Rejected By The Industry, Boom Supersonic Raises $100M To Prove Critics Wrong—But At A Cost

No one will invest in building an engine for Boom Supersonic. So they’re going to fund the development themselves. They’ve raised money in a ‘down round’ to pay for this. Two years ago they’d supposedly come to an agreement with three companies to provide an engine.

He goes on to explain,

Goal is to make thrust on the first prototype core in about a year….Core is the high pressure spool, everything from high pressure compressor through the high turbine. We’re developing the high spool first then adding the low spool.

And then he says “To my knowledge it’s never been done this way before. So we’ll see how it goes…” which is not encouraging!

They couldn’t get any of the big engine manufacturers to bite, because no one thinks this project will succeed commercially. If everyone is wrong, and if the smaller players turn out to have the expertise, this would be a huge win all-around. But probabilities are stacked against success.

United Airlines placed an order for Boom Supersonic’s promised jets. Then American Airlines followed suit. Japan Airlines is an investor in the company.

And yet most people in aviation think that the plane will never be built.

  • It has a very limited market, relatively short flying range (for an initial plane, at least) and needs to fly overwater due to noise – likely still true even with regulatory changes

  • Given the limited market, no major engine manufacturer has seemed willing to step up to make an engine for the plane.

Rolls Royce was supposed to build an engine. They dropped out. GE, Honeywell, and Safran all passed. Pratt & Whitney did too.

An engine manufacturer has to believe that the engine is going to sell well, in order to recoup develop costs and turn a profit. In fact it has to sell better than other things they might deploy development resources against.

The engineering Boom wants to accomplish should be possible. Supersonic jets aren’t a new idea, Concorde accomplished it 50 years ago. They’re just trying to engineer something that’s more fuel efficient – both for operating economics (so airlines can make money) and for environment concerns (airlines have made environmental commitments). They’re also trying to make something quieter.

  • No U.S. airline ever purchased a Concorde, though orders were placed by Pan Am, Continental, TWA, American Airlines, Eastern, United and Braniff.

  • There were also orders from Qantas, Air India, Sabena, Air Canada, Lufthansa, and even Middle East Airlines and others which never came to fruition.

  • Only British Airways and Air France took actual deliveries of new aircraft.

  • The only other committed order came from Iran Air, and that was cancelled after the Iranian revolution.

Oddly Braniff did briefly own Concordes for a few hours at a time. They operated service between Dallas and Washington Dulles in conjunction with Air France and British Airways, but to do so they were required to take ownership of the plane for the flight segment in order to operate under their own certificate of airworthiness.

As well as changing flight crews the US approved documentation and procedures had to be present on the flight deck, which meant that the UK/French documentation had to be stored in the forward toilet.

There also had to be a change in the aircraft registration, while being flow on the Dallas – Washington – Dallas routes the “G” or “F” was covered up with white tape. On landing at Washington the ground staff would pull work ladders up to the tail and peel of the F- or G- registration numbers and changed them to an “N” with two letters and the numbers “94″ after that. This was repeated every time the Concordes landed in the US from Europe.


Credit: Boom Aerospace

As long as supersonic travel is more expensive than subsonic, the market will be limited. And the number of city pairs that can work with this plane is limited, too. Limited markets make it tough to recoup development and acquisition costs. Airlines have a hard time making money operating only a couple of planes of a type. The plane needs to be capable of flying long distances, fuel efficiently, and carry large numbers of passengers in order to be economical on a large scale.

Otherwise the market has to be able to support fares significantly higher than for subsonic transport. The ultimate question is: how much is shaving 3.5 hours off of an East Coast transatlantic flight worth, and to how many people?

When American announced their order they said they made a non-refundable deposit but didn’t specify what that means. It could have been $1. They didn’t even produce a graphical rendering of the plane in American Airlines livery. And American didn’t spend the day promoting this on social. For some reason they made the move (claiming to have ordered more planes than United, even) but didn’t go all-out even with the P.R. Their pilots’ union even came out against the move, and they represent the people who theoretically would get to fly the thing!

It’s possible to build a supersonic plane, but inefficiencies and regulation killed the Concorde. Boom can presumably develop a plane, and a top engine manufacturer can produce an engine for it. But will it sell to airlines who see themselves able to operate enough of the planes, to enough places, with enough frequency – given a market that will pay a premium for the option – in order to buy enough planes and engines where the whole thing works out as a business?

Engines can run billions of dollars to design and tens of millions of dollars apiece to purchase. It’s a huge bet for a manufacturer which would need to sell large numbers of engines just to break even. If a manufacturer can’t sell several hundred engines they won’t recoup their development cost, after recouping production costs, let alone turn the project profitable.

Boom has raised about $350 million in the past decade, and will now pay for engine development (which will ultimately cost more than $100 million). They can’t convince manufacturers to fund this, but they’ve convinced Silicon Valley investors to do it – albeit at a lower valuation than they’ve raised money in the recent past.

