4 ms·

IMHO a better title would have been: "American Airlines to buy 20 Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic" When reading the original title, I had the impressio

IMHO a better title would have been: "American Airlines to buy 20 Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic" When reading the original title, I had the impression that the company was going to be acquired by AA. Instead, it's "just" an order of 20 aircrafts. Note that this is not a new move by Boom, they played this card when raising money when they pitched at YC demo day, and they're doing it again. The problem I have with this is the following: > agreement to purchase up to 20 Overture aircraft, with an option for an additional 40. American has paid a non-refundable deposit on the initial 20 aircraft It's "up to 20", and not "20", and there is a non-disclosed non-refundable deposit. If it's a, say, $10,000 per aircraft, total of $200,000 (ouch, should I say... up to $200,000?), it's a just a cheaper ad for AA, and ammo for the CEO when the board asks "where are you innovating?". Good luck to Boom, but I am unconvinced this is a viable company and a viable business.

Rackedup 4y ago
> When reading the original title, I had the impression that the company was going to be acquired by AA. Same... at least they should put an S to aircraft... but then again maybe they hit the strict character limit...
- metadat 4y ago
  The plural of aircraft is still "aircraft".
  - Rackedup 4y ago
    sometimes I don't get English...
    - mrcartmeneses 4y ago
      The grammar is easier then German
    - tankenmate 4y ago
      It's an artefact of where English gets the word "craft" from. In general in English the plural of uncountable things is the same as the singular. For example, the plural of sugar is sugar (sugars in English implies a group of different types of sugar). The word craft comes to English from Germanic (kraft). The meanings of these two words (English craft vs German kraft) diverged over time. In English the word has a meaning similar to that which is made or the manner in which it is made. Whereas in German it means the means by which something is made (i.e. power, in both the physics and non-physics sense). For example Kraftwerk in German means power station. Since the "means by which" is uncountable (craft) then the plural should be the same as the singular; i.e. one craft, many craft. This also applies in English to older agglutinates like aircraft. Newer agglutinates (for example laptop) are far less likely to follow this rule; one laptop, many laptops. English, due to its muddled heritage and well intentioned but half informed linguists over the years, is a very messy language.
      - 7952 4y ago
        I wonder how the craft word was adapted to mean the boat object. I think for river travel it was common to build a boat/raft to make a journey and then break it up at the destination. In that context maybe the object of the boat was secondary to the act of making the boat. And at some point boats became more personified and thought of as things in their own right.
        rawling 4y ago
        A couple other suggestions, although still not certain: > Use for "small boat" is first recorded 1670s, probably from a phrase similar to "vessels of small craft" and referring either to the trade they did or the seamanship they required, or perhaps it preserves the word in its original sense of "power." https://www.etymonline.com/word/craft?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_290 https://www.etymonline.com/word/craft?ref=etymonline_crossre... I'd never even though about this, so thanks for that.
        tankenmate 4y ago
        I suspect it was a shortening of watercraft. According to wiktionary the use of the word for water vessels was originally used for smaller loading craft. So using the older Germanic meaning of "by means of", the phrase "it got here by watercraft" could be translated as "it got here by means of water". One could assume that it wouldn't take much for the word to go from preposition to noun; especially in the context of agglutinates and abbreviations. The English word "boat" comes directly from German; "das Boot".
  - solveit 4y ago
    Putting "up to 20" in the title would work.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Could go with "airplanes" which has a more conventional plural form and is much simpler and clearer in cases like this where we know full well what specific type of aircraft we're talking about.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Or aeroplanes!
jeanlou 4y ago
Same here, regarding the misperception of Boom being acquired by AA
foobarqux 4y ago
Yes these are "non-binding" commitments that are just marketing. Very deceptive but standard practice in aerospace. For example only a fraction of the Concordes that were committed in this way were actually purchased. Until the plane is actually flying in the air you should just treat any announcements as misleading (they announced that their test airframe was ready, what, 3-4 years ago?).
- beambot 4y ago
  It's not really deceptive, it's just that many people have a poor understanding of the accounting difference between LOIs, contractual bookings, and recognized revenue. These LOIs would not appear on an income statement, balance sheet or P&L... and no one ever suggested otherwise. It's just one signal (of many) that indicate market demand for high-capex products with long lead times.
pen2l 4y ago
I thought the same. But, it's an interesting thought, and in line with a very interesting thread that kragen brought to my attention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32009925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32009925 FedEx likes to buy out Boeing facilities so that they're not "completely reliant" on Boeing for anything, see https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/102874-fedex-to-take-over-boeings-dreamlifter-operations-centre https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/102874-fedex-to-take... "Air cargo carrier FedEx Express (FX, Memphis Int'l) is to take over the lease of Boeing's Dreamlifter Operations Centre at Paine Field, Everett, quashing any hopes of a return of the B787 Dreamliner production to Washington State." I wonder why more airlines don't choose to do similar things.
foobiekr 4y ago
The deposit could be $1 for all we know and fully cancelable with no commitment to buy or deploy. The press release is basically fluff.
- simonebrunozzi 4y ago
  It says non-refundable. But agree it could be as low as a buck.
balaji1 4y ago
Totally agree about the wording of the title comment and other commenters in this thread. But "Boom Supersonic is transforming air travel with Overture, the world’s fastest airliner, optimized for speed, safety, and sustainability. Serving both civil and government markets, Overture will fly at twice the speed of today’s airliners and is designed to run on 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Overture’s order book, including purchases and options from American Airlines, United Airlines, and Japan Airlines stands at 130 aircraft. Boom is working with Northrop Grumman for government and defense applications of Overture. Suppliers and partners collaborating with Boom on the Overture program include Collins Aerospace, Eaton, Safran Landing Systems, Rolls-Royce, the United States Air Force, American Express, Climeworks, and AWS." This^ is significant support they already have. So they could operate for 10+ years, which seems like they will (even if they are just in R&D and burning cash). In a way, it is viable to the employees and suppliers, if they get paid for such a long time haha.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
trollied 4y ago
> Good luck to Boom, but I am unconvinced this is a viable company and a viable business. Same. I think their timelines are too aggressive. I want to be proved wrong though!

Rackedup 4y ago

> When reading the original title, I had the impression that the company was going to be acquired by AA. Same... at least they should put an S to aircraft... but then again maybe they hit the strict character limit...

metadat 4y ago
The plural of aircraft is still "aircraft".
- Rackedup 4y ago
  sometimes I don't get English...
  - mrcartmeneses 4y ago
    The grammar is easier then German
  - tankenmate 4y ago
    It's an artefact of where English gets the word "craft" from. In general in English the plural of uncountable things is the same as the singular. For example, the plural of sugar is sugar (sugars in English implies a group of different types of sugar). The word craft comes to English from Germanic (kraft). The meanings of these two words (English craft vs German kraft) diverged over time. In English the word has a meaning similar to that which is made or the manner in which it is made. Whereas in German it means the means by which something is made (i.e. power, in both the physics and non-physics sense). For example Kraftwerk in German means power station. Since the "means by which" is uncountable (craft) then the plural should be the same as the singular; i.e. one craft, many craft. This also applies in English to older agglutinates like aircraft. Newer agglutinates (for example laptop) are far less likely to follow this rule; one laptop, many laptops. English, due to its muddled heritage and well intentioned but half informed linguists over the years, is a very messy language.
    - 7952 4y ago
      I wonder how the craft word was adapted to mean the boat object. I think for river travel it was common to build a boat/raft to make a journey and then break it up at the destination. In that context maybe the object of the boat was secondary to the act of making the boat. And at some point boats became more personified and thought of as things in their own right.
      - rawling 4y ago
        A couple other suggestions, although still not certain: > Use for "small boat" is first recorded 1670s, probably from a phrase similar to "vessels of small craft" and referring either to the trade they did or the seamanship they required, or perhaps it preserves the word in its original sense of "power." https://www.etymonline.com/word/craft?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_290 https://www.etymonline.com/word/craft?ref=etymonline_crossre... I'd never even though about this, so thanks for that.
      - tankenmate 4y ago
        I suspect it was a shortening of watercraft. According to wiktionary the use of the word for water vessels was originally used for smaller loading craft. So using the older Germanic meaning of "by means of", the phrase "it got here by watercraft" could be translated as "it got here by means of water". One could assume that it wouldn't take much for the word to go from preposition to noun; especially in the context of agglutinates and abbreviations. The English word "boat" comes directly from German; "das Boot".
- solveit 4y ago
  Putting "up to 20" in the title would work.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Could go with "airplanes" which has a more conventional plural form and is much simpler and clearer in cases like this where we know full well what specific type of aircraft we're talking about.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Or aeroplanes!

jeanlou 4y ago

Same here, regarding the misperception of Boom being acquired by AA

foobarqux 4y ago

Yes these are "non-binding" commitments that are just marketing. Very deceptive but standard practice in aerospace. For example only a fraction of the Concordes that were committed in this way were actually purchased. Until the plane is actually flying in the air you should just treat any announcements as misleading (they announced that their test airframe was ready, what, 3-4 years ago?).

beambot 4y ago
It's not really deceptive, it's just that many people have a poor understanding of the accounting difference between LOIs, contractual bookings, and recognized revenue. These LOIs would not appear on an income statement, balance sheet or P&L... and no one ever suggested otherwise. It's just one signal (of many) that indicate market demand for high-capex products with long lead times.

pen2l 4y ago

I thought the same. But, it's an interesting thought, and in line with a very interesting thread that kragen brought to my attention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32009925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32009925 FedEx likes to buy out Boeing facilities so that they're not "completely reliant" on Boeing for anything, see https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/102874-fedex-to-take-over-boeings-dreamlifter-operations-centre https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/102874-fedex-to-take... "Air cargo carrier FedEx Express (FX, Memphis Int'l) is to take over the lease of Boeing's Dreamlifter Operations Centre at Paine Field, Everett, quashing any hopes of a return of the B787 Dreamliner production to Washington State." I wonder why more airlines don't choose to do similar things.

foobiekr 4y ago

The deposit could be $1 for all we know and fully cancelable with no commitment to buy or deploy. The press release is basically fluff.

simonebrunozzi 4y ago
It says non-refundable. But agree it could be as low as a buck.

balaji1 4y ago

Totally agree about the wording of the title comment and other commenters in this thread. But "Boom Supersonic is transforming air travel with Overture, the world’s fastest airliner, optimized for speed, safety, and sustainability. Serving both civil and government markets, Overture will fly at twice the speed of today’s airliners and is designed to run on 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Overture’s order book, including purchases and options from American Airlines, United Airlines, and Japan Airlines stands at 130 aircraft. Boom is working with Northrop Grumman for government and defense applications of Overture. Suppliers and partners collaborating with Boom on the Overture program include Collins Aerospace, Eaton, Safran Landing Systems, Rolls-Royce, the United States Air Force, American Express, Climeworks, and AWS." This^ is significant support they already have. So they could operate for 10+ years, which seems like they will (even if they are just in R&D and burning cash). In a way, it is viable to the employees and suppliers, if they get paid for such a long time haha.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

trollied 4y ago

> Good luck to Boom, but I am unconvinced this is a viable company and a viable business. Same. I think their timelines are too aggressive. I want to be proved wrong though!