The supersonic roar is once again echoing in the Mojave Desert. The XB-1, a scale prototype of the future Boom passenger aircraft, from the company Overture, has broken the sound barrier, reaching Mach 1,122 (1,385 km/h). This milestone, presented as a technological triumph, nevertheless generates deep concern in me.
Is it really necessary, in the context of the climate emergency we are experiencing, to invest resources in developing aircraft that will consume significantly more fuel, just so that a privileged minority can travel faster?
Overture dreams of a future where hundreds of its Boom aircraft will soar through the skies at Mach 1.7, transporting between 64 and 80 passengers at an altitude of 18 km. They promise to connect distant cities such as New York and London, Los Angeles and Sydney, or Seattle and Tokyo, reducing flight times by more than half. They argue that, by learning from the experience of the Concorde, their model will be profitable, offering tickets at prices similar to those of current first class, thus opening up hundreds of new routes. A bright future, apparently.
But at what cost? While the scientific community is warning about the need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Boom project seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Although the company assures that the plane will be totally new, with cutting-edge turbines, the reality is that, for the moment, they are based on fossil fuels.
A plane that flies faster inevitably consumes more fuel. It is a simple question of physics. To pretend that a supersonic plane, with its inherently less efficient design in terms of consumption, can compete in terms of emissions with current commercial aircraft, also powered by sustainable fuels in the near future, seems to me, at the very least, naive.
Overture's argument that the price of tickets will be similar to that of current first class only reinforces my reservations. This is a service aimed at an economic elite, willing to pay a premium for comfort and speed. Is it fair that, at a time when we are all being asked to make a collective effort to combat climate change, resources should be allocated to satisfy the whims of a few? The environmental impact of each supersonic flight will be considerably greater than that of a conventional flight. Are we willing to assume this cost as a society? Does this make sense?
I understand the appeal of innovation and the fascination with speed. But we must be critical and ask ourselves whether this type of advance is really necessary in the current context. The experience of Concorde should serve as a lesson. Its commercial failure was not only due to its high operating cost, but also to the beginning of environmental awareness.
The climate crisis demands a paradigm shift. We need to rethink our way of travelling, prioritising sustainability over speed. We must invest in research and development of truly green alternatives, such as synthetic fuels, hydrogen or electric propulsion, instead of clinging to obsolete and polluting models.
The Boom project, with its promise of supersonic flights, represents a step backwards in the fight against climate change. It is an anachronistic commitment to an unsustainable development model. Instead of feeding the dream of elitist speed, we should focus our efforts on building a future where mobility is accessible, efficient and, above all, respectful of the planet. It is time to leave the old ways behind and commit to a truly sustainable future.
Will we do it ?
EN 
ES