About Gary Leff

Gary Leff is one of the foremost experts in the field of miles, points, and frequent business travel - a topic he has covered since 2002. Co-founder of frequent flyer community InsideFlyer.com, emcee of the Freddie Awards, and named one of the "World's Top Travel Experts" by Conde' Nast Traveler (2010-Present) Gary has been a guest on most major news media, profiled in several top print publications, and published broadly on the topic of consumer loyalty. More About Gary »

More articles by Gary Leff »

Comments

  1. It is easy to think that is Concorde 2. Not so. It flies at only 900 mph, Concorde criised at 1,330 mph;

    Everything is late.

    The money allocated for engine development is laughable The GE90 cost over $2bn, and GE knows how to do it.

    This company would be a good short if they were public. Suggest a name change from Boom to “Splat”.

  2. Some people are still convinced that this will be a success. Their demonstrator is years late; the fact that they had to redesign the aircraft itself isn’t boding well.

    This may be another money grab for some folks; they get private financing for a project that they want to get others to believe can ever be a reality by they know it will never be.

    The only market it can ever truly serve is transatlantic; Pacific flights are too long and may require a fuel stop heading west. It won’t have the range to do West Coast-Australia meaning a fuel stop or two, which means the time saved in the air is wasted on the ground. The Kangaroo Route is also out of the question, requiring a fuel stop or two and slowing down after reaching the Middle East. West Coast-Hawaii is tourist heavy so they’re not gonna pony up cash to get to their destination faster.

    Sorry, but if you’re investing in this, you’re being duped.

  3. I love the idea of a return to supersonic air travel. Still, this is going nowhere. It’s not just ‘inefficiency’ and ‘regulation’ — They would have to solve the ‘sonic boom’ problem (which they basically can’t). So, sure, they can raise money from ‘investors’ like United in 2021 (’15 orders!’), American in 2022 (’20 orders!’), and JAL (‘lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my!’), but all these airlines get is marketing out of this. A false promise of something that will never happen. Otherwise, known as a lie.

  4. 1990
    it is not a lie to pursue something that may – or probably will not – happen.

    It does demonstrate poor judgment by companies that latch onto every new idea just to supposedly get a marketing advantage.
    It says more about the companies involved that they chase ideas that won’t deliver.

    and let’s keep in mind that Boom was supposed to work for TPAC flights unlike Concorde which didn’t have that range but Boom will barely have the range for the shortest TPAC flights and then can’t operate supersonic for anything other than over the ocean.

  5. Generally technical problems aren’t that hard to solve. I’m less concerned whether this is possible, even with $100M, and more concerned with the fact that they’re outsourcing engine development. To win, I think they’d need to pull engine development in-house, a la SpaceX, because that’s how you keep development costs down. None of the other companies really care if Boom goes bankrupt, since they’ll still get their $10M+ in fees from working with them.

    Glad to see it’s at least not going to the amazing $2B engine designers at GE, P&W, and RR! They’re the “old space” of aerospace. Sure, they’ll get the job done, eventually, just as long as the price tag has at least 9 zeroes and no one minds a 5 year delay…

  6. @Tim Dunn

    I know you are the resident contrarian, but Boom is not innovative. They are trying to recreate the Concorde, and they’ve failed. Now, it’s just a cash grab.

    Unless they are willfully ignorant, the airlines who ‘invested’ already know this isn’t happening. Yet, I’ve literally seen a depiction of a Boom jet with United livery on the seat back entertainment screens of their planes. United is suggesting to their customers that they are going to operate supersonic passenger flights (soon!). They aren’t though. That’s the lie.

    Please, by all means, give Boom your money. Once again, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

  7. And the airline orders are fake There is no cancellation penalty. I personally have ordered 100 Boom planes and announced plans to name each of them after a different sexually transmitted disease. Since I have only two parking places in my garage I, and United Airlines, will cancel our orders melodramatically after Boom files chapter 11.

  8. I don’t understand why this company would name itself after the problem which could make their product unviable: “Boom” Supersonic.

    That would be like starting a pharmaceutical company and calling it “Side Effects Inc.”

  9. @jamesb2147: “Glad to see it’s at least not going to the amazing $2B engine designers at GE, P&W, and RR!”

    They are the only people with the expertise to do it. That is why COMAC is using them.

  10. In various blog comments over the years, I said there were too many issues with Boom.

    Starting in the 1990s, there had been a project to design airframes that would produce self-canceling shockwaves. It involved NASA, Lockheed, Gulfstream, and others. Such an airframe would reduce the noise level to the FAA’s target and permit over-land supersonic flight. Such a feature is critical for commercial success. The science isn’t there yet. And, Boom isn’t there yet.

    Another feature for commercial success is a super-cruise engine. That is, an engine that will sustain supersonic flight in non-afterburning mode and has a specific fuel consumption consistent with commercial aircraft. Military aircraft have super-cruise engines but not the favorable specific fuel consumption. Boom needs a type of engine that doesn’t exist yet.

    As a practical matter, supersonic cruise will only achieve a *meaningful* time advantage on routes of 2500+ miles. ATL to JFK or LAX to SEA would see little *meaningful* time advantage. So, it’s about range. And, Boom isn’t there yet.

  11. I doubt even one of their VC’s did as much due diligence Garry did in this post…

    The question remains how to develop cheaper supersonic, the tech has been there for years just expensive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *