"Can't work" is a pretty good effective compression of "work on the barest of technicality while being more expensive, slower, less flexible, and less reliable than pretty much all alternatives".

Also the Hindenburg was absolutely not able to take 100+ people across the atlantic, half of that was crew which you don't usually consider "taken over" as they have to fly back. So Hindenburg took 3 days to carry 72 passengers across the atlantic, needing 40 crew to do so, at a ticket price of $7460 (one way, in modern USD).

By comparison, bloody Concorde transported up to 128, with a crew of 3, in 3.5 hours, at lower prices.

You can also build a car with square wheels and cross north america in one.

> I'm not sure I understand your point, are you saying that airships don't work?

No, I'm saying that companies that try to sell airships don't work.

These companies are good at raising money, because the idea they sell is simple to explain, and many people don't do due diligence.

But in the same way that a car with square wheels is a worse solution to the problem, along pretty much any axis of comparison, than any of the alternatives available in the market, so are airships. With the difference that airships are also way more expensive than the solutions that are already in use.

This is why companies that build and try to sell them, default in 3-5 years after having raised the money.

---

The only types of airship that "works" are balloons able to cary 2-5 people. The weight is small, so the balloon surface is also small against the wind, the components required to drive them are simple and easy because the balloon is "small", and their use is purely occasional and recreational (or a tourist attraction where you can charge a bonus), so cost isn't a "huge" issue. People pay for the "fun", not to go from A to B.