Dude, Where's My Supersonic Jet?
Key topics
The eternal question: where's our supersonic jet? As it turns out, many are questioning whether we even need one, with some pointing out that in-flight Wi-Fi and entertainment have made long flights more bearable, rendering supersonic travel less pressing. Others argue that the wealthy, who could afford such luxury, already have the flexibility of chartering private jets, making reduced travel time less of a priority. The debate reveals a deeper divide between those who worship "technological progress" for its own sake and those who value efficiency and doing more with less.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
40m
Peak period
106
0-3h
Avg / period
16
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Jan 6, 2026 at 12:59 PM EST
2d ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Jan 6, 2026 at 1:39 PM EST
40m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
106 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Jan 8, 2026 at 3:11 AM EST
1d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Those who could easily afford supersonic can already afford other luxuries; the only one it gives is time; but if time is of the essence you can save it elsewhere by chartering your own jet.
Honestly, this seems like the place to start with supersonic technology. The very wealthy are price-insensitive and would be ok paying 3-4x as much to get somewhere 2x faster. A good place to prove the technology, infrastructure, and market opportunity before cost-optimizing to try to get interest from mass-market travellers.
It's a weird niche that is unlikely to be filled for awhile, if ever - partially because the era of the supersonic jet was before the Internet, which now gives even normies telepresence that is "good enough" if not perfect.
The idea that such progress could ever falter is anathema to such a cohort (which, in their defense, have lived their whole lives in the most technologically anomalous period of the entirety of human history), making them susceptible to scams like Boom.
Instead, I'd implore people to consider that true progress is the ability to do more with less, and not merely the ability to do more with more.
Being able to do more with less is equivalent to being able to do much more with only little more.
Just look at the whole circus around the hyperloop instead of just building high speed trains.
Estimate 4k for one-way biz ticket and 500 for economy, then that's about 240k from the front and 145k from the back. Actually, I'd expect them to optimize based on space, so if 40% of the plane is biz, then 40% of revenue should come from biz. Perhaps the most profitable routes with this config are 60% revenue from biz; other routes might be more like 2.5k-3k one-way biz.
I remember pricing out the Concorde years ago, before it was grounded. BA's first class subsonic was $8k, Concorde was $12k. (2001 dollars) If you're paying those rates anyway, it might be worth it to go faster, if you don't mind the relatively small seat and limited food service. Coach was $400-$600.
You will probably end up with 5 or 6 tiers of service instead:
Supersonic: Business + First
Subsonic: Economy + Eco+ + Business + First
Supersonic First will be a Veblen good that has a high price floor (like $30k). Business for time sensitive business passengers, and it's actually an Economy Plus seat for ~$15k.
It's very hard to resist marketing some service differences, particularly when you have two classes of users with different needs (speed vs. prestige).
We agree I think that there wouldn't be a similar price between the sub and supersonic travel options. The economics of running the routes can't work out to a similar price to existing offerings.
Of course the disadvantage, is no more air service for non-business class customers (that being most of us).
Meaning a big price increase for us normal passengers?
I travel each year to see family abroad, a minimum 2-leg trip totaling at least 27 hours. I can't sleep on planes so I arrive exhausted and am useless and cranky for the first 2 days after this trip. I would happily pay 2x the fare to cut that trip in half.
You are not the only consumer of air travel. Supersonic is not for you, it is for elites willing to spend 4x the ticket price for half the flight time. Concorde tickets were $6000 for D.C. to London in the mid 1990s, so about $12,500 today, and that was for an economy-style seat. It was very popular among a certain segment.
East Coast US to Europe in 3-4 hours versus 7-8, West Coast US to Asia in 5-6 hours versus 10-12.... makes it more like a domestic flight.
There is a proven middle ground, where you can pay the current price or x the price for 2x the speed.
> Blake’s pitch to airlines is enticing: “You’re already flying this route with a 300-seat plane where 80+ people in business class generate most of your profit. Give those passengers a supersonic plane, cut the flight time in half, and charge the same price.”
And now most of the profit for the 300-seater is gone. What does this do to flight pricing for those who were flying economy?
