Supersonic Commercial Air Travel Is On Its Way
And with (mostly) private dollars.

Boom Supersonic independently designed and built the XB-1, the first civil supersonic jet in America. The XB-1's first supersonic flight last month was a success, breaking the sound barrier above the Mojave Desert while producing a sonic boom that was inaudible from the ground. Boom's success highlights the potential of the private sector to deliver large-scale supersonic passenger air travel—something governments have struggled to accomplish.
Boom says that its Overture supersonic passenger jet, which uses much of the XB-1's technology, will profitably carry 64–80 passengers at a cruise speed of Mach 1.7—twice the speed of subsonic passenger jets—on over 600 routes. The jet's features include an augmented reality system that provides pilots runway visibility otherwise inhibited by the Overture's long nose, a carbon fiber composite airframe whose light weight is more fuel-efficient than aluminum, and specialized intakes that enable the Overture to use (relatively) quiet turbofan engines instead of the deafening turbojet engines featured on the Concorde.
Boom reports 130 Overture orders and pre-orders from airlines, including American, which will purchase 20 Overture aircraft, and United, which will purchase 15. Last June, Boom finished building its Overture manufacturing facility in Greensboro, North Carolina, which will produce 33 Overture aircraft annually. The company projects the first Overture airliners coming out in 2025, flying in 2026, and carrying passengers by 2029.
In a press release, Boom emphasizes that supersonic aircraft have historically "been the work of nation states, developed by militaries and governments," and it's right. The only supersonic airliners ever made, the Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144, were not private ventures.
The Concorde was a project of the United Kingdom and France. The Anglo-French Agreement of 1962 committed both governments to split the costs of jointly developing the supersonic transport aircraft, which entered commercial service in 1976. The firms that manufactured the Concorde were primarily the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) and Aérospatiale. The BAC, though private, was the result of a forced merger between English Electric, Vickers-Armstrong, and the Bristol Aeroplane Company in 1960. The BAC's Concorde operations were funded entirely by the British government while Aérospatiale was owned and operated by the French government.
The Tupolev Tu-144, a product of the Soviet Union, never had the pretense of private development. The Council of Ministers approved its development in 1963 to fly no later than 1968. The first flight of the prototype Tu-144 was on December 31, 1968, satisfying the Air Ministry's five-year plan. Passenger flights began in 1977 to coincide with the 60-year anniversary of the October Revolution. Due to hundreds of failures and high-profile crashes resulting from its poor design, the Tu-144 was taken out of passenger service in June 1978.
While the cost of the Tu-144 is opaque due to the nature of the Soviet Union's economy, the Concorde cost the U.K. and France approximately $16 billion ($1.44 billion each in 1976). Unlike the completely publicly funded Concorde and the state-made Tu-144, only a fraction of Boom's assets have come from government sources.
Boom received a $7 million Small Business Innovation Research contract to provide the U.S. Air Force with data collected on XB-1 test flights in 2020. In 2022, the Air Force awarded Boom a $60 million Strategic Funding Increase toward the Overture,"a potential future platform for the Air Force," according to Boom CEO Blake Scholl. Private investors include Y Combinator, 8VC, Prime Movers Lab, Japan Airlines, Emerson Capital Partners, Celesta Capital, and American Express Ventures. Saudi Arabia's NEOM Investment Fund, which is funded by the nation's sovereign wealth fund, has also invested in Boom.
Altogether, only a small share of Boom's $700 million in total funding has come from the American taxpayer. What was once only attempted by governments has nearly been surpassed by private entrepreneurship and investment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I was really impressed with the XB-1's first supersonic test. These are the guys who are going to eat Boeing's lunch.
Note: Both the US and the EU currently prohibit commercial supersonic flight over land. Without legal/regulatory changes the available routes will be limited.
Noteably, that is/has been the biggest stumbling block for commercial supersonic R&D and application.
First thing that came to mind was how much sooner this would be happening without those?
Without those, the Concorde may well have been commercially viable.
So be glad DJT is POTUS; that will end in the US PDQ.
Or, at the very least, has/had a better chance than any admin since the ban was enacted.
But, as always, the real problem in this country is The Jones Act keeping foreign-built ships from ferrying between US ports and making US ship-building obsolete (even though Europe and China have the *exact* same, if not more onerous, laws and just undercut costs otherwise).
Not a chance. His voter base in the flyover states won't stand for it.
Also I have not seen a viable business model for commercial supersonic flight. The cost of operating the Concorde killed it. Basically, it was a kerosene guzzler and that is true of all supersonic aircraft. There aren't enough people willing to pay double the first class airfare to save two hours when flying from NYC to Los Angeles. You still have to get to the airport an hour before your flight and the airport is an hour away from your destination.
"Boom received a $7 million Small Business Innovation Research contract to provide the U.S. Air Force with data collected on XB-1 test flights in 2020. In 2022, the Air Force awarded Boom a $60 million Strategic Funding Increase toward the Overture,"a potential future platform for the Air Force," according to Boom CEO Blake Scholl."
My guess is they agreed to do this not so much for the money but for being allowed to do it at all.
The object of the US and EU ban was the Concordes ear shattering boom, not its supersonic flight. You could set your watch all the way from Block Island to Nantucket by the nightly bang when it cleared the mainland and went supersonic.
It had bad ground manners too.
I was behind one for takeoff in a light twin when it hit its Olympus engine afterburners, and its screaming orange 150 knot nitric acid-scented backwash nearly lifted us off the runway and sent everything on the apron flying past us like tumbleweed.
"The object of the US and EU ban was the Concordes ear shattering boom, not its supersonic flight."
Except the ban is on all commercial supersonic flight, not ground audible sonic booms. Boom admits on their website that they have no path to commercial viability without a change to the ban on supersonic flight over land.
Yup, pretty much knew that if I was walking from the parking lot to the office about 8:20 (IIRC), I'd hear the boom. It was sort of sad to not have the disturbance, but I wouldn't want it a dozen times each day.
As the planes are limited to 60 to 80 passengers, I assume the ticket cost, like the Concorde will be quite high and only a limited number of people will be able to afford tickets. I see a limited customer base for whom the time saving justifies the expense of the flight. So, I don't see these new planes being much more successful than the Concorde which had government backing.
They do, the investors. Huge difference there, Mr Statist.
People invest in things all the time that don't really work out. Again, I am not really sure there is the customer base to support commercial supersonic air travel.
Looks like we're going to do the test... and with someone else's money.
I am good with trying and so long as its investors' money. I just don't think I would invest.
Only RiCh GuYs CaN aFfOrD it, So It’S bAd.
I did not say it was bad just that I am not sure it is really commercially viable. I don't think there is the customer base to really make this work.
MD4 is such a dumb motherfucker.
Why, and how much, do you intend to invest in the proposition that 100,000 people can be found daily, willing to spent 5 K to save three hours flying time when they save four for 2K by buying a DHS eyescan ID , and taking a heli to the flight line?
Any chance that with Rand Paul as chair of the DHS we might finally see the TSA's wings clipped?
If they have access to over land routes from US east to west coasts and long distance Eurasian over-land routes it may not be that bad.
The Concorde's ticket price issue wasn't just the smallish passenger capacity, it was that the market was further restricted to just trans-Atlantic flights by the over-land supersonic flight ban.
So, 50 year old technology is new again? Wake me up when we have flying cars.
https://evtol.news/terrafugia-tf-x/
Wow, catching up with 50 year old technology. The next thing you know, man will be walking on the moon again.
And the Concorde hit Mach 2, and carried 128 passengers.