# United makes supersonic bet



## Trogdor (Jun 3, 2021)

United has signed an agreement with a company called Boom Supersonic for up to 50 “Overture” jets, which supposedly will be ready to enter service in 2029.









Boom - United Goes Supersonic


Boom Supersonic is building a faster future. Our supersonic airliner will make the world dramatically more accessible.




boomsupersonic.com


----------



## Ryan (Jun 3, 2021)

I really hope this works out.


----------



## daybeers (Jun 3, 2021)

Wasteful service only accessible to high rollers most likely just like the Concorde. We should not be inventing new ways to use more fossil fuel.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 3, 2021)

Trogdor said:


> United has signed an agreement with a company called Boom Supersonic for up to 50 “Overture” jets, which supposedly will be ready to enter service in 2029.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are they going to allow them to fly over US land territory? If yes, then we will all be subjected to sonic booms for the benefit of a few people who can afford what will undoubtedly be very high ticket prices. If no, then, just like the Concorde, its utility will be limited. Not to mention the GHG effects from both the high fuel consumption and from messing up the atmosphere at the high altitudes that the SSTs fly. Furthermore, the events of last year have demonstrated that making intercontinental flying fast and cheap might not be the best idea for public health.


----------



## jiml (Jun 3, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Are they going to allow them to fly over US land territory? If yes, then we will all be subjected to sonic booms for the benefit of a few people who can afford what will undoubtedly be very high ticket prices. If no, then, just like the Concorde, its utility will be limited. Not to mention the GHG effects from both the high fuel consumption and from messing up the atmosphere at the high altitudes that the SSTs fly. Furthermore, the events of last year have demonstrated that making intercontinental flying fast and cheap might not be the best idea for public health.


Indeed, some of the many factors in the demise of Concorde. I was just reading through the notification this morning. Here are some of the projected flying times:
Newark-London in 3.5 hours
Newark-Frankfurt in 4 hours
San Francisco-Tokyo in 6 hours

For those who have actually been inside a Concorde, do you find the concept picture of the interior a bit larger than expected? I certainly do.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 3, 2021)

Looks like the order is for fifteen actual aircraft tied to a long list of presumptions and caveats. It's an interesting development but Concorde had similar orders from many airlines that were quietly cancelled in the 1970's leaving the program (and taxpayers who funded it) billions in debt from day one.



MARC Rider said:


> Are they going to allow them to fly over US land territory? [...] If no, then, just like the Concorde, its utility will be limited.


I presume they'll be able to fly _subsonic_ over land but so could the Concorde and those attempts went nowhere. It's not just an issue for the US either since many countries adopted similar noise restrictions decades ago. Another big issue is the cost of fuel - which is likely to increase relative to inflation over time - and demand for routine business travel, which is likely to stagnate relative to excursion travel. The window for profitable SST's has likely passed if it ever existed at all.



jiml said:


> For those who have actually been inside a Concorde, do you find the concept picture of the interior a bit larger than expected? I certainly do.


Back when the Concorde flew I didn't have the money and now that I do I'd rather fly regular speed in a lie-flat suite or pod instead. I'm sure there is a market for the bucket trips and bragging rights that filled many of the final Concorde flights but how many of us are ready to pony up for routine trips in an SST?


----------



## jis (Jun 3, 2021)

All the examples they quote are mostly over water flights, but extremely lucrative ones. They are targeting only primarily over water routes. Quite a bit of information in the FAQ at Boom - Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

They can do a trans Atlantic flight in one hop, but trans Pacific will require a brief refueling stop en route. The sector end to end times include the time required to refuel, for those flights that require en route refueling. Fares they claim will be around what Business Class tickets cost today. Will be interesting to see how all this unfolds.

More info at Wiki at Boom Technology - Wikipedia

Japan Airlines and Rolls Royce are involved too.


----------



## railiner (Jun 3, 2021)

If this is real, and not just some publicity stunt or investment scheme, I would welcome it. Even if only a relative few could afford it, I think it would be great to have that option, again after all these years without what once was. 
As far as the proposed aircraft...it seems to fall somewhat short of the Concorde design from a half century ago, other than the very large windows, if indeed are possible . The Concorde carried 100, and traveled at Mach 2.

This surprised me completely, as I thought the next generation of high speed air travel would be of the "sub-orbital" type (NY to Tokyo in an hour), but I am still glad to see that something may be done in my lifetime...


----------



## jis (Jun 3, 2021)

Looks like 1x1 seating, with a shade under 5' pitch, which could accommodate herringbone lie flat pods. But for at most 8 hour flights that will likely involve a refueling landing after 4 hours, lie flat may not be that important provided the seats have comfortable recline with good leg rest. Certainly looks less cramped than the Concorde.









Boom - Overture


Boom Supersonic is building a faster future. Our supersonic airliner will make the world dramatically more accessible.




boomsupersonic.com


----------



## rail sale (Jun 3, 2021)

daybeers said:


> Wasteful service only accessible to high rollers most likely just like the Concorde. We should not be inventing new ways to use more fossil fuel.


Exactly, didn't we just spend 15 months figuring out how to avoid in-person business meetings. We should be concentrating on improving efficiency.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jun 3, 2021)

Holy crap. The CEO claims you will eventually be able to get anywhere on the planet in under four hours for $100!!!


----------



## jis (Jun 3, 2021)

daybeers said:


> Wasteful service only accessible to high rollers most likely just like the Concorde. We should not be inventing new ways to use more fossil fuel.


No. If they meet their own specifications it will cost way less than Concorde, in the range of today's Business Class (not even First Class). There are a lot of people who travel by BC who are not traveling on business too. And as far as fuel goes, again if they use fuel from reconstituted sequestered Carbon rather than actual extracted fossil fuel then it should be Carbon neutral. Though some of the high altitude pollution by the exhaust may still remain an issue, Carbon should not be one of them. It all depends on how much better and cleaner they can make the engines. We will just have to see how it unfolds.

So on the whole I do disagree with you categorical rejection.  I take a more nuanced wait and see how it evolves approach.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 3, 2021)

railiner said:


> If this is real, and not just some publicity stunt or investment scheme, I would welcome it.


It's real but unrealized and depends upon a series of narrow outcomes to reach genuine commercial success. Even if every potential failure is somehow avoided a commercially funded SST service is unlikely to survive the next S&L implosion, dotcom bust, housing bubble, global epidemic, etc. If you look at the airline market as a whole the focus is almost entirely on improving efficiency. It would be easier to make money on a greenfield propeller aircraft than an SST.



jis said:


> There are a lot of people who travel by BC who are not traveling on business too.


Seems like a more relevant factor would be how many of them travel on all-business aircraft.



jis said:


> And as far as fuel goes, again if they use fuel from reconstituted sequestered Carbon rather than actual extracted fossil fuel then it should be Carbon neutral.


If they powered it with sequestered unicorn gas then anything is possible but from a practical standpoint this is an unprofitable pipe dream at commercial scale.


----------



## jis (Jun 3, 2021)

It is not clear where they will get funding for its development unless they can somehow get the DoD hooked on it somehow or something like that.

However, purely from a technical perspective I think it is interesting, and as I said worth waiting and watching what happens rather than outright rejecting the possibility. Just IMHO of course.

Meanwhile another attempt at a Supersonic business jet collapsed last month...









What Happened At Aerion?


The supersonic jet company appeared to have a lot of momentum, but elusive funding unraveled its expansive ambitions.




www.bjtonline.com


----------



## jiml (Jun 3, 2021)

UA seems to feel that international "executive" travel is recovering faster than other segments of the market, including traditional "business" travel. Sending one important player to that pivotal meeting, rather than a mid-level team. That's the niche they're targeting, hoping to be ahead of the curve.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 3, 2021)

jiml said:


> Indeed, some of the many factors in the demise of Concorde. I was just reading through the notification this morning. Here are some of the projected flying times:
> Newark-London in 3.5 hours
> Newark-Frankfurt in 4 hours
> San Francisco-Tokyo in 6 hours
> ...


My one trip on the Concorde( to Mexico) now reminds me of today's cramped,packed Planes.

I was glad for get in the Bucket List flight, but wouldn't pay for a Long trip on a new version of a Supersonic plane.( however, if someone else was paying,I wouldn't mind riding over the Pacific on those Killer Routes!)


