4 ms·

I assume the question was about the questionable economics of running a super-sonic airplane profitably. The Concorde was notorious for bleeding money. Maybe

I assume the question was about the questionable economics of running a super-sonic airplane profitably. The Concorde was notorious for bleeding money. Maybe the premium aspect will be enough, given that we have a bigger and bigger chasm between rich and poor, or maybe the economics of running it won't compete against sub-sonic, lower fuel consumption planes.

ghaff 2y ago
I'm skeptical. Trans-Pacific would be interesting for some because that's a long time in a plane even with lie-flat seating. But then you need a lot of range because once you have to refuel you've cut into your time advantage. NYC to London or Paris? Sure. But now you still need to find people willing and able to spend $5K+ each way. I'd like to do it but realistically I'm not going to.
- senko 2y ago
  First class NY to Paris in a couple of weeks, one way, is ~$6k "best overall", with $10k for "fastest" (checked a random flight on Skyscanner).
  - echoangle 2y ago
    And how many people are booking that for that price? Is that enough to build a dedicated service on?
    - senko 2y ago
      I wouldn't know, tho I am sure there's a McKinsey deck somewhere that calculated this :)
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > First class NY to Paris in a couple of weeks, one way, is ~$6k "best overall", with $10k for "fastest" La Première will regularly go for $20k one way.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    European airfares from the US can be really funky. I'm doing a trip in a couple months with a roundtrip for Heathrow and I'm actually taking the Eurostar back to London because returning directly from Paris was going to be so expensive. Open jaws in particular can be fairly OK or can be really expensive (as in my case).
- fsloth 2y ago
  $10k transatlantic return hop. Add expedited immigration. Does not sound insane. First class tickets London-NY can be already in this price range. Not for everyone of course (certainly way out of my price range).
  - ghaff 2y ago
    There's a market, just not sure how big. Business class works mostly because there's a big plane full of people paying for Economy (and maybe Economy Premium) and I suspect a lot of business is upgrades for flyers with a lot of status or mostly using miles. With e-entry (not sure how it will work with ETA now), I haven't waited long in London for immigration in ages. British Airways business class-only flights from the City airport have been off and on. Don't know their current status. I could afford business but it seems like a poor value relative to other things I could do other than maybe a co-pay with miles trans-Pacific.
    - Schiendelman 2y ago
      It's the other way around. Economy works because business subsidizes them.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  I'd expect for trans-oceanic, you'd have people scheduling their travel around limited flights, given the unique offering. I.e. you aren't trying to figure out "How do I 100% capacity a 8:17am daily flight?" (traditional subsonic carriers) but rather "How much demand is there per week/month?" (Boom) If the flight is Wednesdays-only, then folks line their travel up on Wednesday. Because the alternative is a much longer flight.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    There are usually at least daily flights on most routes. Business travelers, in particular, aren't going to wait a few days to take a flight that's a few hours faster. Absolutely no one is heading out 5 days early to shave 3 or 4 hours off their flight time. Even for tourism, I wouldn't.
    - senordevnyc 2y ago
      Especially at 2-3x the cost
      - ghaff 2y ago
        I suspect a lot of people here get really excited at the idea of supersonic flight but would never pay the business class+ premium themselves.
        echoangle 2y ago
        Yes, I think many people would at most do it once so they have flown supersonic, and then never do it again.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Depends where Boom's ticket prices fall. If they go for the low-rich market, their target customer moves schedules around themselves. If a CEO can't be in Europe until Wednesday, then the meeting happens Wednesday. And the key thing Boom will be selling is literally unique: fewer hours on a plane. To some, that's a nice to have. To people who hate being on a plane, it's worth a lot. And even lie-flat first class sucks... it's nice, but you're still crammed into a dehydrating box.
reaperducer 2y ago
The Concorde was notorious for bleeding money. I see this stated all the time on HN, yet there's a whole section at the top of this very comments thread where people are talking about how very profitable the Concorde was. One person quoted the line "There were times, in fact, when the seven aircraft in the fleet would contribute around 40 per cent of BA’s entire profits."
- notahacker 2y ago
  The key point is that the seven aircraft (two of which they paid £1 for!) spent very few hours per week in the air, because whilst it was profitable on one transatlantic route at very high prices, it would have lost money on just about any other route or with more frequent operation. And to have a profitable airframe programme you need your customers to be able to operate more than a couple of routes. (the 40% figure is more an indication of BA's sometimes thin margins than massive unfulfilled potential)
- wongarsu 2y ago
  My understanding is that it was profitable if you got the aircraft for free and already had pilots capable of flying them. If the Concorde had been an actual financial success they would have developed it further and made a successor. And if BA and Air France had thought that the Concorde would continue making them money they wouldn't have retired it after one tragic accident in 30 years of operation. The 737 Max is still being made after much worse.
- alex_duf 2y ago
  If I recall correctly, that's one of the well documented places where I had understood the fact that the concorde wasn't profitable, and would more or less never by in its current context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBvPue70l8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBvPue70l8 Which isn't to say Boom may not succeed.

ghaff 2y ago

I'm skeptical. Trans-Pacific would be interesting for some because that's a long time in a plane even with lie-flat seating. But then you need a lot of range because once you have to refuel you've cut into your time advantage. NYC to London or Paris? Sure. But now you still need to find people willing and able to spend $5K+ each way. I'd like to do it but realistically I'm not going to.

senko 2y ago
First class NY to Paris in a couple of weeks, one way, is ~$6k "best overall", with $10k for "fastest" (checked a random flight on Skyscanner).
- echoangle 2y ago
  And how many people are booking that for that price? Is that enough to build a dedicated service on?
  - senko 2y ago
    I wouldn't know, tho I am sure there's a McKinsey deck somewhere that calculated this :)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > First class NY to Paris in a couple of weeks, one way, is ~$6k "best overall", with $10k for "fastest" La Première will regularly go for $20k one way.
- ghaff 2y ago
  European airfares from the US can be really funky. I'm doing a trip in a couple months with a roundtrip for Heathrow and I'm actually taking the Eurostar back to London because returning directly from Paris was going to be so expensive. Open jaws in particular can be fairly OK or can be really expensive (as in my case).
fsloth 2y ago
$10k transatlantic return hop. Add expedited immigration. Does not sound insane. First class tickets London-NY can be already in this price range. Not for everyone of course (certainly way out of my price range).
- ghaff 2y ago
  There's a market, just not sure how big. Business class works mostly because there's a big plane full of people paying for Economy (and maybe Economy Premium) and I suspect a lot of business is upgrades for flyers with a lot of status or mostly using miles. With e-entry (not sure how it will work with ETA now), I haven't waited long in London for immigration in ages. British Airways business class-only flights from the City airport have been off and on. Don't know their current status. I could afford business but it seems like a poor value relative to other things I could do other than maybe a co-pay with miles trans-Pacific.
  - Schiendelman 2y ago
    It's the other way around. Economy works because business subsidizes them.
ethbr1 2y ago
I'd expect for trans-oceanic, you'd have people scheduling their travel around limited flights, given the unique offering. I.e. you aren't trying to figure out "How do I 100% capacity a 8:17am daily flight?" (traditional subsonic carriers) but rather "How much demand is there per week/month?" (Boom) If the flight is Wednesdays-only, then folks line their travel up on Wednesday. Because the alternative is a much longer flight.
- ghaff 2y ago
  There are usually at least daily flights on most routes. Business travelers, in particular, aren't going to wait a few days to take a flight that's a few hours faster. Absolutely no one is heading out 5 days early to shave 3 or 4 hours off their flight time. Even for tourism, I wouldn't.
  - senordevnyc 2y ago
    Especially at 2-3x the cost
    - ghaff 2y ago
      I suspect a lot of people here get really excited at the idea of supersonic flight but would never pay the business class+ premium themselves.
      - echoangle 2y ago
        Yes, I think many people would at most do it once so they have flown supersonic, and then never do it again.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Depends where Boom's ticket prices fall. If they go for the low-rich market, their target customer moves schedules around themselves. If a CEO can't be in Europe until Wednesday, then the meeting happens Wednesday. And the key thing Boom will be selling is literally unique: fewer hours on a plane. To some, that's a nice to have. To people who hate being on a plane, it's worth a lot. And even lie-flat first class sucks... it's nice, but you're still crammed into a dehydrating box.

reaperducer 2y ago

The Concorde was notorious for bleeding money. I see this stated all the time on HN, yet there's a whole section at the top of this very comments thread where people are talking about how very profitable the Concorde was. One person quoted the line "There were times, in fact, when the seven aircraft in the fleet would contribute around 40 per cent of BA’s entire profits."

notahacker 2y ago
The key point is that the seven aircraft (two of which they paid £1 for!) spent very few hours per week in the air, because whilst it was profitable on one transatlantic route at very high prices, it would have lost money on just about any other route or with more frequent operation. And to have a profitable airframe programme you need your customers to be able to operate more than a couple of routes. (the 40% figure is more an indication of BA's sometimes thin margins than massive unfulfilled potential)
wongarsu 2y ago
My understanding is that it was profitable if you got the aircraft for free and already had pilots capable of flying them. If the Concorde had been an actual financial success they would have developed it further and made a successor. And if BA and Air France had thought that the Concorde would continue making them money they wouldn't have retired it after one tragic accident in 30 years of operation. The 737 Max is still being made after much worse.
alex_duf 2y ago
If I recall correctly, that's one of the well documented places where I had understood the fact that the concorde wasn't profitable, and would more or less never by in its current context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBvPue70l8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBvPue70l8 Which isn't to say Boom may not succeed.