No justification is given for ending the ban. Supersonic places are expensive enough that supersonic flight will be the exclusive domain of the wealthy for years.
I'm okay with not having to deal with the booms if it means the wealthy are stuck flying the same speed as the rest of us.
The obvious retort is that many modern conveniences began as expensive goods that we eventually figured out how to scale, or make more cheaply. It’s not as obvious that this counter-argument is robust, given the known history that we have with the Concord3. But if the economic is won’t work out, they won’t work out.
But I’m increasingly leery of arguments that imply the best way to achieve fairness is for everyone to have fewer nice things. And I say that as someone who thinks we should be taxing the wealthy at much higher rates than we do.
> But I’m increasingly leery of arguments that imply the best way to achieve fairness is for everyone to have fewer nice things
Isn't this exactly a case of everyone having fewer nice things (such as peace and quiet) for the sake of a convenience for the very few? The author seems to actually propose a noise level of 90 PLdB with a straight face.
I'm okay with not having to deal with the booms if it means the wealthy are stuck flying the same speed as the rest of us.