12 ms·

Problems with supersonic (?): - Noise means you can't do US domestic - Concorde didn't have the range for Pacific - Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes -

Problems with supersonic (?): - Noise means you can't do US domestic - Concorde didn't have the range for Pacific - Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes - And airlines want lots of identical planes, not one special one for one route Which ones has Boom solved? https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1400425028022308874 https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1400425028022308874

varjag 5y ago
The first one (or at least aspires to).
- nemetroid 5y ago
  Do they? The FAQ suggests that they are not aiming to do supersonic flight over land: > Won’t the sonic boom be loud? > 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.
  - andi999 5y ago
    So what are the other 497+ possible routes (new York Paris also works) ? I read somewhere that after a Concorde test flight to Singapore, India complaint strongly and stopped the airway.
lumost 5y ago
Boom's premise is that they can reduce the sonic booms to acceptable levels while making incremental progress on fuel and maintenance costs. Airlines are likely expecting that business trips flying coach are going to radically diminish. Offering a super-premium fast flight for the remaining business travelers who must travel but have a reduced tolerance for it is a smart move.
- whoisjuan 5y ago
  But isn’t Boom selling a vision for affordable supersonic flights? What you’re suggesting about “super-premium” flights doesn’t map to what’s being publicly said about Boom or the fundamental principles of commercial flying. As a matter of fact, the Concorde ultimately failed for those very same niche-economy reasons. What’s your source for saying that business trips flying coach will diminish?
  - lumost 5y ago
    > What’s your source for saying that business tripes flying coach will diminish? That's an unsourced opinion based on personal experience. Zoom has become a much more common method of connecting with remote teams. I don't see a compelling reason to travel for non-critical business functions, and if the travel is that business critical then I can probably get my company to pay the expense of a premium ticket. There are probably 2 travel occasions per year where the business travel is more of a "fun" activity such as conferences etc. I'll still fly coach for those.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      In my experience zoom meetings work a lot better if you meet the people in person once in a while. Human nature is someone you know in person is more trusted than an image on a screen.
      - iso1210 5y ago
        So instead of flying trans atlantic every 2 months it's once a year. That's an 80% drop in demand.
        jdminhbg 5y ago
        Or suddenly you realize you can be effective working over Zoom instead of in person as long as you have those couple meetings a year, so you have new business or employee relationships that only existed locally in NY or London before. That’s an X000% increase in demand.
dalbasal 5y ago
Despite these problems, Concorde managed to fly for a long time... on the routes that they managed to fly. The reasons that they stopped flying were different. It cost a lot, and was a lot more cramped than first class or private... the competition. Meanwhile, the time you spend in airports diluted the time you save by flying faster. If these could fly from LCA to a similarly small US port, speed makes a lot more sense. That said, this will probably fail. Most air travel stuff fails. I'm hoping it won't. Progress is fun.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Symbiote 5y ago
  I don't think the size of the airport made much difference: at LHR and JFK BA had a special lounge and other arrangements. You had to arrive 30 minutes before if taking luggage, otherwise just early enough to get through fast-track security. https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-cabin--passenger-experience https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-cabin--passenger-e...
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    Just the thought of LHR makes me want to go to bed, though admittedly, I always fly with the plebs.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      LHR T5, arrive 40 minutes before takeoff - especially if you're going from a high numbered A gate for a small plane (which you could arrange for a premium service) security takes about 2 minutes, gate closes at t-20 for normal planes. Not sure why you'd use it from Cyprus (LCA is Larnaca). If it could operate on a short runway though, London City to JFK or LaGuardia ala the BA airbus would be interesting, although the stop for Shannon has never appealed.
herlitzj 5y ago
afavour (via Benedict Evans) c. 2005 - No charging network, can't drive away from home - Battery tech not there, no realistic range - Too expensive, no one will pay that much for a car they can't drive anywhere - Everyone wants an SUV or an affordable sedan, not some niche vehicle. Who's going go buy it? Which ones has Tesla solved? Moving an industry takes time. Will Boom do it? Who knows. But this line of thinking is kind of short sighted and defeatist, don't you think?
- afavour 5y ago
  To be clear, my post was not written by me, but by Benedict Evans. I reposted it here as it felt like a worthy discussion point. It might be interesting to see Benedict’s comments on Tesla circa 2005 to see how they compare to Boom today.
  - herlitzj 5y ago
    True. Updated to reflect your source
- jollybean 5y ago
  Telsa was selling hype to a lot of consumers willing to wait for perfection. Boom is selling a tiny handful of planes. So they have to solve these problems, largely when they launch. Airlines are not going to run at a loss for a decade while things tune up.
  - jbverschoor 5y ago
    No it didn’t. It sold a lotus Elise, because it was the cheapest way to deliver a car, and the MVP to showcase electric. It did not at all sell hype to consumers waiting for perfection
    - nradov 5y ago
      Elon Musk now claims that the final production Tesla Roadster used very few Lotus Elise parts. Even though the vehicles looked similar they ended up changing almost everything, and in retrospect using the Elise platform didn't save them anything.
satellite2 5y ago
I think the cost analysis was valid in the 70s when CEOs and business users were not that different from regular users. With CEO salaries and more generally inequalities having exploded in the last couple decades I think the business model might have become viable.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  I think this is key. There are now a lot more rich people who would pay for the speed, and just as importantly a chance to avoid the hoi polloi, than 4 decades ago.
- afavour 5y ago
  Counterpoint: fast, accessible in flight Wifi is a reality now. It means that flights aren’t anywhere near the kind of “dead” time they used to be. I’m sure some CEOs will pay whatever it costs to boost their own egos but IMO that would push them towards private jets, not a supersonic flight with United. I find the actual arguments for faster flights less persuasive than they were in the 70s.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Premium air travel is also much more comfortable than it was in the 70s. First class was more akin to domestic business class today than modern lie flat seating much less the real premium roomettes on some airlines. The connectivity probably does make a difference for some. Personally, I appreciate the disconnect time.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    There are far more CEOs earning ~$500k/year than there are making private jet money. I've worked for a half dozen pretty successful SMEs and all of the C-Suite flew business class and I suspect they'd all take the option to cut a few hours off their trip if it was within 50% of the price of a standard business class ticket.
    - ghaff 5y ago
bob33212 5y ago
They create a PR boost for United. They can tell the business travelers that "Super Diamond Elite" business travelers will get first access to these flights (Dates TBD). Making those people more likely to go with United over Delta.
athenot 5y ago
> Noise means you can't do US domestic Part of that was also political. It's petty and I wish it weren't true, but a domestic-made plane making noise will be better accepted than a foreign-made plane making noise.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Whilst this is true historically, the regulations exist and I don't see rewriting them to tolerate sonic booms as a vote winner, not even for those committed to arguing against the trend towards stricter restrictions on greenhouse gases etc. A lot more people will live near the flightpaths than use them
- henrikeh 5y ago
  Do you have any sources to back that up? U.S. Congress funded development of the SST (Supersonic Transport) back in the 60'ies but stopped funding in 1971 due to concerns and displeasure of exactly the sonic booms (and ozone layer issues). So five years before the Concorde entered service a domestic plane was not seen as being worth. Heppenheimer's The Space Shuttle Decision has a chapter where this is discussed in detail.
quux 5y ago
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
- tzs 5y ago
  That's not really an apt comparison. When iPod came out there were numerous successful portable music players already on the market. The iPod skeptics were not skeptical that there was a market for a portable music player--they were skeptical that the iPod's particular combination of features and limitations would do well. With supersonic passenger service no one has demonstrated that there is actually a viable market for it. The two prior attempts were both heavily subsidized by government (Russia for the Tu-144, France and the UK for the Concorde). It is quite different to ask "why do you think this product will do well against a bunch of established, viable competitors?" and to ask "why do you think this product can succeed in a market that everyone who has tried before has failed in?".
  - quux 5y ago
    IIRC Concorde development was highly subsidized by the government but it became a sustainable business for British Airways as long as there were wealthy business travelers willing to pay a huge premium to get between the financial centers of NYC and London in 3 hours. After 9/11 a lot of that business went away and Concorde wasn't viable anymore.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      Boom is taking the government's role, not BA's. I once did a back of the envelope calculation which suggested the government could have lost less money paying for a NY- Europe business class ticket on a regular aircraft for every person ever to fly Concorde. It was as spectacularly bad commercially as it was impressive technologically. It was a sustainable business for BA because they got several aircraft at giveaway prices (the minister who sold them conceded it may have been the worst deal ever negotiated by a government!) which they could charge extortionate rates to fly on, but they still weren't flying more than one of them at a time very often.
aetherson 5y ago
The world is also a lot richer now than it was in the 70s. Some luxuries that didn't make sense 40 years ago may make sense now.
avernon 5y ago
The Concorde basically used afterburners. It used fuel at incredible rates. Boom is using more modern engine technology that can achieve the high cruise speeds using less fuel. This also increases effective range. So it solves 2,3, and 4. Can do Pacific. Cheaper to operate. Can be used on all overseas routes.
- kleton 5y ago
  >[Concorde] used reheat (afterburners) only at take-off and to pass through the upper transonic regime to supersonic speeds The Concorde was capable of supercruise.
- defaultname 5y ago
  Flying above the speed of sound without using afterburners is referred to as supercruise, and it is something the Concorde was capable of doing. There aren't a lot of supercruise aircraft out there. The F22, for instance, can supercruise effectively, but the F35 cannot.
  - iab 5y ago
    True, but in defense of the F-35 it also can't fly very far
- mnw21cam 5y ago
  Concorde only used the afterburner in takeoff, and while transitioning to supersonic. It would happily cruise supersonic without the afterburner. Still, we have had a few years of engine technology improvements since then.
- mshook 5y ago
  Concorde engines were actually some of the most efficient ones while cruising above Mach 1.7 (because afterburners were only used to take off and to go transonic until M1.7). So it was efficient but only when flying fast. Wiki says: The overall thermal efficiency of the engine in supersonic cruising flight (supercruise) was about 43%, which at the time was the highest figure recorded for any normal thermodynamic machine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593
qayxc 5y ago
> - Noise means you can't do US domestic The companies working on supersonic jets are in process of lobbying hard to get FAA approval for exemptions from noise regulations. [1] > - Concorde didn't have the range for Pacific Not their target market, they want to be a successful niche. > - Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes They claim improvements in fuel efficiency and their unique selling point (apart from the speed advantage) is the use of "green" fuels (whatever that implies). Also, see previous point: they don't want to be mainstream anyway. > - And airlines want lots of identical planes, not one special one for one route Not a problem they want to solve. Niche and all. While the economics are indeed questionable, these products cannot be compared to flagship products like Concorde. The jets are significantly smaller (50 PAX vs. 92-128 PAX), benefit from 50 years of progress in aviation technology, manufacturing, and operations and they have a very specific use case in mind. Concorde was the result of a technological dick-waving contest between Western Europe and the US w.r.t. civil aviation technology. Its purpose was as much of a political nature as it was an attempt at testing/demonstrating the practicality of supersonic passenger jets. It ultimately failed, but that doesn't mean contemporary attempts have to due to the differences in scope, technology and potentially regulatory environment. I remain sceptical, but I wouldn't want to write it off as a failure from the get-go. [1] https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/flight-testing/faa-releases-new-regulations-for-supersonic-flight-testing.html https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/flight-te...
- andi999 5y ago
  Even if they get an excemption, affected people will probably come with pitchforks and torches to the headquarter. These supersonic booms are really loud.
  - supportlocal4h 5y ago
    I grew up under fairly constant sonic booms. They always seemed pretty cool because it meant a high performance aircraft was overhead. I'm sure they annoyed some people. They excited some people. And they just became mundane to a lot of people.
nimbius 5y ago
you forgot another big one the Concord faced: cosmic radation. The plane carried a geiger counter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Radiation_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Radiation_concerns
- ginko 5y ago
  But even if you get a higher dose per unit of time, you spend less time in the air so your overall dose is lower. Your link mentions that. I guess the main exception would be for personnel that did a lot of flights. That could be reduced by requiring longer ground breaks than with subsonic aircraft.
- dharmab 5y ago
  The amount of radiation you receive during a regular flight is quite small, and more than you would receive on a supersonic flight: https://youtu.be/TRL7o2kPqw0?t=307 https://youtu.be/TRL7o2kPqw0?t=307
- vmarsy 5y ago
  Right, that's something I was wondering when Boom was announced a few years back [1]. Will radiation be even worse for the crew if the plane body is made of carbon-fiber vs thicker metal like the Concorde was? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12791122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12791122
cedilla 5y ago
It should be noted that these problems aren't the only important reason why Concorde failed. Pre-orders were made in 1963-1967 and almost all were cancelled in 1973 due to the oil price shock, in addition to a 500% increase in sales price. Concorde had a bit of bad timing. It was released during the worst crisis of aviation (until 9/11), and there was already a second version planned with increased fuel efficiency, but that came never to be with all orders being cancelled. And those cancellations also meant that all economies of scale advantages were gone.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >Concorde had a bit of bad timing. It was released during the worst crisis of aviation It doesn't feel like Boom has the timing on its side either. Feels like we're still in a massive aviation crisis and I'm not sure how long it's gonna take before things look good for the industry.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    In what way is there a crisis? The major US carriers keep expanding. keep adding new routes, buying more places, etc. Air travel was at an all time high before the pandemic and is likely to rebound and hit new records in coming years.
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      No way. Commercial air travel is ready for a 10 year slowdown. The main profit center for commercial air travel was businessmen going places, not too concerned how much flights would cost. Now business meetings happen by video conference. Flying round the world for a 3 hour meeting will never be big again.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        In fairness, most business travel is not flying around the world for a 3 hour meeting. I do expect events, roadshows, series of customer meetings, etc. to come back--albeit probably gradually and perhaps not reaching prior levels.
AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
I think Concorde was profitable - at least for British Airways.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Well, yes. If you ignore the development costs, British Airways turned an operating profit.
  - mshook 5y ago
    Same with Air France, Concorde got profitable with all the special flights (supersonic loops, world tours and all these).
neom 5y ago
These three (albeit somewhat long) videos answer a lot of the questions you asked: Flight of the New Concordes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLykryZLFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLykryZLFk Supersonic Planes are Coming Back (And This Time, They Might Work) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0fRlCHYyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0fRlCHYyg Supersonic Flight - What Does The Future Hold? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3K04wgf_ZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3K04wgf_ZQ
mshook 5y ago
You could add: - Concorde didn't work flying east because with the time zone thing, you might be flying real fast, you still arrive super late. Meaning you could as well pay less and fly the red eye...
- bberenberg 5y ago
  I fly SF->NYC redeye regularly. The practical side of takeoff and landing is that I get 4 hours of sleep max. I also start to sleep around 2AM NYC time. If I could reduce flight time to 2.5 hours, I would rather land in NYC at 2AM and get to bed there so I can start my day much better rested.
  - mshook 5y ago
    But do you fly in first class? Because for cheaper than Concorde, that's what you could get (and that's what Concorde was competing against) and usually in first, they don't wake you up for breakfast or whatever before you land... And the other issue in your case is flying supersonic over land but I hear you.
    - michaelt 5y ago
      First class is all very well, but you don't escape the unfamiliar bed; the noise of the engines and other passengers; the weird air pressure; the fact you're in your travel clothes; the strangely corporate environment; or the jostling and noise of landing and takeoff. Of course, some people are less sensitive to these things than others - and jobs with a lot of travel probably select for people who find the experience of flying tolerable.
    - bberenberg 5y ago
      Yes I do and they absolutely do wake you up before you land. It's an FAA requirement that the seat be upright.
      - nopzor 5y ago
        it might be an FAA requirement to be upright, but iirc some other international airlines (eg. virgin atlantic, air new zealand) allow you to keep your biz class seat in seating position during takeoff and landing.
dharmab 5y ago
Boom's aircraft don't make as loud a sonic boom as Concorde. Both NASA and Boom will conduct tests of this design in the mid 2020s to measure the sound at ground level in various conditions. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/features/how-nasa-will-measure-quiet-supersonic-flight.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/features/how-nasa-wil...
- nemetroid 5y ago
  Are you saying NASA/Lockheed Martin's X-59 is related to Boom? Or that Boom have similar goals?
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    NASA's flight will validate and improve the computer models that Boom is using to design their plans.
    - nemetroid 5y ago
      Is this a stated plan of Boom's (in particular, with regard to noise), or speculation? Boom's page on why their aircraft won't have the same fate as the Concorde focuses purely on (fuel and route) economics, not noise [1]. 1: https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/post/will-boom-supersonics-new-aircraft-have-the-same-fate-as-the-concorde https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/post/will-boom-supersonics-...
      - dharmab 5y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R43gKMWAPco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R43gKMWAPco
        nemetroid 5y ago
        This video doesn't mention sonic booms, nor NASA, at any point.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
Boom talks about - much lower noise than Concorde (mentioned elsewhere in this discussion). Ironically, they reduce the "boom". - Pacific crossings. 4,900 miles range ( https://onemileatatime.com/boom-supersonic/ https://onemileatatime.com/boom-supersonic/ ) Tokyo - Seattle is about the furthest within that, at 4,777 miles. California to Hawaii is easily in range, USA to Australia is far out of range, but Brisbane to Hawaii is in range. - Article talks about 15 planes not one. Have they solved those yet? They're not flying yet, so no. But that's what they're aiming at.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  > Tokyo - Seattle is about the furthest within that There's about the shortest viable route I can imagine. I could see refueling stops being a thing, though. SFO-SIN is a pretty long flight, so an hour to refuel in Tokyo wouldn't be so bad.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > There's about the shortest viable route I can imagine Right, this (Tokyo - Seattle) seems like a minimum viable Pacific crossing. San Francisco to Tokyo is 5,133 miles, so it is out of range. How about San Francisco to Hawaii, Hawaii to Tokyo, and Tokyo to Singapore. ;)
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
How many transcontinental flights fly USA domestic routes? If this can cut my flying time from Seattle to Beijing, I would be a happy camper, hopefully they can go boom over BC, Alaska, and the Russia Fareast.
theptip 5y ago
Can’t you do coast-to-coast? I thought the requirement is no sonic boom over land, but you can fly out over the ocean and then turn around at Mach N. Eg SF<>NYC would be an obvious route that is worth adding some miles at the start, if you can go 3-4x quicker.
- dharmab 5y ago
  A sonic boom is a continuous noise, not just at the transition. You perceive it as a single noise at the ground, but so does every other person along the entire flight path. Boom's aircraft uses a modern design that reduces the loudness of the sonic boom.
  - theptip 5y ago
    Thanks for the correction, I did have that incorrect. TIL. Interesting follow-up -- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom, the angle of the shockwave cone decreases (i.e. gets narrower) as the plane's velocity goes up. I'm wondering at what Mach number would the cone be tight enough that it doesn't intersect land?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- mpweiher 5y ago
  The boom happens whenever you're flying supersonic, not just when you transition from < Mach 1 to > Mach 1.
- lvspiff 5y ago
  I hope everyone is given flight suits as just the image of a plane full of people making a 180 degree turn at 600mph to accelerate to 740mph is somewhat comical. I know not entirely what you are suggesting but its immediately the thought that came to mind.
- NegativeLatency 5y ago
  The plane might not be efficient at subsonic or transonic speeds.
nine_k 5y ago
If the plane goes supersonic at 10 miles of altitude, will it still make much sound on the surface? It's not just distance, it's the pressure of the air at the altitude, too. Haven't engines improved a lot since 1967? No idea about cost, but currently oil is cheap and abundant, compared to 1970s, and the U.S. has a large domestic supply. Regarding identical planes, I suppose first Boom's supersonic planes are going to be mostly identical. But even standard airliners get small changes with every dozen planes built.
rtkwe 5y ago
The Concorde actually had a pretty profitable final couple months when they cut prices down from ultra premium because it massively increased their utilization. Boom also seems to have plans for Pacific routes according to their website, so I assume they're planning their range accordingly.
- paulpan 5y ago
  Good point, higher utilization is one of Southwest's key competitive advantages since they're able to squeeze 1 extra trip for their aircraft than competitors. Significantly cutting travel time should also enable higher utilization. E.g. cutting LA-Sydney route in half (15hrs to 7hrs) theoretically enables fitting in a roundtrip in the timespan of a one-way.
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    By utilization I actually meant the percentage of filled seats but yes that's also an advantage of supersonic planes. You need roughly half as many planes to service the same timetable (assuming turn around is roughly as fast and doesn't get drawn out by technical/maintenance requirements).
pkulak 5y ago
The biggest problem is that supersonic just steals first-class passengers from other routes, where the profits are higher. Also, far higher climate impacts, which is what concerns me the most. Lets just be happy with crossing an entire ocean in 6 hours.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  While you are canabalizing some of your own 1st class passengers, the first airline to get a supersonic route going will also take first class passengers from other airlines.
  - pkulak 5y ago
    You mean the third airline? This has already been tried before, and the financials didn't work out the first time. Maybe everything has changed, but who really knows. And frankly, I'm hoping for failure. Some of these new super-sonic companies are trying to get approval for continental routes, saying that the boom is only as loud a car door. Like a car door slamming shut for 3000 miles is no big deal. The super-wealthy have enough toys to inconvenience the rest of us and destroy the climate; they can keep hanging out in first class, or on their private, subsonic jets.
    - usrusr 5y ago
      When I read the headline I was quite confused at first, a big why why why? Then it came to me, it's a business bet on wealth concentration. Conventional first will always be far more comfortable, private far more convenient, but supersonic easily outdoes them both in bragging rights. And think of the networking opportunities when (if?) passengers are almost as packed as in coach despite paying a huge entry fee! And the environmental aspect won't feel too bad actually: if you are traveling first you produce x times as much CO2 for your trip as others (how many more could they take aboard if that are was as densely packed as regular?), only because you are, well, too soft to sit out a few hours. But if the CO2 happens because supersonic, you get something very real in return. Time! Who could blame you?
marcosdumay 5y ago
> - Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes > - And airlines want lots of identical planes, not one special one for one route On both of those, the passengers are kings. If enough people decide they want to pay a lot to cross the ocean quickly, those things will not be a problem.
parhamn 5y ago
I made this comment earlier, but Wendover has a great video on this very topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0fRlCHYyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0fRlCHYyg
vesinisa 5y ago
> Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes Common misconception. The Concorde was absolutely quite profitable throughout, and massively so after they adjusted the prices down at the very end when it was already being shut down due to safety reasons.
- awill 5y ago
  safety reasons? There weren't any safety reasons. The Concorde was the safest plane ever. It flew for 27 years with just 1 accident. And that accident wasn't Concorde's fault. Another plane dropped metal on the runway, and Concorde ran over the metal and got damaged right before takeoff.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - notahacker 5y ago
    There are individual passenger aircraft that flew more hours and cycles than the entire Concorde production run without incident. The accident where running over a piece of metal on a runway during takeoff resulted in a raging inferno and ultimately the deaths of everyone on board wasn't the first time Concorde's unusually-prone-to-failure tyres had punctured a fuel tank when they exploded, or something likely to happen if a different aircraft ran over the same piece of metal. Separately, it also had two spontaneous in-flight structural failures of the rudder. All this in a production run of 14 aircraft that spent most of their life on the ground. Considering it was a complete novelty designed in the 1970s it did OK, but I don't think there are many airframes its safety record compares favourably with.
jvm 5y ago
To actually answer your questions: - Noise means you can't do US domestic They don't seem to be targeting this. - Concorde didn't have the range for Pacific They do seem to be attempting Pacific range. - Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes They are trying to bring down costs considerably. - And airlines want lots of identical planes, not one special one for one route This will certainly be a drawback, although if they could take e.g. 50% of premium transoceanic it won't be so specialized.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

varjag 5y ago

The first one (or at least aspires to).

nemetroid 5y ago
Do they? The FAQ suggests that they are not aiming to do supersonic flight over land: > Won’t the sonic boom be loud? > 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.
- andi999 5y ago
  So what are the other 497+ possible routes (new York Paris also works) ? I read somewhere that after a Concorde test flight to Singapore, India complaint strongly and stopped the airway.

lumost 5y ago

Boom's premise is that they can reduce the sonic booms to acceptable levels while making incremental progress on fuel and maintenance costs. Airlines are likely expecting that business trips flying coach are going to radically diminish. Offering a super-premium fast flight for the remaining business travelers who must travel but have a reduced tolerance for it is a smart move.

whoisjuan 5y ago
But isn’t Boom selling a vision for affordable supersonic flights? What you’re suggesting about “super-premium” flights doesn’t map to what’s being publicly said about Boom or the fundamental principles of commercial flying. As a matter of fact, the Concorde ultimately failed for those very same niche-economy reasons. What’s your source for saying that business trips flying coach will diminish?
- lumost 5y ago
  > What’s your source for saying that business tripes flying coach will diminish? That's an unsourced opinion based on personal experience. Zoom has become a much more common method of connecting with remote teams. I don't see a compelling reason to travel for non-critical business functions, and if the travel is that business critical then I can probably get my company to pay the expense of a premium ticket. There are probably 2 travel occasions per year where the business travel is more of a "fun" activity such as conferences etc. I'll still fly coach for those.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    In my experience zoom meetings work a lot better if you meet the people in person once in a while. Human nature is someone you know in person is more trusted than an image on a screen.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      So instead of flying trans atlantic every 2 months it's once a year. That's an 80% drop in demand.
      - jdminhbg 5y ago
        Or suddenly you realize you can be effective working over Zoom instead of in person as long as you have those couple meetings a year, so you have new business or employee relationships that only existed locally in NY or London before. That’s an X000% increase in demand.

dalbasal 5y ago

Despite these problems, Concorde managed to fly for a long time... on the routes that they managed to fly. The reasons that they stopped flying were different. It cost a lot, and was a lot more cramped than first class or private... the competition. Meanwhile, the time you spend in airports diluted the time you save by flying faster. If these could fly from LCA to a similarly small US port, speed makes a lot more sense. That said, this will probably fail. Most air travel stuff fails. I'm hoping it won't. Progress is fun.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Symbiote 5y ago
I don't think the size of the airport made much difference: at LHR and JFK BA had a special lounge and other arrangements. You had to arrive 30 minutes before if taking luggage, otherwise just early enough to get through fast-track security. https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-cabin--passenger-experience https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-cabin--passenger-e...
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Just the thought of LHR makes me want to go to bed, though admittedly, I always fly with the plebs.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    LHR T5, arrive 40 minutes before takeoff - especially if you're going from a high numbered A gate for a small plane (which you could arrange for a premium service) security takes about 2 minutes, gate closes at t-20 for normal planes. Not sure why you'd use it from Cyprus (LCA is Larnaca). If it could operate on a short runway though, London City to JFK or LaGuardia ala the BA airbus would be interesting, although the stop for Shannon has never appealed.

herlitzj 5y ago

afavour (via Benedict Evans) c. 2005 - No charging network, can't drive away from home - Battery tech not there, no realistic range - Too expensive, no one will pay that much for a car they can't drive anywhere - Everyone wants an SUV or an affordable sedan, not some niche vehicle. Who's going go buy it? Which ones has Tesla solved? Moving an industry takes time. Will Boom do it? Who knows. But this line of thinking is kind of short sighted and defeatist, don't you think?

afavour 5y ago
To be clear, my post was not written by me, but by Benedict Evans. I reposted it here as it felt like a worthy discussion point. It might be interesting to see Benedict’s comments on Tesla circa 2005 to see how they compare to Boom today.
- herlitzj 5y ago
  True. Updated to reflect your source
jollybean 5y ago
Telsa was selling hype to a lot of consumers willing to wait for perfection. Boom is selling a tiny handful of planes. So they have to solve these problems, largely when they launch. Airlines are not going to run at a loss for a decade while things tune up.
- jbverschoor 5y ago
  No it didn’t. It sold a lotus Elise, because it was the cheapest way to deliver a car, and the MVP to showcase electric. It did not at all sell hype to consumers waiting for perfection
  - nradov 5y ago
    Elon Musk now claims that the final production Tesla Roadster used very few Lotus Elise parts. Even though the vehicles looked similar they ended up changing almost everything, and in retrospect using the Elise platform didn't save them anything.

satellite2 5y ago

I think the cost analysis was valid in the 70s when CEOs and business users were not that different from regular users. With CEO salaries and more generally inequalities having exploded in the last couple decades I think the business model might have become viable.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
I think this is key. There are now a lot more rich people who would pay for the speed, and just as importantly a chance to avoid the hoi polloi, than 4 decades ago.
afavour 5y ago
Counterpoint: fast, accessible in flight Wifi is a reality now. It means that flights aren’t anywhere near the kind of “dead” time they used to be. I’m sure some CEOs will pay whatever it costs to boost their own egos but IMO that would push them towards private jets, not a supersonic flight with United. I find the actual arguments for faster flights less persuasive than they were in the 70s.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Premium air travel is also much more comfortable than it was in the 70s. First class was more akin to domestic business class today than modern lie flat seating much less the real premium roomettes on some airlines. The connectivity probably does make a difference for some. Personally, I appreciate the disconnect time.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  There are far more CEOs earning ~$500k/year than there are making private jet money. I've worked for a half dozen pretty successful SMEs and all of the C-Suite flew business class and I suspect they'd all take the option to cut a few hours off their trip if it was within 50% of the price of a standard business class ticket.
  - ghaff 5y ago

bob33212 5y ago

They create a PR boost for United. They can tell the business travelers that "Super Diamond Elite" business travelers will get first access to these flights (Dates TBD). Making those people more likely to go with United over Delta.

athenot 5y ago

> Noise means you can't do US domestic Part of that was also political. It's petty and I wish it weren't true, but a domestic-made plane making noise will be better accepted than a foreign-made plane making noise.

notahacker 5y ago
Whilst this is true historically, the regulations exist and I don't see rewriting them to tolerate sonic booms as a vote winner, not even for those committed to arguing against the trend towards stricter restrictions on greenhouse gases etc. A lot more people will live near the flightpaths than use them
henrikeh 5y ago
Do you have any sources to back that up? U.S. Congress funded development of the SST (Supersonic Transport) back in the 60'ies but stopped funding in 1971 due to concerns and displeasure of exactly the sonic booms (and ozone layer issues). So five years before the Concorde entered service a domestic plane was not seen as being worth. Heppenheimer's The Space Shuttle Decision has a chapter where this is discussed in detail.

quux 5y ago

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

tzs 5y ago
That's not really an apt comparison. When iPod came out there were numerous successful portable music players already on the market. The iPod skeptics were not skeptical that there was a market for a portable music player--they were skeptical that the iPod's particular combination of features and limitations would do well. With supersonic passenger service no one has demonstrated that there is actually a viable market for it. The two prior attempts were both heavily subsidized by government (Russia for the Tu-144, France and the UK for the Concorde). It is quite different to ask "why do you think this product will do well against a bunch of established, viable competitors?" and to ask "why do you think this product can succeed in a market that everyone who has tried before has failed in?".
- quux 5y ago
  IIRC Concorde development was highly subsidized by the government but it became a sustainable business for British Airways as long as there were wealthy business travelers willing to pay a huge premium to get between the financial centers of NYC and London in 3 hours. After 9/11 a lot of that business went away and Concorde wasn't viable anymore.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    Boom is taking the government's role, not BA's. I once did a back of the envelope calculation which suggested the government could have lost less money paying for a NY- Europe business class ticket on a regular aircraft for every person ever to fly Concorde. It was as spectacularly bad commercially as it was impressive technologically. It was a sustainable business for BA because they got several aircraft at giveaway prices (the minister who sold them conceded it may have been the worst deal ever negotiated by a government!) which they could charge extortionate rates to fly on, but they still weren't flying more than one of them at a time very often.

aetherson 5y ago

The world is also a lot richer now than it was in the 70s. Some luxuries that didn't make sense 40 years ago may make sense now.

avernon 5y ago

The Concorde basically used afterburners. It used fuel at incredible rates. Boom is using more modern engine technology that can achieve the high cruise speeds using less fuel. This also increases effective range. So it solves 2,3, and 4. Can do Pacific. Cheaper to operate. Can be used on all overseas routes.

kleton 5y ago
>[Concorde] used reheat (afterburners) only at take-off and to pass through the upper transonic regime to supersonic speeds The Concorde was capable of supercruise.
defaultname 5y ago
Flying above the speed of sound without using afterburners is referred to as supercruise, and it is something the Concorde was capable of doing. There aren't a lot of supercruise aircraft out there. The F22, for instance, can supercruise effectively, but the F35 cannot.
- iab 5y ago
  True, but in defense of the F-35 it also can't fly very far
mnw21cam 5y ago
Concorde only used the afterburner in takeoff, and while transitioning to supersonic. It would happily cruise supersonic without the afterburner. Still, we have had a few years of engine technology improvements since then.
mshook 5y ago
Concorde engines were actually some of the most efficient ones while cruising above Mach 1.7 (because afterburners were only used to take off and to go transonic until M1.7). So it was efficient but only when flying fast. Wiki says: The overall thermal efficiency of the engine in supersonic cruising flight (supercruise) was about 43%, which at the time was the highest figure recorded for any normal thermodynamic machine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593

qayxc 5y ago

> - Noise means you can't do US domestic The companies working on supersonic jets are in process of lobbying hard to get FAA approval for exemptions from noise regulations. [1] > - Concorde didn't have the range for Pacific Not their target market, they want to be a successful niche. > - Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes They claim improvements in fuel efficiency and their unique selling point (apart from the speed advantage) is the use of "green" fuels (whatever that implies). Also, see previous point: they don't want to be mainstream anyway. > - And airlines want lots of identical planes, not one special one for one route Not a problem they want to solve. Niche and all. While the economics are indeed questionable, these products cannot be compared to flagship products like Concorde. The jets are significantly smaller (50 PAX vs. 92-128 PAX), benefit from 50 years of progress in aviation technology, manufacturing, and operations and they have a very specific use case in mind. Concorde was the result of a technological dick-waving contest between Western Europe and the US w.r.t. civil aviation technology. Its purpose was as much of a political nature as it was an attempt at testing/demonstrating the practicality of supersonic passenger jets. It ultimately failed, but that doesn't mean contemporary attempts have to due to the differences in scope, technology and potentially regulatory environment. I remain sceptical, but I wouldn't want to write it off as a failure from the get-go. [1] https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/flight-testing/faa-releases-new-regulations-for-supersonic-flight-testing.html https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/flight-te...

andi999 5y ago
Even if they get an excemption, affected people will probably come with pitchforks and torches to the headquarter. These supersonic booms are really loud.
- supportlocal4h 5y ago
  I grew up under fairly constant sonic booms. They always seemed pretty cool because it meant a high performance aircraft was overhead. I'm sure they annoyed some people. They excited some people. And they just became mundane to a lot of people.

nimbius 5y ago

you forgot another big one the Concord faced: cosmic radation. The plane carried a geiger counter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Radiation_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Radiation_concerns

ginko 5y ago
But even if you get a higher dose per unit of time, you spend less time in the air so your overall dose is lower. Your link mentions that. I guess the main exception would be for personnel that did a lot of flights. That could be reduced by requiring longer ground breaks than with subsonic aircraft.
dharmab 5y ago
The amount of radiation you receive during a regular flight is quite small, and more than you would receive on a supersonic flight: https://youtu.be/TRL7o2kPqw0?t=307 https://youtu.be/TRL7o2kPqw0?t=307
vmarsy 5y ago
Right, that's something I was wondering when Boom was announced a few years back [1]. Will radiation be even worse for the crew if the plane body is made of carbon-fiber vs thicker metal like the Concorde was? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12791122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12791122

cedilla 5y ago

It should be noted that these problems aren't the only important reason why Concorde failed. Pre-orders were made in 1963-1967 and almost all were cancelled in 1973 due to the oil price shock, in addition to a 500% increase in sales price. Concorde had a bit of bad timing. It was released during the worst crisis of aviation (until 9/11), and there was already a second version planned with increased fuel efficiency, but that came never to be with all orders being cancelled. And those cancellations also meant that all economies of scale advantages were gone.

Hamuko 5y ago
>Concorde had a bit of bad timing. It was released during the worst crisis of aviation It doesn't feel like Boom has the timing on its side either. Feels like we're still in a massive aviation crisis and I'm not sure how long it's gonna take before things look good for the industry.
- standardUser 5y ago
  In what way is there a crisis? The major US carriers keep expanding. keep adding new routes, buying more places, etc. Air travel was at an all time high before the pandemic and is likely to rebound and hit new records in coming years.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    No way. Commercial air travel is ready for a 10 year slowdown. The main profit center for commercial air travel was businessmen going places, not too concerned how much flights would cost. Now business meetings happen by video conference. Flying round the world for a 3 hour meeting will never be big again.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      In fairness, most business travel is not flying around the world for a 3 hour meeting. I do expect events, roadshows, series of customer meetings, etc. to come back--albeit probably gradually and perhaps not reaching prior levels.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago

I think Concorde was profitable - at least for British Airways.

ghaff 5y ago
Well, yes. If you ignore the development costs, British Airways turned an operating profit.
- mshook 5y ago
  Same with Air France, Concorde got profitable with all the special flights (supersonic loops, world tours and all these).

neom 5y ago

These three (albeit somewhat long) videos answer a lot of the questions you asked: Flight of the New Concordes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLykryZLFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLykryZLFk Supersonic Planes are Coming Back (And This Time, They Might Work) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0fRlCHYyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0fRlCHYyg Supersonic Flight - What Does The Future Hold? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3K04wgf_ZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3K04wgf_ZQ

mshook 5y ago

You could add: - Concorde didn't work flying east because with the time zone thing, you might be flying real fast, you still arrive super late. Meaning you could as well pay less and fly the red eye...

bberenberg 5y ago
I fly SF->NYC redeye regularly. The practical side of takeoff and landing is that I get 4 hours of sleep max. I also start to sleep around 2AM NYC time. If I could reduce flight time to 2.5 hours, I would rather land in NYC at 2AM and get to bed there so I can start my day much better rested.
- mshook 5y ago
  But do you fly in first class? Because for cheaper than Concorde, that's what you could get (and that's what Concorde was competing against) and usually in first, they don't wake you up for breakfast or whatever before you land... And the other issue in your case is flying supersonic over land but I hear you.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    First class is all very well, but you don't escape the unfamiliar bed; the noise of the engines and other passengers; the weird air pressure; the fact you're in your travel clothes; the strangely corporate environment; or the jostling and noise of landing and takeoff. Of course, some people are less sensitive to these things than others - and jobs with a lot of travel probably select for people who find the experience of flying tolerable.
  - bberenberg 5y ago
    Yes I do and they absolutely do wake you up before you land. It's an FAA requirement that the seat be upright.
    - nopzor 5y ago
      it might be an FAA requirement to be upright, but iirc some other international airlines (eg. virgin atlantic, air new zealand) allow you to keep your biz class seat in seating position during takeoff and landing.

dharmab 5y ago

Boom's aircraft don't make as loud a sonic boom as Concorde. Both NASA and Boom will conduct tests of this design in the mid 2020s to measure the sound at ground level in various conditions. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/features/how-nasa-will-measure-quiet-supersonic-flight.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/features/how-nasa-wil...

nemetroid 5y ago
Are you saying NASA/Lockheed Martin's X-59 is related to Boom? Or that Boom have similar goals?
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  NASA's flight will validate and improve the computer models that Boom is using to design their plans.
  - nemetroid 5y ago
    Is this a stated plan of Boom's (in particular, with regard to noise), or speculation? Boom's page on why their aircraft won't have the same fate as the Concorde focuses purely on (fuel and route) economics, not noise [1]. 1: https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/post/will-boom-supersonics-new-aircraft-have-the-same-fate-as-the-concorde https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/post/will-boom-supersonics-...
    - dharmab 5y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R43gKMWAPco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R43gKMWAPco
      - nemetroid 5y ago
        This video doesn't mention sonic booms, nor NASA, at any point.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

Boom talks about - much lower noise than Concorde (mentioned elsewhere in this discussion). Ironically, they reduce the "boom". - Pacific crossings. 4,900 miles range ( https://onemileatatime.com/boom-supersonic/ https://onemileatatime.com/boom-supersonic/ ) Tokyo - Seattle is about the furthest within that, at 4,777 miles. California to Hawaii is easily in range, USA to Australia is far out of range, but Brisbane to Hawaii is in range. - Article talks about 15 planes not one. Have they solved those yet? They're not flying yet, so no. But that's what they're aiming at.

dehrmann 5y ago
> Tokyo - Seattle is about the furthest within that There's about the shortest viable route I can imagine. I could see refueling stops being a thing, though. SFO-SIN is a pretty long flight, so an hour to refuel in Tokyo wouldn't be so bad.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > There's about the shortest viable route I can imagine Right, this (Tokyo - Seattle) seems like a minimum viable Pacific crossing. San Francisco to Tokyo is 5,133 miles, so it is out of range. How about San Francisco to Hawaii, Hawaii to Tokyo, and Tokyo to Singapore. ;)

