10 ms·

How does this seek to overcome the problem that killed Concorde: Civilian sonic booms over populations are illegal, and most places aircraft want to fly to/from

How does this seek to overcome the problem that killed Concorde: Civilian sonic booms over populations are illegal, and most places aircraft want to fly to/from are cities? Concorde found a kinda niche between the East Coast of the US and European cities near the sea, but it really doesn't feel sustainable for an entire aircraft class to be limited to only that route (and wasn't for Concorde). If it doesn't go supersonic then what is the USP?

failuser 6y ago
We might be at the point when it can be legal again, just make sure you don’t fly supersonic above mansions of people with actual power.
jagger27 6y ago
Their FAQ section^0 says this: > Overture flights will focus on 500+ primarily transoceanic routes that benefit from supersonic speeds—such as New York to London or San Francisco to Tokyo. Overture won't generate a sonic boom over land cruising at subsonic speeds. Its passengers won't even notice breaking through the "sound barrier," which will be inaudible and uneventful. So I guess they haven't really solved physics. edit: in an economic way. [0]: https://boomsupersonic.com/contact#faq-section https://boomsupersonic.com/contact#faq-section
- JacobDotVI 6y ago
  there is also ongoing research into making the boom less audible & turbulent over land, which would enable cross-country flights: >Graves explains that SonicBAT is an unusual test in that it uses a typical military aircraft with its loud sonic boom to help engineers better understand the sounds from future quiet supersonic aircraft >"We're hoping we can eventually lower sonic booms to a low rumble," he said. "The goal is to eventually accommodate jets that can fly from New York to Los Angeles in two hours." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-supersonic-technology-designed-to-reduce-sonic-booms https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-supersonic-technology-desig... I'd hope that Boom is also working on such an approach
  - lumost 6y ago
    WRT to the US. I'd be curious if anyone has done a route analysis on trans-continental flights to minimize overheard booms. Once you're 200 miles from the coasts there is a lot of open space to fly through.
    - qppo 6y ago
      I think you'd be hard pressed to find a path where the boom cone's carpet doesn't pass over a moderately populated area and can be navigated by the aircraft at supersonic speeds. The US is not sparse east of the Missippi, which is more like 750 miles from the coast.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Once you're 200 miles from the coasts there is a lot of open space to fly through. That's really only true west of about a North-South line through the eastern edge of the Texas panhandle. From there east, there's still some open space (not a lot once you hit the Mississippi River), but you'd have to dodge around to make path not going over population concentrations.
      - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
        I think that’s why they specifically call out O’hare to London, and SF to Tokyo, routes that take them over the ocean.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  NASA has solved physics, though: https://www.nasa.gov/X59 https://www.nasa.gov/X59 The Low-boom Flight Demonstration mission has two goals: 1) design and build a piloted, large-scale supersonic X-plane with technology that reduces the loudness of a sonic boom to that of a gentle thump; and 2) fly the X-plane over select U.S. communities to gather data on human responses to the low-boom flights and deliver that data set to U.S. and international regulators. Using this data, new sound-based rules regarding supersonic flight over land can be written and adopted, which would open the doors to new commercial cargo and passenger markets to provide faster-than-sound air travel.
  - uranium 6y ago
    NASA has a goal to solve physics; we'll see how they do.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > NASA has solved physics, though: "NASA has a project to test whether the physics can be adequately finessed" would be more accurate description of what is on that page than "NASA has solved the physics".
- nopzor 6y ago
  that's an interestingly worded statement. in concorde, the passengers didn't even notice breaking through the sound barrier either. regarding sonic booms over land, their plan iirc is to reduce the noise level to the point where they can lobby to change legislation.
fotbr 6y ago
The theory is that they can reduce the supersonic shockwave to the point where supersonic flight over populated areas can be legalized again.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jankassens 6y ago
Without any deeper knowledge, there might also be a good amount of business travel between Australia/East Asia and the US West coast?
billclerico 6y ago
