Scottish Airliner (Flyglobespan) Implodes.

[Sea Skimmer]

Trouble with airships is they are very vulnerable to the effects of the weather, much more so then aircraft. That means missed schedules and lost money as they run away from rainstorms. Also airships need huge hangers, and they’d have to be built at locations which don’t handle commercial aircraft for safety reasons. That’s besides no real industry being left to build them. Liners have the advantage that they need only a pier to tie-up at, and the worlds ports have plenty of spare ones that can take 30 foot draught ships since so much cargo traffic has been shifted into very deep draught vessels that can use relatively few docks. Other then that it’s good to have a terminal building for people to wait in, but you can leverage off existing cruise ship facilities to an extent. Certainly that will work for startups.

Its possible airships will come back, but I don’t think they’ll ever be used for mass transit. After all during the short glorious career they had in the 1920s and 30s they were far more expensive then even a Concord flight is/was in relative terms. More of an elegant toy for the superrich then a practical transport system. Also keep in mind a lot can be done to make more fuel efficient aircraft if you are willing to accept flying much slower then current airliner designs, 250-300mph instead of 550mph or so. I think that’s a more likely gap filler then airships. But in the end its really going to all depend on how well we ween off oil. If we do the best job we could, then we might manage to make a smooth enough transition that none of this will be necessary, and while prices will go up it wont be unsustainably so. But I’m not holding my breath on that.

[Broomstick]

The problem with airships - other than the publicity disaster of the Hindenberg - is that they don't handle adverse weather nearly as well as ocean liners or airplanes. This does not rule them out entirely - the Graf Zepplin circumnavigated the world and visited the north pole entirely without incident - but given modern insistence on keeping schedules and routes this could be problematic with commercial services.

[Broomstick]

Simulpost!

Trouble with airships is they are very vulnerable to the effects of the weather, much more so then aircraft. That means missed schedules and lost money as they run away from heavy rainstorms.

Not just precipitation - high winds by themselves are also a problem.

Also airships need huge hangers, and they’d have to be built at locations which don’t handle commercial aircraft for safety reasons.

I don't think that has to be the case. Clearly, there must be appropriate separation between both flying aircraft and also adequate securing of such airships on the ground, but I don't see an inherent barrier to airships, fixed wing, and rotorcraft all operating from the same airport. The big Oshkosh airshow, for example, has airships attend every year as well as every other kind of aircraft. The US air regulations has clear right-of-way rules that incorporate airships along with everything else (hell, the FAA rulebook discusses how aircraft should operate around spaceships, you think they'd leave out zepplins? Then do seem to have removed the rule prohibiting wearing spurs while piloting aircraft, which had been on the books since the early 1920's)

That’s besides no real industry being left to build them.

The US could use a new industry. We have this jobs shortage....

That said, I doubt they'll come back for passenger service. I would be happy to be wrong on that, though.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't think that has to be the case. Clearly, there must be appropriate separation between both flying aircraft and also adequate securing of such airships on the ground, but I don't see an inherent barrier to airships, fixed wing, and rotorcraft all operating from the same airport. The big Oshkosh airshow, for example, has airships attend every year as well as every other kind of aircraft. The US air regulations has clear right-of-way rules that incorporate airships along with everything else (hell, the FAA rulebook discusses how aircraft should operate around spaceships, you think they'd leave out zepplins? Then do seem to have removed the rule prohibiting wearing spurs while piloting aircraft, which had been on the books since the early 1920's)

Considering that no ridged airships now exist, let alone ones remotely large enough to operate as viable passenger carriers, and yeah I don’t think the rules don't really cover those. Current TV camera platform airships are maybe 200 feet long, immensely smaller and more agile then something like a modern Hindenburg would be. And heck for all her 800 foot length Hindenburg still could only transport 72 passengers, and it would have been fewer still had she been helium filled as planned. You might be able to share the same airport with those things, but what do you think would happen if a Hindenburg flew through the wake of a 747? Or what if it got blown free of its moorings on the ground in a storm and into large body aircraft? It would be completely disastrous at a threshold well below that for normal planes.

You’d probably be stuck either operating one type or the other at a time, and while an airship wouldn’t mind circling for an hour very much, for aircraft flying on ever more expensive fuel one of the few things to look forward too in the future would be less airport congestion so they don’t waste so much. This is besides the simple trouble of finding enough open space on existing airports for the huge circular landing areas and mooring masts the airships would require. Most international airports are not just sitting on top of a half mile wide open circle of land they don't use.

[Broomstick]

You might be able to share the same airport with those things, but what do you think would happen if a Hindenburg flew through the wake of a 747?

What do you think would happen to a Cessna 150 flying through the wake of a 747? Part of air traffic control duties is maintaining adequate distance between aircraft. ATC already segregates air traffic based on size, weight maneuverability, etc. It's just another aircraft type. I've been in line for a runway behind an F-16 and in front of a B-737 in a small Cessna and trust me, they've got this down to a science.