----------



## railiner (Jun 3, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> My one trip on the Concorde( to Mexico) now reminds me of today's cramped,packed Planes.


My one and only trip on the Concorde, from LHR to JFK, I found, while not as roomy as F class on a jumbo, were nonetheless roomy enough, and the seats themselves were very comfortable...and the BA service was superb...


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 3, 2021)

Sort of like LD train travel, I have grown fond of the sweet spot overnight transatlantic flight.

While I see this service as very helpful in the western direction, I definitely would opt to take an overnight business class seat over a supersonic seat any day.

In terms of the safety and economics of this working, it’s definitely in the wait and see category.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 3, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> Holly crap. The CEO claims you will eventually be able to get anywhere on the planet in under four hours for $100!!!



Oooh, that means that new pandemic viruses will be able to get anywhere on the planet in under 4 hours!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 3, 2021)

railiner said:


> My one and only trip on the Concorde, from LHR to JFK, I found, while not as roomy as F class on a jumbo, were nonetheless roomy enough, and the seats themselves were very comfortable...and the BA service was superb...


Braniff operated the Flight I was on between Washington and DFW( $150!!!!) and while "Trendy" back in the Day( "Flying Colors",Commercials with Hot Celebrites etc) the Service wasn't up to the Standards of BA and Air France!

Correction: it was another Flight to Mexico, it wasn't a Braniff operated Concorde but a 747!!( Senior Moment)


----------



## jis (Jun 3, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> Braniff operated the Flight I was on to Mexico and while "Trendy" back in the Day( "Flying Colors",Commercials with Hot Celebrites etc) the Service wasn't up to the Standards of BA and Air France!


As US like most countries enforces Cabotage rules, they had to jump through multiple hoops to make that happen, including changing the ownership and registration of the aircraft each time it flew within the US and was flown by the Braniff crew.

See Braniff Airways Concorde Operations | heritage-concorde


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 3, 2021)

jis said:


> As US like most countries enforces Cabotage rules, they had to jump through multiple hoops to make that happen, including changing the ownership and registration of the aircraft each time it flew within the US and was flown by the Braniff crew.
> 
> See Braniff Airways Concorde Operations | heritage-concorde


Appreciate that info jis, and see my correction re the Flight)


----------



## railiner (Jun 3, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> Appreciate that info jis, and see my correction re the Flight)


It was subsonic, but still faster than any other flight between Washington and Dallas. BTW, only Braniff cockpit crews were licensed (including supersonic, although in practice they didn't) to fly the Concorder among the other airlines pooling with BA and AF...On the Singapore Airways pool, BA pilots flew with Singapore flight attendants....


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jun 3, 2021)

jiml said:


> For those who have actually been inside a Concorde, do you find the concept picture of the interior a bit larger than expected? I certainly do.



Never flew in a Concorde, but did visit the Concorde that first visited Barbados when Queen Elizabeth II visited the island. The plane is in a museum hanger near at the airport. To answer your question, yes, the illustration shows much more room than what I experienced. During our tour of the plane, we were seated in the cabin for 20 or more minutes during a presentation. I thought the interior was cramped with a bit of claustrophobic feel.


----------



## jis (Jun 3, 2021)

railiner said:


> It was subsonic, but still faster than any other flight between Washington and Dallas. BTW, only Braniff cockpit crews were licensed (including supersonic, although in practice they didn't) to fly the Concorder among the other airlines pooling with BA and AF...On the Singapore Airways pool, BA pilots flew with Singapore flight attendants....


They had to have Braniff cockpit crew for flights carrying commercial traffic between two points within the US because of cabotage rules too probably.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 3, 2021)

jiml said:


> UA seems to feel that international "executive" travel is recovering faster than other segments of the market, including traditional "business" travel. Sending one important player to that pivotal meeting, rather than a mid-level team. That's the niche they're targeting, hoping to be ahead of the curve.


So someone high enough to expense a supersonic subfleet airfare but not so high they can charter their own flight. Sounds like a very small niche to chase.



Bob Dylan said:


> My one trip on the Concorde( to Mexico) now reminds me of today's cramped,packed Planes.


At first I was sad to hear it was being retired but the photos and videos I saw made the Concorde look surprisingly pedestrian relative to the cost. I think it would have been cool to ride once and have a story to tell but even if the cost was much lower I would have preferred more space and service for the money.



Tlcooper93 said:


> Sort of like LD train travel, I have grown fond of the sweet spot overnight transatlantic flight.


There are overnight flights across the Pacific as well and in Business I can sleep through it and arrive in good spirits. Most airlines close the shades or engage the twilight filters on daytime flights so even then you can simply lay down and sleep through most of it. On waking up I barely remember the flight itself.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jun 3, 2021)

This news about what United has done in conjunction with the company building this new plane earned some air time on NBC Nightly News this Thursday evening.


----------



## railiner (Jun 3, 2021)

Should be interesting to see if any of United's competitor's are pressured into jumping on the bandwagon...


----------



## Ryan (Jun 4, 2021)

While not a competitor, it seems the USAF is interested in getting in on the action: 'Air Force Two' Replacement Dropped With Funds Redirected To Supersonic Transport Research



> The U.S. Air Force has redirected funding to work on supersonic and even hypersonic passenger aircraft that could eventually provide a very different kind of successor to its four C-32A special air mission transport aircraft, itself a commercial derivative of the out-of-production Boeing 757-200. The service is now looking to retire without direct replacement its fleet of C-32As, better known by their “Air Force Two” callsign used when the Vice President is onboard.
> 
> Since the 2003 retirement of the Anglo-French Concorde supersonic transport, the aerospace industry at large has wrestled with the conflicting demands of high-speed flight and low-cost, reliable operations, and some contenders have fallen by the wayside. Today, however, with United Airlines’ announcement that it has signed an agreement to acquire 15 examples of the Mach-1.7 Overture airliner from Boom Supersonic, it seems like the kind of technology the Air Force is looking at has inched closer to a realistic proposition.


----------



## railiner (Jun 4, 2021)

If they get some orders from the USAF, that will go a long way into making the project viable. I couldn't find any info in Boom's webpage as to where their factory is or will be, but maybe it should be in the home district of some influential member of the House Appropriation's Committee...


----------



## jis (Jun 4, 2021)

railiner said:


> If they get some orders from the USAF, that will go a long way into making the project viable. I couldn't find any info in Boom's webpage as to where their factory is or will be, but maybe it should be in the home district of some influential member of the House Appropriation's Committee...


They are currently located in Denver I think.


----------



## railiner (Jun 4, 2021)

jis said:


> They are currently located in Denver I think.


Found them...you are correct.
Seems like they would have wanted to be closer to a coast, for flight testing....



https://www.bing.com/maps?where=12876+E+Adam+Aircraft+Cir+Centennial+80112+CO+US&trk=org-locations_url


----------



## George Harris (Jun 4, 2021)

Why a refueling stop for trans-Pacific? None needed now from US west coast to at least Hong Kong, maybe even Singapore. Are you saying these things will have a shorter range than the current 747's? That makes no sense. A refueling stop would probably burn about 3 hours versus the non stop time.


----------



## jis (Jun 4, 2021)

George Harris said:


> Why a refueling stop for trans-Pacific? None needed now from US west coast to at least Hong Kong, maybe even Singapore. Are you saying these things will have a shorter range than the current 747's? That makes no sense. A refueling stop would probably burn about 3 hours versus the non stop time.


Because the range of the proposed plane falls short of what is required to cross the Pacific non-stop. Read the specification linked to above.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 4, 2021)

George Harris said:


> Why a refueling stop for trans-Pacific? None needed now from US west coast to at least Hong Kong, maybe even Singapore. Are you saying these things will have a shorter range than the current 747's? That makes no sense. A refueling stop would probably burn about 3 hours versus the non stop time.


It actually makes plenty of sense. Every supersonic aircraft has been a fuel hog relative to other aircraft from the same generation. Although the new designs are expected to be much more efficient than those of the past they are still far behind more conventional aircraft that put efficiency and range above speed.

I really think this topic needs a bit of a sanity check. While a more efficient and lower priced SST is an interesting development from a technical perspective they still don't have any certifications or even a functioning prototype. This means that at the moment Virgin Galactic and even Virgin Hyperloop are closer to production status than Boom's SST program. The decision to purchase at list prices makes this story sound more like marketing hype than a real negotiation.


