Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Anybody See Concorde On PBS Nova Tuesday Night?  
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6439 posts, RR: 17
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

I did see it, however, I wished I'd taped it. Lots and lots of footage from the 60s til the end 2003. The 2 back to back inauguaral JFK Concordes both landed on 31R correct? That's what it looked like. I had no idea Concorde serving the US was hanging by a political thread. The program explained the sonic boom very well. A good program, who a lot of antters saw it.


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3880 times:

I saw it too, and it was decent.

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
I had no idea Concorde serving the US was hanging by a political thread.

Yup, I remember the "sound tests" they did. It was big news.

A lot more Concorde history about that time is here:

http://www.concordesst.com/history/70s.html



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3880 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I recorded it, but haven't seen it yet. However, I believe it is a repeat showing, as I recall a NOVA Concorde special on her final flight (as well as an earlier episode about the Soviet espionage effort during the 1960s that led to the TU-144).

User currently offlineSkoker From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 439 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

I saw it, TiVo'd it as well.

User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3842 times:

I saw it for the first time. It was a repeat (Original Airdate: January 18, 2005).

I did learn something. Contrary to what many of our European friends have stated in these forums, the US was not responsible for the failure of Concorde.

A man named Richard Wiggs stirred up quite a bit of opposition in the UK and it spread around the world. It was one of the first great causes of the budding environmental movement. There was fierce resistance not only in the US, but in Europe, Australia, and India as well.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3805 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4):
Contrary to what many of our European friends have stated in these forums, the US was not responsible for the failure of Concorde.

A few, maybe. I think you'll find that the oil crisis is cited most often as the main cause.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4):
A man named Richard Wiggs stirred up quite a bit of opposition in the UK and it spread around the world. It was one of the first great causes of the budding environmental movement. There was fierce resistance not only in the US, but in Europe, Australia, and India as well.

Thank you! This was my primary "take away" from watching this excellent presentation. It seems that the origin of the opposition to Concorde wasn't U.S. inspired, but "home grown".



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2708 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

I saw it too. I was amazed at the opposition to it, I was too young, but do remember some opposition in the 80's when regular service was proposed to ORD; does anyone know any information on that; was it AF or BA?

I was a little surprised to hear so many people that worked on the Concorde program didn't think it was a good idea, mostly the economics; although maybe they changed their opinion after the project "financially failed".

It seems like the focus of the show was on the British part of the project, was this a BBC production?

By the way, the music was horrible, anyone else notice that? It seemed like it was trying to be a 60's or 70's jet set theme, but the choices of music was annoying?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13210 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3673 times:

We have a lot of people in the UK like the late Richard Wiggs.

He was a minor player, but yes, he did lend some spurious 'credibility' to the much larger, much more politically supported effort in the US.
No equivalent in France to him however.

BoomBoom, I think you'll find, and I include myself in this, the more informed threads cite the 1973 oil crisis as the major problem.
Pan Am actually canceled a few months before that, but that was due to the airline being in financial trouble, partly caused by over ordering 747's (which lest we forget, had a very technically troublesome entry into service that went on for at least a period of many months).
They would, a few years later, repeat this by ordering too many 747SP's.

I heard a story about Wiggs, from those in BA Concorde at the time.
He got a last minute invitation to an anti SST meeting in NY, so last minute, he took a BA Concorde to IAD then connected to an internal flight to JFK!

Bottom line, had 2707 not been cancelled in 1971, the oil crisis would have done for it too.
Though it might not have been flying by then probably, much less be in service.
It's demise was not welcomed within the Concorde project, since they knew more flak would come their way now, with a 'Not Invented Here' extra.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3644 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
He was a minor player, but yes, he did lend some spurious 'credibility' to the much larger, much more politically supported effort in the US.

It's demise was not welcomed within the Concorde project, since they knew more flak would come their way now, with a 'Not Invented Here' extra.

Nice stab at revisionist history. Of course the flaw in your "blame America for your failures" argument is you ignore the opposition in Europe, Australia, India and who knows where else.

As for the "very technically troublesome entry into service" of the 747 due to the engines, that didn't seem to affect the long term success of the project, did it?

Not invented here? Isn't that the attitude we get when we're told the composite fuselage of the 787 is too risky?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
Bottom line, had 2707 not been cancelled in 1971, the oil crisis would have done for it too. Though it might not have been flying by then probably, much less be in service.

