United Bets on Supersonic Future With $3 Billion Boom Jet Order

[reader]

From Bloomberg News

United Airlines Holdings Inc. is jumping into the potential market for supersonic travel with the first firm order for Boom Technology Inc.’s Overture aircraft, wagering that business flyers will pay top dollar for speedier trips across oceans.

The airline will buy 15 of the supersonic jets, which are expected to carry passengers in 2029, the companies said in a statement Thursday. At $200 million a plane, the deal is valued at $3 billion at list prices and Boom doesn’t offer discounts, said Blake Scholl, the aircraft developer’s founder and chief executive officer. United also took purchase options for 35 more planes.

United plans to be the debut operator of the Overture, which will be able to seat as many as 88 people. The airline’s coastal hubs in leading business-travel markets make the jet “uniquely useful” for United, said Mike Leskinen, vice president of corporate development. While supersonic flight is banned over land in the U.S., United sees three and-a-half hour jaunts to London from Newark, New Jersey, and six-hour trips to Tokyo from San Francisco.

“It has a tremendous amount of value for a big chunk of our high-end business customers,” Leskinen said. “We’ve got our eyes firmly on New York to London for inaugural service and we will evaluate opportunities beyond that.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-03/united-bets-on-supersonic-future-with-3-billion-boom-jet-order

[KeepItReal]

1 hour ago, reader said:

From Bloomberg News

United Airlines Holdings Inc. is jumping into the potential market for supersonic travel with the first firm order for Boom Technology Inc.’s Overture aircraft, wagering that business flyers will pay top dollar for speedier trips across oceans.

The airline will buy 15 of the supersonic jets, which are expected to carry passengers in 2029, the companies said in a statement Thursday. At $200 million a plane, the deal is valued at $3 billion at list prices and Boom doesn’t offer discounts, said Blake Scholl, the aircraft developer’s founder and chief executive officer. United also took purchase options for 35 more planes.

United plans to be the debut operator of the Overture, which will be able to seat as many as 88 people. The airline’s coastal hubs in leading business-travel markets make the jet “uniquely useful” for United, said Mike Leskinen, vice president of corporate development. While supersonic flight is banned over land in the U.S., United sees three and-a-half hour jaunts to London from Newark, New Jersey, and six-hour trips to Tokyo from San Francisco.

“It has a tremendous amount of value for a big chunk of our high-end business customers,” Leskinen said. “We’ve got our eyes firmly on New York to London for inaugural service and we will evaluate opportunities beyond that.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-03/united-bets-on-supersonic-future-with-3-billion-boom-jet-order

Boom? Really?? 

[vinapu]

Boom Boom rather ?

[CurtisD]

Boom's goal is to create a supersonic plane with the capacity of the business class cabin of a regular plane that is profitable at normal business class fares.

Concord was never profitable because (i) it drank fuel, (ii) as it aged the maintenance costs became steep and (iii) it was rarely full at the premium price point required to cover costs. 

Boom are using current technology to greatly reduce fuel consumption and noise (though not enough to fly supersonic over land as you can't get rid of the sonic boom) and make it easier to fly and maintain (no need for a drop nose). So they are using modern tech to deal with two out of three problems Concord faced, leaving the question of demand.

On demand they sound pretty up-beat and, if they really can bring it in at the cost of normal business class, I suspect they are probably right. 

I flew Concord quite a few times in the 1990s as although I did not need the saved time it was fun. If they can hold the cost to around normal business class I think a lot of people will be attracted by the fun factor.

The number of people for whom flying Europe-US-Europe in a day is necessary is limited (the speed advantage to get in a days work and be home for evening cocktails only works in that direction and SanFran-Tokyo-SanFran is more like a red-eye arriving back in time for breakfast) and I think will decline with the increased use of video-meetings. But the potential for fun is very large relative to the number of seats per flight. 

 

[PeterRS]

8 hours ago, CurtisD said:

Concord was never profitable because (i) it drank fuel, (ii) as it aged the maintenance costs became steep and (iii) it was rarely full at the premium price point required to cover costs. 

Boom are using current technology to greatly reduce fuel consumption and noise (though not enough to fly supersonic over land as you can't get rid of the sonic boom) and make it easier to fly and maintain (no need for a drop nose). So they are using modern tech to deal with two out of three problems Concord faced, leaving the question of demand.

On demand they sound pretty up-beat and, if they really can bring it in at the cost of normal business class, I suspect they are probably right. 

I flew Concord quite a few times in the 1990s as although I did not need the saved time it was fun. If they can hold the cost to around normal business class I think a lot of people will be attracted by the fun factor.

Yes, Concorde (it was always referred to using the French spelling) drank fuel, but it did so primarily because it was an aircraft designed using 1950s technology when the price of fuel was peanuts. It was so low it was hardly a factor in any costs. I flew Concord only once in the mid-1990s and loved it. But then i did not pay for my ticket.