----------



## jiml (Jun 4, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> The decision to purchase at list prices makes this story sound more like marketing hype than a real negotiation.


UA must be getting a heck of deal to allow their name and image to be used in publicity. A very good friend of mine, who is in a position to know what's going on, spoke highly of the deal and disagreed with my analysis (and by proxy yours).


----------



## railiner (Jun 4, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I really think this topic needs a bit of a sanity check. While a more efficient and lower priced SST is an interesting development from a technical perspective they still don't have any certifications or even a functioning prototype. This means that at the moment Virgin Galactic and even Virgin Hyperloop are closer to production status than Boom's SST program.


This scenario sounds like the Lockheed Electra (L-188) all over again. By that I mean they came out with the "jet-powered" propeller aircraft just a year before they were rendered obsolete by the new Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 turbojets...


----------



## Rover (Jun 5, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> Braniff operated the Flight I was on between Washington and DFW( $150!!!!) and while "Trendy" back in the Day( "Flying Colors",Commercials with Hot Celebrites etc) the Service wasn't up to the Standards of BA and Air France!
> 
> Correction: it was another Flight to Mexico, it wasn't a Braniff operated Concorde but a 747!!( Senior Moment)



The Concorde just taking off from DFW was too loud. As loud as a military jet.


The Today Show had a promo video that showed the artist representation of the United aircraft with 27 windows each side = 54 windows. The YT video inferred there would one seat per window, but the video stated there would be 88 passengers. So is the final aircraft going to be 2 seats across or four seats across??? (1:31)


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 5, 2021)

This venture was a flop the first go around. What's different now that would make it profitable and therefore successful? The Concorde catered to the rich, basically. How can this be different? Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## jis (Jun 5, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> This venture was a flop the first go around. What's different now that would make it profitable and therefore successful? The Concorde catered to the rich, basically. How can this be different? Enquiring minds want to know.


I dunno. The venture of Jet passenger aircraft was also pretty much a flop the first go around what with the Comet Is falling out of the sky. It was so much of a flop that most people don't even remember it in popular folklore. It was in the second round that it started succeeding wildly and has never looked back. Technology changes making things a little more possible. These things are hard to predict and previous experience often does not pan out necessarily either. So it could flop again, or it could work out. We will just have to wait and see. I see a significant hurdle at present in getting finances for development, but then afterall Musk's ventures looked pretty iffy when he started too.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 5, 2021)

Elon's ventures are still looking pretty iffy in South Texas. Things keep blowing up there  He did donate 20 million dollars to the local Brownsville School District, though. [I used to live there.]


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jun 5, 2021)

jis said:


> the Comet Is falling out of the sky.



I do remember those early accidents. I think you make good points in your post. Improvements in technology are a fact of life that makes such products a better product today than it once was.

I wonder if it was economics that was the main reason that the Concorde failed. That accident in Paris surely had to be a contributing factor, particularly when the cause of the accident was determined.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 5, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Things keep blowing up there


SN15 landed nicely. Sticking a landing after a handful of tries sounds pretty solid to me.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 5, 2021)

Given the timing and so on, I feel like this might (ironically) be a side-effect of the pandemic and the environmental "push" potentially restricting/highly taxing international flights. If they can make this work in the ballpark of a "regular" J ticket (of which I have purchased exactly two and never ended up flying either [one flipped to an award ticket, the other got cancelled last spring]), it feels like there might be a move to "segment" some of the international market _a la_ Regional vs Acela on some airlines. I can see a scenario where a 787 is running all-coach/premium economy while the SST is the Business Class operation.

(Really, the issue at hand seems to be that if a bunch of countries slap...say, a $500 tax on all intercontinental flights...that would have some very odd effects in terms of demand.)


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 6, 2021)

Ryan said:


> SN15 landed nicely. Sticking a landing after a handful of tries sounds pretty solid to me.



Oh, I'll agree there, Ryan. But the folks living at nearby Boca Chica probably wouldn't.


----------



## Mailliw (Jun 10, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> ...There are overnight flights across the Pacific as well and in Business I can sleep through it and arrive in good spirits. Most airlines close the shades or engage the twilight filters on daytime flights so even then you can simply lay down and sleep through most of it. On waking up I barely remember the flight itself.


