james
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 1:30 pm

United To Buy Concorde?

Wed Aug 11, 1999 5:09 am

I was wondering why only British Airways and Air France have Concordes in there fleet. Why dont the big American Airlines etc United Delta, use Concorde on the JFK-LAX route.
 
Guest

RE: United To Buy Concorde?

Wed Aug 11, 1999 5:15 am

When Concorde was on the drawing board, lots of airlines were intested. UA was of them. Then some problems came in the way. Oil crisis: price of oil skyrocketed and since Concorde is really thirsty and only seats 100 pax, it was not to be a very profitable aircraft. Another problem with it is its limited range. Last but not least: INCREDIBILY noisy: cannot go supersonic over inhabited land and thus could not fly NYC-LAX....
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: United To Buy Concorde?

Wed Aug 11, 1999 5:29 am

TWA and Pan Am were also interested and had orders for the aircraft before the oil crisis.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
N777UA
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:06 pm

RE: United To Buy Concorde?

Wed Aug 11, 1999 7:09 am

LAX-HNL would be a good Concorde route.
 
dfw-man
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 1999 5:19 am

RE: United To Buy Concorde?

Wed Aug 11, 1999 8:05 am

way to expensive for the big three to operate and no profit in it why carry 100 when you can carry 270 on other aircraft
 
Guest

RE: United To Buy Concorde?

Wed Aug 11, 1999 8:46 am

While LAX-HNL is a route on which the Concorde could fly, it is far from a good Concorde route. If you look at the traffic on this route, you see mostly low-yield leisure traffic, not higher-yield business traffic. Note the lack of business class cabins on most HNL flights, even in aircraft that traditionally have them (DC-10s, 767s, etc.)? This shows that there is little demand for high cost seating in the Hawaiian market, and I don't think that an airline could drum up enough high paying passengers to run the Concorde profitably on such a leisure-oriented route.
 
Adam84
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: United To Buy Concorde?

Wed Aug 11, 1999 10:36 am

The concorde cant fly over land and its just dumb because they are about to get rid of the concorde because of operating costs, I personally would rather fly sitting in cattle class for 800$ than get there in half the time for 6000$
 
william
Posts: 1595
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

BA Makes Money On The Concorde

Wed Aug 11, 1999 2:08 pm

Hey,just because Air France cannot make money on the Concorde,do think BA does not. It makes money on the JFK to Heathrow route,and with charters. The concorde is BA's flagship,and attracts a clientle that every American airline would sell its soul for. The high end,high yield traveller. And the clout and panache the Concorde brings to BA,cannot be put into dollars.

The sad thing is that the next supersonic aircraft will most likely come from Europe,while the US companies will continue to chant." Airlines want subsonic airplanes",in other words giving up the technological race,AGAIN!
 
Guest

RE: United To Buy Concorde? YMQ

Wed Aug 11, 1999 6:08 pm

urm...i'm not so sure about this, i came across some statistics revealing Concorde's noise level is behind that of a 747, well if Concordes were such incredibly noisy aircrafts to fly over inhabited lands, wouldn't they have banned the 747? i guess the 747 yield is just too attractive to give up, whereas not the Concorde.
 
Adam84
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: United To Buy Concorde? YMQ

Wed Aug 11, 1999 6:12 pm

The concorde produces a sonic boom which is alot louder than the 747
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Sonic Boom

Wed Aug 11, 1999 8:45 pm

I've heard sonic booms from aircraft at altitude, including a test run almost overhead by Concorde in the early 70s, and it sounded like a garage door slamming shut. I would certainly put up with it a couple of times a day but I guess it's just not acceptable to most people.
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

White Glove Splash In The Face Of US Airlines!

Wed Aug 11, 1999 10:23 pm

When Concorde appeared it was big mess in the USA, why? Because for the 2nd. time european aircraft builders had a lead over the american guys ( first one was with the Comet! )! So USA had to do something regarding that, and that's why Concorde can't fly over USA, I still don't understand why, specially because Concorde fly so high ( about 70.000 ft ) and in the past LOTS of aircrafts of USA were so noisy that you could even tell ( all those 707's, DC-8's, CV880 and CV990 going around!!! ), but USA had again to protect their space, in the end what do we see, well Concorde is an aircraft of a complete different class, lots of american wnat to fly it, and above all it makes profit to BA and Air France. So even if people say that its better to carry 270 people instead of 100, I could "put my hands in fire and not get burned" that if Concorde were with ANY US airline it would make profit, but our fellows didn't wanted so it's their problem!!!
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
Panman
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 1999 8:25 pm

RE: United To Buy Concorde? YMQ

Wed Aug 11, 1999 10:49 pm

Jaemz I don't know where you got a hold of those statistics, the person who wrote them was either on drugs or a propaganda merchant.

