Boom Supersonic Order Cancelled
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- According to The Telegraph, the Virgin Group, consisting of Virgin Atlantic, has cancelled/let its contract with Boom Supersonic for their upcoming Overture lapse and will no longer play any part in the company looking to bring supersonic flight back to the aviation industry by 2029, is this the start of the domino effect for other partners and/or does it speak volumes about the existing contracts in place and their exit clauses?
🔔 Become a member: bit.ly/DjsMemb...
🖥️ Visit our website: djsaviation.net
🌐 Subscribe to GlobeTrotting: bit.ly/Subscri...
CONNECT WITH US
🐦 Twitter: / djsaviation
👥 Facebook: / djsaviation
💬 Discord: / discord
💻 Patreon: / djsaviation
BUSINESS ENQUIRIES
📧 Email: contactdjsaviation@gmail.com
CHECK OUT THE PODCAST
🎙️ Spotify: bit.ly/DjsAvia...
🎙️ Apple: bit.ly/DjsPodc...
===============================
ℹ️ MORE INFORMATION ℹ️
creativecommon...
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0
- The Telegraph
- Boom Supersonic Mediaroom
🎵 OUTRO TRACK 🎵
Krys Talk - Fly Away [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
• Krys Talk - Fly Away |...
Free Download / Stream ncs.io/flyaway
THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS
BenBenBen, Ian Watson, Jam, Don Gortner, Brandon Fortino, Nick Circosta, 747forever, Robin Capper, Rene Spani, Mike Olague, jacob, G Griffiths, Thomas Webster, Ken Oehmig, Brad Feldman, Ash Stanley, Al Gamiochipi, Robert Goldwein, Neil Macedo, Jeffrey Poe, E, Cal McWeeney, Matthias Dienelt, Michael Cairl, Joel, Amelia Ross, Marshall C Brown, Jermaine Hammond, Lloyd Armstrong, Robbie Phillips, Cal Stephens James Johnson, Russell Dameron, Jeroen Marré
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
Dozens of airlines had pre-orders for Concorde too. Only BA and AF went ahead because they got a massive government discount.
SIA got one too.
Granted, they didn't preorder.
BA and AF were kinda forced to
BA got them for a pound each as I recall with the only stipulation being they couldn’t sell them. It’s how Airbus kept Branson from acquiring one or two.
Your also forgetting that BA & AF only used Concorde on transatlantic in the main & others didn't have the balls to order because of the noise Concorde created so going over Europe & elsewhere was ruled out because of potential complaints & the US airlines were very jealous of Concorde at the time & were hoping it failed but in a way it did because of lack of more orders from other companies otherwise it would have been a grater success !
And they were forced because both are partially state owned
Honestly I never saw this whole boom aircraft as being a serious or realistic thing that airlines will actually adopt it does doesn’t seem practical. I wouldn’t be surprised if United retracts their commitment to BOOM next
That was just press for UA anyway.
@@johniii8147 that’s what I thought, it appeared that way when I remember seeing them brag about it on their official instagram account
agreed, I was almost certain it would never become a thing
Just remember that United was also interested in buying Concorde when it was being developed.
@@Cartoonman154 Not relevant at this point
I remain skeptical about Boom/Overture, especially in light of Rolls Royce backing out of producing the engines. An airframe without engines is worse than useless. Boom are also focused on fantasies like "net zero carbon emissions," the plane is slower than Concorde was, yet would still produce a sonic boom barring it from over-land flights.
there are other engine producers, Rolls Royce isn't the one to determine the world's aviation progress, is it.
Rolls-Royce has worlds of experience with supersonic propulsion including the Olympus engines on the Concorde. Their pulling out of the project was telling.
When the core business doesn't look very promising might as well generate publicity with vanity announcements like net zero carbon.
@@sandejzackas they say on the Internet..
Lol, good luck with that.
It might be the case that an also-ran can do what Rolls Royce have decided isn't worth it (they are pretty good at running a company as well as making world leading engines), but it is a massive hill to climb, especially if it involves raising finance.
A highly experimental project that it it all worked may produce 20 aircraft. What engine company would spend the money it would take to overcome the tremendous engineering obstacles for maybe 200 engines. No way it could ever make sense. Also, the profit margin is way too thin for airlines these days to try to make it work.
I strongly suspect it's going to be less successful than Concorde.
ZERO Sales will be less successful than Concorde. That is where we are going. Whoever decided on this was either totally out of their depth & knowledge, trying a quick one or both.