I think the real game changer for long distance aviation is a model where you show up at a travel clinic, are sedated and placed in a pod, and shipped to your destination unconscious as cargo. 


railiner said:


> If they get some orders from the USAF, that will go a long way into making the project viable. I couldn't find any info in Boom's webpage as to where their factory is or will be, but maybe it should be in the home district of some influential member of the House Appropriation's Committee...


World leaders would have a real practical need for supersonic airliners of this size, but that's still a very small market.


----------



## joelkfla (Jun 10, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> I think the real game changer for long distance aviation is a model where you show up at a travel clinic, are sedated and placed in a pod, and shipped to your destination unconscious as cargo.


Especially for interplanetary travel.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 10, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> I think the real game changer for long distance aviation is a model where you show up at a travel clinic, are sedated and placed in a pod, and shipped to your destination unconscious as cargo.



But if airlines now routinely screw up baggage handling and send bags that are supposed to to to Oakland to Auckland, imagine what will happen with passengers that get misplaced:

"What??!! I thought I was flying to Kansas City! What am I doing in Beijing?"


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jun 10, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> I think the real game changer for long distance aviation is a model where you show up at a travel clinic, are sedated and placed in a pod, and shipped to your destination unconscious as cargo.




 No thank you! That scenario reminds me too much of some of the space ship's crew in the movie _2001: A Space Odyssey _with HAL, the evil computer.


----------



## Cal (Jun 10, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> No thank you! That scenario reminds me too much of some of the space ship's crew in the movie _2001: A Space Odyssey _with HAL, the evil computer.


Or _Passengers_


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 14, 2021)

Anderson said:


> I feel like this might (ironically) be a side-effect of the pandemic and the environmental "push" potentially restricting/highly taxing international flights.


I feel like fuel guzzling high altitude flights are likely to be at the top of the list for maximum taxes, fees, and surcharges. Otherwise why bother?



Anderson said:


> I can see a scenario where a 787 is running all-coach/premium economy while the SST is the Business Class operation.


All-business aircraft are a rare breed relative to the APEX market. It's hard to entice status flyers to remain loyal if premium upgrades require switching to a completely different flight. In my view there is nothing wrong with the BC experience on the B787 so I see no need to spend a fortune removing it.


----------



## jis (Jun 14, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> All-business aircraft are a rare breed relative to the APEX market. It's hard to entice status flyers to remain loyal if premium upgrades require switching to a completely different flight. In my view there is nothing wrong with the BC experience on the B787 so I see no need to spend a fortune removing it.


I tend to agree. All BC aircraft can be sustained only on routes that have enough BC to fill the aircraft based on normal fares without discounts or discounted upgrades.

I had flown in one from Stuttgart to Newark flown by Privatair for Lufthansa. The aircraft was a BBJ. AFAICT everyone one that flight was full fare. That was during a brief period when I reported directly to a Senior VP at HP.

Actually the BC pods in 748/773s/787s in both Lufthansa and United today are way better than what was on that BBJ.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 18, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I feel like fuel guzzling high altitude flights are likely to be at the top of the list for maximum taxes, fees, and surcharges. Otherwise why bother?


That presumes that elected officials can be arsed to differentiate (when is the last time that the law was _ahead _of business?). A scheme like the UK uses at present would either (1) peg the seats on the flights in question as "business class" and charge the higher APD rate or (2) potentially get botched and note that the all-J arrangement is the "lowest class available on the plane in question". Note that as the rules are presently written for the UK, if sold today tickets on the Concorde would fall under the reduced rate as the flight was single-class (so Business was the "lowest available class") and the seat pitch was 37 inches (so under the 40" cap).

Obviously, the rule could be re-written but there's a good chance that either Parliament or the DfT (or the equivalent bodies elsewhere) either couldn't be bothered or would simply opt not to do so in a fairly classic move to cater to wealthy "clients" (i.e. donors). Heck, this sort of thing might even dodge the attention of environmental campaigners for a while (if only because the latter are in a sufficiently target-rich environment right, and chasing oil companies is probably easier), especially if the flights are only running on a few routes in modest numbers.

