(To receive weekly emails featuring discussions with leading CEOs and decision-makers worldwide, click here.)
Blake Scholl did not plan to revolutionize the global aviation sector during his visit to the Museum of Flight in Seattle in 2007. He was simply there to satisfy his passion for aviation—an interest he had pursued casually since his college days just a few years prior. The museum exceeded his expectations—it always does, with its 1952 Douglas Skyhawk jet, its World War I-vintage Curtiss Jenny biplane, and its 1972 replica of the Apollo 17 lunar module. Then, he encountered the aircraft that caught Scholl’s attention abruptly: a British Airways supersonic Concorde, which entered commercial operation in 1976 and was permanently decommissioned in 2003.
Scholl assessed the Concorde from its pointed nose to its tapered tail, shook his head in disbelief, and thought, “This is the most incredible airliner ever constructed. Why is it housed in a museum? If something superior was flying, it would make sense.” But nothing was superior—or at least quicker—at that moment. For a brief period of 27 years, there existed the capability for commercial supersonic travel, made feasible by a limited fleet of 14 Concordes developed under an agreement between the U.K. and France, with the planes evenly shared between Air France and British Airways. The aircraft cruised at more than twice the speed of sound and completed a record transatlantic flight in two hours, 52 minutes, and 59 seconds. However, high expenses—a staggering $20,000 per seat—limited cabin space, declining demand, and a tragic runway incident in 2000 that resulted in over 100 fatalities ultimately grounded the fleet permanently.
Yet, just because supersonic passenger travel had not been executed effectively did not imply it should be abandoned indefinitely. That day in Seattle, Scholl—then 26 and lacking a background in aeronautical engineering but armed with a degree in computer science from Carnegie Mellon University and a role as an engineer at Amazon—resolved that the supersonic passenger aircraft deserved another opportunity, and he was determined to deliver it.
Later this month, on Jan. 27, in the same Mojave desert where Chuck Yeager shattered the sound barrier in 1947, the XB-1 aircraft, a prototype conceived by Scholl’s 11-year-old venture, Boom Supersonic, is anticipated to be the first privately built aircraft not constructed by a military or government agency to breach the sound barrier. The aircraft has already reached Mach 0.95—or 95% of the speed of sound; if it successfully surpasses that sonic threshold as planned, it will significantly validate the confidence that three major airlines—United, American, and Japan Airlines—have displayed in placing orders or pre-orders for a small introductory fleet. Scholl aims not only to reintroduce supersonic travel to passengers but also to achieve this on a larger scale, with a seat cost no greater than what business travelers currently pay—a mere fraction of what former Concorde travelers had to spend. The aircraft will be smaller than the typical passenger jet—capped at 80 seats—but will be significantly faster, capable of reaching Mach 1.7, and, should it gain sufficient popularity, Scholl believes it may eventually outnumber its larger, slower counterparts.
“I aim to provide supersonic travel to every passenger,” Scholl declares. “And when we accomplish this, the demand for supersonic travel will ultimately surpass that of subsonic travel.”
TIME conversed with Scholl on Jan. 13 regarding his aspirations for his company, the aviation sector, and, in the end, for the countless 4.5 billion air travelers who take to the skies each year.
This dialogue has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Your current work is entirely focused on aviation, yet your initial career path was quite different. What was your early professional journey like?
I was initially fervently interested in computer science and completed my degree at Carnegie Mellon in three years just as the dot-com bubble was collapsing. I accepted my first position at Amazon, receiving an offer only three weeks prior to a hiring freeze. I believe I was roughly the 200th engineer hired. It was a truly magical period; you didn’t need to seek approval for anything. You could simply take action, and as long as you didn’t mess it up too much, you could continue progressing. In 2002, I stumbled upon the chance to execute Amazon’s inaugural ad purchase from Google. I assembled the team that developed the first system for automatic ad purchasing on the internet. This endeavor turned into an explosive success, and it also caught Bezos’s attention. Early in one’s career, nothing compares to having the luck of working on something that a prominent figure values.
I dedicated five years to Amazon before moving to a few different startups, and eventually, I decided to venture into mobile e-commerce myself and created a barcode scanning application similar to Foursquare that allowed users to locate businesses and check in at stores. Honestly, if you were to rank the most significant innovations in the world to the least essential, I’d say a barcode scanning game would be pretty close to the bottom of that list. I didn’t find it particularly engaging, [thus] we sold it to Groupon. Following that, I was eager to start another venture, as that entrepreneurial spirit is certainly part of my DNA, but I never wanted to ask myself if it was worthwhile.
And that’s the moment you transitioned to commercial aviation.
Exactly. The day I visited the Museum of Flight, it lingered in my thoughts for quite a while, and my initial inquiry was, Why did Concorde fail? The explanation was that it was excessively costly. It was targeted at the 1% of the 1%. Hence, I procured every textbook I could locate on aerospace engineering and enrolled in an airplane design course in mid-2014. I concluded that if you correctly size the aircraft, you would need to surpass Concord by about 30% in fuel efficiency to reduce costs. Considering you were up against 50 to 60-year-old technology, that shouldn’t be unattainable.
That indeed doesn’t appear overly challenging. However, if it were really that simple, someone would have been producing supersonic aircraft by now.
That’s precisely what I assumed. I reasoned that if no one was pursuing supersonic flight, there had to be a valid reason. I anticipated that I would delve into the research for two weeks and manage to shake it off. Instead, I discovered there was no solid reason. Surprisingly, all the technology already existed. If you take a Boeing 787 and essentially employ the same carbon fiber composites while reducing its size, elongating it, and adding twice as many engines, you can achieve double the speed. No new technology is necessary. No new regulations are required. You don’t need any different supply chain. All that was required was a team.
Subsequently, I developed a spreadsheet model for the airplane and another for the market. I presented my findings to a professor at Stanford who had conducted some supersonic research. I said, “Hey, take a look at this, verify my calculations, because I’ve only been at this for a brief period, and I lack any background in this field.” He examined my work, navigated through it, and mentioned that my assumptions regarding the [market’s potential] were far too cautious. He stated, “Blake, if you’re going to pursue this, you should aim higher.” At that juncture, I exited his office and thought, It’s time to seek out some individuals and determine how far we can progress with this.
Launching an aviation company requires substantial seed funding. How did you secure the resources to initiate?
I invested half of what I gained from the Groupon sale into the company, which caused my family to become somewhat anxious. Later, we secured our initial seed funding round in 2015. The process essentially involved raising some capital, achieving certain milestones, raising additional funds, and accomplishing more milestones. Repeat the cycle. Currently, we have 140 employees working for us full-time, a headquarters in Denver, and we just completed the construction of a factory in North Carolina designed to produce 33 aircraft annually. If passengers shift to supersonic travel on routes that will experience significant time savings and be profitable for airlines, that translates to around 1,000 aircraft we’ll require.
You’re motivated not just to revive supersonic travel, but to ensure profitability. What’s your price point for both airplane sales and ticket prices?
It becomes profitable at $5,000 per ticket—actually very profitable at that rate.
Regarding the aircraft itself, everyone pays the standardized price of $200 million per unit. It will cost us about half that amount to manufacture one. The functioning of this entire model hinges on aligning interests. What do passengers desire? What do airlines seek? What do our investors expect? It’s a solid business.
How many aircraft do United, American, and Japanese airlines currently have ordered?
These airlines have a combined total of 132 orders. However, when you can fly United across the Atlantic in three and a half hours while British Airways takes seven, it’s clear that British Airways will also want to [go supersonic]. I don’t know anyone who prefers lengthier flights. Therefore, I anticipate a sort of domino effect unfolding over time. There will always be a demand for low-cost flights. Think Spirit Airlines. Yet airplanes must become faster and more economical, akin to advancements in phones, cars, and computers.
You might be able to lower the cost of supersonic travel, yet the laws of the sound barrier are non-negotiable. How do you tackle the challenge of the sonic boom?
Simply position it over the ocean, where there’s no one present to perceive it. That’s why the initial routes will encompass not just New York to London, but also Miami to Madrid, Seattle to Tokyo, and Los Angeles to Sydney. There are approximately 600 routes globally where flights primarily occur over water. When we are over land, we’ll stay beneath the speed of sound, thereby eliminating the sonic boom, and we’ll still be flying 20% faster.
Is any of your technology applicable to the military? It seems the government would be an appealing customer.
Absolutely, we’re collaborating on some projects with the Air Force; however, we intentionally excluded any military technology from the aircraft to ensure that it can be exported everywhere. Nevertheless, there are some defense applications. The primary one is VIP transportation. If the Secretary of State needs to promptly reach London or Paris to influence developments in Ukraine, how quickly can that be achieved? During a crisis, can the most pivotal individuals in the world arrive in person? The capability to project soft power holds significant importance. Additionally, there are other intriguing scenarios. Can we rapidly deploy a special forces team anywhere on the globe to address a crisis? If we can transport goods to and from Taiwan in the timeframe it would have taken to deliver something to or from Europe, that’s a substantial advantage. Currently, the military employs fast fighters and bombers, but when it comes to moving personnel or cargo, we still rely on airplanes that are 50 years old.
The passenger model of your aircraft will be named Overture, which carries a sense of grandeur. Will it live up to its name?
The Concorde was uncomfortable and often flew with a small passenger load. Overture will be distinct. At the front of the aircraft, we’ll design one row of seats adjacent to one row of windows, with an aisle followed by a middle row of two seats abreast, then another aisle alongside a row of seats next to the opposite windows, ensuring every passenger has aisle access. At the rear, where the cabin is narrower, there will be just two single rows of seats along each set of windows, allowing passengers to enjoy both aisle and window access without having to choose. I like to envision, What would an aircraft be like if Apple were its designer—someone genuinely invested in the outcome?