@@trevorhart545 Bingo
Right at the moment I can see the Tata brothers saying “f**k it, we’ll have a few” 😂
It’s going to be about as successfull as Boeing 2707
It's not going to take off once.
The writing was on the wall when Rolls Royce severed their ties with Boom. It's only a matter of time until the entire venture fails IMO.
Gotta have engines to make it work and when one of the largest engine manufacturers says we're done it's over for you
When RR backed out, and Boom didn't *immediately* start designing their own engine (in-house, or by contract), then I knew weren't serious. They will fail.
@starguy2718 I think alot of these supersonic plane ideas are just massive grift. They hype everyone up to get funding with no real plan on how to make it work
@@starguy2718 Theres a chance RR wasn't their only engine option.
Kinda like when RR's bankruptcy jeopardizes the L-1011 program. At least L-1011 did go into service.
Producing a successful super sonic business jet should have been their first goal.
That’s exactly what NASA research points to.
And that's even worse. With "normal" business jets the rich already emit more CO2 per flight than each of us uses in a full year. A supersonic version just means they can (and absolutely will) get even more flights in that are each less ecological than if done in a subsonic business jet.
And no, the "we'll be using carbon neutral fuel" is absolute greenwashing because we need CO2 neutral energy sources to:
1. cover our entire energy use
2. use excess energy to sequester excess CO2
I love planes but I take the future of our children over any plane, no matter how pwetty it is.
@chrissmith7669 just not the X59 quest, it's clever but not practical.
@@andrewyork3869 look up the “plus 1” & “plus 2” research by NASA it’s a report they publish every couple years where what could be done today, in one decade and in two decades. It is an interesting read on the future of commercial air travel and where they think we’re going.
...without a giant government subsidy.
Boom to Bust likely soon if there are not significant tangible goals and milestones reached.
If they had some experience in building fighter jets or had a lineup of other aircraft they offered for sale and decided to do Boom as a venture, I'd have more faith in the project.
agreed
If a company like Boeing struggles to deliver a new plane, Boom have no chance.
Boeing struggles to deliver aircraft because their internal structuring and turnover rate is ridiculous. But I do agree that Boom doesn't have a bright future. Especially if they can't break the sound barrier over land. I think that Boom is delaying until the results from the NASA X-59 project are released
It should be "struggled". Boeing put as much effort into the SST as they did with the Dash 80, and they eventually scrapped the SST program. Boom is nothing but a massive $$ scam, and they'll NEVER produce a thing that'll even see Tarmac time.
In a nutshell, yup. Well put. And this is with huge engineering obstacles with a new supersonic aircraft. That makes the 777 look like building a paper kite.
Fun fact. Boeing agreed to develop the cst-100 Starliner on a fixed-price contract. Having failed to meet that contract they now stand at over a billion dollars in cost overruns for the program. And all they have to show for it is a failed maiden uncrewed launch. And one "successful" unmanned follow up. During which 2 OMACS and several RCS thrusters failed to perform, but the spacecraft was able to compensate. Despite that milestone other serious issues with the design have since surfaced and as a result the first crewed mission has been put off indefinitely until they are resolved.
That's not a fair comparision - Boeing are dead in terms of innovation - the engineer led Boeing of old has been replaced with a talentless management class that have sucked the company dry.
Not really surprising - since I was a young child I dreamed of something like this, but as I got older I knew it was unlikely to be commercially viable for many reasons. Many things like this have been proposed, I have to commend Boom for getting as far as they did. Until recently I was trying to launch a career as a mechanical engineer (have since abandoned that, nobody wants inexperienced engineers and every engineer I know gets abused by their company), I live not too far from Boom's headquarters. Even knowing they likely wouldn't make it in the end, I very much would have loved to work for them for however long it would last, would have been such a cool job!
I've over a decade in avionics experience and was approached by Boom more than once for positions I was perfectly qualified for. The hiring managers said I wasn't qualified for some of the dumbest reasons I've ever heard in my life, demonstrating they were incapable of reading beyond the first three words of my resume. I figure at best it'll be a toy for rich people.
@@localcomediankid9653 Either that or it's like a lot of companies these days that say they're hiring but aren't really, thus will reject even seemingly perfect candidates for stupid reasons. Though usually those won't even respond to anyone in the first place. In Boom's case, if they are the quasi-scam a lot of people suspect then it could easily be because they want it to look like they're growing, making progress, are eagerly bringing on more people, but in reality aren't doing as well as they want people to think.
