By the 1930's when the airships were at their peak conventional aircraft were doing much better.
Point being, they had their fair share of accidents too, but no one says that airplanes were too dangerous.
And a single cruiser cost much less than an aircraft carrier. What's your point?A single airplane also cost nowhere near as much as an airship - we're talking something with the cost of a destroyer; USS Akron cost $4.5 million - a B-17 cost $240,000!
Akron isn't supposed to be the equivalent of one B-17.
I'd give a great deal to know how much that (underlined) would have been the case if Akron and Macon had lasted longer.A neat idea that the USN tried very hard to make work and pretty much failed at. In the 1930's airships were still competitive in a few areas and superior in others, but aircraft were developing fast and airships hardly developing at all. By the end of the 1930's loiter time was the only advantage, and aerial refueling would soon eliminate even that edge.
And I'm not sure whether airships continuing to last would have gone out of date quite so quickly.
I'm not saying they're superior, but they might have a niche, rather than being simply big and useless.
In fairness to your point(s), I feel romantic about those gasbags, so I'm probably half arguing because I want to believe in them.
One of the problems with airships is carrying capacity, at least of passengers. I'm not sure when airplanes become better in this regard, but it did happen by the 50s I think.
And the luxury issue...that's definitely a niche. Would be interesting to see how a Graf Zeppelin would compare to a Queen Elizabeth II in that category.
Though, on third thoughts, airplanes carry more people by cramming them in like sardines. One might manage the same thing on an airship, though that takes away the ability to claim "yes, but we have comfort".