Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > American Airlines | AAdvantage
Reload this Page >

American announces agreement to buy up to 20 Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic

American announces agreement to buy up to 20 Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic

Old Aug 16, 22, 6:46 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 7,580
Originally Posted by jljones78 View Post
65-80 pax? Hello $15K JFK-LHR tickets.
Supersonic would be a premium service somewhat above subsonic business class.
cmd320 likes this.
LarryJ is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 6:47 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: CMH, CLE, CAK
Programs: Marriott Gold, HH Gold, IHG Platinum, Hertz PC
Posts: 107
Awesome, I hope it works out... but like most others on here I have my doubts.

I wonder why we haven't focused more on improving sub-sonic designs? Most modern commercial aircraft fly at, what? Mach .80 to .85? Why not push to find that last remaining ~130 mph of sub-sonic speed in conventional designs while maintaining fuel efficiency?
Hoi polloi is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 6:58 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Hoi polloi View Post
Awesome, I hope it works out... but like most others on here I have my doubts.

I wonder why we haven't focused more on improving sub-sonic designs? Most modern commercial aircraft fly at, what? Mach .80 to .85? Why not push to find that last remaining ~130 mph of sub-sonic speed in conventional designs while maintaining fuel efficiency?
An engine can either be efficient at subsonic, or supersonic speeds, but not both without the ability to significantly reconfigure itself in flight.

Is there a commercial case for a low volume ground up engine design? It'll still be multiples of fuel burn per mile at supersonic speeds than subsonic engines.

SR-71 Inlets
cmd320 likes this.
Ghoulish is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 8:11 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Programs: American Life Time 2 Million Mile Platinum
Posts: 278
Originally Posted by Antarius View Post
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.
Two responses:

First read Davies detailed economic analysis of Supersonic flight and airline needs. It does not work.

Second, BA and Air France paid "1 Pound" each for each Concorde they received, paid nothing towards developmental costs of the airplanes and still never showed a profit flying the planes on only two routes that were sustainable in the long term, New York-Heathrow and New York-Paris. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of supersonic travel when you can only get people to fly to three cities in the world, and even then the seats are not always all sold.

I would love to have flown Concorde, my parents did once, but as an economically viable airline tool: never gonna happen.
AndyPatterson likes this.
mnhusker is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 8:34 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 828
Also, $12,000 in today's USD for what really amounted to a premium economy flight with better alcohol meant the novelty wore off quickly.
Ghoulish is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 8:37 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 7,580
Originally Posted by Hoi polloi View Post
I wonder why we haven't focused more on improving sub-sonic designs? Most modern commercial aircraft fly at, what? Mach .80 to .85? Why not push to find that last remaining ~130 mph of sub-sonic speed in conventional designs while maintaining fuel efficiency?
It is expensive to do so and the time benefit is relatively small.

Boeing pitched the Sonic Cruiser concept to the airlines in 2001. It would have cruised as high as M0.98. Airlines preferred a more efficient, but slower, design which eventually became the 787 with it's M0.85 normal cruise speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser

Manufacturers can only build what their airline customers are willing to buy. That's why airlines are making small financial commitments to the Boom's Overture concept and proposed performance and economic targets.
enviroian and Antarius like this.
LarryJ is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 9:25 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: KHOU/KIAH
Programs: AA "mid tier" elite | Marriott Bonvoy Ambassador | Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 9,152
Originally Posted by mnhusker View Post
Two responses:

First read Davies detailed economic analysis of Supersonic flight and airline needs. It does not work.

Second, BA and Air France paid "1 Pound" each for each Concorde they received, paid nothing towards developmental costs of the airplanes and still never showed a profit flying the planes on only two routes that were sustainable in the long term, New York-Heathrow and New York-Paris. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of supersonic travel when you can only get people to fly to three cities in the world, and even then the seats are not always all sold.

I would love to have flown Concorde, my parents did once, but as an economically viable airline tool: never gonna happen.
I have read it.

The Concorde was 1960s technology. Extrapolation of that into "supersonic will never work" is a flawed conclusion, IMO. Also, it's a book from 1998. Worth reading and learning from, but technology isn't static in the gap.

To add, I'm not saying that Boom will succeed. Just that the concept isn't a foregone conclusion. When the Concorde prototype first flew, cars got 10 miles to the gallon.
ashill and rt23456p like this.

Last edited by Antarius; Aug 16, 22 at 9:35 pm
Antarius is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 9:32 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Antarius View Post
I have read it.

The Concorde was 1960s technology. Extrapolation of that into "supersonic will never work" is a flawed conclusion, IMO.
I agree.

However, in no case can supersonic flight be as efficient as subsonic flight simply due to physics.

In an environment where to a growing number of activists, flying at all is tantamount to being a "crime against the earth", a new plane with an enormous and arguably unnecessary worse carbon footprint will be a non-starter.
Ghoulish is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 9:42 pm
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.5MM; AS MVPG 75K
Posts: 19,624
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
It is expensive to do so and the time benefit is relatively small.