(Note: The 40" rule seems to be aimed at avoiding catching exit row seats under the rule even if the airline charges extra for them...but a TATL flight on an SST would likely have seat pitches in the 36-40" range since time in-flight is likely to be on par with a midrange domestic flight.)


----------



## Brian Battuello (Jun 18, 2021)

A very interesting podcast about Boom and supersonic travel:









AvTalk Episode 115: Is Boom all noise? | Flightradar24 Blog


On this episode of AvTalk we welcome John Walton and John Ostrower to discuss Boom’s supersonic jet and United Airlines’ order to if it’s ever going to fly.




www.flightradar24.com





They tried to keep an open mind about many issues, but the thing that really stuck out was that Boom doesn't have an engine, or even a rough design for one. They went into how airframe manufacturers and engine companies work hand in hand to build a new aircraft, and often help finance each other through the design process. Boom has no one on the engine side. It costs a fortune to develop a new engine, and no one is going to do it just on the hope that Boom will buy a few in 5-10 years. 

You want to learn about supersonic engines, talk to the military. Be sure and ask how many hours they get between overhauls.

Anyone can do a mockup and some fancy graphics. They didn't want to badmouth United too badly, but it sure smells like a publicity stunt.


----------



## jis (Jun 18, 2021)

From the getgo the United thing with Boom has seemed like a publicity stunt to me. I have no idea what value United sees in that stunt. Is it going to cause anyone to fly one extra segment on United or move over to United from some other airline in anticipation of a hypothetical Supersonic travel a decade away? It is not clear they have even committed a single penny other than for creating marketing blurbs on this. Very strange.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 18, 2021)

OK, to step back: My point on why the mid-Pacific fueling stop is simply this: The time lost in the fueling stop and the disruption for the passengers for landing and takeoff, and likely deboard during fueling is that it would negate most of the advantages of the faster flying time. If I had a choice between 12 hours on a flight and an 8 to 9 hour end to end time with a get off and on in the middle, I think I would go for the longer time without disruption. After all, a fuel stop for a plane is going to take at least 2 hours maybe 3 hours in addition to the non-stop air time. If they can't haul enough fuel to get the blooming thing across the Pacific, why bother at all?


----------



## jis (Jun 18, 2021)

George Harris said:


> OK, to step back: My point on why the mid-Pacific fueling stop is simply this: The time lost in the fueling stop and the disruption for the passengers for landing and takeoff, and likely deboard during fueling is that it would negate most of the advantages of the faster flying time.


Why would they have to deboard? I have been through several unplanned and planned fueling stops in Fiji on the way to Auststralia on 747s and we never had to deboard. They just parked at a remote stand, filled up and were on their way as soon as done. Apparently it took a bit more time for the brakes to cool down sufficently than to actually complete the refueling.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 18, 2021)

George Harris said:


> OK, to step back: My point on why the mid-Pacific fueling stop is simply this: The time lost in the fueling stop and the disruption for the passengers for landing and takeoff, and likely deboard during fueling is that it would negate most of the advantages of the faster flying time. If I had a choice between 12 hours on a flight and an 8 to 9 hour end to end time with a get off and on in the middle, I think I would go for the longer time without disruption. After all, a fuel stop for a plane is going to take at least 2 hours maybe 3 hours in addition to the non-stop air time. If they can't haul enough fuel to get the blooming thing across the Pacific, why bother at all?



There’s no reason for a fuel stop to take 2-3 hours if you’re not doing anything else. If the airport is along a reasonably direct flight path, the time for landing, taxiing, and taking off back to cruise again shouldn’t be more than 30-45 minutes. The fueling itself would take a similar amount of time (just a guess, though, because I really have no idea how much fuel this plane will use).

For reference, the recently cancelled BA flight 1, flying from London City Airport to New York via Shannon had an end-to-end schedule 90 minutes longer than nonstop flights LHR-JFK. The ground time in Shannon was for refueling (though they also used it to preclear passengers for US customs & immigration).


----------



## Ziv (Jun 18, 2021)

I always wanted to visit Fairbanks, now I have the perfect excuse for a 30 minute visit!



