12 ms·
Disclosure: I'm at Boom, which is building a Mach-2.2 airliner. https://boomsupersonic.com/ https://boomsupersonic.com/ I think it all depends on how much cost
by elidourado 8y ago
Disclosure: I'm at Boom, which is building a Mach-2.2 airliner. https://boomsupersonic.com/ https://boomsupersonic.com/
I think it all depends on how much cost savings for how much speed. In today's dollars, a round-trip ticket on Concorde from New York to London was $20,000, or 4x today's business class price. For that, you got a tiny seat in a cramped cabin.
What we're targeting at Boom is an improvement over business class. We're making it profitable for airlines to operate the plane at today's business class fares. We're getting you there in half the time. And instead of a cramped two-and-two cabin arrangement, it's a one-and-one configuration (every seat is a window AND an aisle). The seats are similar to today's domestic first class seats, only designed for productivity.
So the choice a business traveler could soon face is: Would you like to get from New York to London in 7 hours in a lay-flat bed, or in 3h15m in a comfortable, productive environment? Price is the same either way. We think most people will pick the supersonic flight.
It should be noted also that the premium cabin market today is much larger than it was a few decades ago.
And finally, premium-cabin economics are only the first step. We think there's a roadmap to making supersonic flight cheaper than subsonic flight is today. It will take a few decades, but that is absolutely the path that Boom is on.
- gerdesj 8y agoDisclosure: I'm a Brit. I wish you all the best and if the concept piccy on your web site is close to reality then we'll see little delta winged flying needles in the skies. Could you give us a very rough idea of say London to New York fare on this thing?
- sjrosen 8y agoTheir website says "Approximately $2,500 each way" for the London–New York route.
- Aloha 8y agoI really hope you guys are successful.
- ghostly_s 8y agoUh-huh. You're delivering seat prices 1/4 of Concorde and halving passenger capacity. So that's about an order-of-magnitude cost reduction through the power of...magic, I guess?
- zokier 8y ago> So that's about an order-of-magnitude cost reduction through the power of...magic, I guess? Power of 50 years of technological development. That's less than 5% improvement year-to-year. Considering that supersonic flight overall was still fairly new thing when Concorde was designed and CAD was non-existent back then, order of magnitude improvement does not sound completely implausible.
- philwelch 8y agoNot every technology advances at the same rate as electronics. An order of magnitude improvement in supercruise efficiency over Concorde--which is one of the biggest bottlenecks--would be a significant innovation alone.
- brandmeyer 8y ago> That's less than 5% improvement year-to-year The aerospace industry isn't advancing anywhere near that fast. Most of the low-hanging fruit was picked over 50 years ago. Case in point: The Pratt & Whitney PW1000G is a geared turbofan engine. From demonstrated prototype (1993), to flight testing (2008) to production (2016), it took _23_years_ to develop this engine. Efficiency improvement over baseline: 15-18%. That's quite a bit less than 1% y/y improvement.
- Scramblejams 8y agoI worked on an aircraft which flies with the GTF. Just FYI, that’s a poor example to cite in support of your point. The GTF was set aside for many years due to expected higher fuel costs not materializing for a good while. It took some major impetus to get the program going again.
- chillydawg 8y agoIf that truly is your aim and you execute on it, then you are going to make some cash. Good luck with it and I hope you reach your goals.
- tajen 8y agoSupersonic makes me dream but the most cumbersome part in air travel is not on flight, but on the ground, and could be massively improved for much wider ranges of people. But I’m not sure it can happen given that migrant protectionism growing all over the world. I’d take a 40-minutes boarding & customs experience with water, soap and pencils allowed over a supersonic flight. Well, in fact, I’m out of the market because the customs/TSA are so annoying with USA that I don’t go to US conferences at all.
- chillydawg 8y agoLast time I did London to New York (2 weeks ago) I spent about 25 minutes queueing in total (at both ends). I guess I got lucky, but my overall experience with flying UK to USA is that's it's actually pretty ok. I am a white guy though, so there is that.
- mikec3010 8y agoI'm convinced that one or more of these advancements could revolutionize air travel: * Back to the hub and spoke model, but without preplanned routes. You show up at the airport and they have a Just-in-time routing where you get one leg closer as soon as the plane fills to capacity. Pro: airplane almost always full. Con: you (or low fare passengers wait longer) * (continued from above) : you dont even know which layover you will have until routing needs and weather are known. I.e. you want to go from NYC to Albuquerque. There happen to be about the same number who need to go from Tulsa to ABQ as who need to go to Tulsa from NYC. So 2 hr before your flight you find out it will stop in Tulsa so 8 people can get off/on. * modular boarding on a mobile trolley. So instead of loitering in the jetway, everyone gets on a railcar size vehicle and gets ready to board the flight. This will allow them to queue up before they travel to the plane queue. * planes queue up before a platform. Some mobile trolleys allow boarding from the rear while some board from the front. This theoretically halves the boarding time. Once the trolleys are vacated the plane doors close and the plane can slowly and safely taxi while the remaining passengers get seated. This would be safe so long as the brakes didn't jolt and knock an elderly person over. * mixed cargo and passenger flights. I know this is already done to some extent. But what if there were a luxury branded airline that was first class only? And the other half of the plane were air cargo containers such that the flight were still profitable even without passengers. * an options market for tickets. Allow traders to buy options on routes on particular dates. This may increase prices for passengers, but it would also allow airlines to insulate themselves from volatility. Let "the market" do the hard work of price calculation.
- gregorymichael 8y agoIs a NYC-SF route a possibility, or are sonic booms only politically feasible over water?
- BinaryIdiot 8y agoIt's my understanding that, initially, it'll have to be over water but once it's proven safe they can get approval to fly over land. I don't know what that entails but that was my understanding of it last time I looked into it. A NYC-SF or DC-SF route would be freaking amazing.
- sailfast 8y agoWhen Boom was first posted here I recall the narrative also including a lot of drag dynamics that would reduce the "boom" which would allow for more feasible overland routes / less noise pollution. Not sure where that sits now - I don't see it as much in their PR copy.
- gsnedders 8y agoIt's still their plan, AFAIK, but the regulatory hurdles to let them do it probably means it's a lot further off than overwater flights.
- jessriedel 8y ago> but once it's proven safe they can get approval to fly over land The prohibition on supersonic airliners over land is about noise, not safety.
- dsjoerg 8y agoThere's lots of water near NYC and SF so maybe you do your sonic boom over the water and then turn towards land?
- itp 8y agoThat's not how a sonic boom works. A sonic boom doesn't occur just at the moment that an object exceeds the speed of sound; it's a continuous phenomenon that is experienced by a stationary observer as a momentary event. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom
- charliesome 8y agoIt's pretty disappointing to see that Boom is still using fossil fuel burning engines. Surely if you're innovating on aviation tech, Mach 2.2 flight for business people is less important than figuring out a way to fly that doesn't kill the planet.
- TheOtherDave 8y agoI'm sure they'll reconsider as soon as someone develops jet engines capable of mach 2.2 that don't burn fossil fuels. In the meantime, since speed is their goal, they don't have much choice.
- wbl 8y agoAnd doesn't spew a giant plume of radioactive gas while irradiating the passengers.
- reaperducer 8y agoThat's extra on United.
- robotresearcher 8y agoUnited could burn luggage for fuel. They're gonna lose it anyway.
- andygates 8y agoIf the thing needs to burn go-juice, give it green go-juice. Isn't biofuel-derived avgas a thing yet? Startup idea...
- elidourado 8y agoBuild us a Mach-2.2 electric engine where the aircraft design closes and we'll use it! We're an airframer, not an engine company. Would love to see some innovation in engines. Maybe a good idea for another YC startup.
- ktosobcy 8y agoWell, could we stop for a second and deeply thing if we really do need to make this travel? Recently I noticed that more and more things can be done online without the tedious flight…
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- maltalex 8y agoYou should reconsider the name. Not everyone will think of sonic boom when the word "boom" comes up in context to aviation.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- golangnews 8y agoThe name also succinctly states the strongest objection to the idea (noise pollution).
- eric_h 8y agoI flew on the Concorde once. I didn't hear any sonic booms ;)
- josu 8y agoI don't think you can hear the sonic boom when you are traveling above the speed of sound. I think that the sonic boom is only experienced by a stationary object observing the event.
- JetSpiegel 8y agoThat's the joke. Startup idea: accelerate paying customers on the ground to Mach 1 to make the sonic boom go away.
- rwmj 8y agoI've said it before, but why are you designing a plane with pilots on board? Automate as far as possible and have a remote control option as backup. It saves space, money (pilots are expensive), and human error.
- jen729w 8y agoWhat does the FAA have to say about that? (Spoiler: “no”.)
- tajen 8y agoRight, massive shortcuts could be taken with no pilot on board (including the awesome $$$ seats in the front row), but that’s a story for another startup with a 20-year runway.
