Surf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
Whether you like it or not, the Concorde is going away. The accident may or may not hasten their retirement, but the fact is BA and AF were doing away with them in a few years as it is. The Concorde, while a really cool plane, is fuel inefficient, noisy etc etc, and no one is going to build another supersonic commercial passenger aircraft like that ever again, probably. The Corcorde was a product of the post war future optimism of the 50's and 60's. The Donald Fagen song "I.G.Y" (International Geophysical Year...the year 1957) comes to mind:
"...90 minutes from New York to Paris, there'll be spandex jackets, one for everyone....What a beutiful world this will be..."
We know today that many of the optimisms of that time that thinkers and planners THOUGHT would be wonderful to our lives, actually were not....freeways, everyone in personal cars, which then spurred urban and suburban sprawl etc etc...my point is...The Concorde just isn't practical in reality. Once they were built, they were given (so I understand) for FREE to BA and AF, which were airlines that were then state owned. All the orders and interest from other airlines dried up, especially in light of the fuel crisis and the environmental issues. The Concordes time never really came...they were here for awhile, they were enjoyed..now they are going. So did the transatlantic ocean liners...that's the way it is...
Darrell From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 236 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1213 times:
I don't think the accident will speed the demise of the Concorde. Both BA and AF have have said that the planes will be around for at least 7 more years, maybe longer. Like it or not, BA actually makes a substantial profit operating the Concorde, and they are in no hurry to get rid of them. The Concorde is the "calling card" of both airlines. They evoke a sense of pride and prestige that neither airline will ever be able to replace once the Concorde is gone. They may be noisy and inefficient, but there will always be a market for them. Personally, I hope that the Concorde is around for another 25 years.
Surf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1193 times:
you know, i personally would like to see them around too, but i just dont' see it happening, unfortunately, ANY SST flight, be it the Concorde, or the Boeing 2707 or any other...it's really too bad. :-(
Propilotjw From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 587 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1172 times:
well, it is a well known fact that both airlines lose money on the aircraft but they also have made it well know that they are going to be around for many years to coem and that the concorde is not going away anytime soon. The aircraft is a beautiful aircraft and it is THE pride and joy of both airlines that operate it. When the 747-400 is sitting next to the Concorde, people flock to the Concorde just to take a look at it. Whatever you guys say, the concord is not going away anytime soon and SST's are here to stay. They may not be the wave of the future like they were thought to be, but SST's are going to be around you may not like it but it is true.
B767-400er From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1152 times:
Hey, don't you guys ever read any newspapers? In the National Post(Canadian), there was a article about the TU-244 has been given the "go-ahead", by the Company. I don't know where they got the info., but I surely hope that it is true! If the story is in fact true, than we might see the new TU-244 flying around in 8-13 years! Well, at the mean time, I'll keep my fingers cross, and pray that it is indeed a live project. 1 thing I really don't understand through, if NASA wants a SST so bad, why don't they help the Russian build one, and then I'm sure Boeing will join in and help!?!? Oh well, Concorde is a beautful plane, I hope to ride it many more times before it is going to retire! I know many people wants the Concorde dead; what's worng with you? You want the one and only remaining SST fleet to be DEAD?!?!? I mean, 30 years ago, everyone wants and SST soooo bad, and now.......
if they do infact build a new SST, I'm sure that they will feature new, quite Turbofan engines, and with today's technology, thwy might be able to reduce the sonic boom to a respectable level! And if the noise isn't so bad, the over-land routes will open up, creating a whole new market!
Oh well, I've said enough, I guess I'll just have to wait and see what will happen to our speedbirds......
William From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1200 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1149 times:
While I do not agree with your post (this topic has been rehashed who knows how many times). I would like to comment on the song I.G.Y. It was in the year 1975 (you probably meant to type 75 but instead typed 57).
You are right,it is a song with a optimistic future as its theme. And though there are officially no plans for a Concorde replacement. The dynamic duo who designed the original will most likely design the successor. The 747s and A3xxxs have their place in the aviation world,but so does supersonic aircraft. And what seems impossible right now (high level of noise,fuel efficiency,and pax capacity) can be solved in a few years. In the F22 Raptor,its engine have the capability of flying in Super Cruise. Which allows it fly to supersonic with afterburners,and do it with fuel efficiency (its all relative.) So don't write Concorde successor off just yet.
Good taste in music Surf. I.G.Y. is also a great traveling song when walking through airports or relaxing at 35,000 ft.
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1138 times:
British Airways and Air France both operate Concorde at a profit. Fares higher than First Class are charged on scheduled flights, the breakeven load factor for BA is between just over 30%. When not being used in scheduled service a large charter programme keeps Concorde busy. I promise you, they make money for the airlines that fly them.
Twa747100 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 600 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
HUMAN race rarely ever goes backwards
I cant picture telling my grand children, no my kids that it use to take 90 min to cross the Atlantic and now it takes 6hrs.
Don't start sh*t we know its going, its just a matter of time before someone comes out with a new one.
Think of the rich businessmen who use the concord at least once a week, where will they go?????
TropicalSkies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1108 times:
The *CURRENT* Concorde may be going away, but as I see it, the demand will come up again. The main thing stunting the production of more SSTs is the noise they generate, and the current incapacity to find enough interest in the project. You would think that SSTs could be used on transpacific flights, but only on VERY few select routes. Like LAX-Tokyo. Or routes like, LAX or SFO to, say, Hong Kong, the planes pass over island nations. The profound sonic boom they generate would disturb the peace and cause protests to be started. Not to mention the extreme uproar it'd cause over LAND!
So the SSTs are pretty much limited to the Atlantic, Arctic Ocean, and South Pole. Well there's not many routes over the North or South pole, therefor comfining the SST to the Atlantic.
Now, the Concorde IS profitable, but not as much as the majors would like it to be. For instance, they can transport 200, 300, 400 passengers at a time in 6 hours, and make twice the profit they would flying the Concorde back and forth all day long, full plane, with three hours each flight!
It's simply more economical at the present time to keep the subsonics as the norm.
HOWEVER, what if LOCKHEED MARTIN is looking right now into building a 250-300 pax airliner, hmmm? Surely that would solve the problem. You get the same capacity as a subsonic, with the speed of a supersonic, you get more flights in each day, double or triple the profits! You can't tell me nobody's though of this, Lockheed has been looking at it for some time. (Early '90s I believe) The problem standing in their way is that the majors aren't sure that they want to provide support for such a project. After all, the L-1011 hit Lockheed hard in the pocket book. Airlines might be thinking this new airliner could be a major fuel sucker.
Solution: Talk to GE and RR and get them to design some super-efficient supersonic jet engine. BUT, that'll take interest and money to accomlish. The airlines again are not sure that they want to take that risk, when they can concentrate on the A3XX, get 500pax at a time, spend no money on devolopment studies and engine devolopment. The A3XX is a solid, low-risk deal, a new SST is not. Hence, the Concorde is IT and no others will be built for a while.
What if an airline were to get interested enough in devolopment? That's be kool.
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1052 times:
I read an aviation safety book called Flying Blind; Flying Safe by Mary Schiavo on page 260 in the airplanes section of the book. There is information saying that BA and AF are planning to keep the concordes flying until the year 2010. I personally think that the concordes will be junked by that time and a much newer, faster, fuel efficient supersonic jet by Boeing or Airbus will be out to replace the concorde.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10052 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1038 times:
To construct a Concorde replacement will cost too much, far too much money to make sense. A lot of people think the proposed 12 Billion Dollars development cost of the (really needed) A3XX is probably going to bring Airbus down. An airplane that will be flown by millions and dozens of millions of people that is, making longdistance flights even more cheaper than today!
What about a new-age SST then? The number of potential passengers will count more in thousends than in millions, but the development of such an aircraft could easily cost more than the A3XX. Who in this world will fly with it when a ticket LHR-JFK costs $20.000 or more on it? The target-group might be the average millionaire, but how many are that?
