
Boom XB-1 Baby Boom - curtis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_XB-1_Baby_Boom
======
andr
What is Boom's economic argument for supersonic passenger flight? Fuel is
already #1 cost of airlines and pricing is very competitive, to the point that
some airlines would rather cut service than raise prices. It sounds like the
conditions that led to the demise of the Concorde have only exacerbated.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Having the plane in the air for less time can lead to lesser costs also: you
don’t need to pay your pilots or flight attendants for as many hours, and can
fit more flights in using the same plane per week. If the fuel cost and
maintenance costs aren’t too much higher, it could be a big win beyond just
getting passengers to where they are going faster (like track and carriage
utilization for HSR).

~~~
hairytrog
I'm pretty sure flight time is not the dominant labor cost. It's docking and
going in and out of the airport and pre/post-flight prep.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Flight crew is paid for time in the air (well, while the door is closed).

But even then for a long haul, that stuff isn’t as significant. Conversely,
for a puddle jumper with quick turn around, not as much either.

------
dannykwells
This reads like an advertisement. Why has it not been flagged by Wikipedia?
What is notable at all about a single prototype test aircraft from a unknown
start up?

~~~
ardy42
On first look, it appears that it's only been edited by aircraft enthusiast
Wikipedians with diverse edit histories.

~~~
hairytrog
Aircraft enthusiasts known as Boom employees? lol

------
new_realist
Are supersonic aircraft for rich people compatible with a world battling
radical climate change?

Supersonic passenger jets are likely to burn three to four times as much fuel
per business-class passenger as standard passenger jets.

~~~
sempron64
Self-flagellation by restricting technological capability is not the solution
to climate change. It's not expected that flights on this aircraft will
address the mass market. With regards to climate change this will be a drop in
the bucket.

Solving global climate change requires rethinking energy generation, ground
and sea shipping, transportation, heating, and addressing deforestation. It
will not be solved by banning plastic straws, sorting your garbage, or even
driving an electric car (though switching to electric cars is a very good step
towards electric trucks, and will have a noticeable impact, unlike this niche
airliner).

Don't ban niche things just because they contain something that is immoral at
scale. EVERYTHING is immoral at scale, including eating food or breathing. We
need to address and manage our problems to allow humanity to live, not die by
a thousand self-hating cuts. Optimization is always addressed by looking at
the 80%, not the 20%.

Maybe once this jet is in the air, if fuel expenditure is at all a concern, we
can figure out how to address the efficiency concerns once we have the rest of
the problems of aerodynamics and the infrastructure to manufacture this sorted
out.

~~~
reitzensteinm
Putting a price on carbon is by no means self flagellation and may well ruin
the economics of the venture.

