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 17, 22, 5:43 am
  #46  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of London.
Programs: Delta SE, Marriott Silver, Omni Select Plat
Posts: 19,790
Originally Posted by TPJ View Post
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.
They have orders and options for 206 units so several airlines are already invested in it flying. As for profitability, it's the TATL routes where it will be *most* profitable, there are people willing to pay for the time saved in the air.
USA_flyer is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 5:47 am
  #47  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: PWM
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold, 1MM, Bonsai Platinum, Bonvoy Gold, IHG Platinum
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Ghoulish View Post
Boom?

If there's ever an accident, the dark jokes will, unfortunately, write themselves.
General Motors first Electric car in the early 90's was named the "Impact" they soon rethought the implications, and it became the EV-1
roadtriper is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 5:56 am
  #48  
TPJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: TK*G (E+), IHG Plat Ambassador
Posts: 7,547
Originally Posted by USA_flyer View Post
They have orders and options for 206 units so several airlines are already invested in it flying. As for profitability, it's the TATL routes where it will be *most* profitable, there are people willing to pay for the time saved in the air.
If 206 small aircraft fly over the TATL, where would they find airport slots for them? The option of flying in Y and Y+ will be gone as only Boom aircraft will be flying? Could you imagine the noise from the environmentalist group if this number of supersonic aircraft operate? I like your optimism, but the numbers do not ad up...
TPJ is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 6:03 am
  #49  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of London.
Programs: Delta SE, Marriott Silver, Omni Select Plat
Posts: 19,790
Originally Posted by TPJ View Post
If 206 small aircraft fly over the TATL, where would they find airport slots for them? The option of flying in Y and Y+ will be gone as only Boom aircraft will be flying? Could you imagine the noise from the environmentalist group if this number of supersonic aircraft operate? I like your optimism, but the numbers do not ad up...
Honestly? I see this taking away from private jet travel not just high end business class/first class travel.
USA_flyer is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 6:12 am
  #50  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by USA_flyer View Post
They have orders and options for 206 units so several airlines are already invested in it flying. As for profitability, it's the TATL routes where it will be *most* profitable, there are people willing to pay for the time saved in the air.
Orders with no engines in sight...how does that work?

With no idea of flight characteristics, range, fuel consumption, maintenance, or even cost of the engines there are no "orders" in what most understand that term to mean.
Ghoulish is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 6:39 am
  #51  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of London.
Programs: Delta SE, Marriott Silver, Omni Select Plat
Posts: 19,790
Originally Posted by Ghoulish View Post
Orders with no engines in sight...how does that work?

With no idea of flight characteristics, range, fuel consumption, maintenance, or even cost of the engines there are no "orders" in what most understand that term to mean.
Not being privy to the commercial agreements, I don't know what the terms of the deals are.
USA_flyer is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 6:55 am
  #52  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by USA_flyer View Post
Not being privy to the commercial agreements, I don't know what the terms of the deals are.


The 777 cost $5 billion in development prior to the first demonstrator being built.

A320 cost $2 billion to develop in the 1980's.

Excluding engine development costs.

Both entities with deep engineering resources and a library of patents building upon existing designs.

Boom has raised $270 million in total, from the "orders" and other entities. For a radically different, clean sheet design.

The undisclosed deposits are "non-refundable", which, coupled with the incredibly small amount of total money Boom has collected, sounds like Airlines are willing to toss away an advertising campaign's worth of money for the ability to say they're on the "supersonic" bandwagon.

The whole thing is very suspect, and the closer one looks into the details, the shakier it appears.

Last edited by Ghoulish; Aug 17, 22 at 7:04 am
Ghoulish is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 7:13 am
  #53  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of London.
Programs: Delta SE, Marriott Silver, Omni Select Plat
Posts: 19,790
Originally Posted by Ghoulish View Post
The 777 cost $5 billion in development prior to the first demonstrator being built.

A320 cost $2 billion to develop in the 1980's.

