Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

boomsupersonic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 531 posts

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#171

Post by robotnikman »

stuff4ben wrote: post #91
replygirl wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah, neat! looks like they recently switched from 3x turboprop to 4x turbofan edit: had to correlate sources to find that a bunch of popular aviation blogs got the original design wrong. was actually 3x turbofan -> 4x turbofan

it was never a turbo prop. You'll never get a propeller driven aircraft to supersonic speeds.

And if you try you end up with monstrosities like the XF-84 Thunderscreech

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H_Thunderscreech

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#172

Post by atdrummond »

hermitdev wrote: post #115
atdrummond wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will say that I’ve seen plenty of “non-refundable” contracts in this industry (see Qatar’s ongoing tiff with Airbus over coating peeling issues) result in either side unilaterally cancelling delivery of airframes. It would really come down to what exactly went wrong whether or not AA could truly couldn’t claw that deposit back.

I'm pretty sure it's nonrefundable from the stance of AA can't just change its mind and get its money back. If Overture fails to deliver on certain metrics, I'd be willing to bet AA has a refundable out.

Exactly - but my guess is that plenty of those metrics are assessed before delivery, such as type certification.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#173

Post by bryanlarsen »

ghaff wrote: post #54
bryanlarsen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I had heard the opposite. BA did a survey of passengers and realized that most passengers had no idea how much the tickets were worth since their employers had purchased the tickets for them. They thought their employers paid more than they actually did, so BA realized that they could considerably increase prices without losing many customers. BA raised prices and finally started turning a profit on Conc…

As I recall Concorde was something like 30% over first class. Which was very expensive at the time.

The way I heard it was that prices were 30% over first class but passengers thought that prices were 3X the cost of first class. Worst of both worlds -- price sensitive travellers wouldn't even bother checking out Concorde as an option, and price insensitive travellers weren't paying as much as they were willing to pay.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#174

Post by cjrp »

culturestate wrote: post #136
asteroidbelt wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LHR is not the only airport in London.

> LHR is not the only airport in London. No, but it’s the only airport in London that the big US legacy carriers - American, Delta, and United - fly to.

Connections are important. Also runway length; Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are probably the only ones long enough.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#175

Post by chx »

MetallicCloud wrote: post #137
zionic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also sanity. I’ve done a 16 hour flight before, and let me say never again . I slept for half of it and the other half was still miserable.

I live in Colorado, but am from Melbourne, Australia. I told everyone the last time I went back that it will be the last visit. That trip is hellish and once every 2 years is still too much.

Try adding a break in Honolulu. It is indeed a long flight from Los Angeles but I found it's bearable if you spend a few days in Honolulu. Also, Jetstar-Melbourne can be very cheap in economy or it can be a very good price/value in what it calls business which really is just premium economy in today's transcontinental flights.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#176

Post by mshook »

phire wrote: post #89
willyt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concorde only used afterburner(en_us)/reheat(en_uk) for a small part of the acceleration phase of the flight not for cruise.

It used afterburners for takeoff and accelerating through Mach 1.

Well past Mach 1 actually, reheat was cut off at Mach 1.7.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#177

Post by atdrummond »

asteroidbelt wrote: post #57
nradov wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LHR is capacity constrained right now so they don't have slots to add more flights. Hopefully the runway expansion will be finished by the time Boom airliners are actually in service.

LHR is not the only airport in London.

It would truly be a game changer if this could fly out of LCY. A faster BA1 has always been my dream flight.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#179

Post by rad_gruchalski »

JCM9 wrote: post #11

Strong FOMO settling in. Premium transatlantic routes routes like NYC-LHR are super important to the bottom line of the big legacy carriers. If one airline has supersonic and others don’t that could be a huge blow to the others. Of course things didn’t work out that way with Concorde, which was not commercially successful and more of a spectacle than something founded in business fundamentals. But if Boom can make su…

> big legacy carriers

Who are the new “non-legacy” carriers in this setting?

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#180

Post by sonthonax »

bobthepanda wrote: post #150
hef19898 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless Boeing or Airbus screw up financially, which is almost impossible, the duopoly is set in stone. It will take massive government backing to change that, Airbus itself is proof of that. The only parties that do challenge the big two on single aile jets are Bombardier and Embraer, one of which was bought by Airbus and one which was almost bought by Boeing.

Right. At this point a new aircraft program is easily $15B+ of development. That kind of money is hard to come by for a new aviation company. China, Russia, and Japan have all tried breaking into the market as well without much success.

Why aren't the Chinese and Russians successful at building airliners? International politics aside, they have workable products, so why can't they break into the duopoly.
Post reply on HN