In highschool I was the only student that did a job shadow at a local aerospace engineering firm in San Diego called General Atomics.  There, I not only spoke with and shadowed an engineer, but also the senior exec's and other top employees.  I remember clearly my conversation with the market analyst of the company.  I mentioned I wanted to make hypersonic travel possible, then he asked, "where's the market?"  That is where and how I differ from most people, I know in my heart the market is already there, for thousands.  What's wrong, why aren't HST/SST's being built and sold like crazy?  Those people who will fly them do not believe they can afford it. 

We are so used to Concorde that we do not think outside the box, the idea of cheaper highspeed travel never comes to mind, its an impossible dream.  The default mindset is faster=expensive which has been proven over decades; customers think this and set an initial market value.  A company believes this and sees only that initial customer interest and designs products based on the expectation more customers are willing to pay more, until they discover they cannot afford to sell enough to get a reasonable return, they claim "no market".  See what I mean?   There is a market, just if a company cannot afford to sell enough, what then?  

Where does the change begin, customers or a company?  We customers cannot ask for options we do not even know of, we wil not demand a product we cannot afford or if suggested of it, if we believe we can never afford, regardless of need/want/desire.  We, sadly, are not in charge of the market.  What we say does not go unless we are in large enough numbers that a company can justify investment.

"No market" means "we cannot afford to sell you anything and the prices that we project our regular customer base can afford", little to do with whether anyone wants something or not.  Research has been done with every known product on what price gap is considered reasonable.  Too cheap and people preieceve bad quality, too expensive and people won't buy it despite precieving better quality.  Perception is psychological.  The number of people that do not believe in highspeed travel outnumber those that do.

IMO, the key is for a company to take the risk and shoulder the burnden of giving people the option of going faster without costing more.  I know it is possible, but the problem is getting them to buy the idea.  Convincing with talk serves no point, they need hard data, that starts the belief-ball rolling.  Unfortunately it may need to be 'obvious' or 'dramatic' for those that make products for 'existing' markets, i.e. large enough customer base to make money off of.

That is probably what I need to do at some point.  I got to build something, just I don't freeze my ideas and produce something, I'm always improving them on paper and computer.  Not for a second do I think I will have something perfect or obvious the first few times. 

Bad enough most people that I know just do not support the idea, Embry-Riddle is majority about doing-what-works, in fact I al willing to bet any engineering school in any country except maybe the field of software engineering does not support new ideas unless they are for improving current ones.  Odd though, companies ask for graduates with talent but once they get there, do not use them.   I got a lot of beef with traditional business thinking, just get the feeling that customers do not ask for anything except if a company offers it to them -- literally companies are in control of the market.  50 years ago that was not the case, we were in control. 

I think we should take back that control, at least in the airliner market, per se, IMO giving peopel the option to go faster and not pay more is one way.  How?  I think we should give customers what is good for them (yes how can I have the audacity to know?) , they want their time back.  See, most people who fly do not like to, it is just the best option.  Forcing them in an airplane with upto 600 others and/or for more than a night's sleep (8hrs) is not respectful of their time, they put up with it because so far it is cheap and/or convinient.  Asking them to pay more to go faster is a slap in the face.   They should be able to get their time back and not spend it on an airplane.   If the operational costs could come down such that supersonic flight sustained subsonic economics, would whatever market currently exists just get bigger?  While I see that as a DUH, companies and many customers do not.    It matters to have to fight perception, what peopel think controls what they buy [into].

This is kind of why I do not support a supersonic corporate aircraft, as it would kill off a potential commercial market by further supporting the idea that flying supersonic IS something for the rich.  Most people are not rich and will very obviously not ask/demand for a highspeed airliner.  Hence no company will invest as no one is asking.  Concept of "no market" lives on.

October 5th, 2006, 1310hrs MST.