Concorde Should she still be flying
11-29-2013, 07:46 AM
#26
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Concorde was an extremely European adventure. It was their Space Shuttle, their Moon Shot. It was their beacon of engineering pride.
They had won the competition with the Mach 3 American SST. We reached too high and realized it. We bailed. They continued. Although their version was mechanically feasible, it was never a money maker. They flew it anyway, just as we flew the shuttle, (shuttle costs and turn around never met advertised projections).
The Concorde was nearing the end of its service live. The costs associated with operating older machines starts to go up. And at some point it just isn't economically feasible to continue their operation. The choice to ground the fleet was voluntary and it was based on that economic pressure. Bad press, empty seats, more economic pressure. Its time to pull the plug.
Should it be brought back ? Only if you are willing to bank-roll the venture. Few have the pockets deep enough.
A more likely successor would be a Super-Cruise transport. Some international flights are 19 hours. Routes like that would benefit. But who has the money to develop such a machine. It would likely cost billions. Only Airbus has the financial backing to develop such a monster project. And they just scared themselves half to death with the A380 development costs. So it appears there is no possible developer at the moment or for the foreseeable future. (China ?)
They had won the competition with the Mach 3 American SST. We reached too high and realized it. We bailed. They continued. Although their version was mechanically feasible, it was never a money maker. They flew it anyway, just as we flew the shuttle, (shuttle costs and turn around never met advertised projections).
The Concorde was nearing the end of its service live. The costs associated with operating older machines starts to go up. And at some point it just isn't economically feasible to continue their operation. The choice to ground the fleet was voluntary and it was based on that economic pressure. Bad press, empty seats, more economic pressure. Its time to pull the plug.
Should it be brought back ? Only if you are willing to bank-roll the venture. Few have the pockets deep enough.
A more likely successor would be a Super-Cruise transport. Some international flights are 19 hours. Routes like that would benefit. But who has the money to develop such a machine. It would likely cost billions. Only Airbus has the financial backing to develop such a monster project. And they just scared themselves half to death with the A380 development costs. So it appears there is no possible developer at the moment or for the foreseeable future. (China ?)
11-29-2013, 12:38 PM
#28
The Concorde burns way too much fuel and has way too few seats to be a viable commercial aircraft by today's standards. Although the Concorde proved that supersonic passenger transport is POSSIBLE it did NOT prove that it was PROFITABLE or would remain profitable.
A supersonic transport will be designed and manufactured when airlines comit to purchasing them in numbers large enough to attract interest by aircraft manufacturers.
Besides does anyone realize how bonkers the Europeans are getting over global warming and carbon credits? That alone would likely double the price of a ticket to Europe on any similar aircraft.
A supersonic transport will be designed and manufactured when airlines comit to purchasing them in numbers large enough to attract interest by aircraft manufacturers.
Besides does anyone realize how bonkers the Europeans are getting over global warming and carbon credits? That alone would likely double the price of a ticket to Europe on any similar aircraft.
11-29-2013, 01:19 PM
#29
The Concorde; unfortunately, was a money losing proposition. They could not charge enough to make it work. Very few people actually "needed" to ride it, even if they could afford it. Why spend 10 grand to fly to London in 3 1/2 hours in a narrow, cramped seat with little headroom when, for one third the price, you could do it in a big comfy First Class chair on a 747 drinking enough champagne to kill an elephant and eating enough filet Mignon, lobster, and caviar to choke a horse? The Concorde became an expensive carnival ride for the wealthy, but for the seasoned traveler, that First Class seat in a 747 was the way to go.
The BA1 and 3 were almost always full and that at a fare of First plus 10 %
The return flights, 2 and 4 never achieved the high load factors of the west bounds but pretty much covered their costs making the whole operation very profitable for BA.
Concorde seats were smaller than first but were very comfortable indeed, certainly not cramped.
A drink after take off, champagne, usually Krug, and caviar, followed by a superb meal and coffee and you're not far from top of descent, although many businessmen would eat only a few sandwiches with tea or coffee and work on the trip. Of course, Concorde made it possible to do a round trip, LHR to JFK in a day with time in NY for business meetings.
And a Concorde flight, even for the most seasoned supersonic traveller was always an amazing experience, few, very few would prefer a 747 trip to a Concorde flight.