I think it is more likely that the economics killed Concord ($20k per seat), not the route, and it appears that Boom thinks like they can deliver a luxury, supersonic experience at a far cheaper, business class price. And if transoceanic supersonic travel becomes popular, pressure will mount to define overland supersonic corridors, or manufacturers will invest to reduce the noise, or both.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  In its later years I believe BA and Air France found that perceived costs of a Concorde ticket were actually more expensive than what they were charging, so they increased prices to match perceptions and then Concorde was fairly profitable. By the time Concorde was actually retired, 9/11 dented air travel demand in general and the thing was a flying dinosaur with not a big enough market to justify an upgraded version of the plane.
  - nickik 6y ago
    It was only ever close to profit because it didn't have to finance its own development.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      The context is pretty clearly talking about operating profit, not the profitability of the program as a whole.
    - kenneth 6y ago
      It's not necessary to account for R&D costs if the R&D has other benefits (e.g. putting Airbus on the map as an alternative manufacturer to Boeing, giving Europe technology with military implications independent of its reliance on the USA, etc.)
- trhway 6y ago
  >pressure will mount to define overland supersonic corridors yes, that definitely need to happen. I wonder whether the sonic boom public scare is just based on the fact that the majority of the public has never experienced it. I grew up on a Navy base in USSR, and we regularly had fighters booming at the altitudes much lower than the altitude normal for the commercial supersonic travel. It was just fun for us children. May be you'd not want the boom echoing/bouncing through the Manhattan concrete mazes, yet at 20km altitude over rural areas there should be no issues. Also there are large swaths of less populated lands in other countries who may be open to having such corridors over these areas. And back in Concorde times, there weren't such a big rich markets like China who has different approach to clearing of permitting/regulation issues for example when it comes to public transportation infrastructure.
Voloskaya 6y ago
> How does this seek to overcome the problem that killed Concorde This did not single handedly killed the Concorde, there are plenty of routes with substantial flying time over unpopulated areas. Presumably if the cost of maintenance and the fuel consumption were lower it could still be flying. So assuming Boom fixes those 2 points, then not being able to go supersonic over land just lowers efficiency but does not mean it's not viable.
rich_sasha 6y ago
There were a lot of potential buyers for Concorde in other parts of the world. They backed out when the operating costs came out, and the range was found to be lower than expected (though BA managed to increase it through operational improvements). Whether supersonic travel is still relevant is another question, but there buyers then, maybe there would be now too. https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b
gok 6y ago
Primarily they are targeting transoceanic routes. Transoceanic demand has increased substantially in recent years. Transatlantic traffic has doubled since Concorde went out of service. Transpacific travel has grown even more, and Concorde was unable to compete there.
- lumost 6y ago
  Transpacific and trans-hemisphere super sonic flights would be an interesting. the demand to fly to Asia from North America is likely higher than currently observed due to lack of interest in 12-24 hour flights. With careful planning the fastest I can get to Australia/New Zealand is ~18-24 hours flight time - on a 10 day vacation that's ~40% of my vacation time including recovery from an 18 hour flight. I'd be fine flying 6 hours to the west coast then hopping on a supersonic flight for a 2-3x premium ( still expensive, but worthwhile every few years ).
  - mc32 6y ago
    Asia-North America. Would they do a polar trajectory? Or would they worry too much about the radiation?
    - stetrain 6y ago
      Existing flight routes between Asia and North America often fly over the arctic already: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/winter-winds-how-singapore-airlines-new-worlds-longest-flight-is-saving-time-and-fuel-by-flying-farther/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/winter-winds-how-singapor...
    - BurningFrog 6y ago
      Not if it crosses a landmass, I guess.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      I don't think the planned Boom plane has the range to go trans-Pacific. Maybe with a stopover in Honolulu to refuel (which could still be substantially faster)
griffinkelly 6y ago
Concorde had a bunch of publicly tours around Asia. There are a few that could make sense-- HK to Tokyo? Tokyo to Singapore? The fuel requirements from the US to Asia are pretty intense, so I'm interested to see how they solve that issue. Sonic booms haven't always been illegal in the US (1973?). My dad grew up near O'hare, and he said you'd occasionally hear them when it was still a military base. Its just annoying, but for people who live near airports, jet noise is already annoying? I think as long as jets just boom over specific areas, it would minimize the public nuisance.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  We heard sonic booms routinely growing up in the 1990s in small-town Missouri, presumably from nearby air force bases. It was little more than a curiosity, and never enough to rattle windows or really affect anyone much beyond perhaps a brief startling.
