There is a tendency for tales of planned airliners to compare, even if implicitly and unintentionally, the realities of today's air travel with the marketing of yesterday's. Behind all the...
There is a tendency for tales of planned airliners to compare, even if implicitly and unintentionally, the realities of today's air travel with the marketing of yesterday's.
Behind all the company's talk of a sleeper compartment, a lounge, and a restaurant, there is what likely would have been the practical reality mentioned briefly amongst the marketing: "capable of carrying 130 passengers luxury-class or 220 tourist class". Had an airline actually ordered one of these, would they have actually ordered the configuration that squandered space for various rooms that look impressive in illustrations, or the version that used those spaces for more passengers?
If you look at today's marketing, you can see similar advertisements, of how tomorrow's planes will have lounge areas, or restaurants, and so on. They won't, of course, but the marketing will be there regardless.
The idea, after all, doesn't make much sense, even when trying to prioritize passenger comfort rather than cost. On a plane, where weight, space, and size are all major factors, it makes little sense to have entire sections of the plane, and corresponding equipment and material, that will only be used for small portions of the flight, rather than having spaces that can be repurposed for those portions, and equipment that can be used for multiple purposes. To this end modern first-class air travel has been quite efficient by comparison. The marketing for the flying boat here would have a passenger need a seat, a table and a seat for the table, and a bed, all in separate rooms. The modern first-class seat provides all of that in one unit.
On a completely different note, it is fascinating to see how a company, faced with specializing in a product that had been made clearly inferior by unforeseen circumstances (developments in aviation during the war), chose to make no changes to their plans, rather than try to move to land-based airliners or to specialized seaplanes. I wonder how much the realities of a business that needs such involved and long-term research and development work meant that the company, even perhaps knowing that the plan was almost hopeless, had no other option?
There is a tendency for tales of planned airliners to compare, even if implicitly and unintentionally, the realities of today's air travel with the marketing of yesterday's.
Behind all the company's talk of a sleeper compartment, a lounge, and a restaurant, there is what likely would have been the practical reality mentioned briefly amongst the marketing: "capable of carrying 130 passengers luxury-class or 220 tourist class". Had an airline actually ordered one of these, would they have actually ordered the configuration that squandered space for various rooms that look impressive in illustrations, or the version that used those spaces for more passengers?
If you look at today's marketing, you can see similar advertisements, of how tomorrow's planes will have lounge areas, or restaurants, and so on. They won't, of course, but the marketing will be there regardless.
The idea, after all, doesn't make much sense, even when trying to prioritize passenger comfort rather than cost. On a plane, where weight, space, and size are all major factors, it makes little sense to have entire sections of the plane, and corresponding equipment and material, that will only be used for small portions of the flight, rather than having spaces that can be repurposed for those portions, and equipment that can be used for multiple purposes. To this end modern first-class air travel has been quite efficient by comparison. The marketing for the flying boat here would have a passenger need a seat, a table and a seat for the table, and a bed, all in separate rooms. The modern first-class seat provides all of that in one unit.
On a completely different note, it is fascinating to see how a company, faced with specializing in a product that had been made clearly inferior by unforeseen circumstances (developments in aviation during the war), chose to make no changes to their plans, rather than try to move to land-based airliners or to specialized seaplanes. I wonder how much the realities of a business that needs such involved and long-term research and development work meant that the company, even perhaps knowing that the plan was almost hopeless, had no other option?