6 ms·

They are targeting $5K for round trip tickets between NY and London. It is really just making it faster for the rich to travel for fun or work. Supposedly it i

by babesh 7y ago

They are targeting $5K for round trip tickets between NY and London. It is really just making it faster for the rich to travel for fun or work. Supposedly it is inherently 3X as expensive as subsonic planes from a cost per seat mile point of view. It is basically a cheaper replacement for the Concorde. Also it seems that their biggest difficulty is coming up with suitable engines. The engines that they need don't exist and there doesn't seem to be an affordable way to create them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Overture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Overture It is definitely cool from a tech point of view.

nickik 7y ago
I hate points like this. Pretty much all technology starts out for rich people. I mean if you don't have supersonic flight at all its technology will not improve either, neither will the economics of scale. Air travel itself is already only for the rich, and travel in general is mostly for the rich, if you want to look at it from the poorest in the world. Elon made this point the best with Tesla, and in 10-20 years the cheapest electric cars will likely be cheaper and better then current cheap gas cars. I don't believe these 3x cost are actually 'inherent'.
- tinco 7y ago
  They are though. Tesla is a horrible example, electric cars have better fuel economy, so should have a lower TCO for daily users in the long run. Which has always explicitly been Tesla's goal in the long run. This plane, while awesome, is not a Tesla, it's never going to be as cheap as a commercial flight, and it's certainly not going to make the world a better place.
  - nickik 7y ago
    I was not talking about Boom Overture in particular but Super sonic flight. Boom is just the first that could bring it back and innovation can happen from there. Do we really want a world in 100 years we are still flying subsonic? And if people use it makes the world a better place by some definition. The worst you could say that it used more fuel.
  - flyinglizard 7y ago
    Fuel cost is far from being the dominating factor in TCO; that would be depreciation. I just ran Edmunds TCO calculator on an Audi A6: 5 year TCO of $70k, with depreciation over 5 years being $35k and fuel only contributing $9k. Electric cars are nowhere near an affordable means of transportation right now (that would be a Hyundai Accent), so GP point stands true.
    - robotresearcher 7y ago
      How does the A6 compare with Model 3?
      - flyinglizard 7y ago
        Haven’t compared the two up close but the Audi is bigger and probably has a nicer interior because that’s what Audi excels at. I’m inclined to give the rest to the Tesla.
      - rconti 7y ago
        That's absurd. An A6 is a much bigger/nicer car than a Model 3. I'd say the A6 is Model S territory, both in size and price. Of course this is complicated by the lower running costs of the S, but the much more spartan interior, which was basic even in 2012. I've got a Model 3. It's a fantastic car, and as a BMW fan, I'd choose it all day every day over a BMW 3 series. But I'd take the A6 for the same price.
        robotresearcher 7y ago
        The parent comment said "Electric cars are nowhere near an affordable means of transportation right now". The absolute niceness of an A6 doesn't seem directly relevant to that. Model 3s are expensive to buy for a mid size sedan. I was wondering about the TCO. I found an A5, M3 and Camry TCO comparison (link below): M3 comes out similar to Camry, and way less than A5. I think the M3 is a much more fun car to drive than the Camry. I haven't driven an A5. https://evannex.com/blogs/news/total-cost-of-ownership-tesla-model-3-vs-toyota-camry https://evannex.com/blogs/news/total-cost-of-ownership-tesla...
- unchocked 7y ago
  Well that's analogical reasoning at work. Physics would remind you that drag is proportional to velocity squared, so going say 3x faster would encounter 9x more resistance over 1/3rd the time for an energy requirement 3x more than the slow boat. That's back of the envelope, but it's in the ballpark. Going faster costs more.
friendlybus 7y ago
If supersonic travel were ever to be the norm it has to start at the high end first like Tesla did.
- robotresearcher 7y ago
  Concorde's first flight was 1969 and ran commercially until 2003. High end demoed.
  - scoopertrooper 7y ago
    I don’t get the point you are trying to make here. The concord used a certain set of technologies and this aircraft uses another set of technologies with their own challenges. I mean I guess the concord was also a large supersonic passenger plane, but the similarity is largely superficial.
    - robotresearcher 7y ago
      I was responding to a point about supersonic transport, not this plane.
  - lmm 7y ago
    It wasn't commercially successful enough to continue operating - partly because it wasn't permitted to fly supersonically over the continental US, through some combination of being too noisy and not being made in the US. Boom is the next iteration that addresses that.
    - rconti 7y ago
      I mean, a 34 year run is a pretty good proof of concept. They weren't running on Sand Hill VC bucks.
      - lmm 7y ago
        They kind of were. The development programme was funded by not one but two national governments, seen as Europe's answer to Apollo. The programme didn't even make an operating profit, much less start to pay back development costs. BA claimed to make a small operating profit on it, but only by sharing maintenance costs with AF's loss-making operation; once AF pulled out it wasn't viable even with the prestige it brought them. I love Concorde but it wasn't really a commercial operation the way you'd usually use the term.
google234123 7y ago
Wait, they don't actually have engines that they can buy that would fit their specs? That seems like a serious issue. There's no way they could fund the design of an engine.
myrandomcomment 7y ago
JAL is one of their planned customers that invested. I make the SFO to Tokyo flight every month. This takes that flight from 11 hours to 3.5. It is not about being rich. At the same cost of a business ticket it means that I do not have to leave on Saturday in SFO to make a Monday meeting (leave Sat. at 3pm and land in Tokyo at 7PM Sunday). I get more time at home with my family.
- gsnedders 7y ago
  With all due respect, anyone talking about frequent travel at business-class costs is rich.
  - myrandomcomment 7y ago
    It’s “business travel” so your company pays for it. The reason you go is for work, not fun. In my case my company pays for premium economy (startup) and I have enough miles and status most times to upgrade. For me that is minimum of 240 hours on a plane a year. Last year I think I spent 500+ hours. It’s work, not some rich person vacation.
rconti 7y ago
Seems fine-ISH. At least they're selling a different product. In theory, as an SV DINK, I should be able to afford business class. But every time I try to pull the trigger on the tickets, it just kills me. What, $1400 coach and $7000 business? Times two people? Are you effing kidding me? Those business class seats do NOT take 5 times the space. And they want you to pay double ($2800 or so) for 'premium economy' which is a footrest, "economy plus" legroom (eg, a $100 upgrade), and a bit more shoulder room. Again, it's not 2x the space of a coach seat. If they're gonna charge 3x as much, and provide a vastly different service, I'm all ears. Even if the seats suck just as much as a coach seat, at least I'm in it for a much shorter time.

by babesh 7y ago

nickik 7y ago

I hate points like this. Pretty much all technology starts out for rich people. I mean if you don't have supersonic flight at all its technology will not improve either, neither will the economics of scale. Air travel itself is already only for the rich, and travel in general is mostly for the rich, if you want to look at it from the poorest in the world. Elon made this point the best with Tesla, and in 10-20 years the cheapest electric cars will likely be cheaper and better then current cheap gas cars. I don't believe these 3x cost are actually 'inherent'.

tinco 7y ago
They are though. Tesla is a horrible example, electric cars have better fuel economy, so should have a lower TCO for daily users in the long run. Which has always explicitly been Tesla's goal in the long run. This plane, while awesome, is not a Tesla, it's never going to be as cheap as a commercial flight, and it's certainly not going to make the world a better place.
- nickik 7y ago
  I was not talking about Boom Overture in particular but Super sonic flight. Boom is just the first that could bring it back and innovation can happen from there. Do we really want a world in 100 years we are still flying subsonic? And if people use it makes the world a better place by some definition. The worst you could say that it used more fuel.
- flyinglizard 7y ago
  Fuel cost is far from being the dominating factor in TCO; that would be depreciation. I just ran Edmunds TCO calculator on an Audi A6: 5 year TCO of $70k, with depreciation over 5 years being $35k and fuel only contributing $9k. Electric cars are nowhere near an affordable means of transportation right now (that would be a Hyundai Accent), so GP point stands true.
  - robotresearcher 7y ago
    How does the A6 compare with Model 3?
    - flyinglizard 7y ago
      Haven’t compared the two up close but the Audi is bigger and probably has a nicer interior because that’s what Audi excels at. I’m inclined to give the rest to the Tesla.
    - rconti 7y ago
      That's absurd. An A6 is a much bigger/nicer car than a Model 3. I'd say the A6 is Model S territory, both in size and price. Of course this is complicated by the lower running costs of the S, but the much more spartan interior, which was basic even in 2012. I've got a Model 3. It's a fantastic car, and as a BMW fan, I'd choose it all day every day over a BMW 3 series. But I'd take the A6 for the same price.
      - robotresearcher 7y ago
        The parent comment said "Electric cars are nowhere near an affordable means of transportation right now". The absolute niceness of an A6 doesn't seem directly relevant to that. Model 3s are expensive to buy for a mid size sedan. I was wondering about the TCO. I found an A5, M3 and Camry TCO comparison (link below): M3 comes out similar to Camry, and way less than A5. I think the M3 is a much more fun car to drive than the Camry. I haven't driven an A5. https://evannex.com/blogs/news/total-cost-of-ownership-tesla-model-3-vs-toyota-camry https://evannex.com/blogs/news/total-cost-of-ownership-tesla...
unchocked 7y ago
Well that's analogical reasoning at work. Physics would remind you that drag is proportional to velocity squared, so going say 3x faster would encounter 9x more resistance over 1/3rd the time for an energy requirement 3x more than the slow boat. That's back of the envelope, but it's in the ballpark. Going faster costs more.

friendlybus 7y ago

If supersonic travel were ever to be the norm it has to start at the high end first like Tesla did.

robotresearcher 7y ago
Concorde's first flight was 1969 and ran commercially until 2003. High end demoed.
- scoopertrooper 7y ago
  I don’t get the point you are trying to make here. The concord used a certain set of technologies and this aircraft uses another set of technologies with their own challenges. I mean I guess the concord was also a large supersonic passenger plane, but the similarity is largely superficial.
  - robotresearcher 7y ago
    I was responding to a point about supersonic transport, not this plane.
- lmm 7y ago
  It wasn't commercially successful enough to continue operating - partly because it wasn't permitted to fly supersonically over the continental US, through some combination of being too noisy and not being made in the US. Boom is the next iteration that addresses that.
  - rconti 7y ago
    I mean, a 34 year run is a pretty good proof of concept. They weren't running on Sand Hill VC bucks.
    - lmm 7y ago
      They kind of were. The development programme was funded by not one but two national governments, seen as Europe's answer to Apollo. The programme didn't even make an operating profit, much less start to pay back development costs. BA claimed to make a small operating profit on it, but only by sharing maintenance costs with AF's loss-making operation; once AF pulled out it wasn't viable even with the prestige it brought them. I love Concorde but it wasn't really a commercial operation the way you'd usually use the term.

google234123 7y ago

Wait, they don't actually have engines that they can buy that would fit their specs? That seems like a serious issue. There's no way they could fund the design of an engine.

myrandomcomment 7y ago

JAL is one of their planned customers that invested. I make the SFO to Tokyo flight every month. This takes that flight from 11 hours to 3.5. It is not about being rich. At the same cost of a business ticket it means that I do not have to leave on Saturday in SFO to make a Monday meeting (leave Sat. at 3pm and land in Tokyo at 7PM Sunday). I get more time at home with my family.

gsnedders 7y ago
With all due respect, anyone talking about frequent travel at business-class costs is rich.
- myrandomcomment 7y ago
  It’s “business travel” so your company pays for it. The reason you go is for work, not fun. In my case my company pays for premium economy (startup) and I have enough miles and status most times to upgrade. For me that is minimum of 240 hours on a plane a year. Last year I think I spent 500+ hours. It’s work, not some rich person vacation.

rconti 7y ago

Seems fine-ISH. At least they're selling a different product. In theory, as an SV DINK, I should be able to afford business class. But every time I try to pull the trigger on the tickets, it just kills me. What, $1400 coach and $7000 business? Times two people? Are you effing kidding me? Those business class seats do NOT take 5 times the space. And they want you to pay double ($2800 or so) for 'premium economy' which is a footrest, "economy plus" legroom (eg, a $100 upgrade), and a bit more shoulder room. Again, it's not 2x the space of a coach seat. If they're gonna charge 3x as much, and provide a vastly different service, I'm all ears. Even if the seats suck just as much as a coach seat, at least I'm in it for a much shorter time.