Yet another aviation thread.

I found a new and very nice source for premium travel reviews called Monkey Miles.

The author travels with a toy stuffed monkey named Miles (ha ha), which he poses in many photos. There are many which show Miles on the seat, the bed, "watching" the IFE, and even seating in the buddy seat during a meal. It's cute.

The author also tends to be rather positive. Many premium travel reviewers dwell a lot on small, negative details that, IMO and casting no aspersions, make them sound a bit like spoiled children (ie "the flight attendant didn't smile; that's unacceptable in a premium product," or "the champagne wasn't served until after take off.")

Quote: Nareed

Boom's plane, if it gets built and if it succeeds, would still be a prototype of sorts (even if it can get permission to fly over land). It's a first generation kind of plane, and we still have to see what the market actually makes of it.

Blake Scholl, the founder and CEO of Boom, cannot be accused of lacking ambition. He made his name founding Amazon’s Automated Advertising team, which became a $300 million business function, before founding Kima Labs, an e-commerce business bought by Groupon. Blake Scholl will be joining a line-up of speakers at Routes Americas 2017, taking place in Las Vegas on 14-16 February.

“The Boyd Group released an independent analysis on the Boom Supersonic aircraft that projects a demand of 1,317 Boom aircrafts in the 2023 – 2032 timeframe.”
"Our ultimate goal is affordable supersonic travel for everyone". They have targeted 500 routes.

Quote: Pacomartin

“The Boyd Group released an independent analysis on the Boom Supersonic aircraft that projects a demand of 1,317 Boom aircrafts in the 2023 – 2032 timeframe.”
"Our ultimate goal is affordable supersonic travel for everyone". They have targeted 500 routes.

"Aircrafts"?

Never mind. I doubt there are that many 787s on order, even including the ones already delivered. Still, for 500 routes, you have to assume overland flights. Assuming that happens (a really big assumption), the price would need to come down. One oil shock could make the project, if not the plane, crash and burn.

I repeat: it's a good idea, I wish it the best of luck, but it's a first generation SST, or gen 1.5, and will, if successful, be what Concorde should have been. But it won't define a supersonic era of jet travel any more than the Comet defined the jet era.

Quote: Nareed

I doubt there are that many 787s on order, even including the ones already delivered.

I agree that 1317 Boom aircraft in the 2023 – 2032 timeframe seems widely optimistic. There have been only 1200 Dreamliner orders so far.

The projected actual sales price of the Boom aircraft is $200 million (without options and interior).
787-8: US$224.6 million (2015)
787-9: US$264.6 million (2015)
787-10: US$306.1 million (2015)

Boeing 787 orders and deliveries by type
787-8 418 324 (delivered)
787-9 633 176 (delivered)
787-10 149 – (delivered)
Total 1,200 500 (delivered)

Quote: Pacomartin

I agree that 1317 Boom aircraft in the 2023 – 2032 timeframe seems widely optimistic. There have been only 1200 Dreamliner orders so far.

I'd deem Boom's project feasible if/when they produce a full-size plane. I'd say it would be successful if they sell 50 planes within ten years. With orders for that many, they can go ahead and plan a follow-on model. Better yet, the majors can produce their own supersonic planes.

But also the plane can be successful if it can tackle longer flights. It sounds really good for the NYC-London/Paris runs, but it would sound even better for a replacement of flights 10 hours and longer. The problem here is only partly with the plane's range (even with a refueling stop, it'd still be faster), and the bigger part is the ability to fly over land.

And of course its ability to traverse the Pacific Ocean.

Quote: Nareed

But also the plane can be successful if it can tackle longer flights. It sounds really good for the NYC-London/Paris runs, but it would sound even better for a replacement of flights 10 hours and longer.

If you consider the "problem of transportation", then UK wants to discourage domestic flying as much as possible. The feeling is that it takes an unnecessarily high toll on the environment, utilizes valuable runway space, and is annoying to passengers who spend more time in security and waiting for planes than in actual flying.

The five busiest air routes are (no surprise) all out of Heathrow and may be related to an international flight.

