Printable View
Today is the 33rd anniversary of the first passenger flight of the supersonic Concorde. Both aircraft departed simultaneously from their home airports on Jan. 21, 1976. British Airways to Bahrain and Air France to Rio (via Dakar). Look at how far we've come since then ( no supersonic passenger aircraft).
If there was a market for Supersonic jet travel you'd have Supersonic jets. The fact is they’re isn't a market and they're really never was. The Concorde was a marvel for its time but was nothing more then Europe trying to retain some shred of its once former grandeur on the Atlantic. The Concorde was the spirit of Europe's liners, much like the A380 is the spirit of the Concorde. Boeing tried to bring back high speed air travel and the airlines said, "No."
Today's world high speed transport by air isn't as important because of advancements in communication, i.e. the web, mobile devices, etc. Today, business can get done without having to be face to face with someone. The trends in air travel are leaning towards efficiency rather then speed.
As much as people loved the Concorde the fact is it wasn't cost effective then and it’s not cost effective now.
Leave it to Tom to piss on our parade :twisted:
I'm heading home to sit in my Concorde seats and sip some Champagne in a few hours!
Cheers!
Only Monday, I was looking for something in my desk drawers at the office, and came across my 2 CD's of the Air France and BA final flights from JFK - great memories looking at those again.....
What Piss? Speedbird implied that we haven't advanced from a 1960s design. I was responding in kind. The fact is simply because the plane was fast doesn't make it more advanced then today's airliners. The fact is today's aircraft are far more advance then the Concorde was, they just don't fly at Mach 2.5. Hell the L1011 was more advanced then the Concorde. The French should stick to wine and cheese...leave quality airplanes to Boeing ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mirrodie
That said after a French-built A320 survived the miraculous feat of water ditching just last week, something that as yet can not be said for Boeing :roll:Quote:
The French should stick to wine and cheese...leave quality airplanes to Boeing
Back on topic, Concorde was pretty amazing for her time. I will definitely be watching those farewell vids when I get home.
ohhhhh, he got you there!! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by kc2aqg
The Concorde was truly a piece of art, it was unique (don't try to play the TU-144 card), and it allowed civilians to travel at amazing heights at amazing speeds in the highest of comfort. It allowed businessmen to add days to their weeks, as they would be losing less time to travel. Sadly, the cost of maintaining the flights was to high, and the demand was too low; leading to it's downfall. (curses to the free market economy!! :evil: (even thought it survived longer then its soviet counterpart in a controlled economy) :wink: ) But overall, the plane was a masterpiece. It also was the first to utilize the fly-by-wire system, which all modern jets feature.
I remember seeing that on TV and I also remember seeing on tv BA and AF Concordes meeting nose to nose at Dulles Airport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedbird1
Sorry T-Bird76 I have to very strongly disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Until the 1980s Concorde was thought of as white elephant (a folly) by the UK press (nice body, shame it can’t make money), But in the 1980s when BA was privatised by the Thatcher government and BA became a private business Concorde had to pay her way, she had to make money for BA, if she could not make money she would have been grounded for life.
Over the next 20 odd years due to BA’s clever marketing (from what I heard) Concorde DID make money or brake even on EVERY single flight for BA.
In the 1990s there where charter flights and on some days at LHR I was lucky enough to see around 4 take offs and landings, other days it was normal 2 (10.30am LHR-JFK) and (7.30pm LHR-JFK) + 5-ish pm landing.
So believe me there WAS a demand for Concorde, there WAS and IS a market for Concorde, otherwise she would never have made any money for 20 odd years for BA.
With Air France it was a bit different, I feel they didn’t market her right so I guess passengers wanting to fly on Concorde to USA chose BA over Air France.
(From what I heard) in winter 2002 people had already made advance bookings and paid in full LHR – Barbados flights for the winter 2003.
So that also proves there WAS still a demand.
In Nov 2003 I remember going to LHR and seeing a lecture made my Mike Bannister (Chief BA Concorde pilot) one of the things I heard was most people who used Concorde regularly where very upset at her demise as instead of doing a quick hop (London – NYC) or NYC – London doing business and then coming home the same day.
They now have to spend 3 days doing the same thing as it takes 7-8 hrs to fly LHR – JFK where as on Concorde she did the same journey in half the time (3 ½ hrs).
Any one who could afford 1st class or may be business class could afford to fly on Concorde as Concorde tickets where only 20% more than 1st class tickets but Concorde got you there 50% faster than any subsonic plane.
Oh yes there was and there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
I strongly feel if BA and Air France had dropped prices believe me demand would have out stripped supply and there would have been punch ups at who could get the Concorde tickets and who had to settle for a SLOW subsonics.
LOL yeah right and I just saw a pig fly round my head LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
She is still a marvel as nothing has yet been built to replace her or better her.
What a load of balony, the A380 hippo is the spirit of the fat over weight and SLOW 747.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
If the 747 and A340 where real and if they mated the A380 would be the result.
Concorde is unique she is timeless, there is NOTHING else out there which can match her, The Russian TU144 comes close and is the spirit of Concorde.
No it wasn’t the Boeing Sonic Cruiser was designed to cruise at around mach 0.98-mach 0.99 (that by Concorde standards is a walk in the park), I feel it used a modified Boeing 777s body + engines but the cost of the Sonic cruiser was to much for little saving in time people would make on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
So the airlines said no, if Boeing had given the airlines “son of Concorde” with Boeing 777 capacity and range at decent price then the airlines would have said yes.
(As who wants to be stuck in a slow fat 4x4 when you can drive a fast sexy Ferrari).
But as usual Boeing mucked up just like they mucked up in the 1960s when they tried to make Boeings version of Concorde, but designed a bigger plane which was to complex and ended up spending as much money on R&D and wooden mockup as the UK/France spent on design, building and making 14 mach 2 airliners + proter types.
One other thing you need to understand is that these days due to the sonic boom the tree huggers won’t allow mach 2 flight over populated areas.
Until the sonic boom problem is fixed mach 2- mach 5 airliners can only fly over sea and ocean, that for an airline spending millions of $s on a plane isn’t really value for money.
If NASA, Boeing and Airbus can fix the sonic boom problem then believe me more airlines would want supersonic airliner and I feel demand is still there now.
Also the fact that they are spending millions of $s design and making a Supersonic learjet proves people still want supersonic travel.
If demand wasn’t there no one would waste time and money making a supersonic plane.
That’s like saying that due to todays advanced communications people can easily visit another part of the world in seconds by watching it on tv, the internet or talking to others on the phone or on webcams.Quote:
Today's world high speed transport by air isn't as important because of advancements in communication, i.e. the web, mobile devices, etc. .
But despite all this planes are still made and people still travel so demand for travel is still there.
If you gave people a choice of 2 free tickets
:-
A) fly LHR-JFK in 8 hrs
B) fly LHR-JFK in 3 1/2 hrs
They would choose option B as who wants to be stuck on slow plane when you can get there in half the time on faster plane.
You forget that Concorde’s engines where more fuel efficient at mach 2 than they where at slower subsonic speeds, if she tried to fly LHR-JFK at subsonic speed she would have never got to America.Quote:
The trends in air travel are leaning towards efficiency rather then speed
So for her time and for the speed range she had (0 – 1350-ish mph) her engines where extremely efficient at that was with 1960s technology.
If Concorde had been made now (with todays technology) her engines would have been even more fuel efficient, even better and even greener than ever before.
We have the know how to do it, we just don’t have leaders to make it happen………..
Why are airliners mainly for business ?Quote:
Today, business can get done without having to be face to face with someone.
Unlike the 1950s and 60 (where the jet set, the rich and the yuppies of time could afford to go by air), since the 1970s air travel is not only restricted to business men or the rich.
Any one can buy and ticket and get on plane so having affordable supersonic travel would be a gift from the gods on long inter continental flights (UK- USA, New York to LA, UK to Australia, UK to India, UK-South Africa, UK- New Zealand, UK – Japan) to name a few far off planes which take forever now would be done in half the time any one knows supersonic travel is better.
You never heard of people getting blood clots and dying on a Concorde flight, but on slow long distance subsonic flights it’s a well known thing which can happen and has happened in the past.
In the 1980’s mobile phones where extremely expensive, only the yuppies could afford them, but now even kids have mobile phones (as technology got better and prices of these dropped) same principle can apply to supersonic travel.
Agreed as F104 was mach 2 plane, but the F22 is also mach 2 but is more advanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
But in airliner terms no ……..apart from Concorde no other airliner has engines which go from (0-1350-ish mph) and fly LHR to JFK with 100 people (in normal clothes) + crew + food + baggage.
Due to her afterburners Concorde pilots knew they could get instant full power at any point in time and get out of danger, as far as I know no airliner can do that.
Apart from her speed Concorde can do things which other slower planes can only dream of and only now 40 years after Concorde’s first flight military planes like the RAF Eurofighter and USAF F22 have supercruise.
Concorde had that 40 years ago and used it 2-4 a day every day for 27 years (not even the airforce’s little boys with their whooopy doooo fighter plane toys) could have super cruise until 2007 that around 40 years after Concorde had them.
Things like advanced air intakes which allows engines to fly at very high speed speed have not been used on subsonic airliners to make them better.
When subsonics need to move nose up to down they use elevons, Concorde never had these she used those the flaps next to her engines to do the same thing.
When the C of G moved back or forward Concorde moved fuel to the back or front of the plane to balance it.
No airliner does that, Her brakes where very advanced to name a few things.
No they are not, that’s like saying today’s fat porky kids are better than kids from the 1960s and 70s who where thinner, leaner and more healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Concorde is still more advanced than SLOW fat porky cartmans of today.
Agreed today’s subsonics are better than their “older parents” as the new ones use glass flight decks, newer computers, more efficient materials to build them and better engines than their parents.
But Concorde is in another league, if “son of Concorde” was built now she’d have all the above toys and more as remember she would have to fly a mach 2 and not mach 0.88.
If President Obama gave money to bring Concorde back, she could easily be fitted with ALL the above toys and more, so with these toys she’s be even further a head than she is now.
LOL what a load of kak, that’s like comparing a slow over weight bus to fast slim sexy sports car LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
You forget that until her grounding Concorde was the envy of EVERY single airline.
When Concorde was around people looked and stared, they dreamed and drooled all over her…….. I heard in the past when a few US airline bosses saw how successful Concorde was for BA they bitterly regretted not getting a few for them selfs, but then it was to late……
In the 1980s and 1990s I heard BA made alliances with US airlines, one of the reasons was Concorde as US airline passenger travelling on of these alliances could get upgraded to Concorde if they wanted to……
Why was that done…….. because there was a demand for her.
LOL yeah right mate and you call the unbuilt failed Boeing version of Concorde a “quality airplane” ………… stick to reading comics LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Concorde was made by UK and France.
erm; to comment on Jetinder's post...
In terms of electronics; the 777 is far more advanced than the Concorde will ever be.
I'm sorry I don't have all the time in the world to explain all the differences in the avionics...
Also concorde was an MX nightmare. The A&Ps hated working on the pos (The words of a British mechanic at JFK). When it was parked, buckets needed to be left under it to collect the fluids, due to EPA enforcement.
Sure it was fast, but it was fast at a huge cost.
Boeing saw the failure in it's role, and that's why the 777 does so well...
Wow T-Bird dont you know better than to mess with Mr. Concorde there?
Oy and ouch!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Generally when you lower price you will increase demand. However that doesn't mean there was a market for Supersonic flight. A drop in price that drove demand would be based on the novelty of the experience and nothing more. If BA and AF lowered the price they would have lost even more money then they were losing on those flights. The economics didn’t add up, simple as that.Quote:
Oh yes there was and there is.
I strongly feel if BA and Air France had dropped prices believe me demand would have out stripped supply and there would have been punch ups at who could get the Concorde tickets and who had to settle for a SLOW subsonics.
Have you even asked yourself why nothing has been built to replace her? Perhaps if you did you'd face the cold reality that once again there isn't a market for it, people aren't beating down Airbus's or Boeing's door to say "build a fast plane!"Quote:
LOL yeah right and I just saw a pig fly round my head LOL.
She is still a marvel as nothing has yet been built to replace her or better her.
Mate the evidence of Europe's ego in transportation is clearly evident...you Brits competed with the French, German's, Italians, and Dutch head on to build liners that were bigger, better and faster then the next one, QM1, QE1, Nomandie, Brennan, REX, France.... The Concorde like the A380 was the U.K and France's ego trying to compete for some bogus title that meant nothing at all. Hell you people were still blinding building Superliners as PanAM and TWA were taking more people across the Atlantic then Cunard and French Line combined.Quote:
LOL yeah right and I just saw a pig fly round my head LOL.
Have you asked why the A380 Freighter program was canceled? The 747 is an undisputed success, the A380 will be lucky to break 500 frames. The new 747-8 is a very successful cargo version of what will be the first choice in cargo transport for the next 20 years. The numbers are there my firend…the numbers are there…are you calling solid numbers “balony?”Quote:
What a load of balony, the A380 hippo is the spirit of the fat over weight and SLOW 747.
1. Never said Boeing was building a Supersonic Transport...they were building a fast aircraft and the airlines didn't want it.Quote:
No it wasn’t the Boeing Sonic Cruiser was designed to cruise at around mach 0.98-mach 0.99 (that by Concorde standards is a walk in the park), I feel it used a modified Boeing 777s body + engines but the cost of the Sonic cruiser was to much for little saving in time people would make on it.
So the airlines said no, if Boeing had given the airlines “son of Concorde” with Boeing 777 capacity and range at decent price then the airlines would have said yes.
(As who wants to be stuck in a slow fat 4x4 when you can drive a fast sexy Ferrari).
But as usual Boeing mucked up just like they mucked up in the 1960s when they tried to make Boeings version of Concorde, but designed a bigger plane which was to complex and ended up spending as much money on R&D and wooden mockup as the UK/France spent on design, building and making 14 mach 2 airliners + proter types.
One other thing you need to understand is that these days due to the sonic boom the tree huggers won’t allow mach 2 flight over populated areas.
Until the sonic boom problem is fixed mach 2- mach 5 airliners can only fly over sea and ocean, that for an airline spending millions of $s on a plane isn’t really value for money.
If NASA, Boeing and Airbus can fix the sonic boom problem then believe me more airlines would want supersonic airliner and I feel demand is still there now.
Also the fact that they are spending millions of $s design and making a Supersonic learjet proves people still want supersonic travel.
If demand wasn’t there no one would waste time and money making a supersonic plane.
2. The Sonic cruiser was estimated to have a range of 10,000 miles.
3. Private Business jet travel and commercial airline travel are two TOTALLY different businesses. You are comparing apples and oranges.
4. The problem is not only the Sonic Boom...its fuel. With current fuel technologies and prices this is not a business that makes sense economically and hence there is no market crying out for Supersonic Air Travel. When prices allow for it and it can be affordable to the masses while earning the airlines a profit that will change..right now and 40 years ago there wasn’t a need.
Mate go have some afternoon tea and rethink what you just said.... Do you really think the airliners of today are not more advanced then Concorde? Hate to break it to you but the microprocessor in my Blackberry is more powerful then the computer that controlled Concorde. The manufacturing process and materials that are being used to build the 787 weren’t even thoughts back in the 60s and 70s.Quote:
No they are not, that’s like saying today’s fat porky kids are better than kids from the 1960s and 70s who where thinner, leaner and more healthy.
Concorde is still more advanced than SLOW fat porky cartmans of today.
Agreed today’s subsonics are better than their “older parents” as the new ones use glass flight decks, newer computers, more efficient materials to build them and better engines than their parents.
But Concorde is in another league, if “son of Concorde” was built now she’d have all the above toys and more as remember she would have to fly a mach 2 and not mach 0.88.
If President Obama gave money to bring Concorde back, she could easily be fitted with ALL the above toys and more, so with these toys she’s be even further a head than she is now.
The Concorde was the envy of every airline??? How so? Why would an airline like Southwest be envious of Concorde? I think you mean they admired the Concorde...two totally different things.Quote:
LOL what a load of kak, that’s like comparing a slow over weight bus to fast slim sexy sports car LOL.
You forget that until her grounding Concorde was the envy of EVERY single airline.
When Concorde was around people looked and stared, they dreamed and drooled all over her…….. I heard in the past when a few US airline bosses saw how successful Concorde was for BA they bitterly regretted not getting a few for them selfs, but then it was to late……
In the 1980s and 1990s I heard BA made alliances with US airlines, one of the reasons was Concorde as US airline passenger travelling on of these alliances could get upgraded to Concorde if they wanted to……
Why was that done…….. because there was a demand for her.
Mate she was a novelty for BA and AF. You really believe she was an economic success? Ask yourself this...How many were built and put into service? If you want to go by those numbers, most reasonably educated community college grads would say the Concorde was the biggest failure of any commercial airliner built.
Hell I’d like to drive a Corvette but guess what…doesn’t make sense economically and the Corvette will never be a best seller. Niche markets are never HUGE success in airline industry. Time and time again this has been proven.
I never mentioned anything about Boeing's attempt at building a supersonic plane..Boeing's success is very evident and numbers don't lie mate.Quote:
LOL yeah right mate and you call the unbuilt failed Boeing version of Concorde a “quality airplane” ………… stick to reading comics LOL.
737, most successful narrow body jet in history.
787, most successful plane in terms of orders in history.
Mate its great you love the Concorde that's awesome, we all love some aspect of aviation to a great degree but you're being a fan boy over the real facts that from a business perspective the Concorde was not a success, it was a niche plane that failed to grab hold and take off, excuse the pun. Marvel of technology at the time, yes, awe inspiring, yes, sleek, yes, fast, yes...but she was born in the wrong century and is simply a memory. Airlines are business; they have a duty to their shareholders to make money, not to fly around grandiose “cool” planes just so people can go “oooooooo.” That’s life…life’s a bitch…deal with it.
P.S
There's a phrase that goes "Its the Quiet one's that change the world, but its the loud one's that take credit for it." Concorde didn't change the industry..planes like the 737 did. Think about the two and then think which one had had the glory and which one got the job done?
Tom,
I think the OP was just reminding us the date and the good times.
You pissed on the parade by reminding us of reality. We all know its no longer here, but why remind us?
And now that Jetinder has awoken, well, Tom, you whizzed on the electric fence right there :mrgreen: :wink: .
Mario its a topic of valid discussion in an aviation forum in response to a statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by mirrodie
The fact is we've come a long way and guess what...Concorde's failings are equally a part of her past as her success was. To simply relegate them to some corner because you want to look at her through Pollyanna glasses does nothing to celebrate her time in the sky and in fact disgraces her existence. If no one including yourself wants to Champion the true facts of her success then so be it. I've always looked at the Concorde as others have as Europe trying to hold onto its once former greatness. The sociological stains of that are deeply ingrained into Concorde and what she was. Success is great but you can't forget about the failings either, and often times those failings make history as interesting as it is.Quote:
Look at how far we've come since then ( no supersonic passenger aircraft).
You can celebrate her graceful lines, symbol of modern air transport, and speed. I rather enjoy looking at the societal symbol of what Concorde was. A machine that attempted to grab on and ensure the ego's of the past empires of this Earth remained proudly European. Sadly for them things change and the spirit and know how of the American people built an aircraft industry that truly changed the world.
Mate I love TWA but damn well know the failings of that airline..its part of her history. You can't choose only parts of history to celebrate.
T-Bird76
No worries, look I ain’t here to upset any one.
But I am a Concorde chaser and I will always adore the bird.
Although all my life I dreamed of Concorde, she was the 2nd plane I ever flew on, 1 week before I flew on a Ryan air 737 and on my way home to London I flew home on 747.
So from that point side my out look was never clouded, I looked at things from a laymans point of view and from that I know what its like to cover huge distances and what I prefer.
Once you flew on Concorde believe me anything else feels slow, on my way home 3 ½ hrs in to my flight my body expected to be in London, when I realised I was still stuck half way across the Atlantic that got me grumpy and its only then I fully realised what Concorde was all about.
She wasn’t for the rich or famous she is some thing out of Buck Rogers.
If I had flown both ways on Concorde I would not have known the real differences.
Yes it does as the same principle was applied by budget airlines like Easyjet and Ryan air for normal air travel. Despite the recession these 2 airlines are still in business. one of them is now bigger than BA, before they came along air travel was very expensive but these days you can book a ticket to Europe for as little as £30 ($30-ish) one way so any one can afford to flyQuote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
The demand for cheap seats stimulates growth.
That’s like saying when the 707 and DC8 came out, there where novelty experiences and people would have soon gone back to slower cheaper, quiter, propeller engined planes and ships.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
But that was not the case, once people realised what jet travel was like and how it would shrink the world, they leapt to it and all propeller airliners where sent to the history books.
Same principle will apply to Concorde, if she had cheaper seats then people would have realised it was not a “novelty” it was a better and faster, subsonics would have been sent to the bargain bucket airlines.
BA are not a charity, after they where made into a private company they had to make money.Quote:
If BA and AF lowered the price they would have lost even more money then they were losing on those flights. The economics didn’t add up, simple as that.
If Concorde did not make money she would have been grounded in the 1990s, BA did not make a loss on their flights they either broke even or they made a profit on every flight.
AF was different as they didn’t know how to market her properly but that’s like any product.
There where enough rich people to keep Concorde flying for a long time, but due to many factors inc 9/11, Air France and Airbus pulling out BA where forced to ground Concorde.
In 2003 Rod Eddington the CEO of BA also fought tooth and nail to save Concorde, but he could not as I feel Airbus refused to help him.
There is a market for her, but the airliner will have to be greener, have longer range, more passenger capacity and cheaper to buy than Concorde,.Quote:
Have you even asked yourself why nothing has been built to replace her? Perhaps if you did you'd face the cold reality that once again there isn't a market for it, people aren't beating down Airbus's or Boeing's door to say "build a fast plane!
Sonic boom will also have to be fixed, only then will airlines start to buy an SST.
LOL that’s like us saying what Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong did was nothing but in real life these where huge achievements.Quote:
The Concorde like the A380 was the U.K and France's ego trying to compete for some bogus title that meant nothing at all.
Also you wouldn’t be saying the above if the 1960’s US government had asked Lockheed to build an SST instead of Boeing (as Lockheed with the SR71A had experience of supersonic flight and would have made a brilliant SST).
Crossing the atlantic fast was never a nothing.
LOL.Quote:
Hell you people were still blinding building Superliners as PanAM and TWA were taking more people across the Atlantic then Cunard and French Line combined.
Quote:
What a load of balony, the A380 hippo is the spirit of the fat over weight and SLOW 747.
I am not a porky chaser (A380-hippo chaser), so I don’t know why its cargo version was cancelled. After the demise of Concorde and their lack of support (to allow even one to fly at Airshows etc) I don’t support Airbus at all….. I don’t care what happens to them.Quote:
Have you asked why the A380 Freighter program was canceled? The 747 is an undisputed success, the A380 will be lucky to break 500 frames. The new 747-8 is a very successful cargo version of what will be the first choice in cargo transport for the next 20 years. The numbers are there my firend…the numbers are there…are you calling solid numbers “balony?” .
I agree the 747-8 is a good airliner I guess the reason why it will be more popular than the A380 is simple countless airlines own the 747, getting a newer version will mean less training for pilots and airplane mechanics = less overall cost.
With 747-8 it’s a bit like people upgrading from windows XP to Windows Vista instead of going from Windows XP to Linux.
Quote:
And the sonic cruiser was going to Boeings fastest airlinerQuote:
1. Never said Boeing was building a Supersonic Transport...they were building a fast aircraft and the airlines didn't want it.
Agreed but travelling that far at mach 0.98 or mach 0.99 didn’t justify the huge cost of the airliner + cost of training staff and looking after it for little saving in time.Quote:
2. The Sonic cruiser was estimated to have a range of 10,000 miles.
Lets agree to disagree on that as both are forms of air travel.Quote:
3. Private Business jet travel and commercial airline travel are two TOTALLY different businesses. You are comparing apples and oranges.
I agree but the engines and airframes can be made greener (more fuel effiecent and more enviromentaly friendly), people are already experimenting with greener fuels made from Algi etc. Apart from weak leaders (who like bean counters) there is nothing stopping the world from developing better SSTs.Quote:
4. The problem is not only the Sonic Boom...its fuel. With current fuel technologies and prices this is not a business that makes sense economically and hence there is no market crying out for Supersonic Air Travel. When prices allow for it and it can be affordable to the masses while earning the airlines a profit that will change..right now there wasn’t a need.
Apart from materials and cpus used now, airliners of today have the same basic design and principle they’ve had since the 707.Quote:
Do you really think the airliners of today are not more advanced then Concorde?
Concorde was a different race of airplane which had to cope with different, harsher conditions, she had to be made better than anything else as high speed travel with 100 people in normal clothes was never easy.
LOL to cpu in my tv is more advanced than the ones used in Concorde and Saturn V.Quote:
Hate to break it to you but the microprocessor in my Blackberry is more powerful then the computer that controlled Concorde.
I mean both as in the past I talked to some BA Concorde crews and some told me these things.Quote:
The Concorde was the envy of every airline??? How so?
Why would an airline like Southwest be envious of Concorde? I think you mean they admired the Concorde...two totally different things.
Yes as BA made money out of her for 20 odd years.Quote:
You really believe she was an economic success?
14 where built and put in commercial service, production was stopped around 1980, but in 1980 BA never made money on Concorde.Quote:
How many were built and put into service?
In the 1983-85 (when BA was made in to a private company) BA did make money on Concorde but by then even if others airlines wanted to buy one or two, it was to late as production had stopped years ago.
So the other airlines had lost their chance.
In 2003 Richard Branson did want to buy or rent ex AF and BA Concordes for his fleet but I heard Airbus and CAA said no.
In Oct 2003 a group of BA Concorde pilots had £200 million, $400 million (in 2007 prices) sitting on the table ready to get the best Concordes out of AF and BA and run them as a mini airline (as demand was still there to make it a success) but I heard Airbus said no so all that was stopped…..
That’s like saying Ferrari or Rolls Royce are a failure as compared to a Ford Focus or BMW 3 series you don’t see many Ferrari or Rolls Royce around.Quote:
Ask yourself this...How many were built and put into service? If you want to go by those numbers, most reasonably educated community college grads would say the Concorde was the biggest failure of any commercial airliner built.
During Concorde’s development a lot of airlines wanted to buy Concorde and had options put on her, but after the 1970’s oil crises all these airlines (including the almighty Pan AM and TWA) listened to their bean counters and so called “experts”, then turned chicken and ran home to mummy.
Then hid behind mummy’s skirt and took mickey out of Concorde for a long time but in the 1980s when BA proved Concorde could make money then I feel some of the big boys wanted to form alliances with BA so they to could play with BA’s supersonic toy.
But in 2009 where is the mighty Pan Am, where is TWA ?
Despite listening to their bean counters and “experts” and not buying Concorde they still went belly up (bust), BA and AF are still alive and kicking.
Agreed look at Sinclair C5 and Delorean (as used in Back to the future).Quote:
Niche markets are never HUGE success. Time and time again this has been proven.
But Concorde was in a different league and the CEOs didn’t know how to use her properly.
I agree I don’t doubt that but their attempts to make a supersonic airliner went down hill fast LOL, but Airbus succeeded.Quote:
I never mentioned anything about Boeing's attempt at building a supersonic plane..Boeing's success is very evident and numbers don't lie mate.
737, most successful narrow body jet in history.
787, most successful plane in terms of orders in history. .
Thanks J JQuote:
Mate its great you love the Concorde that's awesome
I agree but until Oct 2003 she was doing a great job for almost 30 years.Quote:
but she was born in the wrong century and is simply a memory.
After the 2000 Paris crash if demand had not existed for Concorde, then BA, AF and Airbus would have never spent so much time and money on making Concorde safer and bringing Concorde back.
If Concorde had been as dodgy (bad) the TU144 then I would have agreed 100% with all you said, but unlike the TU144 (which was a flop) Concorde was a commercial success.
I agree hence why I know Concorde will sadly never come back to passenger service.Quote:
Airlines are business; they have a duty to their shareholders to make money, not to fly around grandiose “cool” planes just so people can go “oooooooo.” That’s life…life’s a bitch…deal with it.
The 737 and 747 are the work horses of airlines, there will always be a 737 of some kind but when Wallstreet get things sorted out with their banks, when the technology gets better (to keep the tree hugger happy) we will see “son of Concorde”, just like 40 years after Apollo 11 man will go back to moon by 2020-ish.Quote:
There's a phrase that goes "Its the Quiet one's that change the world, but its the loud one's that take credit for it." Concorde didn't change the industry..planes like the 737 did. Think about the two and then think which one had had the glory and which one got the job done?
I can't believe that I started such a discussion pro and con regarding Concorde. Such a debate attests to her greatness; especially back in the early 70's. Of course newer aircraft are more advanced no doubt; just look at the different control panels, for example. One further point. I believe that Concorde, some built at Aerospatiale at Toulouse, France and Airbus, are basically the same corporation re-named and re-financed.
Some people are taking this too personally and seriously I feel. Sit back and relax. No needs to post manifestos. :)
As much as I love the Concorde, I feel that, given the current economic state of the world, there is not much of a market for the Concorde anymore unfortunately. I do think someone would have created a new one if that was the case.
The aircraft was also quite a gas guzzler, and therefore unpopular with the world's current environmental needs as well.
I am sure that the natural progression of technology will bring back supersonic passenger transport within fifty years. I think that at that point, all planes will be supersonic because of the steady advancements in engines that simply will take aircraft beyond transonic speeds.
Until then, we'll have to sit back, wait, and enjoy Mirrodie's seats!
We are only having a healthy debate :) we are not in a fight or argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedbird1
Concorde always brings out peoples emotions and passions, we all have our views i feel she is the greatest thing since the invention of milk chocolate, other feels no...........
So no worries :), live and let live :) 8)
She was built by Aerospatiale in France and UK, roughly half of each Concorde was built in France and UK before being stuck together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedbird1
In the 1970's Aerospatiale became Airbus, but during the last 10 years officially i think EADS took over Concorde while Airbus concentrated on subsonic planes, but Airbus still made parts for Concorde and told BA + AF when to service her etc, but EADS is also the parent company of Airbus............. the above is confusing.
For what Concorde did she was more fuel efficient than the TU144 and any other airliner.
Concorde could have been modernised look at what the USAF have done with the 1950s B52s........... but now in 2009 thats all acedemic as the bird will never fly again.
I agree :) but in 50 years time i probably won't be around as I'm 40 now............ doh.Quote:
I am sure that the natural progression of technology will bring back supersonic passenger transport within fifty years. I think that at that point, all planes will be supersonic because of the steady advancements in engines that simply will take aircraft beyond transonic speeds
Some say "son of Concorde" will make sub orbitall hops............ dunno.
Tom Fitzpatrick :mrgreen: , stop pissing on our parade!
Let's remember needlenose!
I agree on Tom's points wholly. Only sad truth is that in every technology, things usually get better. Phones, computers, boats, conputer data transfer speeds, everything gets faster. Too bad the airlines' progress is measured in terms of fuel efficiency as opposed to time efficiency.
I recall reading one (seeming well reasoned) assertion that had the resources not been diverted to developing Concorde, the Caravelle would've seen later competitive versions and kept pace (to a reasonable extent) with the DC-9/MD-80. If true, that alone indicts concorde as a huge mistake, as it set back the European Aviation industry.
In her defense, I too recall that BA certainly (and quite possibly Air France) made profits from operating to North America. So by that measure, Concorde was a commercial success from the airline point of view, but presumably not from the manufacturers.
Also, Jetinder there was, I would agree, at least for a time, significant "celebratory" interest in the airframe amongst the public to generate some margin of revenue. Hence Braniff's flirtation with subsonic use of the airframe.
From a spotter's point of view, The Boeing SST, had it been realized, I think quite possibly would've thrashed concorde aesthetically, though the debate would exist (almost akin to which constellation was the most visually pleasing - the basic design or the Super Connie with wing tip fuel tanks).
Could be wrong on this, but I believe it was the US Congress that killed the Boeing SST - and indeed the issue was noise and not fuel in those days.
Agree also there is a market per se for supersonic flight still; but as Phil indicated the economics kills it for the time being. Also, and this is bad luck/happenstance, but in several of the world wide city pairs that might be expected to have such demand, the distance/speed ratio work out to inopportune departure or arrival times, defeating the would be advantage of probably the business traveler, leaving only the latter day "jet set" (to use an old term), and you probably need both of those types of passengers to make it work. (Again, at least for now..)
Last but not least, I will once again bring up the point that Concorde went from statistically the safest of all airliners to the most dangerous, with that terrible crash in France. That was a significant design flaw. Had concorde been manufactured in the numbers of the 737 that would be the equivalent of a crash every week or two (take off and landings). Of course, once the "fix" was implemented, the issue would resolve, but for what its worth...
Tom
>Some people are taking this too personally and seriously I feel. Sit back and relax. No needs to post manifestos. :)<
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
He said "manifestos"!!!
Thats debate-able.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
The Paris crash had nothing to do with Concorde's design, Until Paris Concorde had covered countless thousands of miles and carried countless millions of people safely at mach 2 for around 20 years.
Even if bits of her came off in flight, Concorde never broke up or crashed, she safely got people home that proves she was 110% safe.
During Concordes development she was tested more than any other airliner to make sure she was safe, her pilots where better trained than any others.
Not sure about Air France, but with BA they always had 2 Concordes per flight at LHR.
So if one didn't feel right people where moved to the backup Concorde which was parked close to it and had also full mach 2 capability.
On mine my backup was G-BOAG (one now in Seattle), my main one was G-BOAD.
During her life more there where more fatal crashes of subsonic planes inc 747s, 737s, DC10s etc than Concorde.
Concorde only had one and then press used "statistics" to make her out to be the bad guy when she is not.
According to "statistics" you're more likely to get hurt walking down the road to buy a newspaper than you are in flying on a plane, but every one still walks down the road.
When i flew I had 110% confidence in her and in my pilots, she never let me down, so i for one would extremely extremely extremely extremely extremely extremely happy fly on her again with no worries.
Paris crash was caused by a number of things main cause was a bit falling off a DC10 (which was left on the runway), as Concorde reached take off speed she ran over it, this blew her tyres, bits of tyre hit the wings, fuel raced out and was ignited by the after burners and the pilots lost thrust, but where at V1 so had no choice but to try and take off and then crash land some where else.
Some reports say she could have crash landed safely and lives could have been saved had the pilots not switched off a few of her engines.... others say it was the DC 10 bit + dodgy back wheels (which AF engineers had not properly fixed).
Concorde's safety was also down to how she was looked after and how she was flown.
In the past I spoke to BA Concorde engineers and heard many years ago an AF Concorde had landed at LHR and needed a service, BA Concorde engineers helped out but where horrified at how badly looked after the AF Concorde was.
AF had a few dodgy moments with their Concordes, one of them was where an AF Concorde landed to heavily on a runway and this heavy landing basically recked airframe, that was down to pilot error and not the plane.
1 fatal crash in 30 odd years means the plane is extremely safe.
If you look at "statistics" BA Concordes are still the safest in the world as no BA Concorde ever crashed, so in the right hands Concorde is the safest airliner ever made.
So its horses for courses.
If you do the math, 12 airframes with one flight a day and one crash attributed to a design flaw compared to the amount of 737s built and how many cycles they operate in a single day....statistically makes the Concorde one of the most dangerous planes. Again, that's the math on it. You can type as much as you want, but that's a statistical fact in terms of passenger/flight cycle ratio.
Again, I love the plane, but the reality is that there were a few variables that made it impractical and unnecessary. :(
Phil
I respect the views of every one on here but as to her being safe or not lets agree to disagree on this :)
I feel she is 110% safe others don't....... so no worries :) 8)
I'm not saying it's unsafe, but that the odds of crashing on a Concorde is higher than almost any other airliner. That's fact that can't be disputed. It's not opinion, but math.
I just loved to watch her curve around the Canarsie approach and envelop me in her roar,as she scorched her way toward 13L,aesthetically she was priceless, a true classic,like my beloved DC-3,and 727,and that can never be taken away from her.