What really kills this though is the value proposition for the business class passengers. I think I'd rather pay extra to sit in a comfortable seat for 16 hours, where wifi is now a standard feature, than cram into a smaller (likely noisier) seat for 8 hours. The cases where that 8 hours matters - especially when you can work from the seat if you have to - are fleetingly few. In the 70s, you couldn't do much in an airplane seat so it was wasted time. This is no longer the case and is steadily getting better.
Reminds me of that description of the Tu-144 as "so loud you couldn't hear the person next to you screaming".
Some airlines "take" the marginal economy seat loss on larger planes because those are the ones they can fill with business class seats and make an even larger profit.
Even then it's a complex math on whether economy is hurting those flights' profit margins since those people buy things in-flight such as Wi-Fi and extra bags. Base fare is not the only way airlines make money.
The Tu-144 had several significant design and engineering problems that contributed to its troubled history:
Aerodynamic Compromises
The Tu-144 was rushed into development partly to beat Concorde, and this showed in its design. The aircraft required retractable canard wings near the nose just to maintain stability at low speeds during takeoff and landing—a workaround that added weight and complexity. Its delta wing design was less refined than Concorde's, resulting in higher drag and worse fuel efficiency.
Engine Problems
The Kuznetsov NK-144 engines were underpowered and inefficient compared to Concorde's Olympus engines. They couldn't sustain supersonic cruise without afterburners, which consumed enormous amounts of fuel and drastically limited range. The engines were also unreliable and ran hot, creating maintenance nightmares.
Structural and Systems Issues
The airframe experienced fatigue problems, the hydraulic systems were prone to failures, and the flight control systems lacked the redundancy of Western designs. Cabin noise levels were so extreme that passengers reportedly couldn't hold conversations.
The 1973 Paris Crash
The crash at the Paris Air Show killed all six crew and eight people on the ground. The exact cause remains somewhat disputed, but the investigation pointed to the crew making an abrupt evasive maneuver (possibly to avoid a French Mirage jet that was filming nearby without their knowledge), followed by an overly aggressive recovery that overstressed the airframe. A canard retraction issue or engine failure may have also played a role. The aircraft broke apart in flight.
The Tu-144 was ultimately retired from passenger service after just 55 scheduled flights—a testament to how many compromises were made to achieve a political goal.
nobody cares about the output of your favorite industrial quantity slop generator. try using your brain next time.
and later in the article:
> Remember, Concorde burned 52% of its fuel just taxiing down the runway.
Setting aside that these are completely different claims, the author does not cite this claim at all and it fails my personal gut check. Where is this information coming from?
(I was curious if there was any opportunity for some sort of system to power take-off from the ground, be it catapults like on air craft carriers or just power-transmission for electric planes, and the numbers I found were that while a surprising amount of fuel was used by the time the plane lifted off, it was more like 5% than 50%.)
Checking various links on taxiing burn yields about 2 tonnes which is a lot more realistic and reasonable (a previous HN comment indicates the 767 burns about a tonne taxiing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24283386 concorde burning twice that sounds fair)
The OP might have gotten confused reading articles like https://simpleflying.com/concorde-fuel-consumption/ stating concorde burned half its tank from the gate to cruise (mach 2 at FL600)
This seems incredibly inefficient. Is there a future for hybrid aircraft, which would feature both traditional turbofans and large batteries for energy storage?
Batteries would eliminate the need for an APU and power the aircraft during taxi, allowing the engines to be started just before actual takeoff, and shut down immediately after landing.
Either the batteries could power wheel motors directly during taxi, or the aircraft could mix turbofans with e-fans (which could also allow energy recovery during descent and help power the aircraft during cruise, reducing fuel consumption further).
I would assume the extra weight would make it not really worth the added cost and complexity.
- standard towing tractors are really slow when towing, nowhere near taxiing speed, so you need a fleet of heavier duty "fast tow", possibly dedicated (depending on price)
- more traffic around the runway, which creates more airport complexity
Taxibot does exist tho, and is certified, and used in a few airports. Though I think it's only hybrid not electric.
This is wrong, unless you have a source for it
But with e-taxi, the startup cycle could be performed while taxiing, potentially saving airlines time on pushback as well as fuel/maintenance cost savings.
Airlines would also significantly reduce engine operating hours, reducing engine wear and thus maintenance costs. I’ve been on flights out of Heathrow that seem to spend almost as much time taxiing as they do in the air (due to weather or ATC delays or whatever), so for short-haul operations this seems really significant.
Local air quality is also a concern for airports: the air in the neighbourhoods around Heathrow often stinks of jet exhaust, sometimes you can smell it from miles away. Presumably, much of those emissions come from taxiing aircraft.
Also, as far as maintenance goes, engine hours are weighted by operating power. So, an hour at idle doesn’t count as much as an hour at cruise power. One of the reasons airlines started using not-full power on takeoff when conditions allow it is because of “power by the hour” maintenance contracts, which incentivize that.
Interesting - I didn’t know this!
Very inefficient but good for safety: if an engine is failing, you hopefully might discover that while taxiing rather than when you are in the death zone 25 meters up in the air.
If an engine is going to fail spontaneously it’s almost certainly going to happen at high thrust, not while at idle or very low thrust values during taxi.
Engines experience issues when changing speeds (especially start-up) not when at steady thrust output.
https://www.safran-group.com/videos/e-taxi-safran-unveils-it...
> .. my recent trip from Abu Dhabi to LA. 24 hours door-to-door. We have the technology to reduce that to under 10.
The direct flight (by Emirates) takes 16h15 mins, so that leaves 7h45 mins not in flight. If we want to bring that down to 10 hours just by making the flight supersonic then that would require a flight time of 2h15, corresponding to a (ridiculous) speed well over Mach 4.
Obviously the real problem with this idea is environmental: emissions would be substantial and nobody wants an extremely noisy rocket port near their city.
Likewise for every fit 20-something being launched at Mach 5 you'd have 10 octogenarians dying of cardiovascular complications.
However I turn that idea, no matter from which point I'm looking at it, I'm not seeing it going anywhere.
(I must admit I was more curious about Astro Mechanica's engine tech before they also threw in the intention to operate Uber for business jets...)
Source: Air France Flight 4590 Accident Report states that the plane had 95 t of fuel on board when the aircraft started out and used 800 kilos of fuel during taxiing (page 17) and 200 kilos after taxiing before takeoff (page 159). https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-11/Concorde_Acc...
(Since there's a bunch of discussion about how to reduce taxiing consumption, I'll point out that one tonne of aviation fuel is about $700, so there's not much money to be saved by creating battery-powered tugs or whatnot.)
Probably the biggest win in aviation emissions would be converting all the ground support vehicles to electric. They’re currently classified as off-road vehicles, so don’t have to adhere to the same emission standards and normal cars and trucks. Additionally, they already spend a lot of time parked at the gate, which makes charging convenient and means that workers are never “waiting” for the vehicle to charge.
Takeoff and climb / accel was done with re-heat (afterburners), which did use a lot of fuel. After that, at Mach 2.0 could be maintained with super-cruise (no re-heat).
They did burn a crazy amount of fuel on getting up to supersonic speeds though.
It's much longer than the equivalent flight, but also much more comfortable. There's something annoying about airports - with the train I can get to the station 15-20 minutes before departure and it's fine.
Once the train rides get much longer than 12 hours it shifts, but there's a sweet spot right around there.
There are these really fast trains that exist in a dozen countries.
China has 30,000 miles of high-speed rail.
Why would you pick a 3 hour flight?
2. Concorde rather infamously could barely make the transatlantic trip from New York to London, because supersonic flight is expensive. Boom's currently nonexistent aircraft is planned to have about the same range. Neither could make the flight from LA to Dubai, which is a distance close to double their maximum ranges.
At a minimum, I'd want to be able to fly from the East Coast to continental Europe to avoid a red-eye but the biggest win would be trans-Pacific.
I think we need an energy breakthrough with a denser and still cost-effective fuel before really getting into the era of supersonic transport. Maybe at some point someone will dust off the nuclear-powered aircraft designs of yore...
- < 1h - can go there for lunch, or as part of running some errands;
- 2-3 hours - can fly over, have a full day of work at remote location (or sight-seeing), and get back home for supper;
- 4-8 hours - can fly over, do something useful, fly back overnight or next morning;
- > 8 hours - definitely a multi-day trip.
(There are more buckets still, if you consider long-distance travel by sea or land, and then more when considering how people perceived travel in historical times.)
As long as the travel time stays in the same bucket, reducing (or increasing) it doesn't matter much to the travelers. However, going up or down a bucket is a huge qualitative change, and one people - especially the business travelers - are more than happy to pay premium for.
So back to our supersonic planes, cutting down the LA-Seattle travel time from 3 hours to 1.5 hours (and accounting for airport overhead), doesn't affect the kind of trips people take. Cutting down travel from LA to Dubai from your 15 hours to 5 hours means it suddenly makes sense for corporate executives to fly over in person for single-day meetings, where previously it wouldn't.
This is also why it's the business customers that are always the target for such ideas - regular people are much more price sensitive than corporations, and are fine with long and hard flights if it means they can afford them. Meanwhile, paying an extra $10k to get the executive on an important meeting might actually be worth it for a large company.
Saving only one hour on a transcontinental (US) flight doesn’t seem all that impressive.
The laws of physics funnily enough are not something you can "move fast and break" or PR-speak your way around.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/lead...
[2] https://www.govtech.com/transportation/bill-authorizing-supe...
[3] https://boomsupersonic.com/boomless-cruise
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Concorde_Project
That would result in far, far less time savings that what is posited by the commentary on HN. Compared to Cessna Citation X, for example, that would reduce time in the air by just 15%.
Total travel time savings would be even less… so a private Citation X at M0.95 would still be beat a commercial M1.1 flight in door to door travel time.
Now the article randomly pulls Mach 1.7 out of seemingly nowhere, and I have no idea where that came from or how that is justified. But the company isn't making that claim as far as I can tell ( https://boomsupersonic.com/boomless-cruise the "FAQ" section even specifically says: "Boomless Cruise is possible at speeds up to Mach 1.3, with typical speed between Mach 1.1 and 1.2.")
Others may disagree, but I'd rather cut an hour from the flight than the entire commute/parking/security/airport waiting. (Assuming conditions on the actual plane were the same.)
My biggest dilemma is whether to sit in the aisle or window. The former you can get up whenever you want but are bumped by passers by and neighbors exiting the row. Versus being the one doing the disturbing.
And if you can afford business class - where supersonic would be priced - then I mean... The meals are restaurant quality and the full recline?! I hardly want to disembark! The biggest discomfort is the dry sinuses.
But in getting to/from the plane you are cattle moving through a logistical labyrinth with countless possibilities for something to go wrong.
Let's settle down. This kind of biz class experience is almost certainly unique to international travel. Flying "business class" from ATL to SFO might get you a plate of microwave slop and an extra 15deg of incline on almost all domestic jets. Once in a blue moon you'll get a modern plane with the diagonal seats. One less person in the row, though.
Paying for business class domestically is almost always a sham by my experience.
The food will probably still be worse than a first class international flight though. Not as many people paying as much and not enough air time to really force all of them to want to eat airplane food in the first place.
This is not my experience at all. First class is better than business class on international (and domestic, though relatively few domestic routes have three cabin service [counting all the economy levels as one cabin]).
Frontier doesn't have a business class nor long haul international flights (they are an ultra-low cost carrier).
Delta calls their highest tier "Delta One" their business class offering. It's mostly available in mid & long haul international flights, though there are a few select domestic routes with it IIRC. A tier below is First, which is available for both domestic and international flights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines#Cabin:~:text=D...
United's highest is called "Polaris", representing their international business class. Confusingly, they have "United First and United Business" as the next class. I.e. it's the same class but on domestic flights they call it "United First" and on international flights the same seat would be sold as "United Business" despite having Polaris for that already. Regardless of that oddity, the First class can't be higher than itself named Business class even compared directly instead of with the actual business class Polaris - it's the same seat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines#Cabins:~:text=....
Other airlines label and order things differently of course. E.g. American has Flagship First above Flagship Business above First/Business (shared much like United on that 3rd class) and maybe that's where your experience is. To my knowledge though, no such airlines operate the ATL<->SFO route originally described though.
