American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft • Hacker News Board

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#331

Post by beambot » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

foobarqux wrote: post #285

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #225

IMHO a better title would have been: "American Airlines to buy 20 Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic" When reading the original title, I had the impression that the company was going to be acquired by AA. Instead, it's "just" an order of 20 aircrafts. Note that this is not a new move by Boom, they played this card when raising money when they pitched at YC demo day, and they're doing it again. The problem I have…

Yes these are "non-binding" commitments that are just marketing. Very deceptive but standard practice in aerospace. For example only a fraction of the Concordes that were committed in this way were actually purchased. Until the plane is actually flying in the air you should just treat any announcements as misleading (they announced that their test airframe was ready, what, 3-4 years ago?).

It's not really deceptive, it's just that many people have a poor understanding of the accounting difference between LOIs, contractual bookings, and recognized revenue. These LOIs would not appear on an income statement, balance sheet or P&L... and no one ever suggested otherwise. It's just one signal (of many) that indicate market demand for high-capex products with long lead times.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#332

Post by chrisseaton » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #296

metadat wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plural of aircraft is still "aircraft".

Could go with "airplanes" which has a more conventional plural form and is much simpler and clearer in cases like this where we know full well what specific type of aircraft we're talking about.

Or aeroplanes!

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#333

Post by beambot » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

foo92691 wrote: post #299

mmaunder wrote: post #262

Burning more Jet-A to get less people around the world faster has got to be the most tone deaf idea this decade. I'm a pilot, I just attended Airventure, and I love the history around SR-71, Concorde and the other incredible high speed planes we've built. But this is an idea that had its time and aviation has moved on to high bypass turbofan engines, reliability, safety, fuel efficiency and reducing our environmental…

Agreed. Boom claims they will be "sustainable" because they are going to invent some kind of synthetic biofuel. Wait, it looks like I either misremembered that claim, or they have backed away from it: > "Overture’s fleet will be able to run on 100% sustainable aviation fuels." https://boomsupersonic.com/sustainability Color me skeptical. Making existing aviation more climate-friendly would be a much more worthy goal…

It's legit. Take a look at Prometheus Fuels. More details:

https://www.science.org/content/article/former-playwright-ai...

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#334

Post by cycomanic » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

moomin wrote: post #282

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.

Try doing 24 hours, with a 9 month old. It was not fun.

I actually did 30 with a 2 year and a 2 month old. The young one is easy actually, they are in a bassinet and sleep most of the way. The 2 year old was much more a problem. She was just under 2, so didn't have her own seat, was obviously getting bored and her sleep rhythm was completely different to mine. Still was OK though.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#335

Post by nradov » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

jayzalowitz wrote: post #80

nradov wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Boom Overture lacks the range for the Europe-Australia line. It would have to make two refueling stops to fly CDG to SYD. I think the primary initial market will be Transatlantic.

If they can find a way to add another ~400 nautical miles, you could do hawaii.

If their specifications are accurate, they will be able to fly California to Hawaii with an adequate fuel reserve. So there may be a market for a few supersonic aircraft in that market, but fewer than the Transatlantic routes.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#336

Post by projektfu » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #214

tedivm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone claiming you are wrong hasn't bothered to google. Literally the first response for "overture turboprop" is a series of articles confirming what you said. > The Overture supersonic aircraft will be powered by three turboprop engines, which includes two that will be mounted under each wing, while the third engine will be fitted at the end of the fuselage. https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/overture-…

There is no way you could go supersonic with a turboprop

Just the tip...

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#337

Post by nautilius » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

ucha wrote: post #329

nautilius wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The costs of flying an airplane isn't proportional to its fuel usage. The faster an aircraft is, the more flights it can perform per day. It is indeed not proportional, but not in the way you are thinking. Drag (and ~fuel consumption) scales with velocity squared, so a plane flying twice at fast (and neglecting any time at the airport, which would make the argument even worse) would use four times as much fuel. I.e…

That doesn't have much to do with the point I'm making. I'm saying if you double fuel usage, you don't double the cost of using the plane. As cost of fuel is only a percentage of the price of the ticket, it's pretty obvious that there is a threshold as a percentage of total ticket cost under which spending 4x more in fuel to fly say 1.5x more passengers (because the airplane isn't flying 24/7) makes business sense. T…

Yeah, there is an epsilon on top of fuel. But maybe you missed the obvious fact that all aircraft are getting slower rather than faster over the last decades, so that threshold is in the opposite direction of what you're proposing.

And there is zero logic behind your second obviousm, as your premise is already wrong. The reason they start with business class is because you can charge more per seat. Seems pretty obvious.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#338

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

mmaunder wrote: post #262

Burning more Jet-A to get less people around the world faster has got to be the most tone deaf idea this decade. I'm a pilot, I just attended Airventure, and I love the history around SR-71, Concorde and the other incredible high speed planes we've built. But this is an idea that had its time and aviation has moved on to high bypass turbofan engines, reliability, safety, fuel efficiency and reducing our environmental…

The idea is to move princelings around the world faster than lesser princelings. So long as they have the money they will suck up status symbols like a supersonic private jet.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#339

Post by cycomanic » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

abujazar wrote: post #52

akmarinov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only very expensive, but basically coach class all the way through, even for the rich people.

You mean couch class? https://boomsupersonic.com/static/images/overture-experience...

I recall all the crazy designs that were shown before the A380 came out, bars, entertainment areas etc.. Unsurprisingly airlines instead opted to put more seats in (well Singapore did implement those suites with a bed, but that was it). These interior concepts never become reality because of the economics. They look nice in investor brochures and airline magazines though.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#340

Post by Ottolay » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

mmaunder wrote: post #262

Burning more Jet-A to get less people around the world faster has got to be the most tone deaf idea this decade. I'm a pilot, I just attended Airventure, and I love the history around SR-71, Concorde and the other incredible high speed planes we've built. But this is an idea that had its time and aviation has moved on to high bypass turbofan engines, reliability, safety, fuel efficiency and reducing our environmental…

Feels like there is a business case for people willing to pay to reduce trip times for trans continental flights.

The problem is that the greenhouse gas impact will be higher for a supersonic trip compared to a subsonic one. This is on top of the issue that we don't really have a good low carbon alternative for longer range air travel (batteries don't have anywhere near enough specific energy). The best option we have is synthetic jet fuel produced from green electricity. Producing jet fuel that way is many times more expensive than fossil fuel jet fuel.