keep all its mass miles high. Electrified trains don't even need to carry the mass of their own energy either! Right now Jets are powered by Jet-A - 7ish lbs. a gallon, .8kg/liter. To fly supersonically requires you to to fly even higher and to "break the sound barrier." As a plane speeds up towards Mach 1, air builds up on the front of the airplane. It takes much more energy to break through this invisible barrier than to fly at .8 times the speed of sound.

The reason planes fly a little slower than yesterday is similar to evolution. It takes less energy to do so - so that form dominates.

While a lot of new technology and materials do exist today compared to when The Brits and The French built The Concorde... the fuel source is the same. Don't be fooled by the #sustainableaviationfuel frenzy - there are little pockets of hope here, but it's a long way off. Whatever SAF that does exist will do more good if used subsonically. Once again, the principle of energy conservation will win out.

Time matters. But on time flights matter more than faster flights. Ryanair gets this. Its the most on time airline in Europe. Plus, Airlines have and will continue to invest billions is their onboard service offerings. Flat beds and Internet access can turn transoceanic flights into restful and productive experience for the business traveller. Flying faster doesn't topple jet-lag either.

Most people grasp that time as it pertains to our conscious reality is finite. However, energy is somewhat similar to time. We do not have unlimited amounts of energy to use. Hydrocarbon energy is expensive in terms of cost and environmental detriment. One day in the future, Humans may tap into the energy of atomic bonds in a way that unlocks much faster travel. There could be vastly different methods to use energy that I simply can't conceive of. Either way, we're not there yet.

For now safe flight at roughly .8 times the speed of sound is the norm. And efforts to reduce flight's fuel intensity will dominate aircraft development. The near future, the hydrocarbon based - or sustainable analog - future won't be about speed, but about energy use per unit of payload flown. Speed will be a function of this constraint. It's not a sexy vision to many, but it is reality.

Oh and that reality might likely be even slower in many use cases.