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.
https://boomsupersonic.com/united
https://boomsupersonic.com/united
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.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.
https://boomsupersonic.com/united
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: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.
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.Are they going to allow them to fly over US land territory? [...] If no, then, just like the Concorde, its utility will be limited.
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?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.
Exactly, didn't we just spend 15 months figuring out how to avoid in-person business meetings. We should be concentrating on improving efficiency.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.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.
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.If this is real, and not just some publicity stunt or investment scheme, I would welcome it.
Seems like a more relevant factor would be how many of them travel on all-business aircraft.There are a lot of people who travel by BC who are not traveling on business too.
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.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.
My one trip on the Concorde( to Mexico) now reminds me of today's cramped,packed Planes.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.
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...My one trip on the Concorde( to Mexico) now reminds me of today's cramped,packed Planes.
Holly crap. The CEO claims you will eventually be able to get anywhere on the planet in under four hours for $100!!!
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!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...
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.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!
Appreciate that info jis, and see my correction re the Flight)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
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....Appreciate that info jis, and see my correction re the Flight)
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.
They had to have Braniff cockpit crew for flights carrying commercial traffic between two points within the US because of cabotage rules too probably.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....
Enter your email address to join: