Boom is an aeronautics company that’s working on bringing back supersonic passenger air travel. The company’s main product is the Boom Overture, which is essentially intended to be the modern day Concorde.
This is an incredibly ambitious project with a lot of smart people behind it. I have no doubt that bringing back supersonic passenger air travel is possible in terms of the technology. What I’m skeptical about is the timeline, and also the economic viability:
- Boom hopes for the Overture to enter the service before the end of the decade; just as a reminder, Boeing announced the 777X concept in 2013, and the plane isn’t yet certified, and it’s only an evolution of an existing aircraft
- Assuming Boom can get the many billions of dollars of funding that it needs, the company will need to sell a lot of planes in order to actually make money on this project, and will need to price the plane low enough so that it’s attractive to airlines
With that in mind, Boom’s CEO has provided an explanation of the business case for the Overture, and it’s… quite something.
In this post:
Boom CEO sees demand for 1,000+ Overture aircraft
Boom CEO Blake Scholl published a series of posts on Twitter/X, explaining why he thinks that supersonic flight will work at scale for the Boom Overture, when it didn’t work for the Concorde. He points out how only 14 Concordes were ever planned, while he thinks there will be 1,000+ Overtures.
That is a jaw-dropping claim, so how does he justify it? Well, see the below thread…
So Scholl estimates that airlines will “need” 1,000+ Overtures, and that number is “probably too low,” as he sees there being 600+ viable markets. The math behind that is simply that he has taken all of the daily premium seats on profitable routes of over 2.5 hours, then has nearly doubled them (to account for increased air travel demand between now and 2039). Then he has divided those seats by the number of seats on the Overture (64 business class seats), to come up with the “need” for 2,973 Overture flights per day.
In other words, the logic is basically that “if we capture 100% of business class demand on overwater flights of over 2.5 hours, there will be a need for over 1,000 Overture aircraft.” That… I mean… is one way to calculate potential market position. Keep in mind this appears to even be including routes beyond the range of the Overture, where a refueling stop would be required.
Folks, maybe I’m in the wrong line of work. I’m quitting OMAAT, and I’m starting an e-comm business. I’ve done the research, and if I can get just 100% of the existing global e-comm market, I’m going to be a trillionaire!
Why supersonic travel won’t be appealing to airlines
The concept of supersonic travel is no doubt cool, and I trust there are very smart engineers who could make this a reality. It’s all just a function of economics, and that includes there being interest from airlines.
If the Boom Overture were to get to the point where it’s in production, it’s certified, and it’s available at a reasonable cost, I could see some airlines being interested in this in very limited circumstances. Frankly, I see demand being comparable to what it was for the Concorde, in terms of viable routes.
However, the concept of “hey, we’ll just capture all of the existing premium cabin market share” just doesn’t work, and isn’t very appealing to airlines. For one, what happens to the existing fleets of airlines? Like, if United wanted to fly the Boom Overture in all of its lucrative transatlantic markets, what would it do with its existing aircraft? After all, the Boom Overture would cannibalize premium revenue, and make the carrier’s existing flights unprofitable.
Airlines make money in a variety of ways, and it’s not just as straightforward as “oh, airlines make a lot of their revenue and profits from business class, so let’s just fly these all-business class jets, and forget everyone else.” For example:
- Airlines also make some revenue from cargo, and obviously the Boom Overture wouldn’t have any substantial cargo capacity
- Airline profitability is also dependent on upsell opportunities, increased engagement in airline loyalty programs, etc., and a supersonic all-business class jet provides fewer of those opportunities
- Airlines have complex hub and spoke systems they use to build their networks, not to mention joint ventures, which also complicate all of this
- With the Boom Overture’s range being restricted to roughly 4,000 nautical miles, the plane couldn’t fly virtually any transpacific route, so the actual nonstop range is limiting for the markets where the time savings could be most significant
Scholl was asked exactly this question in response to his explanation of the business case, and his response is essentially that there will be a shrinking of subsonic premium cabins over time, and “economy fares might go up a little, but it will be within the noise of normal fluctuations.”
That… doesn’t make any sense. If you argue that 80% of operating profits on long haul aircraft come from business class, how do you expect for there to continue to be subsonic flights with economy that are profitable? Scholl is basically advocating for a step back in terms of global connectivity, that economy needs to get more expensive, so that rich people can fly supersonic.
Bottom line
Boom is working on bringing back supersonic passenger air travel with its Overture product. The company’s CEO sees demand for 1,000+ supersonic planes, and the logic basically seems to be that if the company can capture 100% of premium demand on profitable routes of over 2.5 hours, then that’s the number we arrive at. Maybe it’s just me, but that logic seems more than a little optimistic…
What do you make of the business case for the Boom Overture?
People keep forgetting, his job isn't to build supersonic airliners.
His job is getting other people's money to build it.
Gamer A380. Trenton 747. Ghana hub. Railroad infringement. Fyre. PAC. Super PAC.
This guy has gotten this far. I think it is cool that he is even attempting something so crazy. It is insane that in terms of flight speed technology, we are behind where we were in 1970s.
There is a reason we (allegedly) went to the moon in the 70s and never returned.
Whilst the development and production costs of the 14 Concordes that entered service were never recouped by the Anglo/French governments, articles such as this generally neglect how profitable Concorde was on an operational basis for BA during its peak years. In the late 80s/early 90s the BA Concorde fleet generated 25% of the airline’s profits. That’s a quarter of the profit of one of the world’s largest airlines generated by 7 aircraft…
Obviously times...
Whilst the development and production costs of the 14 Concordes that entered service were never recouped by the Anglo/French governments, articles such as this generally neglect how profitable Concorde was on an operational basis for BA during its peak years. In the late 80s/early 90s the BA Concorde fleet generated 25% of the airline’s profits. That’s a quarter of the profit of one of the world’s largest airlines generated by 7 aircraft…
Obviously times have changed and the circumstances that supported that market may no longer exist, but the narrative that commercial supersonic flight has never been profitable is patently incorrect.
"In the late 80s/early 90s the BA Concorde fleet generated 25% of the airline’s profits."
Citation needed. Very much doubt that that's true.
I wasn’t writing an academic piece of work, so I don’t need to cite! There are plenty of documentaries (Youtube) and books on Concorde and this stat is regularly mentioned. It stemmed from the two most senior pilots Brian Walpole and Jock Lowe being given complete control over the operation in the 1980s; and it was they who realised just how much business travellers were willing to pay to travel to and from NYC/London in...
I wasn’t writing an academic piece of work, so I don’t need to cite! There are plenty of documentaries (Youtube) and books on Concorde and this stat is regularly mentioned. It stemmed from the two most senior pilots Brian Walpole and Jock Lowe being given complete control over the operation in the 1980s; and it was they who realised just how much business travellers were willing to pay to travel to and from NYC/London in a day.
They hiked the prices and made it super-premium - first class plus 20% (Air France marketed it as business class plus so never made as much) - and they also developed the charter business.
It wasn’t always that profitable, but at its peak it was.
I wasn’t writing an academic piece of work, so I don’t need to cite! There are plenty of documentaries (Youtube) and books on Concorde and this stat is regularly mentioned. It stemmed from the two most senior pilots Brian Walpole and Jock Lowe being given complete control over the operation in the 1980s; and it was they who realised just how much business travellers were willing to pay to travel to and from NYC/London in...
I wasn’t writing an academic piece of work, so I don’t need to cite! There are plenty of documentaries (Youtube) and books on Concorde and this stat is regularly mentioned. It stemmed from the two most senior pilots Brian Walpole and Jock Lowe being given complete control over the operation in the 1980s; and it was they who realised just how much business travellers were willing to pay to travel to and from NYC/London in a day.
They hiked the prices and made it super-premium - first class plus 20% (Air France marketed it as business class plus so never made as much) - and they also developed the charter business.
It wasn’t always that profitable, but at its peak it was.
Because it isn't.
It's a misapplied stat from solely the year 1999, where BA made its largest individual Concorde profit (which it reported separately) at £60M, off of £225M in pre-tax earnings, for a nearly 27% contribution.
This was *not* the norm, but a great year for their Concorde program... which was bolstered by the a venture with Rex Travel, which allowed for the multiple round-the-world Concorde tours that...
Because it isn't.
It's a misapplied stat from solely the year 1999, where BA made its largest individual Concorde profit (which it reported separately) at £60M, off of £225M in pre-tax earnings, for a nearly 27% contribution.
This was *not* the norm, but a great year for their Concorde program... which was bolstered by the a venture with Rex Travel, which allowed for the multiple round-the-world Concorde tours that year, available to the public for $60,000 double-occupancy. And sold out.
By BA's own admission, Concorde was not profitable 1976-1983. They didn't even increase the price of supersonic tickets separately in scale to their other premium offerings, until 1986, with the first returns on that policy showing in the y.e. 1987's earnings.
And even then, Concorde struggled with profitability in the early 1990s (particularly 1992 and 1993) resulting in both Washington/Dulles and Miami ending as scheduled destinations, the year thereafter.
The program overall did make an operational profit for BA, but it was nowhere remotely near "a quarter of the profit of one of the world’s largest airlines generated by 7 aircraft," as much as someone like me wishes it was.
Because if so, BA would've told Chevron to go F itself, and found a way to get more M2V for its "Relife-1" and "ReLife-2" programs that would've seen Concorde flying well into the 20teens, even after the crash.