Excluding engine development costs.

Both entities with deep engineering resources and a library of patents building upon existing designs.

Boom has raised $270 million in total, from the "orders" and other entities. For a radically different, clean sheet design.

The undisclosed deposits are "non-refundable", which, coupled with the incredibly small amount of total money Boom has collected, sounds like Airlines are willing to toss away an advertising campaign's worth of money for the ability to say they're on the "supersonic" bandwagon.

The whole thing is very suspect, and the closer one looks into the details, the shakier it appears.
I bet Gulfstream, Cessna and Bombardier don't spend anything like that kind of cash for developing a private type jet. I'm also sure the airlines will have looked at the business and its model before laying out any cash. Also, as the plane develops, I'm sure there will be further funding rounds.
USA_flyer is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 7:37 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 489
Originally Posted by Ghoulish View Post
Orders with no engines in sight...how does that work?

With no idea of flight characteristics, range, fuel consumption, maintenance, or even cost of the engines there are no "orders" in what most understand that term to mean.
Not only do they not have engines but they did a complete redesign on the aircraft after their first design failed all the initial testing. The new design may or may not end up the same. Going from 3 to 4 engines is also not a improvement.
Jeff767 is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 7:47 am
  #55  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 828
Boeing has 56,000 full time engineering staff.

Boom has 150 total staff, including administration, accounting. HR, and Public Relations.

I think it's time to cash out my HyperLoop and Theranos profits, and go all in on this.
Ghoulish is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 7:51 am
  #56  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 828
To put this in further perspective, 200+ "orders" for the most advanced passenger aircraft in the world were secured for deposits not totaling half the retail price of a single 777.
Hoi polloi and rt23456p like this.
Ghoulish is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 8:50 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: CMH, CLE, CAK
Programs: Marriott Gold, HH Gold, IHG Platinum, Hertz PC
Posts: 107
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 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.
I guess that makes sense. It just seems like it would be easier/more cost-effective to use existing tech to push closer to .99 mach, and reap the benefit of noticeably faster transcons vs. what Boom is attempting to do. But, as you mentioned, the market only exists for what airlines say they want.

What's the over/under for how quickly Boom gets acquired if they build a fully functional prototype?
Hoi polloi is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 8:53 am
  #58  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: CMH, CLE, CAK
Programs: Marriott Gold, HH Gold, IHG Platinum, Hertz PC
Posts: 107
Originally Posted by Ghoulish View Post
Boeing has 56,000 full time engineering staff.

Boom has 150 total staff, including administration, accounting. HR, and Public Relations.

I think it's time to cash out my HyperLoop and Theranos profits, and go all in on this.
While I understand the point you're making, doesn't Boeing seem more than a little bloated? While 150 certainly seems too small, 56k seems entirely too large for the amount of new designs coming out of Boeing over the last decade or two...? At some point, you've got too many cooks in the kitchen.
Hoi polloi is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 9:02 am
  #59  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Hoi polloi View Post
While I understand the point you're making, doesn't Boeing seem more than a little bloated? While 150 certainly seems too small, 56k seems entirely too large for the amount of new designs coming out of Boeing over the last decade or two...? At some point, you've got too many cooks in the kitchen.
Perhaps, though with the average modern airliner being composed of around 3 million parts, constant changes, supporting legacy aircraft, military & space programs, R&D, there might not be enough engineering staff to fill the pipeline with new product, hence spreading the load by partnering with other, particularly Japanese, companies.

They recently announced they'll be hiring 7000 engineers this year alone to support the 777x and 737-max programs.

And even then, all the airframe manufacturers are happy to hand off engines entirely to other companies.
Ghoulish is offline  
Old Aug 17, 22, 9:12 am
  #60  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Programs: American Airlines
Posts: 27,184
Originally Posted by Cat Man Do View Post
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.
"due to the short duration of this flight....:"

FullTimeFlyer and mnhusker like this.
enviroian is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread