[gr2020]

Somewhat OT - but from their FAQ they say they're targeting a price of $200M for the Overture. I'm certainly no expert, but this feels to some extent a bargain given the capability. Capacity 55-75 passengers. A few data points for comparison (all of these approximate of course, with multiple variants available of each):

Airbus A220 - $90M

Airbus A320neo - $110M

Boeing 787 - $140M

Boeing 777 - $320M

Airbus A350 - $325M

Gulfstream G700 - $75M

All of these can of course carry more passengers (except the Gulfstream), but assuming it's somewhat efficient from a fuel perspective, and assuming an airline could sell ~60 business class seats on each leg, I'm optimistic for them - cutting your trip time in half is certainly something to brag about.

For reference, as an example, a British Airways 787-9 used for transatlantic routes seats 8 first, 42 business, 39 premium economy, and 127 economy.

[fragmede]

The data-point for the elephant in the room:

Aérospatiale/BAC Concorde - $169M 150 passengers. Cruising speed: Mach 2

The Concorde was a thing of beauty. Massively expensive to produce and run, and fuel inefficient, it was a passenger airliner that could outrun fighter jets. Fighter jets of that era could get to mach 2 using afterburner, but that's especially fuel inefficient so they could only keep up for 15 minutes or so. The money that went into the program (which is estimated in the neighborhood of $10.3 billion) was later recouped in the form of expertise that went into building Airbus.

A lot of time has passed since 1965 when the Concorde was first produced, and the improvements in technology (especially for materials) since, will hopefully allow the economics to work out better this time around. But with the rise of lie-flat seats and personal entertainment systems, flying business class is "good enough" compared to the surcharge that flights on the Concorde cost, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

Taking 3 hours instead of 6 is better, but still not low enough. Add getting to/from the airport, and checking into the hotel and all that, you're still out the better part of the day.

The really pie-in-the-sky way to travel is if a certain reusable rocket company ran (exorbitantly expensive) passenger service. Moscow to New York in 30 mins, or Moscow to London in 15.

[dmos62]

<=3 hour flight time kind of sucks, because you're spending additional 1-2 hours at the departure airport and at least 30 minutes at the arrival airport. Then there are the trips from and to airport which are often 1-2h. Then there's scheduling slack, which translates to additional ~20% wait time. When flight time is 3h, you're expecting to spend 7-12 hours. Usually closer to 12, because you'd rather wait longer than run the risk of missing one of the transports.

One of my great travel-related discoveries has been that if I can find a train that takes even about the same amount of time, it will always be much more pleasant and less energy-draining than air travel.

[Symbiote]

Was it like this for the final years of Concorde? I don't know, but I doubt it.

With an entirely first class plane, and service, I expect they had special gates, and priority everything for the passengers.

[thomas]

All so true. The actual flight time is a non issue for me given the hassle of the airport. But I’m guessing this is for higher end travel, where skipping lines is the norm.

[credit_guy]

I once had the opportunity to fly a business-only airplane. There was no line skipping. There was a whole dedicated terminal for these airplanes. As soon as you entered the terminal someone would welcome you like at some luxury resort. The passport and ticket thing was a breeze, then they would guide you to the lounge, if you were early. If you timed your trip accurately, I guess you could find yourself from the terminal door to sitting in your comfy seat within 15 minutes. Champagne glass on the tray in front of you, of course.

[credit_guy]

>Taking 3 hours instead of 6

Current airplanes travel at Mach 0.8-0.85. Boom is supposed to travel at Mach 2.2. That's a factor of 2.6-2.75x not 2x.

[NotSammyHagar]

All these different costs have to be leveled for dollars in the same year to account for inflation etc.

[ksec]

>I'm optimistic for them - cutting your trip time in half is certainly something to brag about.

I wonder how the economics works out. We know consumers are willing to give up a lot of things for cheaper tickets. And for that market it is now a volume business.

Business Expenses and trip could certainly paid for super fast airline. But this could cut out business trips revenue from normal operation, so it means flight price would have to go up to compensate for the loss of business class?

Although I am pretty sure they will sell well for as a private jet. Most super rich has way too much money and too little time.

[raverbashing]

I don't think it will cut much revenue from regular business class, rather, it will cut from "first class" (which is on its way out for most routes) and from last minute tickets.

[elil17]

Additionally, if you cut your trip time in half you double the number of trips you can take. This is why the metric is Available Seat Miles. In a way it's like making a plane with a capacity of 110-150 pax.

[benhurmarcel]

These are catalog prices. In practice airlines pay almost half that.