Maybe this has been discussed already but I don't understand how there were discussions on here saying Boom wasn't targetting quiet flight but simply using technology advances to be more efficient.

Now out of nowhere they go boomless? Did they change direction, seems they pulled it out of nowhere.

As we discussed, they seem to be talking about the totally normal but kind of obscure phenomenon of Mach cutoff. I have a sneaking suspicion they had forgotten about it until XB flew and they started noticing that their marginally Mach 1+ flights were inaudible on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this has been discussed already but I don't understand how there were discussions on here saying Boom wasn't targetting quiet flight but simply using technology advances to be more efficient.

Now out of nowhere they go boomless? Did they change direction, seems they pulled it out of nowhere.
I think it's an attempt to get supersonic over land without annoying the locals.

Also, the speeds you need to go for this are still in the worst of the transonic drag spike.
 
Present airliners have slowed down from Mach 0.85 to Mach 0.80 for fuel efficiency.
Only bizjets venture to Mach 0.94.
Boom wants to turn the tables but there is a non negligeable risk they get another CV-880 / CV-990 (mach 0.91).
Or Sonic Cruiser (Mach 0.98, remember).
Or that they go faster only to run into peak transonic drag (Mach 1.15 like that hold Handley Page SST from 1960).

Overall, Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.1 background and past history are not encouraging. We shall see...
 
Last edited:
As we discussed, they seem to be talking about the totally normal but kind of obscure phenomenon of Mach cutoff. I have a sneaking suspicion they had forgotten about it until XB flew and they started noticing that their marginally Mach 1+ flights were inaudible on the ground.
Agreed.
 

Regards,
 

Regards,
Boom Aero isn't even mentioned in this article.
 

Attachments

  • 21.jpg
    21.jpg
    203.6 KB · Views: 66
A really interesting thread by Blake Scholl:

View: https://x.com/bscholl/status/1906111973848461482?s=61


Made an article based on the thread:

The Future of Supersonic Travel: Why Boom Supersonic’s Overture Could Succeed Where Concorde Failed

By Grok 3 mini

Supersonic travel, once a symbol of luxury and innovation with the iconic Concorde, has been absent from the skies since 2003. However, Boom Supersonic, led by CEO Blake Scholl, is aiming to bring it back with their ambitious Overture airliner. In a detailed thread on X posted on March 29, 2025, Scholl outlines why Overture could succeed at scale where Concorde struggled, offering a compelling business case for the return of faster-than-sound flight. Let’s dive into the key points of this thread, explore the challenges Concorde faced, and see how Overture plans to rewrite the story of supersonic travel.

The Concorde’s Legacy and Its Downfall

The Concorde, a marvel of engineering, could fly from New York to London in under three hours, reaching speeds of Mach 2.0 (1,330 mph) and cruising at altitudes of 55,000 to 60,000 feet, where passengers could see the curvature of the Earth. Despite its technological brilliance, only 14 Concordes were ever built, and the aircraft ceased operations in 2003 after 27 years. Scholl highlights the primary reason for its failure: economics.

Concorde tickets were prohibitively expensive, often costing $20,000 for a round trip, and its 100 seats were notoriously uncomfortable. On its most popular route, New York to London, the plane flew half-empty on average, especially given the travel volumes of the 1980s and 1990s. High fuel consumption, driven by its Rolls-Royce Olympus turbojet engines, further exacerbated costs, leading to a vicious cycle: high fares led to low demand, which meant fewer flights and lower airplane utilization, driving costs even higher.

Why Not a Supersonic Private Jet?

One might think the logical step for a supersonic renaissance would be a small private jet catering to high-net-worth individuals whose time is most valuable. However, Scholl points out a critical flaw in this approach: over 80% of private jet miles are flown overland, where supersonic flight is currently banned due to sonic boom regulations. Until overland supersonic flight is legalized, a supersonic business jet (SSBJ) offers little advantage, which is why every SSBJ project to date has failed.

The Economics of Modern Airliners: A Clue to Supersonic Success

Scholl’s thread takes a deep dive into the economics of international air travel, revealing a key insight: the ~40-80 business class flatbeds at the front of a modern airliner generate over 50% of revenue and more than 80% of operating profit. This front cabin is where airlines make their money, while the remaining 200+ seats in premium and economy classes contribute far less to the bottom line.

IMG_3992.jpeg

Attempting to build a supersonic airliner with a three-class configuration (business, premium, and economy) wouldn’t work with today’s technology. The fares needed to make such a plane profitable would be too high for economy passengers, and there simply aren’t enough business class travelers to fill 200+ seats at a time.

Overture: A Supersonic Business Class Solution

This is where Boom Supersonic’s Overture comes in. Scholl proposes an all-business-class supersonic airliner with ~60 seats, designed to capture the high-revenue business class market while keeping fares competitive—around $5,000, a far cry from Concorde’s $20k tickets. Since supersonic flights are twice as fast, passengers won’t need flatbeds for long-haul comfort; a well-designed seat will suffice, much like on short-haul flights.

