Saleem From Pakistan, joined Mar 2000, 179 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6915 times:
Concorde, no words for its Performance, Beauty, but a failure on part of Sale. Except Air France and British Airways no else made it part of their fleet. I was just thinking that if Concorde is launched by Airbus as A360 in now-a days, would it be a successful plane.
Is their market for high speed, expensive, high cost per seat per plane or not. Further if anyone shares what was the exact reasons for the failure of Concorde, high noise, expensive ???
SW733 From Namibia, joined Feb 2004, 3390 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6833 times:
Didn't Singapore make it part of their fleet for a little, or am I wrong? I dont know if it would be a successful plane, especially with economies, particularly the US, still being not so great. Sure, by the time it premiers it will probably be better, but there is no guarantee, and Airbus would be kinda stupid to risk it...especially since the only other model of supersonic commercial aviation didn't do so great...
KYAir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 361 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6816 times:
Concorde's problems were range and noise, i.e. sonic boom. The noise made over-land flights at supersonic speed impossible in Europe and the US, which left only over-water flights. The range issue then limited these flights to transatlantic, as the range for trans-pacific was not there. Pax load was another big factor, as only 110 or so pax (little to no cargo) made CASM out of sight, I'm sure!!
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss
Saleem From Pakistan, joined Mar 2000, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6753 times:
Singapore Airlines didn't make it permanent part of their fleet. In some of thread it was mentioned that on one side Singapore Airlines painted and on other side it was probably Air France or BA.
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9893 posts, RR: 73 Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6685 times:
IF Airbus were to launch a new supersonic commercial transport, odds are it would not fall in line with their existing product nomenclature. You wouldn't see it labeled the A360, A390, or whatever. They realize that any new SST will be heavily marketed, and will require an entirely new stand-alone name for branding purposes.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
KYAir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 361 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6595 times:
The original Braniff had a somewhat goofy arrangement with Air France (I believe) where Braniff crews flew a Concorde sub-sonic from IAD to DFW. This only lasted a year, at best. It was in the late '70s.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss
AZjetgeek From United States, joined Jul 2004, 235 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6562 times:
As KYAir pointed out, the Concorde was limited by both range and sound. When Boeing attempted to produce the SST in the 70's, environmental groups came out of the woodwork to protest the effects of both the noise as well as other possible environmental issues.
It is sad that the Concorde is no longer in use. It is a beautiful aircraft. But, unless a manufacturer can find a way to allow it to carry more than 110 pax, it would be too great a financial risk for anyone to attempt. As for Airbus, they have so much invested in the A380 to spare for a Concorde revival.
BENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 4561 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6500 times:
I think that the first question is are there sufficient people prepared to pay premium prices for speed.
To make the time savings significant, we have to be talking at least Transatlantic. To provide sufficient revenue we need either a very large aircraft, or a bizjet.
A very large aircraft essentially means Boeing or Airbus. The reason for saying this is the resources required effectively rule out most of the alternatives like Embraer/Canadair/Tupolev. I do not think that either of them are prepared to take the risks and both have substancial currents development commitments anyway.
Once these commitments have been resolved, then there may be scope for a marketing/technical study. However the technical issues, (noise in particular) are substancial, and unless there is a clear demand then a study is a far as it will go.
The number of companies who could develop a business jet is somewhat greater. It might be worth a technical/marketing study to see if it is feasible at a cost that the mega rich are prepared to pay.
B2707SST From United States, joined Apr 2003, 1310 posts, RR: 66 Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6280 times:
I think that the first question is are there sufficient people prepared to pay premium prices for speed.
That is the $64,000 question, and currently the answer is a resounding no. A new SST would probably take $30-40 billion and 10-15 years to build, would cost airlines about half a billion dollars each, and would inevitably have significantly higher operating costs than subsonics. The potential market for supersonic travel isn't even close to large enough to justify expenditures of this magnitude.
Demand for faster travel falls off rapidly as fare premiums increase; airlines (and by extension, the airframers) just don't have the pricing power to make the venture worth it. BA charged a fortune and still made money on the JFK-LHR run and the charter market because the supply was so limited -- they only had six Concordes to fill (IIRC, at least one was always in maintenance) and there was no real competition, Air France excepted. But no sane manufacturer is going to spend $40 billion to build 14 aircraft for two airlines ever again. Imagine what would have happened to Concorde-class fares if there were 200 such aircraft flying for a dozen airlines on the North Atlantic. BA's pricing power would have collapsed and Concorde would have been grounded overnight.
It was an odd scenario: Concorde was only viable at very high fare levels. If the manufacturers had met their sales targets, they would have flooded the market and ruined the airlines' SST operations. There was a nearly perfect inverse relationship between success for the government-owned manufacturers that built Concorde and success for the government-owned airlines that were her primary customers.
The essential point is that the Concorde program was an unmitigated economic disaster, and any private firm is going to need an ironclad case before betting its existence on another SST. Funding an SST program publicly would be a gross misuse of government funds: why should we throw tax dollars at a market where angels fear to tread? The British and French were badly burned on Concorde, and even the US was stung by our own SST programs, so I think it will be a long time before governments are anxious to meddle in this sector again. Add to that environmentalist hysteria (some of the claims made about SSTs in all seriousness in the 1970s boggle the mind) and the political wrangling inherent in any government operation, and the concept is DOA.
Unfortunately, until we see major technological breakthroughs or a bona fide revolution in the target market, the SST as a commercial concept is dead. This is even more true for hypersonic or sub-orbital transports: they might cut flight times by 90% versus subsonics, but the difficulty of building a reusable commercial sub-orbital transport versus a 7E7 or A380 is simply incomparable. That would be an effort on the scale of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, or the Space Shuttle. It's just not worth it when any two points on the globe are only 24 hours apart by jumbo jet or milliseconds apart by teleconferencing.
A supersonic business jet is far more likely, as it would cost a fraction of an SST to build and sell, and the manufacturer could target the plane at the tiny but important market segment that wants speed at any cost. That niche is much too small to support a full-blown airliner, but a well-designed SSBJ just might make it.
Zippyjet From United States, joined Sep 2001, 2503 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5451 times:
Re: a hypersonic biz-jet; Doesn't that pesky issue of the sonic boom come into play? Or, does a smaller plane inflict a smaller boom? It seems that a boom could still prove to be a bust for those who don't mind putting their money toward vanquishing those minutes. And as recent as 2001 a Maxim magazine article relating to Boeing's Sonic Cruiser project alluding to the fact this was a stepping stone toward supersonic travel. I liked that line where "One could fly to Korea from New York and savor a Cocker Spaniel Lunch and catch a flight home for dinner!" Such was the stuff of heady dreams.
Justplanecrazy From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 536 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4001 times:
British airways didnt even have to buy Concorde,they refused to buy it,so the British government had to give it to BA knowing if there own national airline didnt have it nobody would want to buy it.Micheal Hessletine was the government minister at the time who negotiated with BA.Concorde the beautiful mistake.
your pilots today on this 747 flight are captain oliver hardy and assisting will be FO stan laurel.Have a safe flight
Greaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1025 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3913 times:
I doubt a supersonic a/c is really needed anymore. The availability of travelers to basically do all their work on the plane nowadays defeats the advantages of a SST. Connexion by Boeing and others have enabled passengers work opportunities and connectability to the world in the plane.
The rise of super fast trains is also a concern to all jetliners (transcon). Although they do not go supersonic, trains prove to be a viable and sometimes better alternative to travelling in a plane.
I would think owning a SST would be a prestige thing, and only a select few would actually want to fly on an a/c costing more, with less personal space and a window the size of a passport.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11065 posts, RR: 83 Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3777 times:
Plenty of myths here, aside from B2707SST's usual well informed insight.
BA Paid for 5 aircraft, each some 20% more expensive than a 747 in 1972 when ordered, yes the development costs were written off, but valuable lessons were learned on what was, after all, the first collaborative airliner project.
The final unsold two, were given to BA, but 214 (OAG) required several million £ of mods, as did to a lesser extent, 216 (OAF).
BA effectively brought out the UK side of the project in 1984, as privatisation loomed, they had a choice, make it viable or lose it, as the UK government were no longer going to support it.
They took over much of the spares holding, and aircraft 202 was brought as a source of spares, post 1984, BA Concorde expanded with both charters and later, the BGI route.
Marketing, routes, were invested in, as were the cabins, soon the aircraft was very profitable, and remained so until 2000.
If a route was failing, it was axed, as the 3 x weekly IAD sector was in late 1994.
By the 1990's, some 300 charters a year on BA Concorde, contributing 9% of Concorde revenue, the rest being from the twice daily JFK and the very popular seasonal BGI sectors.
It was expensive to run, and a challenge, but even in lean times, like the period after the 1991 Gulf War, BA used the aircraft to retain premium pax loyalty as well as more direct promotions for both regular flights and in the 'Flagship' role.
The joint operation with Braniff involved both BA and AF, more successful was the BA run extension to MIA from IAD, from 1984 to 1991, unlike the DFW extension, it was supersonic.
SIA had it's livery on the L/H of G-BOAD, with 50% SIA cabin crew for the BAH-SIN sector, but the route had political problems and suffered in the late 1970's recession, so ended in November 1980.
Further big investments in the cabin in 1992/3, in 1996, after the fleet had it's D checks, the structure was found to be in better condition than expected, so the 6700 Reference Flight limit was extended to 8500, taking the aircraft to the early 21st Century.
But we never expected to go beyond 2006/7, as AF would stop then, so BA would have to shoulder the whole support cost burden, making it unviable even if the good times had continued, which of course they did not.
The last major look in Europe at a successor was with the Airbus partners in 1994-6, but not really funded and like Boeing/NASA found in 1998, the technical and commercial hurdles were too great.
BMI701EGCC From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 162 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2651 times:
Hi Guys,
I heard that a British and a Chinese company have begun talks on the "next" concord, Am I right? I heard this several months ago now, I think on a documentary.
Scott Waterworth
BMI701EGCC
G-PATI-"G-PATI, Back inbound to Barton"MCT APR-"G-PATI, Continue, Keep lookout on VFR traffic"
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13574 posts, RR: 68 Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2419 times:
Wasn't the big deal about the Sonic Cruiser that it could fly close to the speed of sound and still operate economically?
Unfortunately not economically enough apparently. The problem was that the airlines couldn't charge higher ticket prices for such a relatively small gain in speed.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2011 times:
KYAir:
Braniff pilots and Flight attendants flew the Concorde at subsonic speeds between IAD and DFW. From IAD on alternate days either Air France crews flew it to CDG or BA crews flew it to LHR.
Every time it flew domestically, its ownership changed hands, and a US reg number was used.
There are many re-touched photos of the Concorde in BN colors, but it was sadly never painted so.
ORDAgent From United States, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1899 times:
The one thing that people don't attribute to Concorde is that it layed the foundations and proved the concept of Airbus. So if you may want to consider the cost of Concorde as R&D for the founding of Airbus. If you placed the cost of Concorde on the Airbus programme it wouldn't be profitable yet despite it's sales success IMHO.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11065 posts, RR: 83 Reply 25, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1850 times:
ORDAgent hit the nail on the head, both how to and how not to do a collaborative project were learned on Concorde, as well as it being a shot in the arm for the technical capability for both nation's aviation industries, one obvious one being the FBW system, with a mechanical back up, used on Concorde.
IAD-MIA was a full BA operation, around this time there were also quite a few charters operated from JFK, one common one being to MCO, in the late 1990's and 2000 a number of charters to BGI from JFK were also operated, in Jan/Feb.
26 Whitehatter: Concorde wasn't a total disaster by any means. Lots of valuable technology was pioneered with the development of Concorde. Materials science was pushe
27 B2707SST: Of course there were many spin-off developments from Concorde, including commercialization of FBW, carbon brakes, anti-lock braking, materials, etc. B
Sponsor Message: 
From Pakistan, joined Mar 2000, 179 posts, 
From Namibia, joined Feb 2004, 3390 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 163 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2004, 361 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1495 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 233 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1025 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 102 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13574 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