Boeing pitched the Sonic Cruiser concept to the airlines in 2001. It would have cruised as high as M0.98. Airlines preferred a more efficient, but slower, design which eventually became the 787 with it's M0.85 normal cruise speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser

Manufacturers can will only build what their airline customers are willing to buy. That's why airlines are making small financial commitments to the Boom's Overture concept and proposed performance and economic targets.
this (as edited) *10000 or more

for those here on the AA board who may not recognize me from prior postings, I was a Test Director on the #4 767-200 (photo is in the National Air & Space Museum Udvar-Hazy Center at IAD)



as well as on the "Spirit of Delta" 767-200 (resides in the Delta Flight Museum at ATL); I also spent a year in 777 Customer Engineering shortly after the program was launched in 1991









Last edited by jrl767; Aug 16, 22 at 9:53 pm
jrl767 is online now  
Old Aug 16, 22, 10:00 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PDX
Programs: AA Plat, Nexus
Posts: 352
Perfect. They'll charge twice as much because it's so much faster, and provide half as good service/product, because it's so much faster that passengers won't suffer for as long and can just deal with it.
jakeller, bchandler02 and mnhusker like this.
Cat Man Do is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 10:56 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New England
Programs: Delta Platinum, United Gold, American Platinum, Wyndham Gold, Hyatt Explorist, Marriott Gold
Posts: 5,083
What if, they saw what happened to the Bombardier CSeries project and the end game is to simply move far enough along to get Boeing or Airbus to buy them?
diburning is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 11:18 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: KHOU/KIAH
Programs: AA "mid tier" elite | Marriott Bonvoy Ambassador | Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 9,152
Originally Posted by diburning View Post
What if, they saw what happened to the Bombardier CSeries project and the end game is to simply move far enough along to get Boeing or Airbus to buy them?
Could be, but that's a long long way away from where they are today. Bombardier already made aircraft and the BCS1 was a already flying aircraft when Airbus bought in.
Antarius is offline  
Old Aug 16, 22, 11:43 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: SIN
Posts: 746
Which one will take the skies faster, Baltia or Boom?
diburning and Antarius like this.
rt23456p is online now  
Old Aug 17, 22, 2:09 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,510
Originally Posted by Antarius View Post
Could be, but that's a long long way away from where they are today. Bombardier already made aircraft and the BCS1 was a already flying aircraft when Airbus bought in.
Without drifting too far off topic, worth it to mention the Airbus tie up was really about improving production rates and getting a production facility for the C series opened in the US. Along with, as I understand it, reducing the import duty that would have to be paid on the aircraft since it was now being produced in the US, much to Boeing's dismay.

Needless to say, the Boom Overture is a far, far, far ways away from where the C-series was at when Airbus stepped in.
Antarius and rt23456p like this.
Lux Flyer is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 5:05 am
  #45  
TPJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: TK*G (E+), IHG Plat Ambassador
Posts: 7,547
My experience with Concorde:

Back in 1997 (1998?) BA Sales Reps were virtually begging the Company I was then working for to accept this deal:

- LHR to JFK in C-class (‘Cradle Seats’ at that time)

- Return on Concorde

I recall they mentioned they have no problem to fill in the morning SSC flight to JFK.

Filling in the second SSC flight is more of challenge, but they somehow managed.

But loads on JFK-LHR flights were disastrous. Nobody wanted to travel the whole day (taking time zone change into consideration), when they could take an evening flight, eat, sleep (I was able to sleep in Cradle Seats – then one could only dream that one day there would be fully flat seats in J), arrive in the morning. This is why they could offer us a very good deal for returns on Concorde. We finally rejected the deal.

Would it be different today?

For a start, we have extremely comfortable fully flat seats and even in my age I have no issue to sleep on the plane and then go home, take shower and WFH for some time.

BA run the following SSC schedule in 90’s:

10.30 am LHR departure – 9.20 am JFK arrival

7.30 pm LHR departure – 5.50 pm JFK arrival

9.30 am JFK departure – 6.30 pm LHR arrival

1.45 pm JFK departure – 10.25 pm LHR arrival

Boom will be slower so these flight times will be longer. I cannot imagine they would be given the 10.25 pm LHR arrival slot as the aircraft would probably be too noisy. Let’s say they could land at 9.50 pm latest, the flight would be 30 minutes longer what means departure from JFK would have to be at 12.40. They will have the same issue as BA – not too many people interested in taking these flights.

So how about an overnight flight. In theory it would work:

10 pm departure – 7.10 am arrival

But for a start – who would fly in a Coach-like seat on an overnight flight, when they could choose a slightly longer flight (3 extra hours more is not a major tragedy) in a comfortable, fully flat seat?

Maybe there is more chance this might work for Asia or deep Latinoamerica, but I just do not think this operation might be profitable for TATL services.
TPJ is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread