BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Posted (10 years 8 hours ago) and read 2387 times:
The national carrier of Lebanon, Middle East Airlines (MEA) ordered 2 Concordes in 1963.
They started advertising that they would be used on the Beirut - London Heathrow route and the route would have taken only 90 minutes versus 5 hours. Of course this was before the noise restrictions due to the sonic boom.
They were expecting to take delivery of them in 1971, but after an extensive study, they proved to be too uneconomical and MEA canceled the order.
SOUTHAMERICA From Colombia, joined Dec 2003, 2496 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 hours ago) and read 2349 times:
That would have been interesting. Besides, it would have stopped the "duopoly" that BA and AF had in terms of supersonic flying.
Now, if the eventual Concorde had continued with MEA and had experienced the livery change, it would have been really intersenting to see that new Cedar cruising at Mach 2, pretty neat kind of agriculture I'd say. .
Federico in SOUTHAMERICA
PD: Did things finally settle down between you and MIAMIx707? It's great to discuss but I think you guys were taking that too far.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1923 posts, RR: 34 Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 hours ago) and read 2249 times:
That list is really impressive. Honestly I only knew about the MEA order.
It just sows the demand for faster travel. If Boeing or Airbus come up with a breakthrough economical supersonic jet, there will be a real rush on the market. We will see big numbers of Boeings and Airbuses retired at a very early age. Imagine thousands of A320s and 737s sitting in the desert with no costumers and no one really wanting them. It could happen any time. Maybe next year or in 10 year’s time.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12952 posts, RR: 79 Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
The MEA Concordes could have supercruised over the Med/Adriatic decelerating on reaching Venice to Mach 0.95, over France then on to LHR at that speed, still been a lot faster than a conventional jet doing the same route overland, that's how BA Concordes went to and from BAH.
Another route could have had a stop at Lisbon, then on to JFK, supercruising over the Med, then supercruising over the Atlantic. Of course as part of any Concorde deal, the UK government would likely have allowed services to the US East Coast from LHR too.
Of course if MEA had kept the option to buy, what would have happened to it when civil war overtook Lebanon in 1975, before any Concorde delivery?
Up to then, Beirut was a major business/cultural central of the region, 'the Paris of the Mid East', they could have supported a Concorde operation if the country had stayed stable.
Had the Concorde B model been built, for service from 1981 onwards, the economics of Concorde operations would have improved for some prospective operators, the increased efficiency at Mach 0.95 and a 15-20% boost in range allowing a Lufthansa operation from FRA-JFK non stop for instance, when looking at prospective Concorde options consider routes, mostly over ocean, between two major business centres, one day I'll do a thread on here as a 'what if' the B model had been built.
Considering a BA fleet of say 5 original and 5 B models makes you almost drool! http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html
MEA had a history with British aircraft, they had a liking for the VC-10, but efforts to buy their own fleet was stopped by an uncooperative UK government, when it came to financing a deal, at least one was leased until being destroyed in an Israeli commando attack on Beirut in 1968, MEA had wanted at least 5, possibly up to 10 Super VC-10s.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 71 Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 hours ago) and read 2151 times:
More of a technical or scheduling question: would they really have been able to do LHR-BEY in 90 minutes? When comparing that with the 5 hours that a normal plane takes, wouldn't Concorde have taken more than 2 hours at least?
MIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 hours ago) and read 2038 times:
I had read about the Pan Am order before somewhere...
But what about the one in Singapore colors? As far as I know it's the only other livery to have been painted on a Concorde but thats the only one they don't show there. Did they ever order any? I know at least one concorde was operated with Singapore c/s on one side and BA on the other.. how long did this last?
Did any concorde got to wear the BOAC or Brannif liveries?
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12952 posts, RR: 79 Reply 11, posted (9 years 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1810 times:
MIAMIx707, The LHR-SIA (via BAH) route involved 3 flights from December 1977, then suspended due to political problems, restarted as a 3 times a week service from Jan 1979, until November 1980, when more political problems and a recession ended it, 50% of the cabin crew were SIA.
G-BOAD was painted on the port side only for this route, of course OAD did not always actually operate it, G-BOAA did at least once that I've seen.
At this time AF and BA Concordes had temporary US registrations, to allow a fully Braniff crewed led between IAD-DFW to be run, this was also a short lived route, being restricted overland in the US to Mach 0.95 it was hardly very efficient.
Between 1984 and 1991, the BA thrice weekly IAD service was extended to MIA, involving a just over 2 hour flight with an unusual flight profile, attaining Mach 1 at 40,000 (as opposed to the usual 29,000 feet), off the US coast. Some extensions to MIA from JFK were also flown in the mid 1980s.