https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/21/aerion- ... -jets.html

Not shocking. Always seemed like a pipe dream to me.

It's certainly possible. The pipe dream is that it can be done affordably. Apparently the answer to that is still "no".

I love that in the article, somehow "inaudible sonic boom" morphed into "silent flight", LOL.

Not only was it to be supersonic, efficient, and affordable, it was also completely silent!

Doesn't really help the image much.

Bummer, but not that surprising. Just too many major new pieces had to be developed - engine, airframe, regulatory structure.... there is not THAT large a market for a $120m biz jet.

Doesn’t mention the word bankruptcy, but if so that could be promising. Many aircraft companies get lots of debt and capital in the initial stages as people chase the dream, go bankrupt so they don’t have to pay all those folks back, and someone picks up the assets with a whole lot less investment and cost structure to try and float. With the reduced cost structure sometimes they can then be viable. Often seems to take a couple cycles of that though.

With a lot of vendors and ancillary participants left holding the bag. Bankruptcy may be legal, but I would contend that if you have the assets, not paying back the debt is unethical. If you can't make a go of it, repeatedly unloading your debt onto the backs of others until you "succeed" is not OK.

Boom also seems to be grasping at straws.

Another goofy press release: anywhere in the world, in under four hours for $100. How long before they go boom?

http://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/b ... index.html

LOL. It's all the same "paper airplane" game that we see in the GA world. That doesn't stop people from throwing money at the idea until the people behind it decide it's not worth their time any more and walk away.

Is it possible to make something like this work? Probably. The trouble is separating the viable from the smoke and mirrors.

I’m not saying I think it’s a morally upstanding strategy... but it’s how it often seems to work in the aviation industry.

Heck, we elected a President whose business model was that for most of his life. Apparently many Americans don’t agree with our take on the morality of the strategy.

Generally speaking, these "investors" and "lenders" are ACCREDITED INVESTORS. Probably didn't involve ripping off little-ol-ladies pensions. With substantial upside potential comes substantial risk..... I bet all the creditors were big-boys and big-girls and understood the risks going into this deal.

A random pass through flying magazines from the 50s, 60s and 70s would indicate that most ideas rarely come to fruition.

An $11.2B sales backlog. There is a market…. But how to make it financially feasible… the age old aviation question.

Question to the engineers. Is it cheaper to make an airplane that goes Mach 2, or a rocket that goes out of the atmosphere and can make it anywhere in 2 hours? I know nothing….. but the later would make more sense.

11.2B sales backlog? For supersonic flight?

Has anyone from this crowd bothered talked to BA or Air France?

I feel like commercial supersonic flight and socialism have a lot in common ... you know ... it just has been done right YET.

A few more hundred million dead persons or billions of dollars, but we'll get there.

Admin - delete as necessary.

Keep in mind that number is entirely vapor....

It's like you asking me "If I develop a plane, and you have the money, might you buy one once it's built?", and I say "Sure." And then you book it as your sales backlog.

It's a whole lot different level of commitment and interest than "Here is a check for your product."

Would you pay double to fly twice as fast on a commercial flight?

Sometimes. Not always. Of course it only makes sense on long flights.

Keep in mind this is coming from someone who pays significantly more than double to travel slower than most commercial flights most of the time.