IMG_3991.jpeg

Overture’s interior concept reflects this philosophy, offering a sleek, modern cabin with comfortable seats, large windows, and personal entertainment screens. Scholl notes that the current seat design is even better than the early concept shown in the thread.

IMG_4087.jpeg

With 64 seats and fares close to today’s business class rates, Overture can operate profitably on many more routes than Concorde ever could. Boom Supersonic has identified over 600 economically viable routes, primarily over water, where supersonic flight is permitted. This number could grow significantly if overland supersonic flight is legalized in the future.

IMG_4088.jpeg

Scholl estimates that airlines will need over 1,000 Overture airliners to meet demand, a stark contrast to the 14 Concordes ever built. This projection doesn’t even account for potential growth factors, such as passengers upgrading from premium economy to supersonic, increased travel frequency due to faster flights, or the eventual legalization of overland supersonic travel.

Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Overture’s Virtuous Cycle

Concorde’s economic model was a vicious cycle: high fuel consumption led to high fares, which, combined with uncomfortable seats and a smaller market in the 80s and 90s, resulted in low demand and poor airplane utilization. Overture aims to create a virtuous cycle instead. By focusing on an all-business-class configuration with roughly the same seat count as subsonic business class cabins, Overture can operate profitably on routes where international business class already thrives.

Key factors enabling lower fares include improved fuel economy, increased comfort to drive demand, and a larger overall market compared to the Concorde era. Scholl estimates that Overture will offer fares ~75% lower than Concorde’s while accessing a market 100 times larger.

Overture’s Design Innovations

Overture’s design has evolved significantly since its early concepts. Initially designed with two engines, the aircraft was redesigned as a quadjet with four large external engine pods, a configuration reminiscent of the Convair B-58 Hustler bomber from the 1960s. This design, while increasing drag, allows Overture to achieve its performance goals without afterburning engines, reducing fuel burn compared to Concorde.

Boom has also secured partnerships to ensure sustainability, with companies like Dimensional Energy and AIR COMPANY providing up to 10 million gallons of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) per year for Overture’s flight test program. The Overture Superfactory in Greensboro, North Carolina, completed in June 2024, will assemble and deliver the aircraft to airline partners, with production capacity for 5 to 10 aircraft monthly.

One of the most striking design elements revealed in the thread is Overture’s boarding door—the largest ever on a supersonic jet—designed to enhance the passenger experience from the moment they step on board.

The Road Ahead: A Family of Supersonic Aircraft

Scholl sees Overture as just the beginning, aptly named because an overture is a starting point. Boom Supersonic plans to eventually develop a family of aircraft, including smaller models for private use, larger and longer-range versions, and even two- and three-class airliners with premium and coach cabins. For now, Overture’s focus is on proving the viability of supersonic travel with its all-business-class model.

American Airlines has already placed an order for 20 Overture aircraft, with an option for 40 more, signaling strong industry interest. Boom’s XB-1 demonstrator, unveiled in 2020, is a stepping stone to Overture, with plans for initial engine production to begin in 2024 at the Greensboro facility.

Conclusion: A New Era of Supersonic Travel?

The Concorde was a technological triumph but an economic failure, unable to overcome the challenges of high costs and limited demand. Boom Supersonic’s Overture, with its focus on the high-revenue business class market, modern technology, and sustainable practices, aims to break that cycle. By aligning its design and economics with the realities of today’s aviation market, Overture could usher in a new era of supersonic travel—one that’s faster, more accessible, and economically viable.

As Scholl puts it, “With faster flights, people will travel more and further.” If Boom Supersonic can deliver on its promises, the skies may once again be filled with the roar of supersonic jets, connecting the world like never before.
 
Concorde tickets were prohibitively expensive, often costing $20,000 for a round trip

I stopped reading there.

Concorde tickets cost that much because BA eventually realised that most of its regular passengers were price-insensitive and had no idea how much they were paying, nor cared. So they raised the price to what their passengers thought the service was worth, and the money flowed in.

And any article that uses "seats half empty" as a measure of economic performance is naive to the industry. Seats half empty is a *selling point* for passengers of those types of services and they'll pay for it. Low load factors are attractive.
 


China has deeper pockets.........................

Regards,
 
I stopped reading there.

Concorde tickets cost that much because BA eventually realised that most of its regular passengers were price-insensitive and had no idea how much they were paying, nor cared. So they raised the price to what their passengers thought the service was worth, and the money flowed in.

And any article that uses "seats half empty" as a measure of economic performance is naive to the industry. Seats half empty is a *selling point* for passengers of those types of services and they'll pay for it. Low load factors are attractive.
Except that Boom is not chasing Concorde's first class passenger list.

They're chasing the "typical airliner's" business class passengers. Whose accounting departments are most certainly price-sensitive.

And I think that's not an unreasonable business plan. One business-class seat per side, 32-40 rows in the plane.
 
Except that Boom is not chasing Concorde's first class passenger list.

They're chasing the "typical airliner's" business class passengers. Whose accounting departments are most certainly price-sensitive.

And I think that's not an unreasonable business plan. One business-class seat per side, 32-40 rows in the plane.
LOL. as long as United allows access to the Polaris Lounge for all tickets purchased on a Boom, I'm down.
 
As someone that used to spend 3 weeks a month travelling globally in the old days, all you have seen in the last 10~15 years is a race to the bottom. Airlines offering all you can fly deals for $500 is not adding to the experience.

Spending 3 hours in Rome trying to get though immigration 6 years ago shows how bad it was then and only got worse.

Yes, high speed could be of use for business yet so is Zoom nowadays. there is not just the flight time it is all the time on either end getting to and from the airports, check in, immigration and the list goes on.

They're chasing the "typical airliner's" business class passengers. Whose accounting departments are most certainly price-sensitive.


Now if you think that 60 pax at 10k a seat (that is also being generous) is going to make money enough to run a supersonic airframe never going to happen.

If they even get one of these in the air, they will have huge rethink on costs and then pretty quickly realise why the Concorde never made money even at their prices.

I had the opportunity to fly on the Concorde many years ago and I am 6" 2' and it was cramped, very loud and quicker flight times did not make up for the crap experience.

800px-Concorde_cabin_interior.jpg

Regards,
 
That thread gets to the one thing I really hate about Boom. If it works, it kills tourist-class travel for the people in the back of the plane. Without the revenue from Business, the price of a Y seat doubles or triples, which puts a lot of tourist travel completely out of reach for normal people.
 
That thread gets to the one thing I really hate about Boom. If it works, it kills tourist-class travel for the people in the back of the plane. Without the revenue from Business, the price of a Y seat doubles or triples, which puts a lot of tourist travel completely out of reach for normal people.
I’m skeptical of that logic and how Boom is allocating profits between the front and back of the plane.

After all there are all-economy international flights with competitive prices, so clearly it can be done without subsidies from business class fares. If there was no business class there could still be a premium economy section that likely would be larger than today.
 
Without the revenue from Business, the price of a Y seat doubles or triples, which puts a lot of tourist travel completely out of reach for normal people.
I ran some numbers and Business brings in far less revenue than you'd think vs. a combo of Premium Economy vs. Economy.

For example take a typical widebody layout (Delta A350), with the front 1/3rd of the cabin in business class and the back 2/3rds in Economy (including a small Premium Economy cabin). At typical densities you can replace the entire business class section with 2.5x more seats, assuming a 50-50 mix of Premium Economy & Economy. At typical pricing each PE seat sells for ~2x more than Economy and each Business class seat sells for ~2x more than PE, so where Business class would earn you say $100, the new Economy class would earn you 2.5 * (50% * $1 + 50% * $2) * 100 / $4 = $95... basically the same!

So Business Class only brings in more revenue if you can price Business at over 2x Premium Economy and over 4x Economy. That is probably somewhat the case (though you might also have to offset by lower load factors in Business class) but the overall impact on airline economics would be limited by the fact that the revenue gap only impacts the front 1/3rds of the plane and not the back 2/3rds! So say a ~30% revenue loss in the front cabin from eliminating business class (which is a worse case scenario IMHO, based on this rough math) would only be a ~10% loss on the entire cabin!
 
Last edited:
As someone that used to spend 3 weeks a month travelling globally in the old days, all you have seen in the last 10~15 years is a race to the bottom. Airlines offering all you can fly deals for $500 is not adding to the experience.

Spending 3 hours in Rome trying to get though immigration 6 years ago shows how bad it was then and only got worse.

Yes, high speed could be of use for business yet so is Zoom nowadays. there is not just the flight time it is all the time on either end getting to and from the airports, check in, immigration and the list goes on.




Now if you think that 60 pax at 10k a seat (that is also being generous) is going to make money enough to run a supersonic airframe never going to happen.

If they even get one of these in the air, they will have huge rethink on costs and then pretty quickly realise why the Concorde never made money even at their prices.

I had the opportunity to fly on the Concorde many years ago and I am 6" 2' and it was cramped, very loud and quicker flight times did not make up for the crap experience.

View attachment 765543

Regards,
Seat condoms. Safe Flying!
 


China has deeper pockets.........................

Regards,
I don't think China has sold any C919's have they? China really needs to forget about supersonic air travel and needs to copy and bring back the Yugo or better yet the AMC Gremlin.
 
American Airlines has already placed an order for 20 Overture aircraft, with an option for 40 more, signaling strong industry interest.

That's not 'strong industry interest', it's barely Concorde level. Interest may pick up as flight trials progress, but that's not really reflective of typical pre-launch patterns of interest in the airliner industry, and certainly doesn't argue for an eventual fleet of 1000+.
 
I ran some numbers and Business brings in far less revenue than you'd think vs. a combo of Premium Economy vs. Economy.
Playing about with class layout does presume you can find the passengers to match. Doubling the economy seats available might theoretically match the business class income, but are there twice the economy seat customers available? And so on. Ultimately you need to match your seat layout to the customers available.
 
Back
Top Bottom