- JetSpiegel 8y agoJust call it Airplane! and have Kareem Abdul-Jabbar do commercials.
- cardiffspaceman 8y agoAbdul-Jabbar could say something awesome about dragging someone or something back and forth across the Atlantic, which hopefully people would understand was a movie reference.
- reaperducer 8y agoWe can't get the cars to drive themselves in 2D space without killing people. What makes you think that 3D is going to be easier?
- stephen_g 8y agoI’d actually say it’s a lot easier - there aren’t any crash barriers, planes are spaced far further apart, etc. But at the same time, I’d never want to fly in a passenger plane without a pilot, because when emergency situations happen, autopilots usually can’t handle it and need intervention. When the engine on QF32 exploded, the pilots had to do checks and make judgements on something like 200 different error messages before they could land! Since so many of the plane’s systems were damaged by the explosion, a lot of this may not have been possible remotely. And the stakes are much higher when an uncaught sensor error or something can mean flying into the ground from 30,000 feet - unlike a train (the only thing that actually has a good safety record running driverless so far) you can’t just stop in an emergency!
- corey_moncure 8y agoIs radiation shielding a concern at your target altitude?
- simonebrunozzi 8y agoI wish you all the best, really, but your claims are really, really hard to believe.
- darkhorn 8y agoWho belived that humans would fly! Or I would send you a message without a horse in an instant time!
- rayiner 8y agoThat’s a poor response. Major engineering advances that nobody sees coming are exceedingly rare. By the time an advance is close, it’s usually apparent to other engineers. For example, Samuel Langley’s unmanned engine-driven plane flew seven years before the Wright Flyer. It was quite clear by the late 19th century that human flight would happen and we had a pretty good understanding of how. Will we have supersonic commercial travel at some point? Probably. But that’s not a very interesting statement. Are we close to supersonic commercial air travel and do we have a concrete idea how to get from point A to B? That’s the interesting (and very different) question. (That is not to say I think Boom will or will not get there, I havent’t studied it closely. But I’m an aerospace engineer by education and history is littered with failures in this space, and progress since the 1980s has been grimly slow.)
- btilly 8y agoFor the record, SpaceX is attempting to make the same flight in 30 minutes by suborbital rocket. Elon claims that it will be about the same price. External estimates of a BFR launch, combined with his stated goal of 850 passengers, comes out to around 9k. Which is more. But...30 minutes...
- eloff 8y agoRocket flight would have to get a lot safer before that ever becomes a reality. Nobody is going to sign up for that if they have a 1 in 270 chance at rapid unscheduled disassembly. And even that rate hasn't been demonstrated to date - the risks for both Space X's rockets and NASA's space shuttle have so far been higher.
- btilly 8y agoYes. However it is possible in principle to make it that safe. Per current plans, Elon hopes to do that within a decade.
- robotresearcher 8y agoWhere are they gonna launch from, that I can get to in a reasonable amount of time from NYC, Chicago, LA, Hong Kong, London, etc? They can't build another runway at LHR, let alone a BFR launch pad.
- btilly 8y ago
- adrianratnapala 8y agoWhat is the range? Saving 3.5 hours between NYC and London is better, but not vastly better than the status quo. Your total door-to-door travel time will still be about 7-8 hours. But in my office, just about everyone flies transpacific, or else even longer distances to Europe at least once an year. Mostly business class. And for us, halving the time would be a huge win. But for that to work, the planes need to be able to make the distance.
- kartickv 8y agoGood question. It's the longest flights that are the most irritating, so the willing to pay may be higher. The example given on the Boom site of Los Angeles -> Sydney becoming 7 hours instead of 15 is compelling.
- monort 8y agoThe reverse is true for me, I'd choose 15 hours in a flat-bed vs 7 hours in an ordinary seat.
- adrianratnapala 8y agoThere is a point here. I am so used to travelling to and from Australia, that I find flights less than 7 hours to be annoying. You go through all he hassle of getting onto the dang plane, but don't have time to experience your flight in a relaxed, enjoyable way.
- scrumption 8y agoWhat a disgusting travesty that a single person would ever pay $5,000 to fly anywhere in 2018, no doubt to go do pointless busywork and "negotiation" that telephones already obsoleted the need to travel for a hundred years ago. All while people starve in the streets, having bankrupted themselves paying for healthcare, while impoverished teachers buy school supplies with their own money. God damned sickening.
- tardo99 8y agoDo you think the name "Boom" could become a liability if there are any accidents along the way?
- knappador 8y agoWho is building the engine?