Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
JetZero CEO Lands A Silicon Valley Mindset at U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Aviation Summit
By Chris Sloan
Sept. 17, 2025, © Leeham News: At the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Aerospace Summit, Tom O’Leary, CEO and Co-Founder of JetZero, made clear that his company is bringing something different to commercial aviation: a Silicon Valley ethos. JetZero, founded in Long Beach (CA) in 2021, is applying the speed and risk tolerance of the tech world to one of the most conservative corners of industry — airliner design.
O’Leary, who cut his teeth as Director of Sales and Marketing at Tesla and later served as COO at eVTOL startup BETA Technologies, is no stranger to disruption. “I was used to people saying that’ll never happen,” he said. “But it’s just about the belief in a disruptive technology and what a small group of committed individuals can do to move that technology forward.”
Tom O’Leary, CEO and Co-Founder, JetZero is interviewed by John Luth, Chairman, President and CEO of Seabury Capital Group at the U.S. Chamber Global Aerospace Summit on Tuesday September 9, 2025.
A Bold Design with a Big Payoff
JetZero’s Z4 aircraft is a blended-wing-body (BWB) design, in which the wings merge seamlessly with the fuselage. The company claims up to 50% lower fuel burn per passenger mile, thanks to lower drag, with capacity for more than 250 passengers and 5,000 miles of range. With engines mounted on top of the airframe, noise is reduced significantly — a key benefit for airport neighbors — and the Z4 is designed to fit existing airport infrastructure for faster turnarounds.
“The more you dig into the design, you find that’s the most compelling part of the plane,” O’Leary said. “There’s a 30% dynamic efficiency, the ability to hit the mid-market where there is no plane.”
JetZero’s Blended Wing Body Z4 comes in the passenger model (shown), a freighter and an air force refueling tanker. Credit: JetZero.
Customer-First Design and the Midmarket Gap
O’Leary says the customer was “really the key to the founding.” He explained, “We’ve heard a lot about supersonics and eVTOLs, and I love those projects. I just was left with the sense that there was no innovation from an airframe perspective that was speaking to the core need of the customer in the market, which is to lower fuel burn and emissions.” The competition between speed and efficiency recalls Boeing’s early-2000s debate between the high-speed Sonic Cruiser and the efficiency-focused 7E7, which ultimately became the 787. Efficiency, not speed, carried the day then, and O’Leary is betting it will again.
For O’Leary, changing the shape of the aircraft opened up an opportunity to rethink everything about engineering and manufacturing. “Once we change the shape, we have the ability to reevaluate everything about how we engineer the airframe,” he said. “We get to use largely existing equipment from the supply chain, which is a benefit. We get to hit the middle market, which is another benefit, so it was really by taking this customer set first approach.”
That midmarket opportunity — the space between today’s narrowbodies and widebodies — has been a long-recognized gap. Boeing’s long-discussed “New Midmarket Airplane” never materialized, leaving room for a new entrant.
Why Now?
When asked why BWB hasn’t been tried before, O’Leary was candid: “That’s the most common question that we get. Airbus has 8,700 aircraft in the order bank — 10 years of production. That’s a disincentive to change configuration and heap risk upon what looks like a juggernaut.”
Even so, Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, speaking earlier at the summit, acknowledged that BWBs are promising for widebodies. “We came to the conclusion that the blended wing is for bigger, wide-body planes,” he said. “But for the narrow-bodies, the thickness of the blended wing is too high, so you lose on drag. So we’ve come to the conclusion that the better architecture for narrow bodies is longer wings, which are better for efficiency.”
This validation reinforces JetZero’s midmarket focus — though it also raises the possibility that Airbus or Boeing, with their deep financial resources and global support networks, might eventually step in and acquire JetZero rather than let it grow into a third OEM competitor.
Airbus sees the possibilities of the BWB, but only for large aircraft, not for the current single-aisle sector. Credit: Airbus.
Airlines Join the Effort
JetZero has invited airlines into its hangar to help shape the aircraft. “This week will be our fourth airline working group,” O’Leary said. “We have more than 20 airlines that we’ve done a deep dive with, and we’ll have 15 airlines in our hangar for two days for the fourth time. We’re there to listen.”
United Airlines is among those interested in the JetZero BWB. Credit: JetZero.
In March 2025, Delta Air Lines announced a partnership, donating equipment for the full-scale demonstrator and investing in cabin development. United Airlines followed in April with both an investment and an option to purchase up to 200 aircraft, contingent on milestones such as first flight in 2027. “This is real! I don’t know how long it will take, but it’s transformative,” affirmed United CEO Scott Kirby onstage at the Summit.
Alaska Airlines was the first carrier investor, participating in JetZero’s Series A in 2024 through its Alaska Star Ventures fund, securing future purchase options as part of its broader push toward net-zero carbon emissions.
Passenger Experience
JetZero is also investing heavily in the passenger experience, building a full-scale cabin mockup to solicit airline feedback early in the design process. O’Leary said that the company’s upcoming working group session will host 15 airlines in the hangar for two days, focusing entirely on cabin experience. “This isn’t a two-day pitch from JetZero,” he explained. “We’re there to listen and we’re there to understand as much about what the right questions are to be asking in the design process as we are to solve the problem.” For O’Leary, the cabin is a central part of the value proposition. “Ultimately, as an airline, you’re delivering for a ticket price, a destination between two points. You’re delivering an experience, and that cabin is such a huge part of that. So we could hardly be more excited to put them in a full-scale mock of the aircraft to get their feedback. And what better way to understand your customer’s needs?”
The Z4 cabin is wider than the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380. Credit: JetZero.
Scaled Composites, Air Force Support, and De-Risking
The Z4 demonstrator is being built with Scaled Composites (Northrop Grumman), and in August 2023, JetZero was awarded a $235m, four-year contract from the US Air Force to build and fly it. “There’s a need for a tanker, a transport. A transport can be a cargo. It unlocks three markets: passenger, military, and freight,” O’Leary said.
JetZero is de-risking the program by using Pratt & Whitney PW2040 engines — the same engines deployed on the 757 and C-17 — for its demonstrator, before switching to next-generation propulsion on the production model. “What makes us confident is that we have the technology right now,” O’Leary said, pointing out that NASA has already invested more than a billion dollars in enabling technologies such as flight control structures and the BWB’s fundamental shape.
He emphasized that the company is “on time and under budget,” noting that completing a critical design review with both the Air Force and NASA ahead of schedule is no small feat. “How many program managers are walking around the Pentagon, waving their head yes to, Are you on time and under budget? It’s not common,” he said.
JetZero plans to use the Pratt & Whitney PW2040 engine from the Boeing 757 and C-17 for its demonstrator. A new generation engine will be needed going forward. Credit: JetZero.
Building in Greensboro
In June 2025, JetZero announced Greensboro (NC) as the site of its first advanced manufacturing and final assembly facility. Located at Piedmont Triad International Airport, the state-of-the-art factory is projected to create over 14,500 jobs and eventually produce 20 Z4 aircraft per month by the late 2030s.
North Carolina’s incentive package is worth nearly $2.35bn, including $1.57bn in job development grants and $450m in infrastructure support. O’Leary called it “the biggest, most massive win,” emphasizing that the project is about more than tax abatements. “It’s the job growth. It’s the commitment of the community and to the upfront. All the universities, the airport, the infrastructure, and they really want this project. Look to a history of North Carolina being first in flight, and they want to make that now the present and the future of North Carolina.”
JetZero plans to build a production factory in Greensboro (NC). It is envisioned as larger than Boeing’s Everett (WA) facility, which is currently the largest building under one roof in the world. Credit: JetZero.
Toward Zero
Tim O’Leary, founder of JetZero. Credit: JetZero.
Looking ahead, O’Leary said, “SAF is great, but we’ve come to realize it’s further down the road. What’s today is use efficiency to lower the energy input, and therefore the cost input. It’s going to make future propulsion more attainable. It’s the best first step towards zero emissions, which is part of our name.”
For O’Leary, execution is about mindset as much as technology. “Any team that is successful, they don’t start a game thinking about, is it possible for me to win the championship? They just say, that’s what we’re here to do. And we do that by winning one game at a time,” he said.
JetZero’s name, he explained, reflects not just its sustainability mission but its ambition to create something entirely new. “We’re not just building a plane, we’re building a company. So zero also refers to the fact that this is a zero-to-one enterprise,” he said. “Really, all that was lacking was people with the conviction that this future is not impossible. It’s inevitable.”
The aptly-named, PR-heavy “JetZero” outfit sounds much like the “Boom!” outfit. Anybody heard from the latter, lately?
Show us, don’t tell us- and I’ll believe it when I see it.
What is interesting about this is that this is just the space that Boeing is going after with it’s new 797X or MoM. The problem that almost all are focused on is that range trumps utility. When will someone go back and show the system for a plane that does 1500 miles and 2500 miles comfortably without the attendant penalty? The mission should drive the design not the design driving the mission.
There’s already shorter range options. What get the headlines is the maximum range only with passengers baggage….nothing else.
The range with cargo and baggage is less
Even less again is reduced gross weight ( meaning less fuel mainly) and lower thrust engines – because the MTO is less.
If an airline is happy with 2000nm only they can get a plane tailored for that and at that price point. The engines are essentially the same, just the software derates the max thrust. The plane is certified only lower weight so has cheaper landing fees and other advantages. At the other end when an airline wants transcon capability that will usually be the highest weight and the highest thrust and the price they pay will be higher as well
Silicon Valley firms don’t have to put their products through rigorous certification processes.
Quite the opposite — they keep running afoul of regulations in Europe and elsewhere.
So, it will be fun to see what happens when they try to get this thing certified.
Interesting issue — emergency egress.
The ratio of sidewall area to passenger volume is much lower than for a conventional tubular fuselage, so where do the exits go?
Not in the floor (would impede cargo carrying capacity, and be no use in a belly landing or with a burning fuel pool).
Not in the roof (too high off the floor and ground).
So, lots of extra exits in the side walls? How will centrally-located passengers get to them efficiently?
I notice that the cool drawing only has two doors per side wall — perhaps some Silicon Valley design geek thought this was an AirPod rather than an airplane…?
I’m with @Vincent on this one.
Abalone.
I AGREE WITH YOU. This airplane has a lot of issues in my mind. I’ve had in depth conversations with them and they were going to lead with a smaller version to fly local freight and develop their production infrastructure. A small PT6 or equivalent powered competitor to the Cessna Skycourier makes sense as a stepping stone into the industry. That was the plan they explained a while ago. My real concern with their product is fitting it into a gate. It doesn’t seem to be a friendly handling vehicle on the ground.
I keep seeing morphing. Front gear was supposed to extend to get lift.
Now its going to be a wide body because single ails (MOM) in whatever form does not work with that design (bulky, strucutre heaves etcdf) note its this iffy 250 plus and 5000 mile range.
Like Rise I just don’t see it let alone a group of gold miners executing it.
No idea what fitting the gate means. But sans folding wings, no.
What?? What morphing? What are you talking about? Did JetZero have any alternate aircraft before?
It is very hard to make a new fuselage that has reduced drag by more than 10% compared to a 30 year old design for the same mission. They will depend on new engines like a 40k RISE engine to make the equation work. Being stuck with PWA it is less likely unless P&W grow the Mave PWC engine to 40k.
Now do you mount RISE on that beast?
A modest prediction: the NNA / Next New Airplane will look and function very much like the LNA / Last New Airplane; any improvements will be incremental, not step-changes.
The OEMs know this very well..
Those who say otherwise are blowing smoke for their own self-interested reasons, having nothing to do with aircraft proper. And remember, Jevons’ paradox always lurks in the
background.
We’ll see how it goes, eh?
250+ passengers. If the body is so light and aerodynamic, they should be able to use the modern engines of the A321, which can handle 244 PAX right?
Yet they decided to build the prototype using the old B757 engines. Why do they need so much thrust (and thirst)?
Maybe they want to compete with the B787-8. Then a range of 5000 NM is ridiculous.
Nice PR, but little substance.
Yea a lot of my thoughts as well.
Engines are probably surplus, they don’t have the money to buy new ones.
Trans
FYI
UA’s 787-9 carries 257 or 222 passengers only
Maybe as tanker or freighter. Passenger outboard passenger movement, evacuation, pressure vessel, engine redundancy for these configurations proved demotivating for investors. You are also storing fuel in the “cabin”.
In 2018 I cut & pasted this piece of art; maybe cutting corners but not 100% incorrect..
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DowitrCzH-4/WcpsKSc4J1I/AAAAAAAACw4/tSGvOzpEhLIxwB4O0lXFLR7fEiUHuB5NACLcBGAs/s1600/Aerospace%2BInnovation%2BSustainable%2BFuture.jpg
Well “said” with that graphic, keesje.
I absolutely agree with the view that it’s easy to spout words like ‘game changing’ and ‘innovation’, but much much *much* harder to take those words through to a viable physical, operational product.
Just look at recent attempts to break into the big jet market:
– China – not exactly an industrial lightweight – yet (so far) has only managed to self-certify the C919 and pass it off to local airlines (even with an aircraft packed full of western equipment)
– Mitsubishi – another industrial power – just couldn’t get the MRJ through the certification process
– Bombardier – already an accomplished aircraft manufacturer, yet were toppled by the effort to extend their know-how beyond the bizjet / RJ market with the C Series.
So what makes JetZero any different here? Then factor in the obvious questions about where the $15-20Bn for dev will come from, where they’ll find the skilled workforce, how they’ll crack the tough technical questions such as evac requirements, how they’ll establish an MRO network…difficult to see all of this as anything other than a pitch to reap in lots of lovely money from gullible investors before it becomes too obvious that this is going nowhere.
And don’t forget:
Even established player Boeing continues to fumble in its attempts to get new models certified 🙈
I really want to believe/see this program succeed somehow, even though I am skeptical of their engineering/certification resources. It seems they have the funding to make it happen, at least.
As we saw with Aurora Flight Sciences D8, sometimes ‘good ideas’ get subsumed if the startup is bought out by a major player. A similar problem would be posed by the structural supports (presumably carbon fiber) shown in the middle of the cabin in their illustrations here for Jet Zero. How can those be certified? And, can the turbulence impacts as to passengers on the outer seats be limited such to alleviate air sickness? Starting with cargo/military applications makes the most sense, to me.
I also don’t think the Rise/open rotor concept really makes much sense here. A blade failure in one in such an arrangement would quickly threaten both engines in short order, absent some sort of baffle/tail between them. Yet another certification challenge outside of exit plans for a civil pax variant.
I know they claim they don’t need billions that Airbus and Boeing would need (like 12) but I don’t see they have the money either as none of this ever goes right and even if the idea works, getting the details down where no expertise exists, no.
20 years and billions and there could be show stoppers
I see no budget, I see no cost estimate4s, I see 1.2 Billion in strati hesitance.
There are MOM aircraft, A321, MAX10 and 787-8. Not perfect built to market spec, but they manage and a lot of use of 787 on far shorter routes. Again not ideal, but then a MOM can’t be slotted into LA to Sydney either.
Certification has been mentioned. But, this is all new structure and whatever they propose to build it out of. None of it has been tested.
There are not even certificat6ion standar45ds for what they are doing. A lot like the Li Ion batt use in the 787. Except this time they won’t get away with driving a nail thorough the fuselage and declaring it meets all requirements.
If you think the 777X cert is slow, all done on known methods and materials with the background understanding of how to provide the test and data with those test to prove they meet spec (same spec they still have to come up with)
Disruptive is such a pretty word. AI does not have regulations, computers do not, cell phones do not, Aircraft do.
Any airline involvement is them shaking the tree to get Airbus and Boei9ng to put money into research.
And its a lot of what China faces, they do not have the civilian aviation support system in place. Except in this case they don’t have a captive customer.
While I hope it never happens, if a C919 crashes the government covers for the airlines as its a national security issue.
Boeing is one crash away from joining the dodo.
How IS the investigation into China Eastern 787-800 crash going ?
The cover-up!
How Boeing’s Responsibility in a Deadly Crash ‘Got Buried’
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/business/boeing-737-accidents.html