And so it begins...orders cancellations. Also, I read the other day that Overture has slipped back a year to 2030, now. Said it elsewhere, several times, concerning this plane...believe it when I see it.
I am confident that Boom Supersonic will be every bit as successful as Aerion.
They went broke and sold for 8 billion last time I heard.
I'll say what Juan Trippe from Pan Am said to the Concorde manufacture back in the 1960's "What are you going to do about the Sonic Booms?"
Pan Am was going to take delivery of the first B-2707 to come off the assembly line.
@@starguy2718 I remember, until Boeing determined the plain was not viable, and the US Gov cut back the funding.
@@markwils5042 Boeing did not determine that the 2707-300 wasn't viable:
Boeing, abandoned the swing wing 2707-100 and 2707-200 and changed to to the fixed wing 2707-300, which had an empennage, and carried 234 passengers at Mach 2.7, over a range of 4,000mi. They were building two prototypes, and were back on track for completion, when the contract was cancelled in 1971, at an expenditure of $1bn (£400k).
Congress voted 214 to 204 for the cancellation, because the whole concept of SST was thrown into doubt by politicians and experts. Also, there was an oil price hike, protests about the hazards of sonic boom, and pressure from the environmental lobby, the latter being the most vocal. The cancellation was fortuitous because it saved the US a mint, and eliminated a potential competitor for Concorde's routes.
Boeing had been funding in-house SST studies since 1950, latterly to the tune of $1M per year. During the 2707 contract, they also financed research into aircraft structures using titanium and stainless steel, especially for high temperature skins. In addition, they built an expensive complex for 2707 construction and testing, and recruited staff for the 2707-300 program. The cancellation decimated Boeing’s already precarious finances and led to 7,500 lay-offs, bringing the total to 50,000, which in turn, devastated Seattle's economy.
These types of contracts are never binding. All the airline is saying is that if Boom successfully produces an aircraft with the capabilities it is describing, then yes we would consider purchasing some. The only real purpose of these contracts is to assure investors that there is actually a market for the product.
*_@andrewawakened628_* Some of the options are paid for and non refundable
@@phonicwheel933 Yes, but we're talking about chump change money for an airline. Not the sort of money that would compel them to stick with the project so they don't lose their deposit. Think of it like the $1K early adopters used to put up to reserve a new Tesla while it was still being developed.
@@andrewawakened628 I see. thanks for info.
@@andrewawakened628 How about this:
Japan Airlines announced a strategic partnership with Boom in December 2017. Through the $10,000,000 investment and agreement, Japan Airlines agreed to share knowledge and experience to support Overture’s development. The collaboration hoped to refine the plane’s design and define the traveller's experience onboard.
This is the beginning of the end for Boom Supersonic.
Yep
Dunno how you got 27 likes for that comment😂. The B O E was some time ago
I feel like this is exaggerating lol.
@@parislikesliners no exaggeration, its true
Virgin Group is not doing that well financially in recent years
It’s a surprise they’re still existing, even after Delta and Air France own a chunk of them
Didn't they just go bankrupt!?
@@dannylo5875 That was Virgin Orbit
If Boom can fly supersonic without engines, I will believe.
Boom created their own engine 7 months ago.. keep up with the times before you insult a company
@@boredaf514 I think “create” is an over statement of its engine development. It is still in design phase with a target certification in 2029. The developer is not one of the three traditional commercial aviation engine suppliers. At best, it is a high risk venture. Given the track records, there will be more bumps along the way. I wish it the best but need to be backed by solid engineering, manufacturing, and integration.
@@boredaf514not even Airbus and Boeing make their own engine. The same can be said for other aircraft manufacturers. The chances of a startup building their own supersonic engine is slim to none.
*_@alalfred3474_*
Florida Turbine Technology, a division of $1.88bn Kratos Defence, started the symphony engine design in January 2023. Boom stated that no current engines, either military or commercial, are suitable for adapting to Overtures unique requirements.
Boom will design the pods and the variable geometry exhaust and inlet ducting.
A big fuss is being made about Rolls Royce ending their contract with Boom, but AFAIK the contract was only for consultancy, and not to build an engine for Overture. Besides which, the Symphony project would be totally unsuited to the tier one engine manufacturers, like Rolls Royce, GE, P&W, Honeywell, and Safran. Their cost base and time frames would be out of kilter, and the volume of sales would not warrant their investment. GE caught a cold with the Affinity program.
@@phonicwheel933 all wishful thinking BS
People should remember the reason why the Boeing 2707 was an insane Mach 2.7,300 passenger jet was because Boeing calculated that was basically the only way an SST could be economically viable but alas the tech wasn't capable of building such a plane
No company would fund an SST. Government funding was required, and the government decided to cancel it. The technology was well in hand.
Actually there was a forgotten "bidder" in the SST race that would have used proven technology. We all know about Boeing, Concorde, and Tupolev, but North American Aviation was also in the running. Essentially, the idea was to take their XB-70, a REAL AIRPLANE, take out the military equipment, lengthen the fuselage, and have a MACH 3 jetliner.
@@martykarr7058 North American did consider civilian versions of the XB-70, but its US/SST program entry was rather different from the Valkyrie. It was called NAC-60, was designed to fly up to 170 passengers, though a mixed configuration holding rather fewer was commonly shown. I'd add that they learned from the bomber program and simplified some systems, like the landing gear. Also eliminated from the program was Curtiss-Wright, their TJ=70 engines supposedly offering much better range than the GE4 and JTF-17A proposals from General Electric and Pratt and Whitney. Murphy's Law in the case of this program would dictate that the Supersonic Transport Advisory Committee would eliminate the companies most likely to produce something successful at the first turning point (Phase I). That would have been North American and Curtiss-Wright. Don't consider this a careful analysis based on deep study of the proposals involved...
tech exists, just you need guts & proper management
@@naughtyUphillboyI think you forgot the battleship full of $
I'm not sure there is strong enough demand for such an endeavor. I think it would take forever to get certified anyway.
Depends on the capabilities. It needs to tackle long routes to negate the takeoff/climb and decent/landing times that are about 2 hours each
@@chrissmith7669 2 hours each? United said it would tale 3:30 from London to Newark with these planes, does that mean the plane would barely reach cruising altitude?
*_@coletrickle581_* Providing Boom survive and Overture gets into service and meets its specification, it will be a success and will be popular with airlines and passengers. The military are also interested and Overture would be suited to charter flights, and even as a business jet. The operating profits look good, as does the $6bn R&D payback. The selling price for the Overture will be $200M.
Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight:
Showing: Aircraft type, Fuel cost per passenger, Economy ticket, First Class ticket, Duration
Boeing 747 $147 $577 $2,308 8hrs
Concorde $753 $5,000^ 3.5hrs
Overture^^ $708 $1,200 $3,000 4hrs
Business jet^^^ $53,000 to $99,000 8hrs
Notes
^ 2023 money
^^ Estimated prices, assuming Overture carries 72 passengers against Concorde's 100. For the first 2 years, only first class seats will be available.
^^^ There are no supersonic business jets
A 16 hour flight across the Pacific on a subsonic jet could be achieved with one 30 minute refuelling stop by Overture, giving a time of 4 + 0.5 + 4 = 8.5 hours.
Further down the line, Overture may be like the Boeing 737, which has developed radically over the years and has hundreds of configurations. So there may be an economy class version of Overture with say 100 seats, a business class version with say 40 seats. Also like conventional airliners, the range and economy may be improved by incremental design changes and development, especially in the engines.
And suppose the engine is a success, that may become a business in itself.
The demand is strong but the company seems to be over promising what they can deliver
@@levismith7444 Yes. It does seem that way.
45 years since the Concorde flew for the first time, and yet it’s still more beautiful.
Developing an aircraft of this size and type costs billions of dollars (maybe even in the tens of billions). Have they raised that amount of money?
And what happened to their single seat demonstrator? If they can't get that into the air, how will they get the bigger aircraft into the air?
Boom has a bad name and ring to it.
The one seater (Baby Boom) had it's roll out in 2020, but not flown so far.
@@dannylo5875 Boom is the sound of your investment shares exploding into thin air !!!
*_@pupples9720_* Boom estimate the Overture R&D costs to be $6bn, and each aircraft to sell for $200M, twice the price of a Boeing 737.
Since Overture was redesigned in mid 2022, I wonder how much relevance the XB-1 has now? Some people say none, but perhaps it will be used to develop and test the wing and the composite skin for example.
I really want to fly supersonic one day and I hope someone has them for us to actually fly on soon
I don't understand why any company would be trying to build a supersonic aircraft prior to NASA's testing of the X-59 QuessT which hasn't even flown yet. Surely the X-59 would be the basis for any commercial application and it will probably need a good year of testing to make sure it works as expected.
"Will first fly with customers in 2029..." begs the question as to when it is intended to fly without customers... While I am personally not a big fan of supersonic flight, the desire to develop such a plane is something I understand and admire. They will always have an uphill struggle. I hope for them they make it, but one can hardly fault the world for being skeptical. Have they managed to secure engines already?
