Boom Supersonic, the brand new airplane developer promising the return of supersonic flight, plans to bring the Overture to market by the top of the last decade. The Overture could have a Mach 1.7 cruise speed over water, Mach 0.94 over land, and 4,250 NM (4,888 mi/7867 km) range. Should an airline with many overwater routes and long distances to cover, like Alaska Airlines, turn into a brand new partner, adding to Boom Supersonic’s 130 orders and pre-orders?
Alaska Airlines has long overwater routes
Considering that business aircraft can presently only fly supersonic over water on account of the boom, the Overture is best suited to longer routes that spend much of their time over water. For Alaska Airlines, one among its most traversed routes is the 1,448 mile (2,330 km) journey from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to Anchorage International Airport (ANC), which spends much of its time over water.
Boom Aerospace claims the Overture can fly at Mach 1.7 – that’s almost 1,260 miles per hour, which might make the trip a 90-minute journey each way by the point you count take-off, acceleration, deceleration, and landing.
Graphic: gcmap.com
This is way quicker than the present operation with the Boeing 737-900ER and 737 MAX 9, which has a flight time of three hours, 34 minutes. Using Overture as an alternative of a 737 takes roughly 2 hours off the journey, not to say the flexibility for passengers and aircrew alike to say, “I’ve gone supersonic.”
Graphic: gcmap.com
One can even do the maths for Los Angeles International (LAX) to ANC. Alaska Airlines makes six weekly flights with Boeing 737s, taking 5 hours, 23 minutes on average. Boom Aerospace could make that flight in about 2 hours gate-to-gate. That’s 3 hours, 23 minutes of flying time back for passengers, and usable aircraft time for the airline too.
Graphic: gcmap.com
OK, so what about Hawaii? Seattle to Honolulu (HNL) is 6 hours, 4 minutes via Boeing 737. Alaska Airlines flies the two,677 mi distance 23 times per week, Delta Air Lines flies 11 times, and Hawaiian Airlines seven times. With a Boom Overture, that’s roughly 2 hours, half-hour with some cushion for taxi out, acceleration, deceleration, and taxi in.
However the Overture will not be so effective overland…
In line with Aero Toolbox’s airspeed converter, Mach 0.78 is 528.98 miles per hour true airspeed for the Boeing 737-900 at 30,000 feet. For Boom Overture, the aircraft will fly overland – on account of a desire to stop a sonic boom – at Mach 0.94 at 620.449 miles per hour true airspeed at 60,000 feet. Principally, the Overture is 91.469 miles per hour faster than the 737 over land.
There are a while savings at those flight speeds, but not much. To research the each day Anchorage (ANC) to Barrow/Utqiagvik (BRW) flights, it’s price noting that the Boeing 737 takes 97 minutes to fly the 725-mile south-to-north route, with 13 minutes taxiing out and 4 minutes taxiing in. All things being equal, that’s 82.69 minutes of Overture cruise time – and possibly less time than truly required.
There may be also the ANC to Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) route flown a number of times per week overland. That’s 2,846 miles, requiring 5 hours and 31 minutes in a 737, with 14 minutes taxiing out and a further 14 minutes taxiing in, in keeping with flightsphere.com. All things being equal, the Overture can cut the time all the way down to 4 hours, 35 minutes – so about an hour saved.
But should Alaska Airlines stick to subsonic Boeing 737s?
Good, coherent arguments exist about having Alaska Airlines wait or pass on Boom Aerospace’s Overture. The primary is that Alaska Airlines currently operates a single fleet type, which Easy Flying has amply covered over the past few years. But to amplify Alaska Airlines’ thoughts on single fleet, as Alaska Airlines Senior Vice President of Fleet, Finance, and Alliances Nat Pieper shared with Easy Flying recently, a single fleet is a “winning hand”:
“We’re specializing in a single fleet since it enables us to run the most effective operation for our guests. It enables us to generate extraordinary financial results, which is nice for our shareholders, and our crews love the Boeing airplanes we buy. Ultimately, if an organization may be super responsive and please their teammates, employees, their guests, and their shareholders, that is a winning hand; for Alaska, single fleet is the trail for that.”
Photo: Joe Kunzler | Easy Flying
The second is that Overture will only have 65-80 passenger seats, so is significantly smaller than the legendary 100-seat Concorde. But on the other hand, the Concorde began with low load aspects. A minimum of 80 passenger seats means only two skilled flight attendants are obligatory per flight, which translates to cost savings.
The third consideration is that Boom Aerospace remains to be working on cargo transport options. Meanwhile, Alaska Airlines considers its air cargo division an integral a part of its business. Actually, Alaska Airlines is currently converting the primary of two Boeing 737-800s from passenger to cargo as per below:
Photo: Alaska Air Cargo
As a Boom Aerospace spokesperson kindly shared about potential routes;
We expect that North America to/from Europe will see essentially the most robust demand for Overture flights, and markets outside of the North Atlantic have seen immense growth in premium traffic over the past twenty years, too. We see significant opportunities inside Asia, for instance. Beyond that, there are lots of attractive routes between Asia and North America, the Middle East and Asia, and various other regions across the globe.
Alaska Airlines doesn’t fly outside of North America and Hawaii for the time being. So the Overture is probably not fit. Actually, using a 64-80 Mach 0.94 Boom Overture on such a route as ANC-ORD versus – in keeping with FlightRadar24 – the standard 159 passenger Mach 0.78 Boeing 737-800 is a questionable decision.
With that, the last words should arguably go to Alaska Airlines Vice President Pieper, who kindly shared his views of Boom Overture with Easy Flying recently:
It’s a captivating concept. But I feel we, at the least from an Alaska perspective, are a good distance away from that.
Could Alaska Airlines break from a single fleet and buy Boom Aerospace Overtures?
But there are several explanation why Alaska Airlines should consider the concept of a small fleet of Boom Aerospace Overtures. Naturally, having supersonic aircraft on the fleet will attract aviation fans to the airline just like the Dash 8-400 did – but that’s not the one reason. Alaska Airlines and Boom Aerospace share a passion for increasing SAF use, so there’s a gathering of minds there.
On paper, the airplane could work. For instance, one Overture could make about two trips for the time of 1 737, creating savings. Nevertheless, it’s an enormous leap for an airline focussed on a Boeing-only fleet, and a sizeable investment to swallow.
Photo: Boom Supersonic
One must also quote Boom Supersonic CEO Blake Scholl who said at a June 20, 2023, Paris Air Show press conference;
“From the very first days, we imagine that life happens in person, that a world during which more people can go more places more often is a significantly better world for us to live in, and for our youngsters to grow up. So our mission is to make the world dramatically more accessible by enabling flights which are faster, cheaper, more convenient, and dramatically more sustainable.”
Ultimately, Alaska Airlines may not wish to risk American Airlines and United magically becoming incredibly competitive within the 2030s on key Alaska Airlines overwater routes in the event that they select to position Overtures on those routes. Nevertheless, the Alaska Airlines brand is undeniably strong, currently operating 737 variants on the mainline and E175s on the regional routes.
Should Alaska Airlines purchase Boom Overtures or not? Please share with civility within the comments your thoughts.
: AeroToolBox.com, flightsphere.com