Will a range of 4000 nm cut it? That's not enough to make London-LA, let alone NY-Hong Kong. Tech stopd to refuel takes us back to the DC-10/747-200 days, and will erode a significant amount of the time advantage.
Lucky for business travelers, their assumed target customer, range of 4000 nm isn't an issue when they have ZOOM and email to use.
Their recent tests supposedly demonstrated they can fly over land without a sonic boom. The problem though is that there doesn't really seem to be any critical reporting on this and, as a result, most articles were just repeating Boom talking points. From what I could find, some issues with their "boomless" tech include:
1. They need to fly at specific altitudes with specific atmospheric temperatures. When doing a test flight in wide open air...
Their recent tests supposedly demonstrated they can fly over land without a sonic boom. The problem though is that there doesn't really seem to be any critical reporting on this and, as a result, most articles were just repeating Boom talking points. From what I could find, some issues with their "boomless" tech include:
1. They need to fly at specific altitudes with specific atmospheric temperatures. When doing a test flight in wide open air space, switching altitudes is probably incredibly simple to do. However, when flying through congest air corridors, you likely can't just switch altitudes whenever. Meaning it's not guaranteed that the plane will be able to fly super sonic over land.
The caveat there is it's not clear to me if the plane will need to consistently change altitude during the flight or if it can pick one altitude and stay there for most of the flight with minimal adjustments. Commercial planes also make minor altitude adjustments throughout a flight. But overall, from what I read, it seems like the plane needs pretty specific conditions to be able to fly "boomless"
2. I also read a different article where someone was quoted as saying that, when flying "boomless" over land the plane won't fly at its top speed and the speed that it will fly out is incredibly fuel inefficient and will make flying the plane profitably over land virtually impossible.
Not sure if either claim is true or not but it's surprising how little critical journalism there is on Boom to really fact check the things they are saying. If someone can tell me whether either of the points above are correct, or partially correct, that'd be great as I'm really curious. Bonus points if you have links to high quality articles/videos really stress testing Boom's claims in and around flying over land without a sonic boom.
THAT right there, is the main reason why we won't see such a thing, under current (or even foreseeable) technology.
Even if regulatory permissions were granted, and airlines could operate at those speeds; they would not choose to do so. Because drag increases exponentially (not linearly) in speeds both before and after...
THAT right there, is the main reason why we won't see such a thing, under current (or even foreseeable) technology.
Even if regulatory permissions were granted, and airlines could operate at those speeds; they would not choose to do so. Because drag increases exponentially (not linearly) in speeds both before and after the trans-sonic zone.
That's why Concorde brought in its afterburners at 0.93M and kept them on until M1.6; it was more economical to inject pure fuel into its exhaust stream in order to GTFO of the trans-sonic zone, than it was to spend any more time there than absolutely necessary.
This is also why Boeing's "Sonic Cruiser" proposal from the early 2000s (advertised to cruise at 0.98M) was such a joke from the start. The only passenger transports you'll ever see routinely doing that, are private jets on short hops.
@AI
Are you claiming that the craft can fly over land at supersonic speeds without the sonic boom effects?
@justin dev - boom is claiming
https://www.aero-mag.com/boom-unveils-boomless-cruise-for-quiet-supersonic-travel
In related don't believe it until you see it department news, Global Airlines is now saying they will start NY-London flights this May.
Correction - it will be JFK - Glasgow/ Manchester.
One of the most ridiculous things that stuck out to me is just the basic revenue math.
If he expects to get $5k EACH WAY, which is a huge premium over lay flat business class on even long haul flights like JFK-DOH, then that works out to 320k a plane. I'm pretty sure that's significantly less revenue they'd get from a 777, not including cargo. And I'm sure the Book will cost closer to a 777 than an A321, so....DOA
They will make some prototypes and raise capital before ending the project. A handful of early investors including the CEO will be well compensated during bankruptcy.
I’m a very important business man with a 9am meeting in Dublin. I must catch a flight from BOS DUB that will fly 2 hours faster.
You're missing the point.
Saving 2 hours each way means after your 9am meeting, you'll be home in time for dinner.
Or at least that's the dream selling of supersonic.
I have the sneaking suspicion that whoever is behind this, is gonna be sharing a cell with Elizabeth Holmes or Sam Bankman-Fried, one day.
I want to believe there will be a new Concorde, I really do. But there have been some big red flags with this thing. Probably the biggest is that every company with experience building supersonic aircraft, has been approached by Boom for a partnership, yet decided to pass. Airbus, Lockheed, all the engine makers, etc.
As noted elsewhere in the comments, typical MBA pie-in-the-sky turd polishing.
And they'll need an engine. A small detail, but one that the glorified car salesmen that run outfits like this often forget.
Ben, United could easily reconfigure some WBs to the Air Canada model with 90% of the plane Y and 10% J for transatlantic routes that also feature Boom flights. That would presumably keep those planes profitable and not leave everyone else behind. Slot constraints would require some more thought, but I could see a world where airlines get their cake and can eat it.
I don’t know if this will ever happen, but as...
Ben, United could easily reconfigure some WBs to the Air Canada model with 90% of the plane Y and 10% J for transatlantic routes that also feature Boom flights. That would presumably keep those planes profitable and not leave everyone else behind. Slot constraints would require some more thought, but I could see a world where airlines get their cake and can eat it.
I don’t know if this will ever happen, but as much as I love flying in business, at this point, I would likely rather just get where I’m going quickly.
@ DFW Flyer -- I just don't see that working. Sure, in summer you can fill high capacity jets to Europe, but in winter, there's just not the demand for that. It's common to see US carriers operating half empty jets to Heathrow in the off season. The way those flights make money is because many of the premium seats are full.
Air Canada works because the govt bails then out and for years they had very little domestic competition.
So who is making their engines? In-house. That will be a double money loser.
The reason every all-business airline fails or dies a slow death, because there is nothing aspirational and nothing to pretend one is 'better' by flying a higher class. Pyramid like desire is a need for the human species.
hi eskimo
One is inclined to conclude that the ‘blue sky thinking’ is actually, ‘pie in the sky’.
Having endured a Concorde flight of over five hours (which included the obligatory fuel stop), in little better than economy seats, with insufficient headroom in the very cramped lavatory, isle, etc; I am now content with longer more comfortable flights in F, in the excellent A350 or A380 aircraft.
Concorde's biggest and most insurmountable opponent, was never another aircraft, or even its own costs... it was the internet.
As much as people think of it as a leisurely plaything for the super-rich (which it was indeed), its primary utilization and profit came from banking and commodities companies that used it for last minute short-notice transatlantic contract signings, sometimes roundtrip in less than 24hrs:
Cantor Fitzgerald being by far the largest example, with some...
Concorde's biggest and most insurmountable opponent, was never another aircraft, or even its own costs... it was the internet.
As much as people think of it as a leisurely plaything for the super-rich (which it was indeed), its primary utilization and profit came from banking and commodities companies that used it for last minute short-notice transatlantic contract signings, sometimes roundtrip in less than 24hrs:
Cantor Fitzgerald being by far the largest example, with some of its executives and couriers riding Concorde weekly or more.
BA's second daily JFK-LHR was nicknamed "the Cantor Concorde," and it was never brought back after (the return-to-service, post) 9/11, as more than 100 of its most frequent flyers perished in the Twin Towers. :(
But getting back to the point at hand:
The second the electronically-signed PDF became accepted for/as a binding legal transaction in the USA (the "Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce" Act; passed in 2000), that was essentially a wrap for supersonic air service's business case.
Why pay $12,000 for a same-day contract signing, when you could now do it for free and instantly?
Let’s also not forget the rise of video conferencing. No need to fly somewhere for a face-to-face.
Indeed, the internet killed supersonic passenger transport.
I can totally see the argument about contract signing above/ But video conferencing as a substitute for in person meetings has already begun to wane post-COVID. Maybe it saves some consultant travel, but nobody who travels international to visit clients/customer is just hopping on Zoom instead anymore. Especially in places like Asia where face is extremely important. I did a lot of video chats with people in 2020-2021 who I'd normally see a few times...
I can totally see the argument about contract signing above/ But video conferencing as a substitute for in person meetings has already begun to wane post-COVID. Maybe it saves some consultant travel, but nobody who travels international to visit clients/customer is just hopping on Zoom instead anymore. Especially in places like Asia where face is extremely important. I did a lot of video chats with people in 2020-2021 who I'd normally see a few times a year. By 2022, they had all but stopped and it was more "lets meet next time you are here".
Blake is living his best life, and has so far found enough people to invest in his dream.
Good for him.
I don’t think the plane will ever be a meaningful product, but I salute him for trying.
Funnily enough, the part that gets me with all of this is that picture of the a330-200ish plane and what they claim the portion 60 flatbed seats take up. Even just assuming business class and no F, 60 seats in a 330-200 would take up close to 2/3 of the plane, not the front quarter (most airlines can only get 18 to 20 flatbed J seats in that front portion).
That image is of an A300/A310, so perhaps he was going off of 1970s/1980s era business class seats (in 2-3-2 config)?
He was explicitly referring to lie flat seats in this conversation thread, especially talking about how liflat business class is 80% of the profits for long-haul routes with airlines.
1000+ airframes. Can't doubt his ambition.
It seems to be typical MBA leadership. Overhype the huge potential market before the technology is even proven.
And in the meantime (just Google it): "...According to Boom, a seat on Overture will consume two to three times more fuel than business class seating on today’s widebodies, and seven to 10 times more fuel than an economy seat..."
So how's that gonna work?