Miles from London Heathrow
331 EDINBURGH, Scotland
344 GLASGOW, Scotland
152 MANCHESTER, England
402 ABERDEEN, Scotland
325 BELFAST CITY, Northern Ireland (over water)

Right now it takes 4.5 hours for a nonstop train from London to Edinburgh. Many Brits want to see a French style TGV to transit the distances in 2 hours.But to cater to the proverbial single day business trip you could provide luxury accomodations on the train including lie flat seats, and get away with a one day trip.

So "Boom" is touting the one day business trip from London to New York. But how important is that really?

Quote: Pacomartin

So "Boom" is touting the one day business trip from London to New York. But how important is that really?

I'm not up on time differences and frequencies.

My thinking, though, is that a business traveler who pays for business class on a subsonic jet might not see half the time in the air as an advantage. I think I've posted why before.

Concorde, if memory serves, was even more expensive than first class. But also when it launched, first class meant a recliner chair, amenities and gourmet food. I don't even think business class existed in the early 70s. Later on it had to compete with such products, but by then it was clearly a niche luxury market product.

So, could you travel from NYC in Boom, arrive to London in time to transact business, get that done, and then fly back in time for dinner at home, or at least not long after dinner? If not, then forget it. If so, it might prove attractive for some people, if indeed it costs the same as a regular business class fare.

Also, can it operate in London City? That would be a good selling point, but I don't suppose that short runway would work.

Quote: Nareed

So, could you travel from NYC in Boom, arrive to London in time to transact business, get that done, and then fly back in time for dinner at home, or at least not long after dinner? If not, then forget it. If so, it might prove attractive for some people, if indeed it costs the same as a regular business class fare.

I am wondering what the demand for that is today. With teleconference, email, electronic signing, etc. is there much demand for transatlantic travel for a short business meeting? Ten or more years ago I could see the demand but in today's environment the time, hassle, cost doesn't seem to justify it for a one day trip.

I have never traveled international for a one day business trip. I did once fly home from Madrid on Christmas eve day and fly back to Madrid on Christmas day. The torture I put myself through to make sure the kids have a proper Christmas.

Quote: DRich

I have never traveled international for a one day business trip.

Present :)

A day trip MEX-IAH in 2012, a bit over an hour flying time each way.

The problem there was getting up early, and returning home in the evening. I managed to nap on the plane, but that wasn't nearly enough.

If I were to do it again today, I might find out whether a lounge is available and either 1) pay for it (and charge it to the company) or 2) see whether it's covered by the Priority Pass I have in one of my credit cards.

Quote: Nareed

So, could you travel from NYC in Boom, arrive to London in time to transact business, get that done, and then fly back in time for dinner at home, or at least not long after dinner? If not, then forget it. If so, it might prove attractive for some people, if indeed it costs the same as a regular business class fare.

It is more difficult to set schedules from NYC to London because of the five time zones. Flying London to NYC you arrive earlier than the time you left (in local time).

What the Concorde did was to set aside a meeting room in JFK airport. You could fly from London leaving at 10:30 AM and return at 10:25 PM and be gone only 12 hours. You would have 4 hours at JFK from landing to takeoff, so you could reasonably have a 3 hour meeting.
London to NYC: 10:30 - 09:25
NYC to London: 13:30 - 22:25

Going the other way you would leave at 8:30 AM and return at 6:30 PM and be gone only 10 hours. You would have 2 hours in London Heathrow, which might give you enough time to courier a valuable package, sign a document, etc. but not enough time to have meeting.
NYC to London : 08:30 - 17:25
London to NYC: : 19:30 - 18:25

While it would certainly have been possible to leave NYC an hour earlier, and London an hour later to give you 12 hours round trip, British Airways felt that people were paying a premium to fly as close as possible to normal working hours that they chose not to set up a meeting room at Heathrow during dinner time.

Quote: Nareed

Also, can it operate in London City? That would be a good selling point, but I don't suppose that short runway would work.

I don't believe they have ruled out that possibility yet.