Or what if it got blown free of its moorings on the ground in a storm and into large body aircraft? It would be completely disastrous at a threshold well below that for normal planes.

Currently, the practice is to move large airships before the storm arrives, but yes, what you describe is a possibility. Regular airplanes have been known to break free of their tie downs in bad weather, it's a mess. Hurricanes and tornadoes can and do overturn large airplanes (again, that's why the current practice is to move airplanes out of the way of a hurricane if at all feasible). I expect there would be rules about how and what ties down such airships. While it would be a pretty nasty mess, I don't see it as one of the truly major obstacles.

You’d probably be stuck either operating one type or the other at a time, and while an airship wouldn’t mind circling for an hour very much, for aircraft flying on ever more expensive fuel one of the few things to look forward too in the future would be less airport congestion so they don’t waste so much.

This is, to some extent, already an "issue" with modern air traffic. I am legally allowed to fly a Cessna 150 - which flies at highway speeds - into airports with 747's which is a similar problem, and rotorcraft are sufficiently different in flight characteristics that at many airports they are landed in a different spot than fixed wing aircraft. I'm not denying that the sheer size of an airship presents unique problems, I just disagree that they are so wholly incompatible.

This is besides the simple trouble of finding enough open space on existing airports for the huge circular landing areas and mooring masts the airships would require. Most international airports are not just sitting on top of a half mile wide open circle of land they don't use.

Are you sure it has to be over open land? Do you know there is a zeppelin mooring mast on top of the Empire State Building? Zeppelins don't really land, they are, for the most part, at permanent hover. You can park them over water or buildings or whatever, so long as there is sufficient clearance and a means to load/unload passengers and cargo and some means to stabilize the ship while docked. IF zepps ever become practical again I'm sure folks will get quite creative.

[Bounty]

Do you know there is a zeppelin mooring mast on top of the Empire State Building?

Which was a death trap and never used.

Yes, you can park an airship any place that has a mast and decent wind conditions. But if you're flying transatlantic you need to have permanent maintenance facilities that can store a non-gassed airship, because they will need maintenance and repair between flights. I would not be comfortable sending an airship to a port and knowing that if a gasbag fails while moored it can't be repaired - or worse, that the airship is now sitting with its ass in the Hudson and its nose in a supermarket. In the glory days of airship travel I don't think there was any major airship stop that didn't have an airship-sized patch of open land for moorings - for good reason.

[Broomstick]

Yes, if want to make the transatlantic route terminate in downtown New York City that could be a problem... which might be why the Hindenburg was mooring in New Jersey. Maintenance hangars for big jets aren't on the runway, they're on the edges of the airport. Likewise, if a zeppelin facility needs to be built it can be done - in the US eminent domain has been used to clear land for airport facilities. In other places, landfill into the ocean or other body of water has been used to expand an airport. It's a problem but it's not insurmountable.

[Bounty]

That's not my point. You were saying that you can moor an airship "anywhere" in response to the problem that airship travel will need more real estate, and that is simply not the case. Airships will need big infrastructure and Sea Skimmer was correct in pointing that out.

[Sarevok]

It's not like there is a lack of empty land in the United States. A dedicated aerodrome to house airships can be built.

[Broomstick]

We actually used to have a several such - the problem will be in places like Europe and heavily populated regions of Asia which are much, much more crowded.

[Sarevok]

We actually used to have a several such - the problem will be in places like Europe and heavily populated regions of Asia which are much, much more crowded.

It's true that airship hangers take up incredible amounts of space many densely populated countries can't economically spare. But what about simple airship masts ? They can allow loading and unloading to be done. The airship itself has enough endurance to return to airship handing facility elsewhere for proper maintenance.

[Broomstick]

That's not my point. You were saying that you can moor an airship "anywhere" in response to the problem that airship travel will need more real estate, and that is simply not the case. Airships will need big infrastructure and Sea Skimmer was correct in pointing that out.

You can moor an airship in a lot of places - which is different than having repair/maintenance/storage facilities on hand. You don't need those at every stop, and as I pointed out, the Graf Zeppelin demonstrated nearly a century ago that you can make stops even in undeveloped areas.You just need a lot of ropes and warm bodies to haul on them. The Graf, by the way, was the first to make a non-stop Pacific crossing, anything with that kind of endurance can make a few stops while traveling across a continent without requiring major facilities at every single stop.

Even today, passenger airlines routinely stop at airports that lack certain amenities such as repair facilities (in the event repairs are needed a crew with appropriate tools is sent out to the airplane) or even fuel depots (obviously, you then need to take on enough fuel at a prior to stop to get you to your next destination). As I said, these are problems but they are far from insurmountable. The biggest obstacle is generating sufficient interest in airship travel to make it profitable.

[Big Orange]

This discussion about the possible resurgence and drawbacks of airships is interesting. Here's an amusing pipedream video about near future airships: