On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:10:08 -0800, Greg Nokes <xxxxxx@nokes.name>
wrote:

>There would probably start to be levels of service between certain
>systems - IE “we can get your data/mail/cargo/people there in 40 hours
>rather then 150, so we will charge X more."
>
>
>I’d think it would be like the fed ex overnight vs fed ex ground - you
>are paying for time.

[...]

>I’d see a lot of first class, second class and normal rate traffic.

>So if you have a package that needs to get there really fast, you can
>pony up and buy space on the faster ship. I see a lot of businesses
>doing this - for stuff and for people. If you have employees traveling
>for meetings, spending 150 hours in jump is a bigger money sink then
>spending 40 hours in jump, and time is money - salary and lost
>opportunities. If you have a work team idling waiting on parts or
>materials, getting there 120 hours quicker could be a huge win.

>Honestly if you have two high pop worlds a jump or two apart, I could
>see a the majority of traffic using the faster jump.

Well, that would depend on the cost difference - the Concorde, for
example, never really became the flight of choice for NYC-LON or
NYC-PAR trips because the cost was so high relative to even
first-class on a 747. And the Concorde wasn't as nice as a 747 first
class.

(I walked through the retired Concorde at the Intrepid Sea Air Space
museum in NYC. Sucker is *tiny*! I can't imagine wanting to be cooped
up in it, even if it would be for only half the time of a 747 trip.)