  - ajmurmann 6y ago
    I grew up not far from an Air Force base on Germany. We got sonic booms multiple times a day. It was super shitty. We never had windows break, but as a young child I started to cry every time it happened. My grandfather woke up from his naps from them quite regularly which sucked especially when he was dying of cancer.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      I wonder what the difference is. Airplane size/speed/altitude?
      - ajmurmann 6y ago
        Most likely altitude. I recall that they used to practice flying at low altitude. Much more interesting than our anecdata is probably the Oklahoma City Sonic Boom study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests > the NORC reported that 73% of subjects in the study said that they could live indefinitely with eight sonic booms per day, while 25% said that they couldn't. About 3% of the population telephoned, sued, or wrote protest letters, but Oklahoma City surgeons and hospitals filed no complaints. However, with the city population at 500,000, that 3% figure represented 15,000 upset individuals. There were 9,594 complaints of damage to buildings, 4,629 formal damage claims, and 229 claims for a total of $12,845.32, mostly for broken glass and cracked plaster.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
It's for Emirati playboys to continue their game of oneupsmanship while they still have money to burn.
seany 6y ago
Lobby to make them legal again? The restriction is stupid to start with.
- sumedh 6y ago
  Why do you think its stupid?
moralestapia 6y ago
>[...] the problem that killed Concorde: Civilian sonic booms over populations are illegal Did this killed the Concorde? I don't know the story well, but I always though it was because it was never a profitable venture but it was kept because it was good PR. Then the accident happened and it was just not worth it anymore ...
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Concorde was profitable. It initially wasn't, but then BA and Air France found out that customers thought Concorde was more expensive than it actually was. Once they increased prices to customer expectation the Concorde was fairly profitable. https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-from-the-concorde/#:~:text=Concorde%20ticket%20prices%20were%20doubled,price%2C%20sales%20were%20very%20strong https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-.... The major issue with Concorde by the time of its retirement was that it was very old and outdated, among other things needing a 3-person crew. The market for new Concordes was not large enough for a next-egeneration update to be profitable. And 9/11 had dented air travel demand.
  - moralestapia 6y ago
    >https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson- https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-.... Thanks! I did not know about that.
Swizec 6y ago
Concorde’s other problem was newfangled airport security. Why spend 5x on tickets for a 3h flight if you spend 2h at airports anyway? The day is wasted to travel regardless.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > The day is wasted to travel regardless. This doesn't add up. At the moment when I fly from the UK to New York I leave my house at 6 AM and could be in the city by just after lunch. With supersonic, including airport and transfer times, I could literally get up at my normal time in the UK and arrive to get a full working day in New York. None of the day is wasted.
  - Swizec 6y ago
    You’re right it works in one direction. Now add to that 5x pricing. Worth it? In the other direction it’s harder. Too short to sleep on the plane, too long to get a full day. If you want to be in London at 9am, you’re leaving NYC at 2am-ish for a supersonic flight. (1h transit to airport, 2h at airport, 3h flight, 1h transit to London)
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > If you want to be in London at 9am, you’re leaving NYC at 2am-ish for a supersonic flight. (1h transit to airport, 2h at airport, 3h flight, 1h transit to London) I'm not sure what you mean - that gets you into London at 2pm not 9am (2am + 1 + 2 + 3 = 9am New York = 2pm London.) To get into London at 9am you'd need to leave New York City at 10pm (9am - 1 - 3 - 2 = 3am London = 10pm New York. Which seems fine you're doing it overnight no days lost? You'd not get tons of sleep that night but you're not wasting a day either way. Could leave at 8pm and get two hours's sleep in the arrivals lounge! And leaving at 10pm instead of 5pm as you have to now makes all the difference because it now isn't interfering with your day at all! That was the goal wasn't it? Makes it worth it?
      - Swizec 6y ago
acomjean 6y ago
They literally named the company “boom” so they must have thought about it.

failuser 6y ago

We might be at the point when it can be legal again, just make sure you don’t fly supersonic above mansions of people with actual power.

jagger27 6y ago

Their FAQ section^0 says this: > Overture flights will focus on 500+ primarily transoceanic routes that benefit from supersonic speeds—such as New York to London or San Francisco to Tokyo. Overture won't generate a sonic boom over land cruising at subsonic speeds. Its passengers won't even notice breaking through the "sound barrier," which will be inaudible and uneventful. So I guess they haven't really solved physics. edit: in an economic way. [0]: https://boomsupersonic.com/contact#faq-section https://boomsupersonic.com/contact#faq-section

JacobDotVI 6y ago
there is also ongoing research into making the boom less audible & turbulent over land, which would enable cross-country flights: >Graves explains that SonicBAT is an unusual test in that it uses a typical military aircraft with its loud sonic boom to help engineers better understand the sounds from future quiet supersonic aircraft >"We're hoping we can eventually lower sonic booms to a low rumble," he said. "The goal is to eventually accommodate jets that can fly from New York to Los Angeles in two hours." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-supersonic-technology-designed-to-reduce-sonic-booms https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-supersonic-technology-desig... I'd hope that Boom is also working on such an approach
- lumost 6y ago
  WRT to the US. I'd be curious if anyone has done a route analysis on trans-continental flights to minimize overheard booms. Once you're 200 miles from the coasts there is a lot of open space to fly through.
  - qppo 6y ago
    I think you'd be hard pressed to find a path where the boom cone's carpet doesn't pass over a moderately populated area and can be navigated by the aircraft at supersonic speeds. The US is not sparse east of the Missippi, which is more like 750 miles from the coast.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Once you're 200 miles from the coasts there is a lot of open space to fly through. That's really only true west of about a North-South line through the eastern edge of the Texas panhandle. From there east, there's still some open space (not a lot once you hit the Mississippi River), but you'd have to dodge around to make path not going over population concentrations.
    - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
      I think that’s why they specifically call out O’hare to London, and SF to Tokyo, routes that take them over the ocean.
Robotbeat 6y ago
NASA has solved physics, though: https://www.nasa.gov/X59 https://www.nasa.gov/X59 The Low-boom Flight Demonstration mission has two goals: 1) design and build a piloted, large-scale supersonic X-plane with technology that reduces the loudness of a sonic boom to that of a gentle thump; and 2) fly the X-plane over select U.S. communities to gather data on human responses to the low-boom flights and deliver that data set to U.S. and international regulators. Using this data, new sound-based rules regarding supersonic flight over land can be written and adopted, which would open the doors to new commercial cargo and passenger markets to provide faster-than-sound air travel.
- uranium 6y ago
  NASA has a goal to solve physics; we'll see how they do.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > NASA has solved physics, though: "NASA has a project to test whether the physics can be adequately finessed" would be more accurate description of what is on that page than "NASA has solved the physics".
nopzor 6y ago
that's an interestingly worded statement. in concorde, the passengers didn't even notice breaking through the sound barrier either. regarding sonic booms over land, their plan iirc is to reduce the noise level to the point where they can lobby to change legislation.

fotbr 6y ago

The theory is that they can reduce the supersonic shockwave to the point where supersonic flight over populated areas can be legalized again.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jankassens 6y ago

Without any deeper knowledge, there might also be a good amount of business travel between Australia/East Asia and the US West coast?

billclerico 6y ago

I think it is more likely that the economics killed Concord ($20k per seat), not the route, and it appears that Boom thinks like they can deliver a luxury, supersonic experience at a far cheaper, business class price. And if transoceanic supersonic travel becomes popular, pressure will mount to define overland supersonic corridors, or manufacturers will invest to reduce the noise, or both.