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

How many transcontinental flights fly USA domestic routes? If this can cut my flying time from Seattle to Beijing, I would be a happy camper, hopefully they can go boom over BC, Alaska, and the Russia Fareast.

theptip 5y ago

Can’t you do coast-to-coast? I thought the requirement is no sonic boom over land, but you can fly out over the ocean and then turn around at Mach N. Eg SF<>NYC would be an obvious route that is worth adding some miles at the start, if you can go 3-4x quicker.

dharmab 5y ago
A sonic boom is a continuous noise, not just at the transition. You perceive it as a single noise at the ground, but so does every other person along the entire flight path. Boom's aircraft uses a modern design that reduces the loudness of the sonic boom.
- theptip 5y ago
  Thanks for the correction, I did have that incorrect. TIL. Interesting follow-up -- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom, the angle of the shockwave cone decreases (i.e. gets narrower) as the plane's velocity goes up. I'm wondering at what Mach number would the cone be tight enough that it doesn't intersect land?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
mpweiher 5y ago
The boom happens whenever you're flying supersonic, not just when you transition from < Mach 1 to > Mach 1.
lvspiff 5y ago
I hope everyone is given flight suits as just the image of a plane full of people making a 180 degree turn at 600mph to accelerate to 740mph is somewhat comical. I know not entirely what you are suggesting but its immediately the thought that came to mind.
NegativeLatency 5y ago
The plane might not be efficient at subsonic or transonic speeds.

nine_k 5y ago

If the plane goes supersonic at 10 miles of altitude, will it still make much sound on the surface? It's not just distance, it's the pressure of the air at the altitude, too. Haven't engines improved a lot since 1967? No idea about cost, but currently oil is cheap and abundant, compared to 1970s, and the U.S. has a large domestic supply. Regarding identical planes, I suppose first Boom's supersonic planes are going to be mostly identical. But even standard airliners get small changes with every dozen planes built.

rtkwe 5y ago

The Concorde actually had a pretty profitable final couple months when they cut prices down from ultra premium because it massively increased their utilization. Boom also seems to have plans for Pacific routes according to their website, so I assume they're planning their range accordingly.

paulpan 5y ago
Good point, higher utilization is one of Southwest's key competitive advantages since they're able to squeeze 1 extra trip for their aircraft than competitors. Significantly cutting travel time should also enable higher utilization. E.g. cutting LA-Sydney route in half (15hrs to 7hrs) theoretically enables fitting in a roundtrip in the timespan of a one-way.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  By utilization I actually meant the percentage of filled seats but yes that's also an advantage of supersonic planes. You need roughly half as many planes to service the same timetable (assuming turn around is roughly as fast and doesn't get drawn out by technical/maintenance requirements).

pkulak 5y ago

The biggest problem is that supersonic just steals first-class passengers from other routes, where the profits are higher. Also, far higher climate impacts, which is what concerns me the most. Lets just be happy with crossing an entire ocean in 6 hours.

ErikVandeWater 5y ago
While you are canabalizing some of your own 1st class passengers, the first airline to get a supersonic route going will also take first class passengers from other airlines.
- pkulak 5y ago
  You mean the third airline? This has already been tried before, and the financials didn't work out the first time. Maybe everything has changed, but who really knows. And frankly, I'm hoping for failure. Some of these new super-sonic companies are trying to get approval for continental routes, saying that the boom is only as loud a car door. Like a car door slamming shut for 3000 miles is no big deal. The super-wealthy have enough toys to inconvenience the rest of us and destroy the climate; they can keep hanging out in first class, or on their private, subsonic jets.
  - usrusr 5y ago
    When I read the headline I was quite confused at first, a big why why why? Then it came to me, it's a business bet on wealth concentration. Conventional first will always be far more comfortable, private far more convenient, but supersonic easily outdoes them both in bragging rights. And think of the networking opportunities when (if?) passengers are almost as packed as in coach despite paying a huge entry fee! And the environmental aspect won't feel too bad actually: if you are traveling first you produce x times as much CO2 for your trip as others (how many more could they take aboard if that are was as densely packed as regular?), only because you are, well, too soft to sit out a few hours. But if the CO2 happens because supersonic, you get something very real in return. Time! Who could blame you?

marcosdumay 5y ago

> - Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes > - And airlines want lots of identical planes, not one special one for one route On both of those, the passengers are kings. If enough people decide they want to pay a lot to cross the ocean quickly, those things will not be a problem.

parhamn 5y ago

I made this comment earlier, but Wendover has a great video on this very topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0fRlCHYyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0fRlCHYyg

vesinisa 5y ago

> Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes Common misconception. The Concorde was absolutely quite profitable throughout, and massively so after they adjusted the prices down at the very end when it was already being shut down due to safety reasons.

awill 5y ago
safety reasons? There weren't any safety reasons. The Concorde was the safest plane ever. It flew for 27 years with just 1 accident. And that accident wasn't Concorde's fault. Another plane dropped metal on the runway, and Concorde ran over the metal and got damaged right before takeoff.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- notahacker 5y ago
  There are individual passenger aircraft that flew more hours and cycles than the entire Concorde production run without incident. The accident where running over a piece of metal on a runway during takeoff resulted in a raging inferno and ultimately the deaths of everyone on board wasn't the first time Concorde's unusually-prone-to-failure tyres had punctured a fuel tank when they exploded, or something likely to happen if a different aircraft ran over the same piece of metal. Separately, it also had two spontaneous in-flight structural failures of the rudder. All this in a production run of 14 aircraft that spent most of their life on the ground. Considering it was a complete novelty designed in the 1970s it did OK, but I don't think there are many airframes its safety record compares favourably with.

jvm 5y ago

To actually answer your questions: - Noise means you can't do US domestic They don't seem to be targeting this. - Concorde didn't have the range for Pacific They do seem to be attempting Pacific range. - Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes They are trying to bring down costs considerably. - And airlines want lots of identical planes, not one special one for one route This will certainly be a drawback, although if they could take e.g. 50% of premium transoceanic it won't be so specialized.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]