[bscholl]

Actually, Concorde was too big: 100 seats. It worked NY/London but at ~$20k/seat they couldn't fill enough seats several times daily on other routes. Which means you can't have many airplanes, which means no economies of scale.

With 40 seats and business class prices, the Boom airplane works on many more routes, which means we can make a lot of airplanes and enjoy economies of scale.

Looking into the future, as fuel efficiency further improves, per seat costs come down, and it will make sense to make ever larger aircraft. It's a virtuous cycle that will eventually allow supersonic flight at economy prices.

[jacquesm]

> It worked NY/London but at ~$20k/seat they couldn't fill enough seats several times daily on other routes.

Your price is way off.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...

[mikedouglas]

From the link: "In the late 1990s I paid $11,000US each for several round trips."

That's about $16k when accounting for inflation, so $20k isn't too far off.

[aninhumer]

Without qualification, I'd assume they were quoting historical prices. It would be pretty confusing to present any kind of adjusted figures without clarifying them.

[ghaff]

It looks as if the Concorde was roughly $5K each way (or $10K RT) +/- in today's dollars--although I'm not sure a standard CPI inflation calculator is the best way to look at airline ticket price changes.

Given the existence of business class only BA NY to City of London flights, there probably is a market for expensive supersonic routes, but it's probably still pretty small. International lawyers may value the back and forth in a day, but most people who fly business/first are probably fine with comfortable seating and a nice meal even if it takes a bit longer.

[pacificmint]

Thanks for explaining that, I had never looked at it that way. And good luck to your venture.