Boom is an aeronautics company that has been working on bringing back supersonic passenger air travel. Specifically, the company’s main product is the Boom Overture, which you can basically think of as trying to be the modern day Concorde.
The company was founded back in 2014, and the goal is that the Boom Overture could be carrying passengers by 2029. Boom has secured 130 orders (or pre-orders) with several airlines, including American Airlines, Japan Airlines, and United Airlines.
Boom has now announced a major development, as the company has opened the factory where it intends to produce the Boom Overture. Now the question just remains of whether a commercial aircraft will ever be produced here.
In this post:
Boom opens massive Overture Superfactory
Boom is this week celebrating the opening of the Overture Superfactory, in Greensboro, North Carolina. The new factory is intended to house the final assembly line, test facility, and customer delivery center, for the Boom Overture.
This is the first supersonic airliner factory in the United States. The company claims that this facility strengthens US next-generation leadership in aerospace manufacturing, and will grow North Carolina’s economy by at least $32.3 billion over 20 years, adding more than 2,400 jobs.
The first assembly line will be able to produce 33 Overture supersonic aircraft annually, while a planned second assembly line will be able to double production, to 66 aircraft annually. The company sure is optimistic if it thinks there will be sustained demand for 66 of these aircraft per year.
Now the Boom Overture just needs to become a thing!
It goes without saying that this facility is a major investment. Now the question is just whether a plane carrying passengers will ever be produced here.
To Boom’s credit, the company is incredibly well funded, and recently even got an investment from Saudi Arabia’s NEOM Investment Fund. Furthermore, there’s no denying that what Boom is trying to build is possible — we’ve had supersonic travel before, and we could have supersonic travel again.
The question is, can Boom build a plane that’s commercially viable, that gets support from regulators, and that could actually be carrying passengers by 2029 (or at least any time in the foreseeable future)? That’s something I’m more skeptical of:
- Boeing announced the 777X concept in 2013, and that’s expected to enter service in 2025 at the absolute earliest; that was “only” an update to an existing jet from one of the world’s largest aircraft manufacturers, so the timeline just seems highly unrealistic here
- The manufacturer of the Concorde never made money on the plane; most orders for the Concorde were never followed through on
- Given the range of the jet and the need for supersonic flight to be overwater, the actual markets where this is a viable concept are limited; sure, there’s New York to London, but aside from that, there aren’t that many city pairs
- I don’t think there’s a need for supersonic travel in the same way there used to be; premium travel has improved so much in terms of comfort, Wi-Fi connectivity, etc., so time spent traveling isn’t “wasted” in the same way as before
- With environmentalism being an increasingly important topic for airlines, I just don’t see how this concept fits into that, even if it’s much more fuel efficient than the Concorde was
So yeah, maybe the Boom Overture could be carrying passengers by 2040 if Boom is willing to take a multi-billion dollar loss on the project (which… is not how business works).
But I’d be absolutely shocked if the Boom Overture launches anywhere close to 2029, and ends up becoming a commercially viable concept. This is an area where I’d love to be proven wrong, though. The commercial aircraft manufacturing industry could use some competition, and I’m delighted to see some companies trying.
As a reminder, below is the prototype that Boom has to show so far for its work, a decade after the company was founded. Can we go from this to the Boom Overture being in commercial service in just six more years?
Bottom line
Boom has opened its Superfactory in North Carolina, where the company hopes to one day produce 33 Overture supersonic jets per year. This is a major investment, and it’s clear that Boom is serious about its mission of bringing back supersonic air travel.
Now the question just remains of how fast the company can fully design the technology needed for this plane and get it certified, and also if it can do so in an economically viable manner. Maybe Boeing has just made me jaded, but given the pace at which Boeing gets planes certified, you can surely understand my skepticism.
What do you think — will a commercial jet ever be produced in Boom’s Superfactory?
Who is going to want to pay an International Business fare and sit in a Domestic First soeat? Personally for the same money I would prefer to spend a few more hours on the plane in lie flat. Even thaough it is supposed to fly on 100% green sustainable fuel no one is producing enough to sustain a flight much less a fleet. And it will still burn much more fuel so would you rather fly more poeple further slower.
Space on board will be an issue, so no way you will be able to compete with modern J/F products. Maybe this cold work as a private/business jet.
They'll manage to offer a decent Business Class seat for 6h flights, if ever accomplished. People should come to realize that even if United or American ever get this aircraft, this plane won't be for used by the regular passenger, very few people need to be on London or Tokyo the same day. It's stupid and pretencious to think this plane is aimed for the regular folk, the costs just don't make sense for that segment.
Why would you need to? What's the point of a lieflat on a 3.5hr daylight flight?
The plane originally was going to fly at Concorde speeds (mach 2) but with each update it is a little slower (mach 1.7). If you live on the east coast it will be a +4 hr flight to London. Elsewhere another flight with a connection making ORD-LHR the roughly the same time.
They doubted the Wright Brothers because they did not believe they could fly. Now there are airlines all over the world. Everything we use was an idea and a dream that came to realization. I believe in the dream and working toward a dream is better than sitting around wishing and doing nothing. All the doubters and dream killers will one day look to travel on one of Boom Overture Jets. See you at the gates.
....LOL!
I can’t believe how pessimistic you are. I’m quite sure that “Overture” will come to fruition. Much money/investment and time has been given to this project. Comparing “Boom” to Boeing is ridiculously stupid. But than again, you are…
You misspelled "realistic."
But nowhere near enough. Concorde cost billions, and that was a half century ago, with full government backing, and in a world before the internet made business communication/signings instantaneous.
This has raised a pittance.
Let's agree that there is no meaningful time benefit to supersonic flight on short-haul routes. As designed, the magnitude of the aircraft's sonic boom will prevent over-land routes. So, it is limited to over-water routes. Its range limits which over-water routes are feasible. Its revised design puts the aircraft's anticipated cruise speed substantially lower than originally designed . . . so, maybe you save 1.5 hours LHR to JFK. Punt.
Totally agree, the pretention that a big group of people have the money or the position to travel on luxurious vessels that take 3h to London or Tokyo to have business meetings the same day is laughable. If airlines ever get this aircraft, it will be for the super rich and famous not your regular business traveller, prices won't be comparable from what's been said.
If you want to see doubt, just look to the airlines with "orders" for Boom's proposed product:
My understanding is that American never allowed Boom to use their image nor corporate insignia in any of its advertisements, and that United only did so for one year.
Also dug through their relevant 10K/10Q filings from the time of the announcements, and could find nothing to indicate the "deposits" that they had placed.
My conclusion is that...
If you want to see doubt, just look to the airlines with "orders" for Boom's proposed product:
My understanding is that American never allowed Boom to use their image nor corporate insignia in any of its advertisements, and that United only did so for one year.
Also dug through their relevant 10K/10Q filings from the time of the announcements, and could find nothing to indicate the "deposits" that they had placed.
My conclusion is that they (JL, AA, UA) used this outfit (Boom) for a month's worth of positive advertisement, and by the time it inevitably folds, no one in the public will have any association between Boom and those airlines' brands.
I read through some interviews with the CEO, Blake Scholl. His target is mainly business travelers crossing oceans. He mentions having refuelling stops in Tahiti, Alaska. From the interview:
Regarding supersonic travel for the business traveler:
"Here’s the magic, leave a whole day later, a Sunday morning flight from say San Francisco gets to Tokyo US time, Sunday afternoon and it’s Monday morning in Tokyo. So we’re awake, they’re awake, do a whole day...
I read through some interviews with the CEO, Blake Scholl. His target is mainly business travelers crossing oceans. He mentions having refuelling stops in Tahiti, Alaska. From the interview:
Regarding supersonic travel for the business traveler:
"Here’s the magic, leave a whole day later, a Sunday morning flight from say San Francisco gets to Tokyo US time, Sunday afternoon and it’s Monday morning in Tokyo. So we’re awake, they’re awake, do a whole day of meetings, catch an overnight flight back and the whole thing took 24 hours and there’s no jet lag because we never had to change time zones."
Regarding utilization at major airports:
"But like I said before, that doesn’t happen instantly and Overture 1 is designed to make smart use of spare capacity today. So to give you some examples of that, everyone says, “London Heathrow is landing slot constrained.” But if you zoom in, it’s actually not quite true, it’s actually wide body gate constrained at the terminal."
On the short range of supersonic planes:
"You can do Seattle-Tokyo nonstop, that’s about the longest one that we can do without refueling. Today stopping means slow, but one of the interesting things about supersonic is if you take a route like LA-Sydney, we don’t have anywhere close to the range to do that nonstop. Today that’s a fourteen, fifteen hour flight. Overture, including the time to refuel in Tahiti can do it in eight-and-a-half hours. So the first generation Overture doesn’t have the range for the longest route nonstop, but it’s still faster and I think the art on that one will be not letting the passengers get off in Tahiti but doing an Indy 500 pit stop and keep going with the flight."
Pretty dang interesting interview.
https://stratechery.com/2023/an-interview-with-boom-founder-blake-scholl-about-building-a-supersonic-airliner/
I'm not sure how attainable the execution is but I can definitely see the vision. It's a bit more than "fast plane go zoom"
Lack of range will do it in. The flight time benefit can only be realised when flying supersonic over water. Lack of range for long over-water routes is partly what made the Concorde unviable.
The Boom's short range means the north Atlantic route is pretty much the only one that would work. West coast USA to Honolulu is viable, but Honolulu to Sydney is out of range, as is Tokyo to San Francisco or LAX,...
Lack of range will do it in. The flight time benefit can only be realised when flying supersonic over water. Lack of range for long over-water routes is partly what made the Concorde unviable.
The Boom's short range means the north Atlantic route is pretty much the only one that would work. West coast USA to Honolulu is viable, but Honolulu to Sydney is out of range, as is Tokyo to San Francisco or LAX, although Seattle to Tokyo is just in range. Parts of Sub Sahara Africa would be in range from Paris or London, but is that a big market for this product?
Boom note that “refueling stops may be required” for longer routes, including trans Pacific. Is there still a time advantage after a stop? Changing the ban on flying supersonic over land seems unlikely, and over land the Boom is only about 20% faster than everything else, to stay under the sound barrier. Unless the range can be extended, it doubt it will be a very viable aircraft.
I guess that would be the plan. Pump out a dozen or so booms for JFK/BOS-LHR/CKG etc. then use that to increase range for other routes
The BOOM will do it in. A quiet coast to coast supersonic (ala NASA and friends) has a business case. East coast and Europe will could make money although only by cannibalizing the profit center International Business class of an airline's other TATL flights. Supersonic will never be a TPAC plane. The hypothtical SEA-Japan probably is probably doable but at a less than the 1.7 mach speed Boom is now promosing.
How many private jets are crossing oceans? Seems to be the only viable market, the insanely rich who value time over money. Even then still too costly
I'm having a hard time with the idea of opening a factory, whether small, medium or supersized, for a product that isn't anywhere near ready for production. It looks more like an attempt to make the company sound like its closer to manufacturing planes, and therefore viable, that it actually is.
They haven't even started work on a full sized prototype. What is there to produce? It will takes years, often a decade or more...
I'm having a hard time with the idea of opening a factory, whether small, medium or supersized, for a product that isn't anywhere near ready for production. It looks more like an attempt to make the company sound like its closer to manufacturing planes, and therefore viable, that it actually is.
They haven't even started work on a full sized prototype. What is there to produce? It will takes years, often a decade or more for well funded and experienced companies like Boeing and Airbus to bring a new airframe to market and no reason to believe Boom, even if it is successful, which is no sure thing, can do it substantially quicker. It doesn't take a decade to construct the building where planes are assembled. Once you have a manufacturable design it's the process that takes the time and big money.
"No civilian supersonic flights over land" is a rule ripe for change. There are plenty of articles about it.
There's zero indication that any significant country is even CONSIDERING it, much less "ripe" to do so.
Sure there's efforts and research, but that's not new... various researchers from NASA, to Airbus, to Grumman have been doing that for more than the past half-century.
Still no closer to supersonic flight over land than we were in the '70s, and very little incentive for that to change.
Interestingly, you are saying all the things that people said when the original 747 was designed. History is ripe with incredible innovations that were laughed at from the start. The Concorde failed, sure, but many others succeeded.
I like that they have been mostly heads down and less about talk. With this they are showing the next stages and that is something. It's clearly a serious and well thought out venture.
Will supersonic travel work...
Interestingly, you are saying all the things that people said when the original 747 was designed. History is ripe with incredible innovations that were laughed at from the start. The Concorde failed, sure, but many others succeeded.
I like that they have been mostly heads down and less about talk. With this they are showing the next stages and that is something. It's clearly a serious and well thought out venture.
Will supersonic travel work today given the failures of the past? It depends. I think fuel burn and range are the most critical aspects. That was mostly Concorde's demise. That is the major component yet to be seen. But if they can build a plane that can transport you to London in 3.5 hours, Paris in 4, or Tokyo in 7, and do it with the ability to charge similar fares to J or even discounted F...that's a game changer. People will line up for it, including me.
Personally, I would rather sit in an equivalent to an E-195 F cabin for 3.5 hours than a fully flat suite with doors for 7. Any day. Especially if the fare is comparable.
The fare won’t be comparable. It’ll be at least double. That’s what Concorde did to make money.