"Will first fly with customers in 2029..." begs the question as to when it is intended to fly without customers....
well, it doesn't fly with customers during test flights and certification process
From ITP to EIS seven years is typical development time for the likes of Boeing & Airbus. These guys don’t stand a chance of doing that well.
No engines have been secured. Their original engine manufacturers pulled out of the contract to focus on other types of engines…
He's operating on Elon Musk time, the guy who said he would be putting humans on Mars by 2021. Take such promises with a grain of salt 🧂
You don't just "secure" engines for a supersonic aircraft. These engines are something that even military fighter manufacturers would flinch at agreeing to design and build because of the expense.
What a beautiful plane. I really hope it works on so many levels.
*_@user-qg6by9le2f_* well said.😊
I’d love to fly on one!!
Stockton Rush would know what to do.
😄😄😄
Boom Supersonic still has major hurdles to overcome first the high cost per seat mile .
Without an engine?
They aren't going anywhere.
@@starguy2718 Florida Turbine Technology are designing, building, and Certifying the engine for the Boom Symphony. FTT are a subsidiary of Kratos Defence and Security Solutions Inc, who have a market capitalisation of &1.88bn.
Boom will design the engine pods and the variable geometry inlet and exhaust ducting.
All of this is a huge technical and financial undertaking. Lets hope Boom and FTT succeed.
@@starguy2718they do have developer for the engine, whether it will be successful is another matter
There is a very big probability it may become a hugely popular aircraft for passengers who's time is money
Agree. Overture is aimed at the 700 million long range business trips made worldwide. All seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet. Ticket prices will be compatible with subsonic business class. For example, JFK/LHR will be $5,000 return. Subsonic does the trip in 8 hours. Overture will do it in 4 hours.
Virgin's cancellation has more to do with Virgin than Overture, but other factors likely played a role considering how unstable the world economy is today. There are many factors at play at the same time and I am sure this was a wise decision by Virgin at this time. Boom likely has a solid idea, but we all know making a prototype is 5% of the work, making something manufacturable is insanely hard, never mind something as complex as a new type of aircraft. If I had the money, I would have started with an easier aircraft and seen some revenue streams, gained some manufacturing experience before venturing into something as challenging as this. You still cant model everything on a computer. I hope they succeed, innovation happens only in smaller upstarts like this not in established giants like Boeing or Airbus, the are not built to do that; they are controlled and run by economists.
if it was viable one of the existing manufacturers would be all over it. They already have the plants staff money and expertise. There is no way a start up can achieve this, just another one of those fake tech start-ups
I know an engineer that recently interviewed with them. They are definitely trying to meet the 2029 timeline.
Just remember that United was also interested in buying Concorde when it was being developed.
Fred Smith wanted to buy a Concorde, for FedEx; they said no. Well then, how about leasing a Concorde to FedEx? Again, no.
Dozens of airlines had pre-orders for Concorde. Only BA and AF went ahead becasue they got a massive government discount.
@@shrimpflea I know.
Miss seeing the concord fly.. she was beautiful to watch coming into JFK
We need to have supersonic flight. It’s ridiculous how long it takes to fly to far away places.
Agreed. 20 hour flights are absurd when it can be done in half that time
Maybe they should have started with an engine.
*_@chrisjenkins9978_* Florida Turbine Technology have been developing the Overture engines since January 2023. They are part of the $1.88 Kratos Defence group.
Boom will design and develop the engine pods and the variable geometry inlet and exhaust ducts.
The Oceangate of Airlines.
Sounds like a repeat performance of Concorde, when loads of major Airlines backed out of buying it at the last minute and only British Airways and Air France purchased Concorde only because at the time these two Airlines were government owned
It just doesn’t make much financial sense to me.. it’s designed to be similar size of Concorde & not that much faster. Its an impressive vapor ware design, but I see nothing groundbreaking here. Even if it becomes a reality, I just don’t see how an airline can make make these flights profitable, unless you doubled the size to put more butts in the seats.
I believe it's actually both slower and smaller than Concorde was, but is supposed to be cheaper to operate. Concorde, before the travel turn-down and when fuel was cheap, was marginally profitable to operate, but certainly wouldn't have been if purchase price, much less development costs, were taken into consideration. This, in the current industry environment and without government financial backing, stands far less chance.
Right on!
