9 ms·

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. N

by rdl 11y ago

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an already absurdly long flight in half doesn't make as big a difference. I personally would generally prefer an F cabin + great Ka-band Internet for 14h, vs. a coach/Concorde sized seat for 7h. I wonder how long until there's a Business Jet variant of this, or a Government/Military/Scientific version -- the operating costs of commercial aircraft tend to be much less than purpose-built government aircraft, so there's probably a mission/role for it.

ropiku 11y ago
The issue with it is that supersonic flight (due to noise) is only allowed over non-populated areas so a business jet variant is less useful unless you spend most of your time flying over the ocean (and not coast-to-coast for instance).
- rdl 11y ago
  Yeah, it's also super inefficient/cramped/etc. compared to a G650/BBJ/etc, so it would only really make sense as a "second" business jet in a corp/personal/royal fleet, or, more likely, part of a fleet somewhere like NetJets. It's the "entire aircraft, on demand" part on a mostly finite set of routes, not the "fly anywhere you want", with this.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > The issue with it is that supersonic flight (due to noise) Actually it's with the technology currently in use with supersonic flight that there is this large amount of noise. It's technically possible to reach supersonic without the boom and NASA is currently working on it with some contractors. I hope it pans out well; I would love to be able to fly between BWI and SFO in 2 hours. http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-is-building-a-jet-that-breaks-the-speed-of-sound-without-the-supersonic-boom http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-is-building-a-jet-that-brea...
aidenn0 11y ago
If they could make it quiet enough to go over land, transcontinental US flights would be great; LA/NY in 2.5 hours would likely have a pretty high demand. [edit] As someone who flies LA/DC fairly regularly I do have to mention my favorite record of the SR-71 doing that flight in under 65 minutes.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  I wonder if the "no booms over land" rule will always remain in force. When I was a child, the planes from Whiteman AFB broke that rule quite often. It was interesting to hear the boom over the phone when speaking with a school friend who lived say eight miles away, and then immediately hear the whole house shaking when the plane got to my end of the circuit. It would have been annoying at night, I suppose, but during the day it was not a hardship. These military planes made no particular effort to climb to high altitude before breaking the barrier, either. While the area I'm talking about is rural, it's much more heavily populated than are e.g. the Great Plains. So, I think that high-altitude sparse-population daytime routes could be developed that would admit supersonic flight over much of North America.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    You may not have minded your entire house shaking, but most would probably quickly grow to resent such unnecessary disruption. It's a good way to kick everyone in a large region out of their zone. If this was a constant occurrence, work may quickly cease, or become greatly diminished.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Sure, but these were 1980s-era fighter/trainer jets flying at probably 1000 ft., and it only shook the whole house when they flew pretty close. Other times one might only hear the boom when outside. I think a passenger craft of recent design of recent materials, flying at 40k ft. could do much better, even before routing to avoid populated areas. I don't think anyone, even those who live on ranches in the Dakotas, really has a right not to hear a noise during the daytime.
ohitsdom 11y ago
> has made this economic. That remains to be seen. They don't even have an engine yet, so this is still firmly in the "we'll see" category.
- paulmd 11y ago
  Seriously. People here are way underestimating the costs to develop and certify a major commercial airframe, especially across the multiple regulatory regimes inherent to international flight. You're probably talking about on the order of a billion dollars even if you're playing it cheap. If you want to start re-engineering components instead of buying off the shelf, that number will go uphill rapidly. This is not a field that's amenable to "disruption". Cutting corners means that dozens of people plummet to their deaths, not to mention the abrupt end of your airline as their families sue you into oblivion. If you try to play this like Uber and flout the regulations, the FAA and EAA will ground and impound your gear so fast your head will spin, and rightly so. Even a test aircraft is a gigantic tank full of explosive fuel hurtling through the air on a couple flimsy wings. When things go wrong people die, and the FAA does not play games. Airlines are an incredibly low-margin business in the best case, and supersonic airliners in particular are a very niche market and have immense operating expenses (to purchase and maintain the airplane and to slake its immense thirst for fuel). The Concorde's operators could never make it profitable. Never say never, but this just seems like fantasy. Supersonic airliners are a problem domain that has been pored over by engineers for decades, six engineers are not going to pull a rabbit out of a hat and solve all the technical problems, then get it certified, then start an airline. Each of those is a problem that requires a national-scale corporation to handle.
  - nether 11y ago
    How many people did SpaceX start with? Certainly not the thousands of workers it has today. Everything you said about requiring a "national scale corp" was said about launching rockets to orbit as well. Looking at Boom's roster they have some seriously experienced industry vets working for them or advising them. This isn't just fresh grads. They've been through FAA/EASA cert trials of new aircraft, testing and understand it a fair bit more than you do I suspect. I'd give them a bit more credit and assume they know that they're in for the long haul with this airliner.
StavrosK 11y ago
> single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Was the LON-NYC flight time the problem, though? I think that to go door-to-door right now you spend 50% of the time in the air and the other 50% on the ground. With this company, you'll be spending 3.5 hours in the air and 8 hours getting to and from airports and through security.
- ElijahLynn 11y ago
  I would think that the people that can afford this have Uber helicopter service to/from the airport and all the line skipping extras paid for already. Not sure it is really 8 hours to and from airports/security.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    Right. Selling at this price point they can easily focus on expensive extras. Special terminal with super fast security, then really quick transfers in both ends. If you could do a small airport experience in both ends (1h from hotel room to liftoff) they can charge what they want.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    At one point in New York, it was pretty routine for first class passengers on Pan Am to take a helicopter from JFK to the Pan Am building, which had a helipad on the roof. The service may even have been included as part of the fare. (This service was discontinued after an accident though, at least for a time, I believe there was still service to a helipad next to the East River.)
    - sethhochberg 11y ago
      There are still several services providing service to JFK from Manhattan helipads. Blade is one example: https://www.flyblade.com/ https://www.flyblade.com/
- astrosi 11y ago
  It depends on the airport that you are travelling from. London City has famously fast security, currently you can check-in upto 15 minutes before the scheduled time of departure for a flight to New York. [1] [1] http://www.londoncityairport.com/travelandbooking/page/check-in http://www.londoncityairport.com/travelandbooking/page/check...
Someone 11y ago
"Pretty amazing that materials science has made this economic." That, I think, still is an open question. Someone must think there is a decent chance it will be, but if this were a no-brainer, there would be multiple players in this market. Also, oil price fluctuations, the bane of any airline company, will hit those running these planes harder.
- usefulcat 11y ago
  I was curious about fuel costs and found that the fuel cost per seat per mile for Delta and Southwest was around $.04 per mile in 2Q 2014. At that rate, even if this new aircraft uses 4x as much fuel per person it would amount to around 20% of the ticket price. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/southwest-fuel-hedging-overview-june-170015422.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/southwest-fuel-hedging-overvie...
partisan 11y ago
> I personally would generally prefer an F cabin + great Ka-band Internet for 14h, vs. a coach/Concorde sized seat for 7h. Agreed. I spent 5 of the most uncomfortable hours of my life on an airplane from JFK to San Diego, being 6'1 and not particularly slim. Thereafter, I upgraded my seats on that flight to Economy Plus. I guess I could stand a 2 hour flight like that, but not too much more. Getting me there faster, but in a more cramped space won't make me feel better.
- dantiberian 11y ago
  I can almost guarantee that you will not be cramped in these planes. They're selling it as an alternative to business class.
  - rdl 11y ago
    Concorde was almost coach level cramped. There is no way this will be as comfortable as top end subsonic lie flat business or first class. For 3h vs 6h that doesn't matter. For 7h vs 13h I assert it does.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      In a number of ways, modern upper class air travel is significantly more comfortable than it was throughout most of the Concorde era. First class and then business class were a lot more like today's domestic first/business class even for long haul international flights. Of course, things like entertainment options are a lot better today as well. (Though there's no 747 upstairs first class lounge :-)) Security, etc. is worse of course--though that's largely outside of the airline's control.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    So was Concorde, but they were very uncomfortable (been on a couple in museums). Concorde feels like coach in a small commuter plane.
ido 11y ago
The top speed of a 747 is 0.85 Mach, so it should cut the duration by more than 2x.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Only in the best case scenario. One of the reasons Concord "failed" is that it could never fly supersonic over land and had to start slowing long before the destination otherwise it would overshoot (along with fuel costs causing Concord to be more expensive than business class).
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  Speed only matters for the cruise part of the flight. The first and last 45 mins, plus airport time are not different. The slowdown portion of a Mach 2.2 flight will be even longer. (edit: maybe not much on the slow-down: see Concorde data via link below)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 11y ago
    They likely accelerate much faster, and slowing down from mach 2.2 is also fast.
    - robotresearcher 11y ago
      Data from an actual Concorde flight shows slowdown-to-land of around 45 mins, so around the same as a regular flight. http://www.blodtandsmidigt.com/concordeprofiles.html http://www.blodtandsmidigt.com/concordeprofiles.html
      - Retric 11y ago
        Yes, but if the Concorde slows from Mach 2 to 0 over 45 mins then it's average may be ~mach 1. Which is faster than the average velocity of a normal 747. Granted, if the Concorde shows up and needs to circle the airport for 20 minutes then that's the same delay.
jly 11y ago
> Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an already absurdly long flight in half doesn't make as big a difference. As someone who travels to the south pacific every year (mostly in economy seating), I strongly disagree. 15h flights are no picnic, in any class. I'll stand if it would get me there in 6-7h - that is a dream.
mangecoeur 11y ago
On the other hand, when you have have a video call instantly and practically for free this looks like a very self-indulgent expense. Not exactly the eco-friendly option either.
- wyattpeak 11y ago
  In what possible way is a video call equivalent to international travel? Seriously, I could start listing the things you can accomplish with one and not the other and I would never run out of steam.
kilroy123 11y ago
Very skeptical this little company can go all the way with this. Look at how hard it is to get a new automobile company up and running. Tesla almost went completely bankrupt more than once. I do think there is a need and market for faster than sound air travel. We have the technology to even minimize the sonic booms for over land travel. Still, it would take an enormous amount of capital to get a new company up and running. I would love to see an innovated tesla-like company in the aerospace industry though. It's badly needed, IMO.
- cylinder 11y ago
  I honestly started laughing halfway through scrolling because I thought this was satire mocking the startup scene. Wow.
  - elliotec 11y ago
    I hope so much that you'll find this comment in a decade and laugh about how wrong you were!
    - cylinder 11y ago
      I hope so as well.
- bscholl 11y ago
  Yes, we've taken a lot of inspiration from what Elon has accomplished at SpaceX and Tesla. Supersonics are technically challenging and capitally intensive. But the world should have faster travel—and it doesn't look like the big aerospace companies are about to make it happen. (I'm a founder at Boom)
  - huuu 11y ago
    Ofcourse everybody is a little skeptical but I think it's great that you took the first step! I hope in 10 years or so we say: yeah 10 years back we laughed at Boom but now they are booming business.

by rdl 11y ago

ropiku 11y ago

The issue with it is that supersonic flight (due to noise) is only allowed over non-populated areas so a business jet variant is less useful unless you spend most of your time flying over the ocean (and not coast-to-coast for instance).

rdl 11y ago
Yeah, it's also super inefficient/cramped/etc. compared to a G650/BBJ/etc, so it would only really make sense as a "second" business jet in a corp/personal/royal fleet, or, more likely, part of a fleet somewhere like NetJets. It's the "entire aircraft, on demand" part on a mostly finite set of routes, not the "fly anywhere you want", with this.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> The issue with it is that supersonic flight (due to noise) Actually it's with the technology currently in use with supersonic flight that there is this large amount of noise. It's technically possible to reach supersonic without the boom and NASA is currently working on it with some contractors. I hope it pans out well; I would love to be able to fly between BWI and SFO in 2 hours. http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-is-building-a-jet-that-breaks-the-speed-of-sound-without-the-supersonic-boom http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-is-building-a-jet-that-brea...

aidenn0 11y ago

If they could make it quiet enough to go over land, transcontinental US flights would be great; LA/NY in 2.5 hours would likely have a pretty high demand. [edit] As someone who flies LA/DC fairly regularly I do have to mention my favorite record of the SR-71 doing that flight in under 65 minutes.

jessaustin 11y ago
I wonder if the "no booms over land" rule will always remain in force. When I was a child, the planes from Whiteman AFB broke that rule quite often. It was interesting to hear the boom over the phone when speaking with a school friend who lived say eight miles away, and then immediately hear the whole house shaking when the plane got to my end of the circuit. It would have been annoying at night, I suppose, but during the day it was not a hardship. These military planes made no particular effort to climb to high altitude before breaking the barrier, either. While the area I'm talking about is rural, it's much more heavily populated than are e.g. the Great Plains. So, I think that high-altitude sparse-population daytime routes could be developed that would admit supersonic flight over much of North America.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  You may not have minded your entire house shaking, but most would probably quickly grow to resent such unnecessary disruption. It's a good way to kick everyone in a large region out of their zone. If this was a constant occurrence, work may quickly cease, or become greatly diminished.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Sure, but these were 1980s-era fighter/trainer jets flying at probably 1000 ft., and it only shook the whole house when they flew pretty close. Other times one might only hear the boom when outside. I think a passenger craft of recent design of recent materials, flying at 40k ft. could do much better, even before routing to avoid populated areas. I don't think anyone, even those who live on ranches in the Dakotas, really has a right not to hear a noise during the daytime.

ohitsdom 11y ago

> has made this economic. That remains to be seen. They don't even have an engine yet, so this is still firmly in the "we'll see" category.

paulmd 11y ago
Seriously. People here are way underestimating the costs to develop and certify a major commercial airframe, especially across the multiple regulatory regimes inherent to international flight. You're probably talking about on the order of a billion dollars even if you're playing it cheap. If you want to start re-engineering components instead of buying off the shelf, that number will go uphill rapidly. This is not a field that's amenable to "disruption". Cutting corners means that dozens of people plummet to their deaths, not to mention the abrupt end of your airline as their families sue you into oblivion. If you try to play this like Uber and flout the regulations, the FAA and EAA will ground and impound your gear so fast your head will spin, and rightly so. Even a test aircraft is a gigantic tank full of explosive fuel hurtling through the air on a couple flimsy wings. When things go wrong people die, and the FAA does not play games. Airlines are an incredibly low-margin business in the best case, and supersonic airliners in particular are a very niche market and have immense operating expenses (to purchase and maintain the airplane and to slake its immense thirst for fuel). The Concorde's operators could never make it profitable. Never say never, but this just seems like fantasy. Supersonic airliners are a problem domain that has been pored over by engineers for decades, six engineers are not going to pull a rabbit out of a hat and solve all the technical problems, then get it certified, then start an airline. Each of those is a problem that requires a national-scale corporation to handle.
- nether 11y ago
  How many people did SpaceX start with? Certainly not the thousands of workers it has today. Everything you said about requiring a "national scale corp" was said about launching rockets to orbit as well. Looking at Boom's roster they have some seriously experienced industry vets working for them or advising them. This isn't just fresh grads. They've been through FAA/EASA cert trials of new aircraft, testing and understand it a fair bit more than you do I suspect. I'd give them a bit more credit and assume they know that they're in for the long haul with this airliner.

StavrosK 11y ago

> single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Was the LON-NYC flight time the problem, though? I think that to go door-to-door right now you spend 50% of the time in the air and the other 50% on the ground. With this company, you'll be spending 3.5 hours in the air and 8 hours getting to and from airports and through security.

ElijahLynn 11y ago
I would think that the people that can afford this have Uber helicopter service to/from the airport and all the line skipping extras paid for already. Not sure it is really 8 hours to and from airports/security.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  Right. Selling at this price point they can easily focus on expensive extras. Special terminal with super fast security, then really quick transfers in both ends. If you could do a small airport experience in both ends (1h from hotel room to liftoff) they can charge what they want.
- ghaff 11y ago
  At one point in New York, it was pretty routine for first class passengers on Pan Am to take a helicopter from JFK to the Pan Am building, which had a helipad on the roof. The service may even have been included as part of the fare. (This service was discontinued after an accident though, at least for a time, I believe there was still service to a helipad next to the East River.)
  - sethhochberg 11y ago
    There are still several services providing service to JFK from Manhattan helipads. Blade is one example: https://www.flyblade.com/ https://www.flyblade.com/
astrosi 11y ago
It depends on the airport that you are travelling from. London City has famously fast security, currently you can check-in upto 15 minutes before the scheduled time of departure for a flight to New York. [1] [1] http://www.londoncityairport.com/travelandbooking/page/check-in http://www.londoncityairport.com/travelandbooking/page/check...

Someone 11y ago

"Pretty amazing that materials science has made this economic." That, I think, still is an open question. Someone must think there is a decent chance it will be, but if this were a no-brainer, there would be multiple players in this market. Also, oil price fluctuations, the bane of any airline company, will hit those running these planes harder.

usefulcat 11y ago
I was curious about fuel costs and found that the fuel cost per seat per mile for Delta and Southwest was around $.04 per mile in 2Q 2014. At that rate, even if this new aircraft uses 4x as much fuel per person it would amount to around 20% of the ticket price. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/southwest-fuel-hedging-overview-june-170015422.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/southwest-fuel-hedging-overvie...

partisan 11y ago

> I personally would generally prefer an F cabin + great Ka-band Internet for 14h, vs. a coach/Concorde sized seat for 7h. Agreed. I spent 5 of the most uncomfortable hours of my life on an airplane from JFK to San Diego, being 6'1 and not particularly slim. Thereafter, I upgraded my seats on that flight to Economy Plus. I guess I could stand a 2 hour flight like that, but not too much more. Getting me there faster, but in a more cramped space won't make me feel better.

dantiberian 11y ago
I can almost guarantee that you will not be cramped in these planes. They're selling it as an alternative to business class.
- rdl 11y ago
  Concorde was almost coach level cramped. There is no way this will be as comfortable as top end subsonic lie flat business or first class. For 3h vs 6h that doesn't matter. For 7h vs 13h I assert it does.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    In a number of ways, modern upper class air travel is significantly more comfortable than it was throughout most of the Concorde era. First class and then business class were a lot more like today's domestic first/business class even for long haul international flights. Of course, things like entertainment options are a lot better today as well. (Though there's no 747 upstairs first class lounge :-)) Security, etc. is worse of course--though that's largely outside of the airline's control.
- jonknee 11y ago
  So was Concorde, but they were very uncomfortable (been on a couple in museums). Concorde feels like coach in a small commuter plane.

ido 11y ago

The top speed of a 747 is 0.85 Mach, so it should cut the duration by more than 2x.

Someone1234 11y ago
Only in the best case scenario. One of the reasons Concord "failed" is that it could never fly supersonic over land and had to start slowing long before the destination otherwise it would overshoot (along with fuel costs causing Concord to be more expensive than business class).
robotresearcher 11y ago
Speed only matters for the cruise part of the flight. The first and last 45 mins, plus airport time are not different. The slowdown portion of a Mach 2.2 flight will be even longer. (edit: maybe not much on the slow-down: see Concorde data via link below)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 11y ago
  They likely accelerate much faster, and slowing down from mach 2.2 is also fast.
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    Data from an actual Concorde flight shows slowdown-to-land of around 45 mins, so around the same as a regular flight. http://www.blodtandsmidigt.com/concordeprofiles.html http://www.blodtandsmidigt.com/concordeprofiles.html
    - Retric 11y ago
      Yes, but if the Concorde slows from Mach 2 to 0 over 45 mins then it's average may be ~mach 1. Which is faster than the average velocity of a normal 747. Granted, if the Concorde shows up and needs to circle the airport for 20 minutes then that's the same delay.

jly 11y ago

> Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an already absurdly long flight in half doesn't make as big a difference. As someone who travels to the south pacific every year (mostly in economy seating), I strongly disagree. 15h flights are no picnic, in any class. I'll stand if it would get me there in 6-7h - that is a dream.

mangecoeur 11y ago

On the other hand, when you have have a video call instantly and practically for free this looks like a very self-indulgent expense. Not exactly the eco-friendly option either.

wyattpeak 11y ago
In what possible way is a video call equivalent to international travel? Seriously, I could start listing the things you can accomplish with one and not the other and I would never run out of steam.

kilroy123 11y ago

Very skeptical this little company can go all the way with this. Look at how hard it is to get a new automobile company up and running. Tesla almost went completely bankrupt more than once. I do think there is a need and market for faster than sound air travel. We have the technology to even minimize the sonic booms for over land travel. Still, it would take an enormous amount of capital to get a new company up and running. I would love to see an innovated tesla-like company in the aerospace industry though. It's badly needed, IMO.

cylinder 11y ago
I honestly started laughing halfway through scrolling because I thought this was satire mocking the startup scene. Wow.
- elliotec 11y ago
  I hope so much that you'll find this comment in a decade and laugh about how wrong you were!
  - cylinder 11y ago
    I hope so as well.
bscholl 11y ago
Yes, we've taken a lot of inspiration from what Elon has accomplished at SpaceX and Tesla. Supersonics are technically challenging and capitally intensive. But the world should have faster travel—and it doesn't look like the big aerospace companies are about to make it happen. (I'm a founder at Boom)
- huuu 11y ago
  Ofcourse everybody is a little skeptical but I think it's great that you took the first step! I hope in 10 years or so we say: yeah 10 years back we laughed at Boom but now they are booming business.