Air France never made money with it probably because they never really put their hearts into marketing it as BA did, nor was there the traffic from CDG as between the two financial cities. Sadly, too, I learned recently that many regular Concorde passengers were killed on 9/11.
The final straw in Concorde' s grounding was after its return to service when AF had a serious fuel leak which gave them a very nasty fright, I believe that's when Spinetta, (AF CEO) decided to pull the plug. BA followed when they realised that they could not continue to cover the considerable support costs alone, particularly with falling traffic loads.
The chances of a Concorde being returned to flight are less than nil.
BA 1 is now an Airbus A319!
The Boeing sonic cruiser had a proposed cruise Mach no. of .97, far short of 2.7, I could never see the point of that aircraft.
David G
Last edited by David Gladwin; 11-29-2013 at 01:25 PM.
11-29-2013, 01:47 PM
#32
Wrong? Definitely possible! Hopelessly wrong? I'm not so sure.
Whether the Concorde was full or not had no bearing on whether it was profitable. I can fill any airplane if the ticket price is low enough. Just take a look at the big airlines when they were run into bankruptcy. They gave the tickets away for nothing, filled the airplanes, and successfully ran them all into bankruptcy. Objective achieved: no more pilot pensions and 40% pay cuts.
Yes, the Concorde might have had regulars, but the price of the ticket, even at 10 grand, still wasn't enough.
I must respectfully disagree on one point David. I still contend the Concorde was an expensive carnival ride for the rich. Then there were a very few who actually needed to cross the pond in 31/2 hours instead of 7. If I had the cash, of course I would want to fly the Concorde for the experience. But I still contend the most comfortable and luxurious way to cross the pond is in a nice, big, comfy First Class seat on a big, roomy 747 with all the booze and food I can eat, and a nice nap to boot.
That's what did the Concorde in. Except for a very few individuals it was a once in a lifetime novelty. The 3 hour savings in time was simply not enough to offset the outrageous ticket price and reduced comfort and luxury.
If the Concorde and supersonic travel in general was economically feasible we would have it available, in one form or another, today.
Whether the Concorde was full or not had no bearing on whether it was profitable. I can fill any airplane if the ticket price is low enough. Just take a look at the big airlines when they were run into bankruptcy. They gave the tickets away for nothing, filled the airplanes, and successfully ran them all into bankruptcy. Objective achieved: no more pilot pensions and 40% pay cuts.
Yes, the Concorde might have had regulars, but the price of the ticket, even at 10 grand, still wasn't enough.
I must respectfully disagree on one point David. I still contend the Concorde was an expensive carnival ride for the rich. Then there were a very few who actually needed to cross the pond in 31/2 hours instead of 7. If I had the cash, of course I would want to fly the Concorde for the experience. But I still contend the most comfortable and luxurious way to cross the pond is in a nice, big, comfy First Class seat on a big, roomy 747 with all the booze and food I can eat, and a nice nap to boot.
That's what did the Concorde in. Except for a very few individuals it was a once in a lifetime novelty. The 3 hour savings in time was simply not enough to offset the outrageous ticket price and reduced comfort and luxury.
If the Concorde and supersonic travel in general was economically feasible we would have it available, in one form or another, today.
11-29-2013, 02:21 PM
#33
If the Concorde and supersonic travel in general was economically feasible we would have it available, in one form or another, today.
cockpit above the main deck. Their reasoning was that when supersonic travel became commonplace nobody would want to fly in the slow lane and 747's
would be easily converted into front-load freighters.
The 70's oil crisis & the subsequent huge increases in fuel prices shifted the emphasis to economy rather than speed.
I think the Boeing Sonic Cruiser was just a smokescreen to stop airlines buying A380s until Boeing came out with something more attractive.
Of course they didn't stop buying A380s & we are still waiting. - John.
11-29-2013, 05:38 PM
#35
The total bankruptcy pay cut was 46.5% for the pilots at a major airline based in Atlanta...and that was just the outright paycut. Factor in all the cuts made to the Pilot Working Agreement, and it was about a 60% reduction in overall compensation. After all this fun, elimination of the pension was the icing on the cake.
But at least a guy could fly from BUF to RSW for $79 (I saw the ticket with my own two eyes), so it was sure awfully nice of the pilots to subsidize below-cost travel.
But at least a guy could fly from BUF to RSW for $79 (I saw the ticket with my own two eyes), so it was sure awfully nice of the pilots to subsidize below-cost travel.
Last edited by VF84sluggo; 11-29-2013 at 05:42 PM.
11-29-2013, 07:42 PM
#36
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Curitiba, Parana, BRAZIL
Posts: 4,289
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
11 Posts
The real reason why the concorde is now a museum item.. Time is money, but only up to a point.
https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/7885a299bca2
https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/7885a299bca2
Last edited by erbroens; 11-29-2013 at 07:45 PM.
11-29-2013, 09:38 PM
#37
I think there are a lot of folks that would love to fly LA to New York in a couple of hours or overseas in two to three hours but I dont think enough people can afford
to pay what it would cost to do so.
to pay what it would cost to do so.
11-30-2013, 01:39 AM
#39
Sorry guys, Concorde was VERY profitable for BA and the fare structure was spot as it achieved very high load factors and very high profitability. BA is STILL very succesful and has just introduced the 380 and 787 to lead them into the future
Part of my Concorde involvement was operating about 300 charters so I know, intimately, the costs of operating this aircraft from first hand experience, I was writing the cheques after negotiating with BA (and Air France who wanted, and got, some of my business) .
The guy generally considered to have been pivotal in making Concorde so profitable was Capt Jock Lowe (Ph D) who raised fares ( to First plus 10%) when Lord King gave the team ( Brian Walpole was the team boss) 2 years to make it profitable or it would be grounded. He was VERY successful. Jock and his successor Dave Rowland should be at my Christmas party next month, we could enlighten you and dispel the many myths about this extraordinary machine. A former base training Captain, a good friend and neighbour, will also be present with a few other Concorde pilots, a great bunch of guys, with whom I share many wonderful memories.
So Concorde more than earned its keep in revenue service, even returning a large chunk of its development costs to the government, this was because BA paid a lot on money in corporation tax, as a result of of its highly profitable Concorde operations, employee income taxes and national insurance etc. etc.
The dreadful Paris crash, so public, finished it prematurely when she still had a lot of fatigue life left ( the mid life crown mods had all been done) but fuel costs and environmental problems would have eventually caught up.
I could write pages more, but rest assured Concorde, was, very, very profitable in BA service, and using realistic accounting, and the pride of the UK.
David.
Part of my Concorde involvement was operating about 300 charters so I know, intimately, the costs of operating this aircraft from first hand experience, I was writing the cheques after negotiating with BA (and Air France who wanted, and got, some of my business) .
The guy generally considered to have been pivotal in making Concorde so profitable was Capt Jock Lowe (Ph D) who raised fares ( to First plus 10%) when Lord King gave the team ( Brian Walpole was the team boss) 2 years to make it profitable or it would be grounded. He was VERY successful. Jock and his successor Dave Rowland should be at my Christmas party next month, we could enlighten you and dispel the many myths about this extraordinary machine. A former base training Captain, a good friend and neighbour, will also be present with a few other Concorde pilots, a great bunch of guys, with whom I share many wonderful memories.
So Concorde more than earned its keep in revenue service, even returning a large chunk of its development costs to the government, this was because BA paid a lot on money in corporation tax, as a result of of its highly profitable Concorde operations, employee income taxes and national insurance etc. etc.
The dreadful Paris crash, so public, finished it prematurely when she still had a lot of fatigue life left ( the mid life crown mods had all been done) but fuel costs and environmental problems would have eventually caught up.
I could write pages more, but rest assured Concorde, was, very, very profitable in BA service, and using realistic accounting, and the pride of the UK.
David.
11-30-2013, 03:39 AM
#40
The Concorde was an interesting experiment in air travel, but no doubt if it were considered to have continued viability, there would have been a follow on aircraft by the manufacturing industry. The days of high speed luxury air travel are more or less history at least for now.
Airlines have contined to lose money during these austere times except for companies like Southwest, who invested in smaller aircraft such as the Boeing 737 and shorter flights, sometimes taking multiple hops to get to final destination. They have the right concept, referring to the plane as a bus. People are more interested in getting from point "A" to point "B" at minimal cost, than they are with creature comforts during flight.
We see experiments like in flight phones in the backs of seats, but I have never seen anyone use them; there might have been one or two I didn't see that used them.
Airlines have contined to lose money during these austere times except for companies like Southwest, who invested in smaller aircraft such as the Boeing 737 and shorter flights, sometimes taking multiple hops to get to final destination. They have the right concept, referring to the plane as a bus. People are more interested in getting from point "A" to point "B" at minimal cost, than they are with creature comforts during flight.
We see experiments like in flight phones in the backs of seats, but I have never seen anyone use them; there might have been one or two I didn't see that used them.
11-30-2013, 05:56 AM
#41
David: I stand corrected concerning the aircrafts profitability during the period of it's peak popularity. Thank you for that insight.
However, I think we can all agree that the Concorde's days were numbered and could not continue today without replacement airframes and massive improvements to address fuel consumption, noise, and carbon emission issues. The last 6 years of economic strife in both Europe and the USA would have presented a challenge as well.
It was an aircraft well ahead of it's time.
However, I think we can all agree that the Concorde's days were numbered and could not continue today without replacement airframes and massive improvements to address fuel consumption, noise, and carbon emission issues. The last 6 years of economic strife in both Europe and the USA would have presented a challenge as well.
It was an aircraft well ahead of it's time.
11-30-2013, 07:42 AM
#43
They wanted no frills, they got no frills (and no legroom/creature comfort), so get on the cattle car, sit down as best you can, shut up, and keep your feet off the furniture.
11-30-2013, 08:20 AM
#44
Which makes the incessant pissing and moaning by the media and the bus riders about the buslines all the more puzzling. They wanted no frills, they got no frills (and no legroom/creature comfort), so get on the cattle car, sit down as best you can, shut up, and keep your feet off the furniture.
11-30-2013, 11:41 AM
#46
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wiltshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Jock and his successor Dave Rowland should be at my Christmas party next month, we could enlighten you and dispel the many myths about this extraordinary machine. A former base training Captain, a good friend and neighbour, will also be present with a few other Concorde pilots, a great bunch of guys, with whom I share many wonderful memories" David.
Earlier in the year, the Southwest aeronautical Society in the UK were treated to a presentation by Richard Lugg, the head man of HyperMach Ltd, in which he presented a 'taster' of the technology being developed for "SonicStar". I think everbody left the presentation with more questions than he actually answered (because of Interlectual Property protection) but the audience (a bunch of intelligent aero engineers) gave him a tough challenge at question time! Very interesting....
Quote" This small business jet will be powered by a hybrid gas electric turbine engine. HyperMach predicts its "electromagnetic drag reduction technology" will dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, the sonic boom. The SonicStar will have room for 10-20 passengers, and will cruise at Mach 3.8 between 60,000 and 65,000 feet.HyperMach counts executives and government officials as its potential future customers, but notes the jet could be used to transport luxury cargo or even race horses.
http://hypermach.com/
(P.S read the science page!)
11-30-2013, 12:50 PM
#47
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: vancouver,
BC, CANADA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the above , had some passing interest inn the Concorde.
Discovered a Lot of Jingoism entrenched in the above thread.... Why?
My views from minor.. easily replicable.. research:
BA 's Concordes were Hugely Profitable, Subsidizing most all their other operations.
Whereas Air Frances' barely broke even.
Crash wasn't the death blow, it was 9/11, where most of the victims were regular Concorde users.
Boeing Tried to build a "better' version of the Concorde and could not economically as to fly faster required a Titanium skin. Concorde was at the limits of Ali skin friction heat tolerance.
No easy one upmanship possible.
FAA subsequently/immediately 'Decreed ' that NO supersonic flights over 'murican soil.. period.
Interesting semi relevant factoids:
B-1 'bomber' Carried similar payloads to Concorde. Yet maxed out at 1.25 mach compared to Concordes' 2.02 mach cruise speed/ 2.4 mach max speed.
Yup the geriatric Civil Aviation airliner was twice as fast with similar payloads to the B-1.
Note that " many" Current fighters cannot reach those speeds. An F35 has managed 1.61 mach... in testings.. assuming credible sources.
Doubly amazing for a project which first started in 1954.
Discovered a Lot of Jingoism entrenched in the above thread.... Why?
My views from minor.. easily replicable.. research:
BA 's Concordes were Hugely Profitable, Subsidizing most all their other operations.
Whereas Air Frances' barely broke even.
Crash wasn't the death blow, it was 9/11, where most of the victims were regular Concorde users.
Boeing Tried to build a "better' version of the Concorde and could not economically as to fly faster required a Titanium skin. Concorde was at the limits of Ali skin friction heat tolerance.
No easy one upmanship possible.
FAA subsequently/immediately 'Decreed ' that NO supersonic flights over 'murican soil.. period.
Interesting semi relevant factoids:
B-1 'bomber' Carried similar payloads to Concorde. Yet maxed out at 1.25 mach compared to Concordes' 2.02 mach cruise speed/ 2.4 mach max speed.
Yup the geriatric Civil Aviation airliner was twice as fast with similar payloads to the B-1.
Note that " many" Current fighters cannot reach those speeds. An F35 has managed 1.61 mach... in testings.. assuming credible sources.
Doubly amazing for a project which first started in 1954.
11-30-2013, 01:23 PM
#48
My Feedback: (13)
Read the above , had some passing interest inn the Concorde.
Discovered a Lot of Jingoism entrenched in the above thread.... Why?
My views from minor.. easily replicable.. research:
BA 's Concordes were Hugely Profitable, Subsidizing most all their other operations.
Whereas Air Frances' barely broke even.
Crash wasn't the death blow, it was 9/11, where most of the victims were regular Concorde users.
Boeing Tried to build a "better' version of the Concorde and could not economically as to fly faster required a Titanium skin. Concorde was at the limits of Ali skin friction heat tolerance.
No easy one upmanship possible.
FAA subsequently/immediately 'Decreed ' that NO supersonic flights over 'murican soil.. period.
Interesting semi relevant factoids:
B-1 'bomber' Carried similar payloads to Concorde. Yet maxed out at 1.25 mach compared to Concordes' 2.02 mach cruise speed/ 2.4 mach max speed.
Yup the geriatric Civil Aviation airliner was twice as fast with similar payloads to the B-1.
Note that " many" Current fighters cannot reach those speeds. An F35 has managed 1.61 mach... in testings.. assuming credible sources.
Doubly amazing for a project which first started in 1954.
Discovered a Lot of Jingoism entrenched in the above thread.... Why?
My views from minor.. easily replicable.. research:
BA 's Concordes were Hugely Profitable, Subsidizing most all their other operations.
Whereas Air Frances' barely broke even.
Crash wasn't the death blow, it was 9/11, where most of the victims were regular Concorde users.
Boeing Tried to build a "better' version of the Concorde and could not economically as to fly faster required a Titanium skin. Concorde was at the limits of Ali skin friction heat tolerance.
No easy one upmanship possible.
FAA subsequently/immediately 'Decreed ' that NO supersonic flights over 'murican soil.. period.
Interesting semi relevant factoids:
B-1 'bomber' Carried similar payloads to Concorde. Yet maxed out at 1.25 mach compared to Concordes' 2.02 mach cruise speed/ 2.4 mach max speed.
Yup the geriatric Civil Aviation airliner was twice as fast with similar payloads to the B-1.
Note that " many" Current fighters cannot reach those speeds. An F35 has managed 1.61 mach... in testings.. assuming credible sources.
Doubly amazing for a project which first started in 1954.
you are comparing Apples to Oranges, different airplanes, different missions, no comparisons...... Oh wait, SR-71
Ron
11-30-2013, 03:36 PM
#49
My Feedback: (195)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Duluth,
GA
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am so,so tired of hearing about man made carbon emissions and how they are destroying the atmosphere. It's all a bunch of hogwash brought on by the tree huggers and Al Gore. Mother nature does a pretty good job of emitting millions of tons of carbon particulates into the atmosphere. How you may ask...well there are such things as volcanoes. you know, Mt.St.Helens, Kilauea, Vesuvius, and those are just a few of the famous ones. There are over 500 land oriented volcanoes. Anyone of them, emits more ash and carbon dioxide, methane than Al Gore after he leaves his favorite mexican restaurant! Concorde was an amazing aircraft, well ahead of its time. I was fortunate to witness the Vulcan arrive and depart RAF Mildenhall on several occasions and it was most impressive at the airshows I attended there back in the late 80's.
Happy Flying!
Loopman
Happy Flying!
Loopman