I also think it is important to remember that Concorde was almost always full or close to full in its first decades - and at prices that in early 1990 were at a 50-100% premium over first class tickets. At those prices both BA and Air France, the only two operators, also made quite a bit of cash from charters. Indeed, it was a chartered Air France flight that crashed. And surely that is what killed (sorry!) the aircraft. No matter how much both airlines spent to ensure such a crash would never happen again, the myth of its being a safe aircraft crashed with it. The reduced passenger numbers which followed allied to the increased maintenance costs could not justify the service continuing. BA's Concorde pilots all believed the aircraft could continue for many more years, but the losses were too great.

I cannot say the early evening time saving meant much to me. What I really liked was the ease of travel from boarding at Heathrow direct from the lounge and a guarantee of not less than 15 minutes from arrival at the gate to entering the free limousine into NYC. But the passenger seated next to me was the boss of McDonald's in the UK. He was flying for that evening's Board meeting and would return on the morning Concorde the following day!

As to the future, the key surely is once again cost. If the fares are kept to biz class levels, then i see a big demand. But if the trans Pacific flights are no longer than Tokyo to the West Coast gateways, I suggest this could present a problem. Pre-covid, Cathay Pacific was running 5 daily flights from HKG to JFK, all but one being non-stop. SIA had re-introduced its all biz class non-stop Singapore/Newark service. Will there be enough passengers just on a Japan/West Coast service? Clearly United has done its homework and must assume so. But can it keep prices at biz class levels? Maybe it does not need to as top executives can normally fly first class.

Of all the Concorde photos, I love this much published one. It is the last ever BA Concorde flight just before landing at its final resting place in Bristol, England.

Photo: Lewis Whyld, South West News Service

[JKane]

When I first heard of Boom I gave it a 0% chance of happening.  Maybe... maybe this raises it to 1.5%, but not because of the United "purchase" (I'm sure it's full of easy ways out).  Boom has a chance at a chance IF they can build some kind of investment frenzy (like Nikola and many others have--but in more conventional spaces and following a successful example) and then actually put that capital into creating a workable product (unlike Nikola, let's just video our mockup rolling down a hill...) maybe.  

But naming the company after the feature (sonic booms) that helped derail wide adoption and also the image of an aircraft exploding already shows poor judgement, imho.  

I'm actually more interested in this aircraft, it has so much potential, especially the bigger version electrically powered when batteries get just a little better, perhaps to link all the smaller airports in socal/southwest.  A new Pacific Southwest Airlines...  

https://www.ottoaviation.com/celera-500l

But it's not nearly as sexy as the, what, dozenth time we've been told a new Super Sonic Transport is around the corner, really this time!  And we have the bonus of it being an upstart instead of, you know, Boeing who's failed at the next SST 3 or more times now...?  

[reader]

The supersonic transport was a bold undertaking that worked. The Concorde had a 14-year production run. PeterRS described the factors leading to its demise but the industry--and aviation enthusiasts--never gave up on the concept.

Whether or not Boom's entry will actually materialize, I agree, remains to be seen but I applaud United for thinking like British Air and Air France and stepping to the plate. If they hadn't, the Concorde would have never flown.

I could find only one attempt by Boeing to build a SST. If there were others I would enjoy hearing about them.

Here's an historical snapshot of the Boeing 2707 project:

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/supersonic-transport.page

[PeterRS]

I suspect one issue that will eventually come into the mix is speed versus on board facilities. The Concorde seats were narrow. They had only a little more legroom than economy seats and the recline was extremely limited. In the 1950s/early 60s first class cabins were not much more luxurious than premium economy nowadays, although I expect the food was planned to be excellent with lots of caviar etc. For the Concorde inventors, it was assumed that speed would be of paramount importance to passengers.

Since then with the advent of the super wide body jumbos and 4 classes, most major airlines have full flat beds in first and business class plus a host of other goodies. Some, like Qantas, are prioritising ultra long haul flights like Perth to London with Sydney to London eventually to follow. The competition is therefore likely to be for executives who prefer to have a night's sleep prior to arrival along with the other goodies that first/business class provides, and those who would like shorter flights over a shorter distance with great meals featuring the best wines and champagnes along with some time to work - although how you work after a few glasses of Crystal champagne, Chateaux Margaux and d'Yquem along with your caviar, balik salmon, beef wellington and freshly made crepes suzette, somehow beats me.  

[vinapu]

9 hours ago, PeterRS said:

......some time to work - although how you work after a few glasses of Crystal champagne, Chateaux Margaux and d'Yquem along with your caviar, balik salmon, beef wellington and freshly made crepes suzette, somehow beats me.  

you are rights, plane loos are nor very conductive to productive work