I always wondered that if the Lockheed L2000 program has been chosen, if the US SST program might have made it. I do agree that it is unlikely they plane would have entered service before 1975 or so.

Quote:
It's demise was not welcomed within the Concorde project, since they knew more flak would come their way now, with a 'Not Invented Here' extra.

The US anti-SST movement would have hammered the L2000/B2707 even harder, I imagine, since it was a heavier and faster plane which meant a larger and louder boom footprint. When the USAF did the OKC tests with B-58 Hustlers I believe that really helped fuel the anti-SST movement in the US as it provided "real-world" evidence as to just how disruptive overland supersonic travel could be.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 9):
(Y)ou ignore the opposition in Europe, Australia, India and who knows where else.

India, especially, was upset at what they felt was arrogance on the part of the British and French who felt that while it was not acceptable to disrupt their citizens with sonic booms, having SST overflights of India in the middle of the night for flights to SIN and SYD were acceptable.

While written by an anti-SST proponent, and brutally dry, the book "Clipped Wings" by Mel Howard from MIT Press was a very interesting read on the whole US anti-SST program. And while it's focus is on the US program, it does reference Concorde (and even the TU-144) and some of the issues they faced outside the US.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3581 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
The US anti-SST movement would have hammered the L2000/B2707 even harder, I imagine, since it was a heavier and faster plane which meant a larger and louder boom footprint.

Well they did succeed in killing it in the Senate by cutting off further government funding. It was one of the few times in history that the greenies did something useful for the country, although their opposition was based on environmental concerns not on economic ones.

Boeing was only to glad to build the SST as long as it was with government money, but they weren't about to spend their own $$$ on it.

So the project died...


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 9):
you ignore the opposition in Europe, Australia, India and who knows where else.

And yet so often we hear the myths that BA paid £1 each for their Concordes and couldn't operate them profitably. The "other" side isn't exactly myth-free.

The London/Paris - New York routes were the major targets. The opposition around London and Paris didn't have much of an effect on those but the US oppostion did delay their start. Yes, it has been argued that it was a contributory factor but, for the umpteenth time, the 1973 oil crisis was the main reason, as GDB says (yet again).

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 9):
Isn't that the attitude we get when we're told the composite fuselage of the 787 is too risky?

You wouldn't be very upset if this turned into a political thread, would you?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13210 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

BoomBoom, I know you delight in putting words in others mouths, to advance some sort of 'everyone hates the US' agenda.

But I detected no anti US in my thread, the plain facts were the most vigorous anti SST movement was in the US, deny that all you like, anyone who knows anything of SST history knows it's true.
Whatever side of the pond they come from.
Yes there were some elsewhere, but remind us what was the biggest (and as it turned out-only really viable SST destination), market for SST's, what city and what airport in particular.

I mentioned 747 to illustrate a point beyond this thread true, but the aircraft, in how it changed the market, set new standards for noise/emissions, as well as affected PA's SST plans.
As part of the movement to supply to museums, of BA Concorde and manufacturer paperwork, which I was involved in, I saw a lot of correspondance between PA and BAC, from the early 70's, they seemed pretty commited right up to mid 1972, BAC even designed an APU fitment in the tailcone if PA really pressed for one, rather PA just suggesting it as years before.

PA were first to option Concorde, well before AF and BOAC ordered, this was in 1963. Juan Trippe also wanted a US SST project, his optioning of Concorde had the desired effect on JFK. But since the President made it clear he wanted not only bigger (fair enough), but faster too, that helped to doom the project before even a contractor was picked-the wrong one as it turned out.
The speed issue the Chief Engineer on the 2707 project, reckoned as the principal problem was.

A senior Nixon Administration advisor, declared in 1971, that 'Concorde had a snowball's chance in hell of ever landing in the US', governments and who are in them, come and go, but I would suspect comments like that had more weight than a possible objection to 2-3 flights per week over the Australian outback, a few years later.

The US political objections to SST's, got a boost when politicians like Sen Proxmire objected to the (90% of cost) Federal spending on the project.
Thus widened out to bring in enviromental groups, then the 'NIMBY' factor.
Politicians do this sort of thing all the time, create a sort of consensus to advance a cause.
(Though what are now called 'tree huggers' by many politicians, were embraced by them for this. Must have been a sight to see).

Before the vote on future 2707 funding, Neil Armstrong, now out of NASA and prior to becoming an Engineering teacher, was back to his original test aircraft stamping ground.
Sen. Gaylord (yes really!) Nelson, an anti SST proponent, asked Armstrong his views on the project.
Armstrong was naturally, more interested in the aircraft as a research tool, where the extra speed was an advatage. But he declared his support for the programme as a whole, making this clear to Nelson.
But Nelson went to the floor and reported that Armstrong was against the 2707 programme.

Some advancing what usually turned out to be bad science made a name for themselves too.

Finally, you had, after IAD services were approved, the campaign to prevent Concorde operating in and out of JFK, (many of these people had a few years before, before it entered service, objected to 747, fearing they would lose too much daylight by such a massive aircraft being a frequent visitor to JFK).

They failed after Concorde demonstrated how a sharp turn over the bay, out of JFK, greatly reduced the amount of surburban disturbance-great to experience too, as I found 25 years later on a BA002 in Sept 2002.
But then other noiser jets started to copy this.

Then hurricanes and other adverse weather conditions, that the tiny BA and AF fleets would cause, failed to materialise.

But through all this, the real killer was the huge oil price hike after October 1973, it had massive effects across the board, well beyond aerospace and airlines, way beyond SST's.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 13):
They failed after Concorde demonstrated how a sharp turn over the bay, out of JFK, greatly reduced the amount of surburban disturbance-great to experience too, as I found 25 years later on a BA002 in Sept 2002.
But then other noiser jets started to copy this.

Yes, how ironic.  Smile


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I always wondered that if the Lockheed L2000 program has been chosen, if the US SST program might have made it. I do agree that it is unlikely they plane would have entered service before 1975 or so.

The program schedule at the end of the design competition in 1966 called for EIS in 1975, so everything would have needed to stay more or less on schedule for nine years. Given the Concorde experience and slippages on other major aviation programs, this seems highly unlikely.

Whether Lockheed could have done better than Boeing is obviously something we can never know, but their management track record on the C-5A and L-1011 is not cause for great optimism. The only chance for success would have been for the program to be too far advanced in 1971 for Congress to kill it. Given that the prototypes were scheduled to fly in late 1970 or early 1971 and production would not have begun for several more years (again, according to the rather optimistic 12/66 timeline), this also seems very unlikely. At best, Lockheed might have had a prototype or two in the air.

In any case, it is almost certain that allowing the program to continue to production would have been throwing good money after bad. The Senate did make the right decision but for the wrong reasons, at least on the environmental front. One cannot fault Senator Proxmire, since he was genuinely arguing on principle and turned out to be exactly correct about the SST's economic prospects.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
The US anti-SST movement would have hammered the L2000/B2707 even harder, I imagine, since it was a heavier and faster plane which meant a larger and louder boom footprint. When the USAF did the OKC tests with B-58 Hustlers I believe that really helped fuel the anti-SST movement in the US as it provided "real-world" evidence as to just how disruptive overland supersonic travel could be.

True, but by the mid-1960s, all parties involved had accepted that the SST could never fly supersonically over land, in large part because of the OKC tests ("Operation Bongo"). The projected market of 500 aircraft by 1990 was based on overwater-only supersonic flight. The environmentalist lobby did try to scare people into believing that sonic booms would be generated at any speed, including takeoff and landing, but this could (and should) have been countered by a better PR campaign. As it turned out, the FAA and Boeing were both fatally inept at winning public support.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
While written by an anti-SST proponent, and brutally dry, the book "Clipped Wings" by Mel Howard from MIT Press was a very interesting read on the whole US anti-SST program. And while it's focus is on the US program, it does reference Concorde (and even the TU-144) and some of the issues they faced outside the US.

I don't know what Horwitz's personal opinion on the program was, but I didn't get an anti-SST bias from the book. Rather, I think he convincingly demonstrated that the FAA's management of the program was weak and fragmented from the very beginning, which allowed any number of special committees and interest groups to pull it in all directions. For example, Secretary of Defense McNamara essentially ran the program his way for a number of years, with the FAA more or less shoved off to the sidelines. By the time the SST program ran into serious problems, these peripheral groups had lost interest or pulled out and the FAA's credibility was too far gone to effectively counter criticism, much of which was factually incorrect at best and hysterical at worst.



Quoting David L (Reply 12):
And yet so often we hear the myths that BA paid £1 each for their Concordes and couldn't operate them profitably. The "other" side isn't exactly myth-free.

AFAIK, BA and AF received their "white tails" for nominal sums, although they did pay market price for their original orders, but this is really immaterial since both the airlines and the manufacturers were nationalized industries at the time and were not really conducting arms-length transactions. Whether the national governments "sold" themselves Concordes at £1 or £50 million has more accounting than economic reality.



Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
Pan Am actually canceled a few months before that, but that was due to the airline being in financial trouble, partly caused by over ordering 747's (which lest we forget, had a very technically troublesome entry into service that went on for at least a period of many months).



Quoting David L (Reply 12):
Yes, it has been argued that it was a contributory factor but, for the umpteenth time, the 1973 oil crisis was the main reason, as GDB says (yet again).

I seem to remember a source indicating that many orders had been lost before the oil shock, but I can't recall it off the top of my head.

I do know that both Pan Am and TWA let their options lapse in January 1973 when the OPEC Embargo did not happen until October 17, 1973. I think that many other airlines pulled out in short order, including Arab/Gulf airlines like MEA and Iran Air that (later) were not affected by the embargo. Iran Air later took another look at Concorde but did not purchase.

Certainly the oil shock was a very serious blow to Concorde, but I don't think one can say that this was the primary cause of its failure to sell in significant numbers.



Quoting GDB (Reply 13):
A senior Nixon Administration advisor, declared in 1971, that 'Concorde had a snowball's chance in hell of ever landing in the US', governments and who are in them, come and go, but I would suspect comments like that had more weight than a possible objection to 2-3 flights per week over the Australian outback, a few years later.

IIRC, this was a Senator, not a member of the administration, but I could be wrong (the reference books are at home). FAA SST Director William Magruder (who was Lockheed's former L-2000 program manager before being hired into the FAA and ironically presiding over the implosion of the B2707) and Secretary of Transportation William Coleman under President Ford both lobbied for Concorde, and Coleman allowed it to land in IAD with a minimum of drama. Unlike IAD, JFK is not owned by the FAA, so the federal government had no direct authority to force JFK to allow Concorde to land. Rather, the court system had to decide that the ban was arbitrary and unreasonable.

I don't know of any evidence that the US government exhibited bias against Concorde, at least after the B2707 was cancelled and the competiton between the two programs ceased. Even during the US SST program, there was concern that the FAA, as lead agency, would face a conflict of interest in certifying Concorde for operations in the US that could deny it a fair hearing. "Not invented here" has never seemed to be a credible motivation for the controversy over Concorde; those who fought against it did so for different reasons, judging by fact that they had campaigned just as loudly against the American-invented B2707.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GDB (Reply 13):
But through all this, the real killer was the huge oil price hike after October 1973, it had massive effects across the board, well beyond aerospace and airlines, way beyond SST's.

I do wonder, however, if other airlines had converted their options to orders, if they might not have been successful? BA and AF had little problem charging whatever the market would bear - or even thought it was already bearing, in the case of BA. I imagine the loss of "natural tech stops" like Beiruit in 1975 and Tehran in 1979 would have hurt reliable South Asia and Australia operations (SQ used Bahrain, did they not?), but North Asia (via ANC? HNL?) and South America via Miami might have worked out, in the end.

[Edited 2006-06-29 23:25:19]

User currently offlineBeefer From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 390 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3474 times:

My "take-away" from the program was the comment made by the Black gentleman (sorry, forgot his name and I'm too lazy to try and look it up)who was the man that President Nixon assigned to make the analysis and decision if Concorde could have US landing rights.

As we all know, he made the decision to allow the Concorde to have US landing rights on limited routes. Part of the reasoning was that "it turns out that the Boeing 707 (Airforce 1 at the time) which the President travels in is actually louder than the Concorde".

I got a kick out of that comment.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3453 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 15):
Whether the national governments "sold" themselves Concordes at £1 or £50 million has more accounting than economic reality.

I take your point but that accounting became economic reality when BA was privatised. While BA and BAC were government owned, the money was effectively moved from the airline to the manufacturing division. When BA was privatised the link was severed leaving a hole where the money came from.

However, my point was simply that those myths come up more often than the environmentalist issue.  Smile

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 15):
I seem to remember a source indicating that many orders had been lost before the oil shock, but I can't recall it off the top of my head.

Fair enough but were they cancelled due to the activities of the environmentalists?


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 18):
I take your point but that accounting became economic reality when BA was privatised. While BA and BAC were government owned, the money was effectively moved from the airline to the manufacturing division. When BA was privatised the link was severed leaving a hole where the money came from.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. I am not very familiar with the BA privatization story, but I believe that several injections of government capital occurred before privatization in 1983 (?). I assume that, if BA had paid market price for the white tails, its need for money would have been greater and those infusions would have increased, and conversely government aid would have been less had all the Concordes been essentially given to it.

As it was, IIRC all seven aircraft were written down to zero book value on or before privatization, so how much BA paid for them became doubly irrelevant. BA did buy its way out of a revenue-sharing arrangement that had been intended to recoup the government for its development expenditures, but this was also a fairly nominal sum compared to the amount spent on Concorde.

I guess I am somewhat puzzled about the relevance of the £1 argument to any aspect of the program, whether it is raised by Concorde's defenders or detractors. It is beyond dispute that Concorde was an economic disaster for its manufacturers and the government as a whole, but developed into a decently profitable aircraft for British Airways, at least post-privatization. Anecdotally, it seems AF had less success but more than broke even. In total, though, and especially taking into account the time value of money, the entire operation from inception through 2003 remained deeply in the red.

Quoting David L (Reply 18):
Fair enough but were they cancelled due to the activities of the environmentalists?

Not to my knowledge. Pan Am and TWA cited internal overcapacity, pessimism about the economy and the growth rate of air travel, and (primarily) concerns about Concorde's operating economics. They did not cite environmental effects. I don't know about the other airlines.

The environmental arguments that killed the B2707 related to NOx emissions and ozone destruction, other atmospheric pollution, jet noise, sonic booms, contrail effects on cloud cover and resulting climatic effects, and several other phenomena, in roughly that order. The controversy about Concorde landing rights was almost entirely due to jet noise.

Kennedy had threatened to ban both Concorde and the B2707 in the mid-1960s, but no airline cancelled options between then and early 1973, when the sudden stampede away from Concorde began. The actual standoff over JFK landing rights did not emerge until 1975-76, by which point all airlines except BA and AF had cancelled. Therefore, it's hard to place the blame on JFK's intransigence, since the sudden flurry of cancellations seems chronologically unrelated.

Here is an alternative hypothesis. Even in the pre-embargo era of low oil prices, Concorde's expected operating economics were barely competitive with the 707-320B and soundly beaten by the 747 and DC-10. Although the economic case was shaky, when Concorde and the US SST were offered for sale in 1963, there was a rapid rush to order both aircraft. This seemed to happen because each airline feared that if it did not order SSTs, its competitors would and therefore would siphon away premium passengers.

This early rush was followed by a conspicuous 8-year drought of substantial follow-on orders for either Concorde or the US SST, since the major intercontinental airlines had already reached a kind of competitive equilibrium. Even when the 2707 was killed in 1971 and roughly 36,000 seats of projected supersonic capacity vanished, Concorde's order book remained completely static.

In the early 1970s, Pan Am and TWA were still the largest and most prestigious international carriers in the free world. Given the timing of events, it seems most likely to me that when they bowed out, other airlines realized that there would not be a scramble for supersonic aircraft and the whole house of cards collapsed. The oil shock was merely the last nail in the coffin.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 19):
In the early 1970s, Pan Am and TWA were still the largest and most prestigious international carriers in the free world. Given the timing of events, it seems most likely to me that when they bowed out, other airlines realized that there would not be a scramble for supersonic aircraft and the whole house of cards collapsed. The oil shock was merely the last nail in the coffin.

WOW! You really know a lot about this subject. I've learned more reading your posts than from watching the TV program. Thanks.


User currently offlineScotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 548 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Yeah, I saw on tv last Tuesday on PBS...love every minute watching the show. Boy, I missed Concorde sorely.. learned that 747 was new at that time, stole attention Wish there were 200 plus Concorde to be built


Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" - John 14:6
User currently offlineAvatordon From United States of America, joined May 2006, 239 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

Came across this site a while back and, after seeing this on NOVA, stirred up some fond memories of the whole story. Its a link for the airlines - and liveries at the time - of those carriers that placed orders. Enjoy!

http://www.concordesst.com/history/orders.html


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13210 posts, RR: 77
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

Thanks again B2707SST, yes I wrote it badly, PA, and TWA, did indeed cancel in Jan 1973.
Had they not done so then, I suspect they would have done after the oil shock, if they were already concerned about economics.

The thing to remember is that it took BA, and AF, some years of service to define what was a regular profitable route(s)

Turned out, by 1982, when AF settled on just a single daily JFK, BA could profit on a double daily JFK, a thrice weekly IAD (until Nov.1994), then the seasonal once/twice weekly BGI would emerge.

AF with a smaller scheduled operation, made a greater proportion of money on charters, BA had a bigger charter operation but at best, they gave us 9% of total revenue.

I suspect the '£1' thing irritates by having Branson use it, in his falsehood packed, cynical, hope raising, PR stunt in 2003.

Whilst I don't think 'NIH' was ever a decider, it was used, after 2707 cancellation, by some at least.
Usually at a grass roots level however.
Some at a political level, having voted against, or campaigned against, 2707, would perhaps find it pretty hard to accept Concorde in the US, enviromental worries or otherwise.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3295 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 19):
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. I am not very familiar with the BA privatization story, but I believe that several injections of government capital occurred before privatization in 1983 (?). I assume that, if BA had paid market price for the white tails, its need for money would have been greater and those infusions would have increased, and conversely government aid would have been less had all the Concordes been essentially given to it.

OK, I dived in deeper than I meant to  Smile. All I was saying was that the £1 for each of the 7 airframes myth came about because they picked up the last two for £1 each. I don't think most proponents of the myth consider the long term accounting implications. I'm just saying BA did not pay £1 for each aircraft to illustrate that the myths go both ways.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 19):
Quoting David L (Reply 18):
Fair enough but were they cancelled due to the activities of the environmentalists?

Not to my knowledge. Pan Am and TWA cited internal overcapacity, pessimism about the economy and the growth rate of air travel, and (primarily) concerns about Concorde's operating economics. They did not cite environmental effects.

I was only addressing the charge that the British and French are allegedly always solely blaming US environmentalists for lack of sales.


25 SapphireLHR : Reading through all the thread on this subject it again made me realise that even after all this time the emotions that can still be raised from this
26 RichardPrice : Well that isnt entirely true either, the book value of all the Concordes in 1984 was £1.00 each, but the actual full ownership of the last two were
27 David L : I'm in the twighlight zone! Did I just dream all those discussions over the last 7 years?
28 RichardPrice : Yes and no. The book value on BAs accounts was £1 each, this was done in 1979 (essentially the value is given as nill but the £1 was kept on the bo
29 Post contains images David L : Ok, I just misunderstood. I'm starting to regain consciousness now.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Anybody See The Excellent PBS Special On AF1? posted Thu Jul 12 2001 09:27:55 by Lax
Anybody See Grounded On History Channel? posted Sat Oct 1 2005 19:53:57 by Csturdiv
History Of The Concorde On PBS Tonight (Jan18) posted Tue Jan 18 2005 20:53:50 by Ktliem@yvr
PBS Tuesday Night: Air Crash Investigation posted Tue Apr 6 2004 19:39:23 by 727LOVER
Anybody @ Manchester (MAN) On Tuesday 05/27/03? posted Mon May 26 2003 12:36:00 by Godbless
AV´s Incident On BOG-EZE (last Night) posted Mon Oct 30 2006 03:39:12 by Bongo
Ever See Airliners On The Freeways/roads? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 15:26:28 by 747LUVR
Have Anybody Got Word On Boeing Y-3 posted Sat Apr 15 2006 05:35:04 by 747400sp
Modern Marvels On History Channel Last Night posted Wed Jan 25 2006 19:58:55 by Goingboeing
Giant In The Skies On Aussie TV Saturday Night! posted Wed Nov 23 2005 07:25:32 by Pilotdude09