Just as a child dreams of becoming an adult, people dream of traveling between countries in supersonic speed. This is as obvious as the need for food. I saw an interview with a man I respect who flew a Concorde from France to the USA. He describes the feeling as fabulous and amazing. He says that when a plane breaks the sound barrier, there is complete silence and peace. And you say that supersonic aircraft will not be relevant? It's funny..
I really hope they’ll manage to make it
Oh, you can be sure the people running the company will make millions....
Looks more and more like a sinking ship going to nowhere
Wait, I thought Boom was a sure bet this time? Holla at me when it goes in service.
Dang. Im not gonna live long enough to go supersonic in a passenger plane, am I?
Probably not, unfortunately. I am 32, and I don't expect to ever fly supersonic on an airliner, either. The economic case for it (as opposed to subsonic first-class suites) continues to get weaker overtime. And it will never be cheaper, because the laws of thermodynamics are not going away anytime soon.
No jet engine, no plane. It’s that simple.
*_@lrg3834_* Florida Turbine Technology will design, manufacture, and test the Overture engine.
@@phonicwheel933 , if that is the case, I truly wish them all the best.
@@lrg3834 The Overture engine is a mammoth engineering task. Lets hope FFT succeed.
Boom Supersonic is going down the same path as Aereon followed: lots of hype, but no flight hardware, and finally bankruptcy.
*_@starguy2718_* Aerion hasn't set a good example. I wonder if the 2 year Covid hiatus finally pushed them over the edge.
"I'm soooo surprised" said no one in the aviation industry.
Boom Supersonic: We're the next Concorde
Boom Supersonic but for real: The Boeing 2707 is my stretch goal.
*_@LtNduati_* Yes, the 2707-300 would have been quite a sight. Shame congress cancelled it. Still, if Boom succeeds and gets Overture in the air it may make a niche market and open the way for an SST like the 2707-300. Of course, sub orbital will be the wave of the future.
I would very much like to see a new supersonic aircraft like the Concorde in the near future. But one argument in particular convinced me that it won't happen any time soon. Today, business people, who are the main target group of supersonic flight offers, have the opportunity to use the time effectively, and to work during a conventional flight by using the onboard Internet.This was not the case in the 1960s to 1990s, which is why saving time was more valuable back then, than it is today. Also because of the Internet, many meetings are now possible online, which in turn reduces the need to fly somewhere quickly. A flight on Boom Overture would be a prestige affair at best.
It won’t get made
Not surprising, seeing that Virgin are working with Rolls Royce on SST? IMO, they'll beat the rest... again.
I strongly doubt it’ll ever fly. They still have no propulsion system in place.
Florida Turbine Technology are designing, building, and Testing the engine for the Boom Symphony. FTT are a subsidiary of Kratos Defence and Security Solutions Inc, who have a market capitalisation of &1.88bn.
This is not surprising, given Virgin also backed out of their A380 order
I find it perplexing how supersonic commercial aircrafts are met with hesitation, when they are an essential requirement for the market. It is absurd that in the year 2023, we are still compelled to spend countless hours in airplanes to travel between destinations.
If you learn a little about aviation technology, you won't be so perplexed. There are very good reasons why Concorde never really became truly *commercially* successful. None of those reasons have changed in the interim.
I meant that It is indeed puzzling why there seems to be a reluctance to address the issues and move forward with the construction of supersonic commercial aircraft, especially when the market need is already in place. It is important to carefully consider people's comments to avoid making unnecessary assumptions about their knowledge
It comes down to cost . How many people are willing to pay way over current business class rates. A few will but I'm never going to pay several thousand to jet off to Raleigh Durham.
oh they are totally countable; not very hard math
Ticket price is not the matter. They always find their customers but not among average outcome people. The new supersonic one will have the same financial pattern as Concord. Less number with limited passenger but more expensive tickets. The reason that Concord project was stopped was it’s technical issues not marketing. Before the accident that happened to Air France , the project was running successfully from financial point of view.
I would rather have BOOM Supersonic continue to scrutinize their own development and research into building a newer and safer aircraft without the pressure of Institutional Investors who are well known to pressure their partners to building something on a rush that would lead to unsafe shortcuts as we've seen with other companies in the past. This type of behavior is well documented and costed lives, and just recent in our history. Patience is required to see a good product to market, especially where the Aircraft Industry is concerned. If the Institutional Investors and Airlines don't want to wait, they should be free to walk, which says a lot more about them, then it does about BOOM.
This always looked like an investment hussle to me, said more than three years ago, this would never get off the ground
the better the production value of the videos, the less likely they're ever going to have a real product .😆
The truth is, airlines aren't looking for speed in their aircrafts, but rather efficiency and profitability. If Boom came out with a plane that was the size of an a320 neo but 50% more efficient (just a conceptional example) then both the CEO of Boom and airlines would be rubbing their hands. Right now however, I think airlines are leading Boom on, only to back out like they did for Concorde. As even with modern technology, they cannot get rid of the sonic Boom, leading the aircraft to become useless for direct flights over land, unless there is something boom hasn't told us yet...
I saw this coming three seconds after Boom announced their original plans
I hope some day I will be able to travel on a Overture !
if i was part of Boom I'd collaborate with those who made the Aérospatiale-BAE Concorde supersonic airliner a reality . . .
Ya that would make, or at least a company that has built successful planes in the past
@@mecomingtomo6933 The problem is theyre all not interested. The focus right now is decarbonisation and supersonic travel is kind of the opposite
@@Jere-iy2yv right I hear you, I agree airlines would rather be clean than fast
yeah those people are dead
Aérospatiale doesn't exist, the closest company to exist is Airbus who aren't interested.
yeah, we saw this coming.
cause this plane is vaporware. startup VC bait.
True
Virgin loves the exposure making commitments on new orders, then mothballs them, just like the A380
I'm guessing Boom is desperately trying to go public before everyone figures out it is not going anywhere. Actually, Boom is already tits up.
*_@existentialerasure_* What is your guess based on? In the US going public requires a disclosure of a company's position which would highlight any weaknesses.
I think they should soldier on, most people didn't understand the A380 during development, and there were a hell of a lot of naysayers. The world needs this aircraft, particularly if it innovates new efficient engine types.
A380 flew, but in the end wasn't really commercially successful, didn't get many orders. From what I recall it broke even on development costs, but not by much, and production ended after not very long. So it was technologically possible, like this probably is, but wasn't really economically viable, as many suspect the Overture wouldn't be either. There's a lot of cases of "just that you could doesn't mean that you should," just that something is technologically possible doesn't mean it will make sense or be economically successful.
Oh gee, I never would have guessed this in a bazillion years...
Soo sweet the future of the aviation
Wow...never saw THAT coming. 🙄
Sir Dicky --lots of words but little money.
Virgin was never anything than options. And they didn´t cancel them, they reduce them by half.
Its also worth saying that the firm order they have (35, and then additional 170 options) are probobly optioned with some kind of last delivery date. That is, even the firm order will probobly laps if the aircraft is to much delayed.
_*@matsv201*_Japan Airways paid $10M for technical liaison and options in 2017.
I don't see how boom plans to address any of the barriers that made Concorde unviable. The fuel costs will still be high, it won't be able to fly supersonic over land, and it won't have the capacity to make seats economical. The venture was dead at birth.
*_@sshhii_* Overture will be efficient, at both low and high speeds, thus making mixed land/sea routes viable, whereas Concorde guzzled fuel below Mach 1. Boom have identified 600 viable routes. Overture will use around 4x the fuel per passenger mile as a subsonic airliner, but when you take into account inflation at 5.5x from 1980 to 2023, airline tickets are now much cheaper in real terms.
Overture will also comply with noise regulations, so it will have less hassle from demonstrators. It will be 2x faster over water and 20% faster over land than a subsonic airliner. It will also be cheaper to buy and maintain and will probably be easier to fly.
The main danger with Boom is financial. They are a small company taking on a mammoth technical program.
They can’t find anyone that will make an engine. Boom is going Bust.
Florida Turbine Technology are designing, building, and Testing the engine for the Boom Symphony. FTT are a subsidiary of Kratos Defence and Security Solutions Inc, who have a market capitalisation of &1.88bn.
Given the recently observed apparent increases in both the frequency and the intensity of "clear air turbulence" occurring around the Earth, would a faster moving aircraft be more likely to be damaged or to lose attitude control in the event of encountering such atmospheric phenomena? I would think it likely that a supersonic aircraft would be more susceptible to such potential consequences. Any thoughts on this? Thanks!
At speed this aircraft would fly probably above the troposphere (where most all of the Earth’s weather occurs). CAT is normally encountered in the troposphere so notionally, at its cruising speed, it would be above it. Coming down however, it would be like any other plane, and in danger of encountering CAT. No idea if it would be more or less susceptible to it. For FAA certification it would need to demonstrate stability in low speed turbulent conditions.
@@jereldrogers7549 Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate it!
Ohhh no!! hello from Kansas🇺🇸
They are building this fantasy factory here in Greensboro. I call it boondongle alley where is sits among many other projects that GSO has built that have done nothing but cost/lose massive amounts of money.
I wold have love to fly in this plane
Why do folks target Boom ? Why ? It is so strange ! Let them try and fail, it's okay !
airline orders always have very specific purchase requirements and plenty of risk free outs
They aren't really contracts iirc. They are basically "letters of intent". They aren't binding. Boom has been using them as if they ARE contracts to get investors.
The economics and regulatory environment haven't changed since the Concorde was shut down. I'd rather fly slightly slower in a first class seat than in a faster aircraft in a coach seat at a first class price.
A common adage by airline pilots when new technology aircraft are announced,” I’ll believe it when I see it parked at the gate.”
isn't Supersonic flight over land still banned? i feel this is just going to be the next big concept that gets a bunch of attention and renderings but goes no where.
What has changed in the economy of supersonic passenger aviation? Fuel, maintenance and all of the other costs associated with civil air travel have skyrocketed since the last Concorde flew, and that plane was a losing money pit. Technology would have to have made a quantum leap forward for this plane to be a viable carrier.
Unless they could magically stop the planes from causing sonic booms, they would be extremely limited in where they'd be allowed to fly.
Also, this would have ended up being a boutique service that would be extremely expensive.
Texas Central Railway will be up and running before Boom!
Gov Moonbeam's high-speed rail boondoggle, The Crony Express, will be up and running, before Boom ever flies.
If the goal posts keep getting shifted further away, it becomes easier to score.
Not surprised. Airlines want fuel efficient aircraft
*_@cool2180_* No airlines want profit that why they have economy class, business class, and luxury class.😊
In the words of one Mark Knopfler: "BOOM.. like that."
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! that was a quick flash in the pan!!
Concorde settled the commercial application of SST’s: sonic booms, fuel consumption, airframe/engine cost and restricted passenger capacity = not viable
The target audience for these flights is actually that of people that actually can affort their private jets. I dont see this being viable in any way. Not past the introduction phase after the glee factor subsides.
I'm no analyst.
Naming it after the affect that makes it unprofitable was, interesting?
*_@wanderingfool6312_* 😊
Virgin probably doesn't have the money for such an adventure after shuttering Virgin Orbit and Launcher One.
Even if BOOM eventually produces an aircraft that meets its design objectives, and I wish them every success, the market for this kind of travel is simply not big enough to support the development costs for such an aircraft. Even manufacturers of commercial aircraft with broad market appeal need to amortize the non-recurring development costs of any new aircraft program over several hundred aircraft deliveries before the program becomes cash positive, program profitability is even further away.
*_@nevilletaylor9761_* Quite so. Do you have any figures showing payback etc? All I have heard is $8bn development cost, each Symphony cost $200M, and that only business class tickets will be available in the first 2 years to recoup some of the costs. The other thing is that a small company like Boom would have a much lower cost base, and would be quicker on their feet, than the likes of the giants like Boeing, Rolls Royce etc.
The development payback would probably be much less than several hundred aircraft. At a guess:
Total development cost: $8bn
Cost per aircraft : $200M (Boeing 727=$100M 747=$420M)
Margin per aircraft: $50M
Number of aircraft for payback: 160
Isn’t it funny Branson berated BA for scrapping Concord because it was too expensive to operate. Perhaps the penny has finally dropped.
Doubters gonna doubt
Without an engine maker fully onboard its a nonstarter. During JDP airframe and engine maker have to work very closely
*_@chrissmith7669_* Very true. Boom are working with Florida Turbine Technology who will design, build and test the Symphony engine. Boom will design the variable inlet and exhaust ducting.
@@phonicwheel933 if it were me I’d partner with the Japanese Aerospace Agency. They designed the super efficient quiet inlets for the Boeing Sorta Sonic Cruiser
@@chrissmith7669 Sounds like a good move. Thanks for info. I will look that up.
This was expectable. Boom their developement takes ages
It's an enticing idea. Clearly physically possible when we've had Concord already. The idea of new technology and materials should simplify and improve a newly designed aircraft. However, it was always the economic case that was shaky. I kind of wish I could believe in it, but... I don't.
I never really understood why instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, we simply reiterated the Concorde to fly supersonic? A modernization of the technology would be the only investment needed, but the airframe data already exists as does the name.
with the economic situation & instability , many things will change & companies will change .That reject need a government backing to commit to a success or else .
I dont think that this project will ever get off the ground.