PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:03 am

Can the Concorde go LAX-LHR nonstop?

If not how about LAX-JFK-LHR?

It seems to me there will be enough pax on these flights with movie stars etc., or maybe even people who want to cross the USA quickly.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
bacardi182
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2000 2:47 am

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:07 am

no sonic booms alowed over land so no point in a flight over land in concord if it can only fly at mach .98.
 
PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:11 am

Does Canada have that law too?

I know it'll be a long/expensive route.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
TOMASKEMPNER
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed May 02, 2001 3:21 pm

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:18 am

Concorde´s max range is of 3560 nm

LAX-LHR 5455 nm

Then it will be like this.
LAX-JFK 2474 mi
JFK-LHR 3451 mi

I think that it will be a great success, specially if they are granted with 5th. freedom rights to operate the LAX-JFK leg. Lots of businessmen will take the 2 hour LAX-JFK flight instead of the 5 hour one.

But it´s no likely to happen.




 
ryu2
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:18 am

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:20 am

If you don't fly supersonic over land, and you stop at JFK (or somewhere else), it becomes LONGER than just flying LAX-LHR nonstop on a subsonic airliner.
 
JT8D
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 10:58 am

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:28 am

I believe that Concorde's fuel consumption is less efficient at lower speeds also.
Graham Hitchen, KMIA
 
NiteRider30
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 4:34 am

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:36 am

No, we will never see a US overflight using a Concorde. The fuel economics of flying a Concorde over land at subsonic speeds is just hogwild. I recall an airline attempting something similar to that many years ago... flying from JFK to either Dallas or Houston (can't remember which), and it was extremely unsuccessful. That's why they don't do it now, and why it'll never happen (unless they find a way to eliminate the sonic boom!)

NiteRider30
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:53 am

JT8D, you are right, it's not likely that the Concorde can even make it LAX-JFK non-stop at subsonic speed, and it will never be allowed to go supersonic.

The Concorde normally lands with 15 tons fuel on board for eventual holds or diversion at subsonic speed. If we make a little calculations, then it indicated that a four and a half hours subsonic (Mach 0.90) flight requires a fuel load including reserves well over a hundred tons. That's more than it can lift off the ground.

With a lot of tailwind it may probably make it LAX-JFK without a fuel stop in Chicago.

Regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
XXXX10
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 7:10 am

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:55 am

Niterider30 is right

Braniff lease concordes from both BA & AF and operated them subsonicly IAD-DFW the route did not last long.

Concorde uses over 20 tonnes of fuel per hour at supersonic speed the consuption is the same but the distance covered doubles-effectively halving the consumption.

Apart form anything else LAX & SFO have banned even subsonic Concorde operations
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24608
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Fri Nov 09, 2001 10:24 am

Not happening, but I want to see BA re-start thier thrice daily LHR-IAD-MIA route, which ran between 1984 and 1991. The route did not make much sense to Miamians, because for the premium you pay over flying a BA 747, you save less than two hours of flying time, because of the stop in IAD and the sub-sonic flying on MIA-IAD. It was pretty popular though, though traffic was dwindleing (on the average, about 30 passengers originated in Miami each flight), and it was cut, with IAD-LHR cut not long after.
a.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Sat Nov 10, 2001 2:18 am

The reason BA started the Miami route was to breathe some life into the IAD service, it was only marginally successful, and once it stopped it sealed the IAD route's fate, (it ended in 1994).
Minimum fuel for landing is 9 tonnes.
Highly fuel-efficient in supercruise, Concorde is the opposite at subsonic speeds.
Oakland has been visited on round-the-world charters, LAX may have been too.
Don't expect them before 2003, well that's the official version, we've heard that BA marketing want the expensive charters back sooner.

 
AFa340-300E
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Sat Nov 10, 2001 2:31 am

Hello,

IAD-MIA was supersonic, wasn't it?


Best regards,
Alain Mengus
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24608
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR

Sat Nov 10, 2001 7:13 am

AFA340, no, it was not. Though it did go over water.

Also, side note, but I know you were asking this about Air France, but they will be using the 744 to MIA for all of the winter schedule after all.
a.