4 ms·

I don't find giving rich people a way to make loud banging noises in the sky more inspiring than building ad networks. Not all difficult challenges are worthy.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
et2o 3y ago
Shame on you. We will not have supersonic transport for average people unless outsiders do it first. There are only two meaningfully large manufacturers now, Airbus and Boeing. Boeing and Airbus both cannot financially afford a technologically promising but possible failure now. Boeing built the 737 MAXX because they couldn’t afford a clean sheet update of 70-year old technology despite the savings. Airbus lost almost as much as the entire company was worth on the A380, kept afloat by EU subsidies. All new technology happens for the wealthy first - we would not have smartphones today if Apple was forced to price them at the median price of cell phones in 2004.
- tw04 3y ago
  > Boeing built the 737 MAXX because they couldn’t afford a clean sheet update of 70-year old technology despite the savings. Boeing ABSOLUTELY could afford a clean sheet replacement of the 737. They chose not to because it would have opened them up to competition and reduced short term profits. Anyone claiming otherwise is blowing smoke.
  - tmiku 3y ago
    I agree with your sentiment, but not the reason - instead of concern about competition/short-term profitability, Boeing has always thrown huge amounts of money into stock buybacks, even while development is running over budget. This article is a great window into the institutional rot at Boeing, and I think it highlights the problems caused by large companies' decisions being dominated by their own stock price: https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-investigation-indonesia-lion-air-ethiopian-airlines-managerial-revolution https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-invest...
  - et2o 3y ago
    Just wrong. Read about the 7J7. The 787 cost something north of 20 billion to develop. The clean sheet 737 would have cost much more in today’s dollars. Boeing makes an average of less than 5% profit margin from the 1970s to now. It was a relatively obvious financial decision from Boeing’s perspective.
    - tw04 3y ago
      > The 787 cost something north of 20 billion to develop. So on top of existing R&D, ignoring all of the money they dumped into stock buybacks, roughly 2 years of profits to create a plane design that would last 30 years. They can absolutely afford that.
      - woopsn 3y ago
        Boeing can afford it, but the carriers built around 737 locked themselves in. They don't want a new plane.
- zarzavat 3y ago
  I assume you never lived under the Concorde flight path. There will never be supersonic transport for normal people simply because the technology is unsuitable for use near people. Most people want to fly between cities and cities tend to be inhabited by people, hence the essential tension. Supersonic flight only works for a few specific flight paths where you are flying entirely over the ocean between two coastal airports. The moment you have to fly over people those people are going to get very angry and ban you from their airspace.
mardifoufs 3y ago
I cant imagine where we would be if people were having this mentality back in the early 1900s when rich people were trying to fly using loud, terrible airplanes. Fwiw I don't think super sonic travel is going to succeed any time soon, but it's crazy how prevalent this type of NIMBY mentality has become.
- gedy 3y ago
  I'm sure they had mumbling nobodies back then too which the world passed by. Their grumbling was just more limited compared to internet noise.
- idlewords 3y ago
  There's nothing wrong with people finding sonic booms annoying. Even Boom conceded this by naming itself after its worst externality, and pretending (in its early startup phase) that it was pursuing technology to make supersonic flight less loud.
zild3d 3y ago
first airplanes were also only for rich people, fortunately it has continued to progress and gotten more economical
- GiorgioG 3y ago
  Yes - now cattle can afford to fly. Soon we’ll have standing room “seats” and we will truly be like cattle.
mulmen 3y ago
Supersonic flight over land has been banned in the US since the 1970s. Boom isn’t going to be making “banging noises in the sky” anywhere you’re going to hear them. This airliner will draw the kind of people who fly business and first class today, which will reduce demand for those tickets and depress prices for everyone.
- idlewords 3y ago
  Boom is actively lobbying to relax those restrictions. It's not clear supersonic commercial flight is viable otherwise.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    So are NASA and Lockheed. The restrictions are based on noise pollution. If aerodynamics can be developed that reduce the boom then the restrictions can be relaxed. This is consistent with existing subsonic flight noise regulations.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

et2o 3y ago

Shame on you. We will not have supersonic transport for average people unless outsiders do it first. There are only two meaningfully large manufacturers now, Airbus and Boeing. Boeing and Airbus both cannot financially afford a technologically promising but possible failure now. Boeing built the 737 MAXX because they couldn’t afford a clean sheet update of 70-year old technology despite the savings. Airbus lost almost as much as the entire company was worth on the A380, kept afloat by EU subsidies. All new technology happens for the wealthy first - we would not have smartphones today if Apple was forced to price them at the median price of cell phones in 2004.

tw04 3y ago
> Boeing built the 737 MAXX because they couldn’t afford a clean sheet update of 70-year old technology despite the savings. Boeing ABSOLUTELY could afford a clean sheet replacement of the 737. They chose not to because it would have opened them up to competition and reduced short term profits. Anyone claiming otherwise is blowing smoke.
- tmiku 3y ago
  I agree with your sentiment, but not the reason - instead of concern about competition/short-term profitability, Boeing has always thrown huge amounts of money into stock buybacks, even while development is running over budget. This article is a great window into the institutional rot at Boeing, and I think it highlights the problems caused by large companies' decisions being dominated by their own stock price: https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-investigation-indonesia-lion-air-ethiopian-airlines-managerial-revolution https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-invest...
- et2o 3y ago
  Just wrong. Read about the 7J7. The 787 cost something north of 20 billion to develop. The clean sheet 737 would have cost much more in today’s dollars. Boeing makes an average of less than 5% profit margin from the 1970s to now. It was a relatively obvious financial decision from Boeing’s perspective.
  - tw04 3y ago
    > The 787 cost something north of 20 billion to develop. So on top of existing R&D, ignoring all of the money they dumped into stock buybacks, roughly 2 years of profits to create a plane design that would last 30 years. They can absolutely afford that.
    - woopsn 3y ago
      Boeing can afford it, but the carriers built around 737 locked themselves in. They don't want a new plane.
zarzavat 3y ago
I assume you never lived under the Concorde flight path. There will never be supersonic transport for normal people simply because the technology is unsuitable for use near people. Most people want to fly between cities and cities tend to be inhabited by people, hence the essential tension. Supersonic flight only works for a few specific flight paths where you are flying entirely over the ocean between two coastal airports. The moment you have to fly over people those people are going to get very angry and ban you from their airspace.

mardifoufs 3y ago

I cant imagine where we would be if people were having this mentality back in the early 1900s when rich people were trying to fly using loud, terrible airplanes. Fwiw I don't think super sonic travel is going to succeed any time soon, but it's crazy how prevalent this type of NIMBY mentality has become.

gedy 3y ago
I'm sure they had mumbling nobodies back then too which the world passed by. Their grumbling was just more limited compared to internet noise.
idlewords 3y ago
There's nothing wrong with people finding sonic booms annoying. Even Boom conceded this by naming itself after its worst externality, and pretending (in its early startup phase) that it was pursuing technology to make supersonic flight less loud.

zild3d 3y ago

first airplanes were also only for rich people, fortunately it has continued to progress and gotten more economical

GiorgioG 3y ago
Yes - now cattle can afford to fly. Soon we’ll have standing room “seats” and we will truly be like cattle.

mulmen 3y ago

Supersonic flight over land has been banned in the US since the 1970s. Boom isn’t going to be making “banging noises in the sky” anywhere you’re going to hear them. This airliner will draw the kind of people who fly business and first class today, which will reduce demand for those tickets and depress prices for everyone.

idlewords 3y ago
Boom is actively lobbying to relax those restrictions. It's not clear supersonic commercial flight is viable otherwise.
- mulmen 3y ago
  So are NASA and Lockheed. The restrictions are based on noise pollution. If aerodynamics can be developed that reduce the boom then the restrictions can be relaxed. This is consistent with existing subsonic flight noise regulations.