Sorry, I don´t see a "new Concorde" at all, how beautiful, technically brilliant and wonderful it might be...
Surf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1024 times:
Yeah it's a great song isn't it? Great album too. I looked it up on the internet and the International Geophysical Year was, in fact, 1957. Donald Fagen wrote the whole "New Frontier" album about the 1950's.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1023 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1006 times:
I am not sure where people get the notion that BA and AF loose money on the Concorde, they dont give those seats away! The Concorde might be expensive, excessively so to those of us who can't ante up 5k or 10k for a ticket but to most who frequent the Concorde's scheduled Atlantic crossings the price of a ticket is a meer drop in the bucket. BA and AF charge what it costs them to operate the a/c, pay the crew, preform MX and make a profit. They arent flying these things around the world at a loss. Initially of course they did have to take a loss to put them into service and cover the cost of research, development and production. But the research and development was prety much done by 1970 and thats been 30 years! Production was over in the very early 80s.
Neither BA or AF have indicated either before or after the accident that they were going to retire the Concorde before the fatigue life of the airframe was reached. BA has indicated that they planned on 20 more years of Concorde operation with AF saying they planned at least 7 more years.
If an aircraft has ever been designed and put into production with the stipulation that if ever one example of the type were to crash, the entire fleet would be retired there would never have been any aircraft to operate more than a couple years. To have gone 31 years without an accident is something that has never happened in the world of commercial aviation. Instead of pounding the final nail in the coffin of the Concorde we should reflect on what a tremendous aircraft the Concorde is. It remains an icon, it remains one of the safest aircraft flying today and it will remain in service until the end of the airframe's useful life.
25 Cedarjet: Supersonic passenger travel is history. Why is it a step backwards to cross the Atlantic in 6 hours instead of 90 minutes? 1. Ground transport is now
26 Cedarjet: And what's all this crap about Concorde's "outstanding" safety record? How many sectors has it flown in commercial service? 150,000? That's NOTHING. I
27 Bobo2196: Yes, we all know that the concorde is a very beautiful bird, and there more than likely is another SST in development, but WHY IS EVERY ONE GETTING SO
28 B767-400er: Woooo, now, you settle down a little.... For the matter of fact, I know that everyone in this forum knows that the concorde is going to go away, like
29 Flyhigh: Why is there so much concern with the Concorde making too much noise and pollution because it's an SST. There are thousands of military supersonic jet
30 JumboClassic: >B767-400er wrote: >There are technologys now that can allow >aircrafts to travel supersonicily, with no, >you heard me right!, no sonic boom! The >en
31 777x: Flyhigh, Military aircraft generally don't fly supersonic over populated areas, and in fact, most military supersonic capable aircraft use alot more f
32 Prebennorholm: Supersonic flight in the atmosphere without a sonic boom is not possible. The boom can be increased or reduced a little by different aerodynamic shape
33 B767-400er: On the Special coverages of the concorde crash: National Post. There was an articial, that explans how an upwards cruved delta wing, simular to a wing
34 Atlcnnguy: We do not move backwards in the world today. we would not give up our cars for horses again and we will not let SST die. There will be another SST tha
35 Tripl7: Very interesting and entertaining, sometimes informative, reading - all the posts. Thanks guys. I simply want to say that I hope they don't retire Con
36 TropicalSkies: Hi, Hate to burst your bubble, SST non-sayers. But there are currently TWO, yes TWO SSTs in development. Of course most of you know about the TU-244.
37 B767-400er: Wow, how do you ever get that many info?!?!? Anyway, I'm almost done saving up for my trip on the concorde, I'm only short $200!> Hopefully, I can get
38 TropicalSkies: You aksed how I got that much info on the new LOCKHEED SST. Well Air & Space Magazine had a nice little article on it about 6 months ago. It described
39 Surf: Becuase the world can get along without supersonic passenger travel. It's not needed. Those businessmen who take it commercially will get along just f
40 B767-400er: unnesscery does not translate to un-profitable. And in this world, everything that makes a profit, is loved by people. A whole new Gen. of SST will vr