DWFI

Was the "non-refundable deposit" $1 per plane?

inlanikai

Great! Now we can find out our bags are lost hours sooner.

PHL

A little late to the party. UA made a similar commitment 15 months ago.
https://boom-press-assets.s3-us-west...Supersonic.pdf

The difference here being that AA waited until Boom revealed "final production design" last month and put down a non refundable deposit for 20. According to the press release, it will still only achieve supersonic overwater due to the noise regs that restricted the Concorde in the same way 50 years ago. Granted, all the technologies related to going supersonic have vastly improved since the initial SST design of the 60's, and having just a fleet of 14 between 2 airlines made it costly to maintain as it continued to age (despite flying for several years after the Paris crash). 65-80 seats for flights under 5 hours will likely premium economy style seating up front and some revamped main cabin style seatings. No need for lie flat seats (and the associated weight) on those medium length trips.

This won't likely make it into revenue service by 2029, if ever, though.

enviroian

This is bound to fail, price is king, AA will go under, I'll be flying BFS on NK to Heathrow.

Ghoulish

Boom?

If there's ever an accident, the dark jokes will, unfortunately, write themselves.

ashill

Long thin routes? If this plane flew as marketed by the manufacturer, this would only make sense on short intercontinental fat routes as a complement to normal widebody service.No long, thin route has demand for 75 business class fares every day no matter how fast the plane is. The market for this plane would have to be mid-length routes with a ton of demand that can be consolidated from a few widebody business class cabins to one or two of these planes, routes like east coast US to London (which AA mentions in their press release). They also mention west coast to Hawaii, but LOL at demand for 75 seats at $5000 fares to Hawaii: if there were demand for those fares to Hawaii, airlines would use widebodies with flat beds from the west coast where they don't have to use widebodies for the range. And the benefits of flying this from DFW-Hawaii won't be much if it can't fly supersonic over land.

But it also wouldn't be six hours in an E175-type cabin; it's only 3.5 hours NYC-LON. Its advertised range is roughly 4.5 hours of flying time, so no six-hour flights without a fuel stop.

With a quoted 4890 statute mile range, it can't even fly trans-Pacific (except maybe SEA-TYO, so maybe this would make AA's SEA hub real?).

757FO

I do hope it gets built, but so far, all Boom has proven is that they are excellent at marketing. Lots of noise, no substance yet.

N830MH

Me, too! Count me in! I wanna flying!

USA_flyer

For the engines, supercruise is possible, the F22 Raptor can maintain a speed of mach 1.8 without afterburners.

I for one hope it happens but, it will start off as a niche product that could end up being a springboard to newer planes with better range and fuel economy.

Prospero

Some essential reading courtesy of Robert Boyle

i know it’s good form to include a short quotation from a linked article so I’ll leave you with Boyle’s conclusion. You should read the article in full though.

https://www.gridpoint.consulting/blog/has-the-time-come-for-a-return-to-supersonic-travel

prof

what a ghoulish way of thinking

mnhusker

Less than 1% to fill order and this is the reason why:

A book by R.E.G. Davies, highly respected aviation author and former Director of the Smithsonian Air and Space museum.

His book is based on a detailed market study which showed that supersonic aircraft did not provide a benefit to the traveling public wether travel east or west due to the "time zone" impact. That is if on flies London to Tokyo supersonic, you get there faster alright but you arrive at times that do not synchs with business activity.

Same thing occurs if you are flying LAX to Sydney.

Link to book on Amazon:

Ghoulish

"No, BOOM on the ticket wasn't referring to the equipment, it's one of the T&Cs"

Antarius

The Concorde was relatively successful demand wise. The issue was running a subfleet of 7 40 year old aircraft for each airline.

They don't fit every use case, but there's definitely value in speeding up travel. People flying west will benefit significantly. Also, the daytime TATL flights would be ideally replaced by this.

It's an interesting book and makes some valid points, but we also should remember that it was published in 1998. Technology has advanced significantly since then as have the number of passengers traveling.

My skepticism isn't about the market but the manufacturer. First flight in 3 years where engines aren't set? Good luck with that.

fdog

Exactly!

If it makes it into the schedule, I'm on it.

One of my big regrets was not taking the Concorde, I was too cheap and always booked a 74.

All the best, James