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

Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 545 posts

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#191

Post by teractiveodular »

bangaroo wrote: post #139
teractiveodular wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air travel is more popular than ever and 2024 broke basically all records. Why would there be less case for faster flights? Supersonic flight will be the preserve of the 0.1%, but the vast majority of private jets can't fly trans-continental (without stops along the way) and there are people out there paying $50k per flight for Etihad's The Residence suites. So, yes, there are people who will pay for this.

the way i've heard it explained is functionally that the ultra rich are either leaning towards things like those private suites onboard a large plane, or flying in a private jet. people don't mind the experience of flying in a plane or the time it takes for the most part - they mind being uncomfortably crammed into a seat for hours on end with another person spilling into their lap in a loud, stuffy cabin. otherwise,…

The real money is in business travel, not leisure. For long haul transpac flights in business class, it's not uncommon to pay 2-3x more for direct flights instead of a stopover, which means the market values the savings of a couple of hours at around $5000.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#192

Post by Intralexical »

drysine wrote: post #109
crowcroft wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbus won't do anything until someone proves the economics of it make sense.

Won't do things like A380?

Boeing proved "Big Plane" was profitable with the 747.

Unfortunately for Airbus, it also stopped being profitable before they finished the A380.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#193

Post by ghaff »

ethbr1 wrote: post #184
ghaff wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical. Trans-Pacific would be interesting for some because that's a long time in a plane even with lie-flat seating. But then you need a lot of range because once you have to refuel you've cut into your time advantage. NYC to London or Paris? Sure. But now you still need to find people willing and able to spend $5K+ each way. I'd like to do it but realistically I'm not going to.

I'd expect for trans-oceanic, you'd have people scheduling their travel around limited flights, given the unique offering. I.e. you aren't trying to figure out "How do I 100% capacity a 8:17am daily flight?" (traditional subsonic carriers) but rather "How much demand is there per week/month?" (Boom) If the flight is Wednesdays-only, then folks line their travel up on Wednesday. Because the alternative is a much longe…

There are usually at least daily flights on most routes. Business travelers, in particular, aren't going to wait a few days to take a flight that's a few hours faster. Absolutely no one is heading out 5 days early to shave 3 or 4 hours off their flight time.

Even for tourism, I wouldn't.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#194

Post by teractiveodular »

adastra22 wrote: post #134
teractiveodular wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air travel is more popular than ever and 2024 broke basically all records. Why would there be less case for faster flights? Supersonic flight will be the preserve of the 0.1%, but the vast majority of private jets can't fly trans-continental (without stops along the way) and there are people out there paying $50k per flight for Etihad's The Residence suites. So, yes, there are people who will pay for this.

Would you pay $5k to fly basic economy? Air travel is popular, but extremely price sensitive. Ryanair and its ilk have shown that people will suffer humiliation to save even $50 on ticket prices. Supersonic will have to serve the rich, who are willing to pay to fly private. But how big is that market? Especially if you’re still going to raise prices 2-3x?

Some passengers are extremely price sensitive, but full-service airlines make 80% of their profits from the 10% sitting up in the pointy end. It already costs 4x more to fly biz than economy, and 9-11x more to fly first (actual first class, not US domestic).

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#195

Post by 4ndrewl »

teractiveodular wrote: post #98
bangaroo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nope. commercial and private jets generally cap out around mach 0.9 i am very rusty on the economics and details of supersonic commercial flight, but the general gist as i recall is: - going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify for how much time it saves. there is less case in the 2000s for "having to be in london in 3 hours from NY" than there previously was, too. - noise restric…

Air travel is more popular than ever and 2024 broke basically all records. Why would there be less case for faster flights? Supersonic flight will be the preserve of the 0.1%, but the vast majority of private jets can't fly trans-continental (without stops along the way) and there are people out there paying $50k per flight for Etihad's The Residence suites. So, yes, there are people who will pay for this.

Air travel is more popular because of cheap flights, airline competition and a consolidation amongst manufacturers leading to standardisations. There's no evidence that the 0.1pct are going to swap their private jets that fly at 0.8 for sharing an aircraft flying on other people's schedules between airports they dont want to travel to/from.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#196

Post by ghaff »

fsloth wrote: post #186
ghaff wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical. Trans-Pacific would be interesting for some because that's a long time in a plane even with lie-flat seating. But then you need a lot of range because once you have to refuel you've cut into your time advantage. NYC to London or Paris? Sure. But now you still need to find people willing and able to spend $5K+ each way. I'd like to do it but realistically I'm not going to.

$10k transatlantic return hop. Add expedited immigration. Does not sound insane. First class tickets London-NY can be already in this price range. Not for everyone of course (certainly way out of my price range).

There's a market, just not sure how big. Business class works mostly because there's a big plane full of people paying for Economy (and maybe Economy Premium) and I suspect a lot of business is upgrades for flyers with a lot of status or mostly using miles. With e-entry (not sure how it will work with ETA now), I haven't waited long in London for immigration in ages.

British Airways business class-only flights from the City airport have been off and on. Don't know their current status. I could afford business but it seems like a poor value relative to other things I could do other than maybe a co-pay with miles trans-Pacific.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#197

Post by messe »

gopalv wrote: post #178
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA to New York or San Francisco to Honolulu in 2 to 3 hours would be a game changer. You could probably fill a plane at least once a day on those routes for a handsome profit.

NYC to LA in 3 hours would be an 8 AM flight which would land at 8 AM, same day. Just mind boggling to think of, no trouble finding 100 people daily who want to do a day-trip to California.

I had a similar experience flying from Dublin to Seattle a couple of years ago. Take off around 16:00, land at 17:00.

In that "hour" I'd watched (IIRC) Fellowship of the Ring, Sunset Boulevard, and—out of a morbid sense of curiosity that I regret—Moonfall.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#198

Post by alamortsubite »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #145
kypro wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how much will people pay for civil supersonic? Do we know how much more it's likely to cost? I could easily see people paying 1.5x - 2x. Anything beyond 2x I imagine would start to price out the average person and anything beyond 5x would probably price out the vast majority of potential customers.

> could easily see people paying 1.5x - 2x People pay more than that for domestic first class, which doesn’t even have lay-flat seats. $2,500 or even $5k for a New York San Francisco 2-hour flight would absolutely sell.

A number of US carriers offer lay-flat seats for at least some of their coast-to-coast domestic flights. UA has over a half dozen Dreamliners flying back and forth daily, all with Polaris cabins. I know AA and Delta have routes with them, too. I agree, a two-hour flight time would be better!

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#199

Post by ghaff »

bobthepanda wrote: post #179
Analemma_ wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding was that, even for BA, the Concord was profitable on a cash accounting basis (as in, the tickets more than covered the cost of fuel, salaries, etc.) but not when accounting for a) the depreciation costs of the plane, which were much higher than for an ordinary Boeing or Airbus passenger jet since it was a one-off limited run and there were few spare parts and b) as you said, training new people to fl…

It also had a three person crew, and post 9/11 was the start of structurally higher oil prices, both of which were a death knell. The true nail in the coffin was the development of the lie flat business seat, which meant that you could cross the Atlantic in three hours in a plush but cramped seat, or spend less money to sleep for six on a redeye and arrive well rested. At that point three hours was not a compelling e…

London doesn't even require a red-eye from NYC--or actually from Boston/Washington although it's a very early star--on a conventional jet. I've done it pretty regularly. Not pleasant but I can get to London in time for a late dinner.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#200

Post by actionfromafar »

__loam wrote: post #118
actionfromafar wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't let go of the suspicion that this could become some kind of military (drone or not) airframe.

The military has had supersonic aircraft since the 1950s, why would they care about this?

If it's cheap to produce.
Post reply on HN