bobthepanda 6y ago
In its later years I believe BA and Air France found that perceived costs of a Concorde ticket were actually more expensive than what they were charging, so they increased prices to match perceptions and then Concorde was fairly profitable. By the time Concorde was actually retired, 9/11 dented air travel demand in general and the thing was a flying dinosaur with not a big enough market to justify an upgraded version of the plane.
- nickik 6y ago
  It was only ever close to profit because it didn't have to finance its own development.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    The context is pretty clearly talking about operating profit, not the profitability of the program as a whole.
  - kenneth 6y ago
    It's not necessary to account for R&D costs if the R&D has other benefits (e.g. putting Airbus on the map as an alternative manufacturer to Boeing, giving Europe technology with military implications independent of its reliance on the USA, etc.)
trhway 6y ago
>pressure will mount to define overland supersonic corridors yes, that definitely need to happen. I wonder whether the sonic boom public scare is just based on the fact that the majority of the public has never experienced it. I grew up on a Navy base in USSR, and we regularly had fighters booming at the altitudes much lower than the altitude normal for the commercial supersonic travel. It was just fun for us children. May be you'd not want the boom echoing/bouncing through the Manhattan concrete mazes, yet at 20km altitude over rural areas there should be no issues. Also there are large swaths of less populated lands in other countries who may be open to having such corridors over these areas. And back in Concorde times, there weren't such a big rich markets like China who has different approach to clearing of permitting/regulation issues for example when it comes to public transportation infrastructure.

Voloskaya 6y ago

> How does this seek to overcome the problem that killed Concorde This did not single handedly killed the Concorde, there are plenty of routes with substantial flying time over unpopulated areas. Presumably if the cost of maintenance and the fuel consumption were lower it could still be flying. So assuming Boom fixes those 2 points, then not being able to go supersonic over land just lowers efficiency but does not mean it's not viable.

rich_sasha 6y ago

There were a lot of potential buyers for Concorde in other parts of the world. They backed out when the operating costs came out, and the range was found to be lower than expected (though BA managed to increase it through operational improvements). Whether supersonic travel is still relevant is another question, but there buyers then, maybe there would be now too. https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b

gok 6y ago

Primarily they are targeting transoceanic routes. Transoceanic demand has increased substantially in recent years. Transatlantic traffic has doubled since Concorde went out of service. Transpacific travel has grown even more, and Concorde was unable to compete there.

lumost 6y ago
Transpacific and trans-hemisphere super sonic flights would be an interesting. the demand to fly to Asia from North America is likely higher than currently observed due to lack of interest in 12-24 hour flights. With careful planning the fastest I can get to Australia/New Zealand is ~18-24 hours flight time - on a 10 day vacation that's ~40% of my vacation time including recovery from an 18 hour flight. I'd be fine flying 6 hours to the west coast then hopping on a supersonic flight for a 2-3x premium ( still expensive, but worthwhile every few years ).
- mc32 6y ago
  Asia-North America. Would they do a polar trajectory? Or would they worry too much about the radiation?
  - stetrain 6y ago
    Existing flight routes between Asia and North America often fly over the arctic already: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/winter-winds-how-singapore-airlines-new-worlds-longest-flight-is-saving-time-and-fuel-by-flying-farther/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/winter-winds-how-singapor...
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Not if it crosses a landmass, I guess.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    I don't think the planned Boom plane has the range to go trans-Pacific. Maybe with a stopover in Honolulu to refuel (which could still be substantially faster)

griffinkelly 6y ago

Concorde had a bunch of publicly tours around Asia. There are a few that could make sense-- HK to Tokyo? Tokyo to Singapore? The fuel requirements from the US to Asia are pretty intense, so I'm interested to see how they solve that issue. Sonic booms haven't always been illegal in the US (1973?). My dad grew up near O'hare, and he said you'd occasionally hear them when it was still a military base. Its just annoying, but for people who live near airports, jet noise is already annoying? I think as long as jets just boom over specific areas, it would minimize the public nuisance.

tshaddox 6y ago
We heard sonic booms routinely growing up in the 1990s in small-town Missouri, presumably from nearby air force bases. It was little more than a curiosity, and never enough to rattle windows or really affect anyone much beyond perhaps a brief startling.
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  I grew up not far from an Air Force base on Germany. We got sonic booms multiple times a day. It was super shitty. We never had windows break, but as a young child I started to cry every time it happened. My grandfather woke up from his naps from them quite regularly which sucked especially when he was dying of cancer.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    I wonder what the difference is. Airplane size/speed/altitude?
    - ajmurmann 6y ago
      Most likely altitude. I recall that they used to practice flying at low altitude. Much more interesting than our anecdata is probably the Oklahoma City Sonic Boom study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests > the NORC reported that 73% of subjects in the study said that they could live indefinitely with eight sonic booms per day, while 25% said that they couldn't. About 3% of the population telephoned, sued, or wrote protest letters, but Oklahoma City surgeons and hospitals filed no complaints. However, with the city population at 500,000, that 3% figure represented 15,000 upset individuals. There were 9,594 complaints of damage to buildings, 4,629 formal damage claims, and 229 claims for a total of $12,845.32, mostly for broken glass and cracked plaster.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

It's for Emirati playboys to continue their game of oneupsmanship while they still have money to burn.

seany 6y ago

Lobby to make them legal again? The restriction is stupid to start with.

sumedh 6y ago
Why do you think its stupid?

moralestapia 6y ago

>[...] the problem that killed Concorde: Civilian sonic booms over populations are illegal Did this killed the Concorde? I don't know the story well, but I always though it was because it was never a profitable venture but it was kept because it was good PR. Then the accident happened and it was just not worth it anymore ...

bobthepanda 6y ago
Concorde was profitable. It initially wasn't, but then BA and Air France found out that customers thought Concorde was more expensive than it actually was. Once they increased prices to customer expectation the Concorde was fairly profitable. https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-from-the-concorde/#:~:text=Concorde%20ticket%20prices%20were%20doubled,price%2C%20sales%20were%20very%20strong https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-.... The major issue with Concorde by the time of its retirement was that it was very old and outdated, among other things needing a 3-person crew. The market for new Concordes was not large enough for a next-egeneration update to be profitable. And 9/11 had dented air travel demand.
- moralestapia 6y ago
  >https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson- https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-.... Thanks! I did not know about that.

Swizec 6y ago

Concorde’s other problem was newfangled airport security. Why spend 5x on tickets for a 3h flight if you spend 2h at airports anyway? The day is wasted to travel regardless.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> The day is wasted to travel regardless. This doesn't add up. At the moment when I fly from the UK to New York I leave my house at 6 AM and could be in the city by just after lunch. With supersonic, including airport and transfer times, I could literally get up at my normal time in the UK and arrive to get a full working day in New York. None of the day is wasted.
- Swizec 6y ago
  You’re right it works in one direction. Now add to that 5x pricing. Worth it? In the other direction it’s harder. Too short to sleep on the plane, too long to get a full day. If you want to be in London at 9am, you’re leaving NYC at 2am-ish for a supersonic flight. (1h transit to airport, 2h at airport, 3h flight, 1h transit to London)
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > If you want to be in London at 9am, you’re leaving NYC at 2am-ish for a supersonic flight. (1h transit to airport, 2h at airport, 3h flight, 1h transit to London) I'm not sure what you mean - that gets you into London at 2pm not 9am (2am + 1 + 2 + 3 = 9am New York = 2pm London.) To get into London at 9am you'd need to leave New York City at 10pm (9am - 1 - 3 - 2 = 3am London = 10pm New York. Which seems fine you're doing it overnight no days lost? You'd not get tons of sleep that night but you're not wasting a day either way. Could leave at 8pm and get two hours's sleep in the arrivals lounge! And leaving at 10pm instead of 5pm as you have to now makes all the difference because it now isn't interfering with your day at all! That was the goal wasn't it? Makes it worth it?
    - Swizec 6y ago

acomjean 6y ago

They literally named the company “boom” so they must have thought about it.