Remcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 361 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 20406 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.
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1386 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 20187 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.
EGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1714 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 20162 times:
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.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1380 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19977 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.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19871 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.
EGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1714 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19686 times:
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.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8653 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 19501 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
BostonGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 514 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19249 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.
Katekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 712 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19201 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.
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19163 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."