Here are airlines offering three-cabin services on a single aircraft where First is the highest tier:
Air France - La Première (First), Business, Economy
American Airlines - First, Business, Economy
Cathay Pacific - First, Business, Economy
Emirates - First Class suites, Business Class, and Economy
Etihad - First Class private suites, Business, Economy
Japan Airlines - First, Business, Economy
Lufthansa - First, Business, Economy
Again, hbosch said ATL<->SFO and you aren't going to be flying Air France or Japan Airlines for that route. My list, as far as I'm aware, was exhaustive for that route, not a cherry picked search or global claim of which airlines would also label it that way. On other routes/airlines the statement could certainly have been true, but having flown the exact route it did not match my experience with the same set of airlines internationally.
Other threads are discussing what range is actually practical or worthwhile. The article is very optimistic saying Australia can be a weekend trip. For me it's much more beneficial to cut a 16 hour flight in half than a 6 hour one. I don't really mind an itinerary 9 hrs or less, which includes all US domestic travel. But of course it will be different for a business commuter vs the occasional getaway.
Getting through the airport is just a huge pain in the ass though. At least some airports now let you keep your shoes on again, hopefully soon we'll have scanners that don't need you to remove electronics (I tend to bring too much of this and it's always a pain), or even let you keep liquids again (!).
Lay-flat chairs and business class are nice and a massive upgrade for long flights but better than being off the plane? Nope.
> restaurant quality
The food is mid-tier at best, I would not return to a restaurant that served food like what they serve in business class. It's only amazing when compared to the alternatives and the fact you get treated like half a human for a minute.
> full recline
Ehh, I find them claustrophobic and they only really "lay flat" if you aren't 6'+. They are approximately 1 billion times better than normal airplane chairs but you are still in an airplane.
Overall when I started traveling I loved all of it, exciting, new. Now I hate this part as a whole, necessary evil of wasted life to get what I actually want where I actually want.
My main point is that all time is not created equal, that it matters WHERE you shave the minutes/hours off, not just what percent of overall travel time is removed. And while we disagree on how to apply this, we seem to agree on that main point.
it's the everything-else part of air travel that is fucking awful.
40+ minutes of security theater even with NEXUS and other fast-passes, lost bags, massive PITA airports, delays, and the hoards of dumb fuckin rubes who have no idea how to travel and need to haul their comically huge carry ons that somehow got through sizing + emotional support chihuahua -- a far cry from even the worst subways I've been on.
Always my smoothest airport experience by far. No checked bag, Clear + Pre Check, fill your water bottle after security, get a coffee at Ritual, buy a banh mi for the plane, use a pretty clean bathroom, sit in one of those swivel chairs, get on the plane.
This is such an exaggeration. Usually it's like 3-5 minutes.
(There is even a big aircraft company named "Air Bus", or something, did you hear about them?)
My last trip was on Hainan, which didn’t over fly Russia.
Rory Sutherland commented that, insteading of spending billions on high speed trains, why not spend a few million on making the experience nicer. Better carriages, more staff, nicer stations.
This isn't a very common product in the US, but it is available at most big airports elsewhere.
I find it especially useful during arrivals. Typically there'll be a sedan to pick me up next to the plane, many airports will have co-ordinated with the airline, my luggage will have been loaded separately and the crew will make sure I'm the first off the plane. After exiting the aircraft, I'm driven to a private terminal for possible border formalities and there'll be a car waiting for me right outside with my luggage already loaded.
At some airports, you might save hours off a trip like this. Prices run between crazy at places like heathrow and a few hundred dollars at less fancy airports.
There are flights between St Petersburg and Moscow. About 10 daily. It's about 1 hour. Together with everything you described, it's more like 4 hours. A high-speed train is also 4 hours. So the only people who choose to fly are those who have a connection or those who couldn't get a train ticket because those are always in high demand.
I don't believe the economics for that will at all work out the way they are pitching, but it has no relation to how much supersonic makes sense for a domestic short haul.
That said, it might still be flying if its recertification flight hadn't happened on 9/11.
111 more comments available on Hacker News