@UncleRonnie
That is my entire point. I said, if they can figure out a way to make it fuel efficient and have better range the fares could potentially be competitive to at least F in standard jets. That was Concorde's biggest hurdle, the one it never overcame given fuel costs. If not, I agree with you, as I originally said.
Sadly the Concorde is like flying in E-195 Y cabin not F.
The slower meal service and staring at people taking turns to take pictures with the Mach counter made the experience much more enjoyable in the tight seats. The view of the sky is also one of a kind at that altitude. Before you know it, you're about to land.
It's an experience but that's about it. I'd take a fully flat F and...
Sadly the Concorde is like flying in E-195 Y cabin not F.
The slower meal service and staring at people taking turns to take pictures with the Mach counter made the experience much more enjoyable in the tight seats. The view of the sky is also one of a kind at that altitude. Before you know it, you're about to land.
It's an experience but that's about it. I'd take a fully flat F and a good rest for 7 hours any day. Especially F fare is always cheaper than R.
Strange enough I'd feel even A318 LCY is more practical than the Concorde.
The need of being somewhere in person immediately isn't like in the 80s anymore.
What Boom doesn't realize (and could be their demise) is that internet is already faster than supersonic jets.
Demand for speed is now larger for leisure travellers than most business already.
@Eskimo
I know, why I used that comparison. I flew it three times from IAD in the 90's when USAir offered redemptions (those were the days). As such I always call the E-195 the baby Concorde, lol.
I also agree on your other statements, for me at least back then it was a novelty, nothing more. However I do see potential should they figure out a way to have fuel burn be just slightly...
@Eskimo
I know, why I used that comparison. I flew it three times from IAD in the 90's when USAir offered redemptions (those were the days). As such I always call the E-195 the baby Concorde, lol.
I also agree on your other statements, for me at least back then it was a novelty, nothing more. However I do see potential should they figure out a way to have fuel burn be just slightly more than a standard jet. And range allowing it to be utilized to Asia from the West Coast. That's the point that you get a market for even leisure travelers who are just shy of affording a Gulfstream but like exclusivity and speed. And that's a pretty significant market.
Superfactory or did they just get a bunch of free money and subsidies to build some class A warehouses.
Bingo. It's a shell game. The money moves around and the principals get paid. The pax and investors who actually think supersonic leisure travel is coming back are gonna be left standing there saying "aw shucks".
This sounds very likely. You can throw up walls in months, certainly no more than a year. All the value is in having a manufacturable design and the know how, tooling, processes and people so you can turn out planes that fly and fly reliably.
If Boom can design and certify a design, great, but I don't think anyone in the aviation field thinks that isn't going to take years and at least a couple of billion dollars no matter how efficiently these guys are.
The playbook of 95% of “start-ups” these days. Take all the free money, suff the exec’s pockets with it, then shut it down
This project needs so much investment, what’s on the table currently is just not nearly enough. My money is on this facility becoming another Airbus assembly plant.
This project will receive almost $200 million in subsidies from state and local governments, mainly the state. NC appropriated $106.7 million for infrastructure and also provided an $87.6 million job development grant paid out over 20 years. Source: Good Jobs First Subsidy Tracker.
If Ben is right about this project’s chances of success, this is another example of poorly thought out subsidy policies, which I’ve written about at length. On the other hand, if it’s...
This project will receive almost $200 million in subsidies from state and local governments, mainly the state. NC appropriated $106.7 million for infrastructure and also provided an $87.6 million job development grant paid out over 20 years. Source: Good Jobs First Subsidy Tracker.
If Ben is right about this project’s chances of success, this is another example of poorly thought out subsidy policies, which I’ve written about at length. On the other hand, if it’s a whopping success, the project didn’t really need the subsidy at all.
A lot of folks say how great the market is, but subsidies like this show how much the market is rigged.
"I have a dream"...etc etc etc.
Some really worked...some also ended up like Theranos.
Tesla is a work in progress - the way that the rest of the industry is catching up....we shall not forget that Musk has been bankrupt several times and that it can happen again.
A little submarine went underwater and even the CEO died.
We won't know whether BOOM will work, but you can bet on the fact that everyone loves to believe in a moonshot
Elon Musk bankrupt several times?
You watch too much CNN.
He has. Read or watch something out of your comfort zone & learn something other than you want to believe & agree with.
I'm willing to bet this turns into an A220 factory within 5 years.
They still don't have an engine, do they?
They don't need an engine when you have hope, vision and the blessing of God.
That's how America has survived for centuries, and nothing has gone wrong.