Trogdor said:


> There’s no reason for a fuel stop to take 2-3 hours if you’re not doing anything else. If the airport is along a reasonably direct flight path, the time for landing, taxiing, and taking off back to cruise again shouldn’t be more than 30-45 minutes. The fueling itself would take a similar amount of time (just a guess, though, because I really have no idea how much fuel this plane will use).
> 
> For reference, the recently cancelled BA flight 1, flying from London City Airport to New York via Shannon had an end-to-end schedule 90 minutes longer than nonstop flights LHR-JFK. The ground time in Shannon was for refueling (though they also used it to preclear passengers for US customs & immigration).


----------



## George Harris (Jun 18, 2021)

No need to deboard during refueling duly noted. My only experience with stops made for refuel only were on flights 50 years ago going back and forth to Vietnam courtesy of the US Army and via flights on never-heard-of-them-before and hope-to-never-see-them-again charter airlines, and we had to deboard for the occasion. Most of these were announced as one hour on the ground stops but commonly took longer. As to the 90 minutes longer time with the Shannon stop, I consider that amazingly short. For the supersonic plane, what would be the difference with a much higher top speed? I know when on rails the higher the through speed, the greater the time penalty for a stop, and I would think for a plane it probably be worse, but then I claim no expertise in this area.


----------



## railiner (Jun 18, 2021)

Ziv said:


> I always wanted to visit Fairbanks, now I have the perfect excuse for a 30 minute visit!


Then you better do it westbound...back before the 747SP made New York/Tokyo nonstops possible, the nightly Pan Am flight made a stop at Fairbanks, to service the 707, and change crew. Eastbound, the passenger's were kept in an 'in-transit' lounge, and cleared custom's and immigration at JFK.
Pan Am would sell space to and from Fairbanks either way, but anyone boarding in Fairbanks (very few), still had to clear customs even though they were on a 'domestic' segment.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 19, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> All-business aircraft are a rare breed relative to the APEX market. It's hard to entice status flyers to remain loyal if premium upgrades require switching to a completely different flight. In my view there is nothing wrong with the BC experience on the B787 so I see no need to spend a fortune removing it.


That depends on how you handle the scheduling. If you're sliding folks around by a few hours and moving them halfway down the terminal, that's one thing (visions of the ending of _Airplane _come to mind...). If the flights board simultaneously, leave within five minutes of one another, and use neighboring gates (but the SST gets to the destination a few hours faster), that feels like an entirely different ballgame.

As the main "target" market would seem to be the daylight East Coast-Europe markets, on the present timetables an easy example is that you could have an SST "shadow" Virgin Atlantic's morning flight out of JFK (depart JFK 0815 NYC time, would arrive LHR 1710 London time if you go by the old Concorde schedule) and then "shadow" the return flight (depart LHR 1850 London time, arrive JFK 1745 NYC time). Presuming a 787 vs a 50-seater SST, you could probably begin boarding simultaneously (or even start the SST after the 787) and still get the SST "out the door" faster. The question there would be turn times, but I think that timetable (which is not far off of BA's pre-accident Concorde schedule...you could presumably slide the relevant flights by 10-20 minutes if needed to get the turn time right) would generally work. The reverse schedule would be trickier...but you could probably have the LHR departure tag to one of the first flights in the morning and then the JFK departure to one of the _last _departures at night (an SST with a 2130 departure JFK time would actually arrive at about the same time as the 1830 flight out of JFK...the idea of an "overnight" TATL flight only taking four hours but still avoiding graveyard hours is kind-of surreal).

Now, my guess (FWIW) is that you don't totally _eliminate _the front cabin on the 787...but you _can _reduce its size.

(Notably, if I'm not mistaken then it _looks _like you could probably run a round-trip on the SST with a single crew and no hotel needed versus the 787 needing two crews and a hotel night to work.)

If Boom's range pans out, 4250 NM puts a number of city pairs within reach (if you can get the sonic boom to go off in the right place, at least). SEA-TYO comes to mind, as does (surreally) SEA/YVR-LHR (though this might be impeded by rules on where the plane can go boom...an uncomfortable choice of words if ever I saw one). Does anyone know if Canada has a CONUS-style ban on sonic booms? I wonder because much of the great circle route up there is _extremely _rural.


----------

