NYC-SF is a 2h30m block time (gate-to-gate) if it were allowed. Our sonic boom will be quieter than Concorde's, but because of the policy challenge, we are baselining overwater operations only.

It's my understanding that, initially, it'll have to be over water but once it's proven safe they can get approval to fly over land. I don't know what that entails but that was my understanding of it last time I looked into it.

A NYC-SF or DC-SF route would be freaking amazing.

> but once it's proven safe they can get approval to fly over land

The prohibition on supersonic airliners over land is about noise, not safety.

When Boom was first posted here I recall the narrative also including a lot of drag dynamics that would reduce the "boom" which would allow for more feasible overland routes / less noise pollution. Not sure where that sits now - I don't see it as much in their PR copy.

It's still their plan, AFAIK, but the regulatory hurdles to let them do it probably means it's a lot further off than overwater flights.

There's lots of water near NYC and SF so maybe you do your sonic boom over the water and then turn towards land?

That's not how a sonic boom works. A sonic boom doesn't occur just at the moment that an object exceeds the speed of sound; it's a continuous phenomenon that is experienced by a stationary observer as a momentary event.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom

The sonic boom is continuous at speeds above Mach 1