Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?  
User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 17064 times:

In a nostalgia article, BBC mentions that:

Concorde began commercial flights in January 1976 with London-Bahrain and Paris-Rio services. Regular flights to the US did not start for another three years as American aviation authorities were not willing to allow the plane to land at their airports.

Anyone know/remember the reasoning behind this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...mber/26/newsid_2539000/2539049.stm

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 17062 times:

Quoting Remcor (Thread starter):
Anyone know/remember the reasoning behind this?

One word: NIMBY's. They were concernd about the sonic booms so protested against its flights...



Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 17062 times:

Um... probably noise?


No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 17045 times:

The problem with the sonic boom was I believe also what killed Boeing's own SST, the 2707, before it even left the drawing board.

User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2737 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 17011 times:

Simple answer was that as Boeing couldn't play in the sandbox with their SST, they didn't want anybody else to have one either.

When that became a defacto supposition, they finally allowed Concorde to fly into New York and Washington provided it maintained only subsonic speeds in US airspace.

Official US Government NIMBYism is the simple answer.


User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 17011 times:

To land at New York?? Just slow down before you hit land. In any case the planes eventually landed in JFK so something must have been solved. Why did it take 3 years?

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20632 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16988 times:

Concorde was initially banned due to local noise, not sonic booms. Lots of info in the thread below, and other threads in the archives:

Anybody See Concorde On PBS Nova Tuesday Night? (by 727LOVER Jun 29 2006 in Civil Aviation)



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16845 times:

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 4):
Simple answer was that as Boeing couldn't play in the sandbox with their SST, they didn't want anybody else to have one either.

When that became a defacto supposition, they finally allowed Concorde to fly into New York and Washington provided it maintained only subsonic speeds in US airspace.

Official US Government NIMBYism is the simple answer.

This is not correct.

The ban on Concorde landing was imposed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns and operates Kennedy Airport. The US government, specifically the DOT and FAA, had no authority to force JFK to allow Concorde to land. Contrast this with IAD, which is controlled by the FAA and allowed Concorde flights without too much consternation. There were public hearings that ate up some time and a few protests, but nothing like the scene in New York. BA and AF sued PANYNJ for arbitrary exclusion, as Concorde could meet noise standards applied to other aircraft, and won in federal appellate court after the US Supreme Court refused to hear the PANYNJ's appeal.

On the whole, the same people who fought for the B2707 also supported Concorde, while the coalition of environmentalists and NIMBYs that had just killed the 2707 fought as hard against Concorde. Bill Magruder, the FAA's last SST program director (and ironically a former Lockheed L-2000 SST program executive), argued forcefully for Concorde to be allowed to land several years after the US SST was cancelled.

I have not heard that Boeing or the 2707's supporters in the US government bore any animosity toward Concorde. Rather, it seems they understood better than anyone else the irrationality of some SST opponents. From all I've heard, Concordes always received a very warm welcome when they visited Seattle.

Official New York/New Jersey NIMBYism, absolutely, but payback for the 2707 had little to do with it.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2006-09-27 06:08:21]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16820 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Basically, people at the time were slightly uneducated, by that I mean what they thought they knew was wrong. The American people believed that a Supersonic aircraft gives off a sonic boom. Correct, BUT only above Mach 1.

The issues with the sonic boom caused some American people to believe that they would hear a boom every time Concorde came to land at New York/Washington, but that wasn't the case, as is now common knowledge. It was for this reason the NIMBY's came out in force.

When Concorde was eventually allowed into New York for route proving/noise testing, she was found to comply with the noise regulations easily, and so was then allowed to fly limited services to the States, which she did for 27 years very successfully.

This is speculation, but IF Boeing had made the 2707 and sold some, I belive more Concordes would have been sold, and as a result, Concorde 'B' model and other developments would have come along that would have made these SSTs quieter on approach/take-off.



I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16810 times:

Bunny Hugger BS . . . that's why.

Too loud.

Too polluting.

Affect the spotted owl and the amoeba in this pond in central Oregon somewhere no one ever heard of and won't ever hear of again.

NIMBYs . . . that's why. Shortsighted people with no life that eat tree bark for breakfast . . .


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11336 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16697 times:

You guys do realize that the Concorde actually WAS extremely loud.... don't you? Afterburners, ya know?


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16635 times:

I recall reading a newspaper article about the picketers protesting Concorde's first arrival at JFK. When they actually heard it, most of the crowd looked at each other, shrugged, and melted away. They realized the noise claims had been exaggerated.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16576 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
You guys do realize that the Concorde actually WAS extremely loud.... don't you? Afterburners, ya know?

You do realise they werent on continuously...?


User currently offlineSpeedmarque From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16560 times:

JEALOUSY!!! If the USA had built it, the noise would have been tolerable you can bet!!

[Edited 2006-09-27 10:07:09]

User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16529 times:

Quoting Speedmarque (Reply 13):
If the USA had built it, the noise would have ben tolerable you can bet!!

Exactly, USAF aircraft make many supersonic flights over US every day.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16529 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 14):
Exactly, USAF aircraft make many supersonic flights over US every day.

Not over populated areas they dont. The USAF ran a series of tests with supersonic flight over a city, flying many aircraft supersonic over a short period of time. They got so many complaints and demands for damages that they dropped all supersonic flight over populated areas other than in time of war.


User currently offlineJPair From France, joined Dec 2005, 37 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 16468 times:

What or who is a NIMBY?

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 16461 times:

Quoting JPair (Reply 16):
What or who is a NIMBY?

Accronym for Not In My Back Yard.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/NIMBY


User currently offlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 16344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
You guys do realize that the Concorde actually WAS extremely loud.... don't you? Afterburners, ya know?

Speaking as someone who has seen Concorde in flight several times, including the type's last ever landing into Filton on November 26th 2003, I can tell you that while she was loud, she is NOT the loudest aircraft I have ever heard.

And as RichardPrice says, they weren't on constantly. They were on for take-off, which was fairly loud, and for acceleration through the sound barrier.

Where I live in the UK, we used to hear 3 distinct rumbles. 1 at about 5pm, one sometimes at about 9pm and one at about 10pm. 5pm was the weak sonic boom from the deceleration point from BA002, 9pm was an Air France Concorde going back to Paris up the English Channel, and 10pm was BA004.

You didn't really notice them unless you were in a quiet place, I expect some places on the North West coast of America would have heard a similar rumble at certain times of the day too.

While Concorde was louder than other airliners, she is not the noisiest there has ever been, civil or military.



I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8114 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16159 times:

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 11):
I recall reading a newspaper article about the picketers protesting Concorde's first arrival at JFK. When they actually heard it, most of the crowd looked at each other, shrugged, and melted away. They realized the noise claims had been exaggerated.

When a Concorde came into Sydney for the first time, the protesters didn't just "melt away", they dropped their signs and started cheering and waving. Good on ya sports.

Quoting Speedmarque (Reply 13):
JEALOUSY!!! If the USA had built it, the noise would have been tolerable you can bet!!

Of course. Does anyone seriously think the Port Authority would have banned the B2707? Concorde complied with all the noise regs at the time, and weren't any louder than a 707. The loudest plane I've ever heard is the Fokker F28, and they weren't banned. A shameful episode of nationalism, nothing more.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 15):
Not over populated areas they dont. The USAF ran a series of tests with supersonic flight over a city, flying many aircraft supersonic over a short period of time. They got so many complaints and demands for damages that they dropped all supersonic flight over populated areas other than in time of war.

Right, the tests were performed over Oklahoma City. The FAA (or whichever agency ran the tests) couldn't believe it, they really didn't think it would be a problem, and they were aghast when they were overrun with complaints and claims for damages, broken windows, farm animals not breeding or laying eggs etc, you name it.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineBostonGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 514 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15907 times:

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 18):
You didn't really notice them (sonic booms)unless you were in a quiet place, I expect some places on the North West coast of America would have heard a similar rumble at certain times of the day too.

If you could detect them from some places on the North West coast of America that would definitely be a justifiable reason for banning Concorde!

Unless, of course, some major tectonic action undetected by me shifted New York to the opposite side of the continent. I'd better check the Delta Shuttle service from Boston to LGA to see if the 40 minute flight has increased to 6 hours.  Wink


User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15859 times:

I remember Concorde coming to Mexico City and it was INCREDIBLY noisy - in my opinion it should not have been allowed to fly at all. The only reason it was allowed to fly in Europe (in spite of the oposition from local communities and environmentalists) is because it was a child of European politicians, a show of Europeans technology.

User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15821 times:

On the topic of Concorde's noise and the sonic boom that the protesters were expecting, I have recently read somewhere that when Concorde made its first landing at JFK (or maybe IAD), it landed without the protesters on-site noticing or hearing it! They thought it was just another aircraft, but quickly changed their tune when told that Concorde had already landed.


MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15809 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 23):
in my opinion it should not have been allowed to fly at all.

I, for one, am glad you hold no power in these matters.


User currently offlineMichiganMAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15809 times:

Whenever I witnessed concorde take off or land at MAN I always thought it was the most graceful thing I had ever seen.......

Then a BAC 1-11 would take off after it and rip my eardrums apart.



UK -> USA
25 David L : Whatever. Ironically, the uproar about the noise prompted Concorde personnel to devise a departure that involved an early left turn off 31L (Canarsie
26 Bellerophon : B2707SST Excellent post. ...Bill Magruder, the FAA's last SST program director (and ironically a former Lockheed L-2000 SST program executive), argued
27 Stitch : B2707SST summed it up quite well. Read Mel Howard's "Clipped Wings" to follow the anti-SST crusade in the United States, which was even more aggressiv
28 Falstaff : Universal even portrayed some protesters in the film Concorde: Airport 79'. Some people will complain about anything. Several years ago I remember rea
29 Stitch : That was, I believe, the B2707-300 mockup, though it could have been the B2707-100 mockup. I do recall in the earliest stages of planning for the Boe
30 SJCRRPAX : So how come Europe banned B727's and forced B737's to have hush kits? So its ok for European aircraft to fly clear across Canada and the U.S. western
31 RichardPrice : Uhm, number of aircraft in service...? Theres one hell of a difference between having a thousand noisy 737s and 727s flying around, and 14 Concordes.
32 Post contains links Access-Air : Speaking of BAC One Elevens: I would refer you to the Thread that I started at the following link: Get Out The Earplugs For This BAC One Eleven (by A
33 Post contains images Cornish : mmmm spoken by a true aviation enthusiast As an aside, growing up as a kid in Cornwall in the far South West of the UK, we used to hear concorde as i
34 Post contains images Stitch : I've been near the flightline when Concorde took off and she was damn loud, but I loved it, nonetheless.
35 QatarA340 : Amen to that.. I remember my father used to fly LHR-BAH in the late 70's on the Concorde--and the flight took less than 4 hours. He told me that wind
36 FLY2LIM : I have nothing against Concorde. In fact, I would have LOVED to fly on it. But I must say that I do feel it's very loud. One time, I was walking in L
37 B752OS : I remember seeing the Concorde come into and go out of BOS back in 99 when it brought the European Team to Brookline for the Ryder Cup.....a great sig
38 Falstaff : What US cities did a concorde ever visit. Excluding any regularly scheduled service.
39 BoomBoom : 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 b
40 Post contains links Vc10 : A great many, something like 45 I think, but if you go to this site and look under history you will find the list of cities flown too http://www.conco
41 BoomBoom : So are noise standards at LHR set that way? Will the A380 be allowed to exceed standards because there are fewer of them?
42 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Ignorant and bigoted comment. Most of the protesters had no idea where the thing was built, nor would they have cared. No, they don't...where did you
43 B2707SST : Absolutely, and they made this quite clear at the time. The following quote is from Don Dwiggins' The SST, published in early 1968. Keep in mind that
44 RichardPrice : You can apply to the CAA and get special dispensation, sure. You really think less than 10 departures and arrivals a day is something to get bent out
45 BoomBoom : The only one who's "getting bent out of shape" is you. Will the A380 be allowed to exceed standards because there are fewer of them?
46 David L : Doesn't it meet current regulations?
47 Post contains links RichardPrice : Au contrair, you are the one asking asinine questions - the A380 meets all of Heathrows strict noise requirements by large margins. The people gettin
48 Cadet93 : As a passenger on Concorde on more than 5 trips, I must say, inside the plane there was a distinct noise during take off. It sounded a little like the
49 BoomBoom : I asked you: and you reply And then you say: So why did you say they can apply for a special dispensation, if they already meet noise restrictions? If
50 TheCheese : Bear in mind that the people who were concerned about the noise generated by the various SSTs weren't thinking in terms of a few flights a day... at t
51 FlyboySMF2GFK : Funny, the list for the Americas stops at R. I'm pretty sure that she visited SMF in the late 80's.
52 RichardPrice : You also asked: And my reply answered that. Your derogatory and incorrect inclusion of the A380 in the second question and subsequent posts resulted
53 BoomBoom : Did the Concorde get special dispensation from LHR noise standards?
54 Post contains links RichardPrice : Yes, it did. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...s/page/dft_aviation_503559-02.hcsp
55 VC10 : The winds at supersonic cruise levels were so light about 20 kts that they made little difference to the operation. Air France operation was a little
56 Post contains links SJCRRPAX : Glad you liked it. I think most of the Americans on this board have summed it up pretty good, the environmental groups did not oppose a "European Con
57 Post contains images David L : A slight exaggeration, perhaps?
58 RichardPrice : Seconded.
59 DrExotica : As an interesting aside, I have a map that was authored at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (where some of the initial research into GIS was done
60 VC10 : I think you will find that their objections were more to do with getting better rights out of Heathrow, than anything to do with the B2707 or envirom
61 RichardPrice : When Concorde did JFK - YVR it used to fly north and then curve over North Canada while supersonic, and it still got there faster than a subsonic air
62 RIX : - while plenty of BS was said above (even after excellent posts by B2707SST and some others - people, do you ever bother to read what was said by oth
63 Galapagapop : Nationalism? Bah its called NIMBY. US or not. They in certain areas tolerate loud noise from the USAF indeed (Yet they hate war........), but Boeings
64 Post contains links and images LTU932 : Whoever made the site, should update the list of destinations. Concorde visited once SJO, coming from LIM. View Large View MediumPhoto © Andre Q
65 David L : I have to agree with you on that point.
66 GAL1011 : This Church is located in Kissimmee, FL. In the late 1970s a private concern assembled the SST fuselage and one wing. This was done to reduce the fin
67 77411 : A shameful episode of nationalism, nothing more.
68 Sllevin : I believe this is all now in the process of restoration and display at the Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos, California. Steve
69 EGTESkyGod : My bad, I had a brain fart, I meant North East coast. Let me make myself a bit clearer, we didn't hear the Sonic boom as intense as if we were direct
70 StuckInCA : How would the boom of Concorde compare to, say, the space shuttle on reentry? Has anyone on this forum heard both? I know that when the space shuttle
71 RichardPrice : Nothing shameful about it, people here love Concorde. We are not ashamed, and we shouldnt be.
72 Diesel1 : You can't compare the situation with Concorde many years ago, and the banning for noise reasons of older generation aircraft in recent years, and dre
73 Post contains links EGTESkyGod : I'm not sure about the Space Shuttle, I've never experienced it. I'd imagine that the boom is louder than Concorde because it is travelling that much
74 SJCRRPAX : The asertion by many of the Europeans on this board that Concorde was banned from the U.S. as an anti-European act by America is what is wrong and il
75 GDB : Well I long lost count of number of Concorde take offs I saw, living in the area, and then working at LHR, for the whole period of Concorde service. Y
76 Sllevin : Sonic booms on a constant basis from any source are unsettling. You don't panic, but you notice them more than, say, a car driving by. In the mid-1990
77 BoomBoom : Not representative of what? No one individual can be representative of everyone else. A staffer? He was NOT representative. some of the anti SST mob
78 Ken777 : I remember reading about those tests while they were gong on. the population grew very tired of the tests very quickly - which was one of the paramet
79 Diesel1 : It's not hypocritical - 30 years do make a difference - technology has moved on in leaps and bounds which allows a decision like this to be taken whe
80 Boysteve : I went on a tour of G-BOAC which is parked up at MAN. The guide told us that there is now a concorde parked up at Seattle or Everett, I forget which.
81 GDB : No Steve, the authorities in Canada did. And had so before on numerous occasions before, for charters. Whether they would have for any kind of schedul
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...
Why Only Few Charter Carriers In The US? posted Fri Jan 4 2002 10:59:25 by Flying-Tiger
Q 400 And ATR 72 Why Not More Orders In The US? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 22:15:15 by Cumulonimbus
Why Was This SQ Plane Registered In The US? posted Sun Jun 19 2005 21:02:49 by Newark777
Aeromexico Flight Not Allowed In US Airspace posted Sat Jan 3 2004 03:45:13 by Uvalencia
Why These Strange Takeoff/Landing Times In The US? posted Sat Oct 18 2003 08:31:56 by Leskova
Flying Domestic In The US Is Not Cheap! posted Sat May 5 2001 19:13:50 by Capt.Picard
Old DC-3 Transcon Routes In The US posted Wed Nov 15 2006 19:32:37 by DIJKKIJK
AF's 773s In The US posted Mon Nov 6 2006 01:15:50 by Cleared2Land4
Icelandair In The US posted Sun Nov 5 2006 23:17:24 by Walter747
What Are Finnair's Cities In The US? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 19:13:55 by Eastern023