I live in London and have the pleasure of Concorde flying outside of my house at least 4 times a week and the noise it makes (subsonically) is enough to awaken the dead - it sets off car and building alarms as it is!. A 747 can't even wish to get close to the noise level of Concorde (not even a 747 Classic [100/200/300]).

Not to mention that when Mr. Concorde goes sonic....

Probably if you were to put about 5 747's together then yes they would make more noise than a Concorde.
 
flyCMH
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 1999 12:15 pm

Just Wondering....

Thu Aug 12, 1999 12:12 am

It appears that the main reason the Concorde does not fly over land is because of the sonic boom, and overall noisiness of the aircraft. Well, is there any way to tinker with the engines inorder to cut down on noise emmition, yet still allowing the plane to be able to reach, or at least come close to the speed it can currently travel at? They have done it for the 737-200 and 727-200 and other aircraft, is it possible to do they same with the Concorde? If so, do you think that the U.S. would be less hesitant to allow it to fly over land?
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

Noise Its Just A Myth!

Thu Aug 12, 1999 12:21 am

Yes, when people don't find it technically to complain they use the noise myth to say something about the plane. For example I don't see a lot of english complaining about Concorde noise, only Panman, but
perhaps because he's really close to the runway, but I have news for him. Before I got married I lived close to Lisbon Airport, probably not more than 1 km from the main runway, well during the probe flights of Concorde Air France flew every day during one full month from Paris to South America via Lisbon and for any time in the word we saw people complaining about the noise, what we really saw was lots of people going to Lisbon Airport to see the Concorde, so for me the noise its a false question.... its a myth!!!
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
Panman
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 1999 8:25 pm

RE: Noise Its Just A Myth!

Thu Aug 12, 1999 12:44 am

Oh for crying out loud!

I was not complaining abou the noise!
I was giving you a fact.
You claimed to have statistics stating that a 747 is louder than a Concorde. My ears state otherwise. (You know what they say about statistics!)

And the reason you do not see much English people complaining about Concorde is that they are using other avenues than the forum on airliners.net.

And no I do not live near the runway either.

Maybe if you took time to comprehend what was written...
 
Guest

RE: CV990

Thu Aug 12, 1999 1:04 am

I just knew somebody would bring the USA vs. Europe thing up. What a load of bullsh*t. Concorde just isn't usable on anything except transatlantic routes. It has absolutely nothing to do with countries. If CV990's creative little conspiracy theory were correct, then all Airbus flights would have been banned too.

Let's keep the topic on airplanes, not countries.

United946
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Noise

Thu Aug 12, 1999 2:37 am

Yes, Concorde is the loudest civil jet but in practical terms it's not a lot louder than the jets that were flying up to a few years ago. And don't forget that Concorde flies faster subsonically as well so its noise doesn't last as long as that from 'normal' jets. It can also perform noise abatement procedures more readily. What you end up with is noise that peaks higher than normal but doesn't last as long. There is only a significant difference near the airport and, as has been said before, if you don't want to be disturbed by aircraft noise, DON'T LIVE NEXT TO AN AIRPORT - they've been noisy for decades!

Of course it's all academic now as Concorde just isn't built any more but these were some of the arguments put forward by the pro-Concorde lobby to counter various concerns, some accurate and some very wide of the mark.
 
Guest

Concorde Flying Over Land

Thu Aug 12, 1999 2:45 am

OK, I don't know one thing about the Concorde... but I do know I've seen it here in PHX on more than a few occasions and I read in the Arizona Republic about a month ago that the Concorde would be flying to PHX for the last time of the Century some time soon...

So, my question... if the Concorde cannot fly over land because of sonic boom, why is it flying to PHX? Does it fly to any other cities in the United States besides New York?
 
Guest

RE: AWA320

Thu Aug 12, 1999 2:52 am

Concorde can't fly SUPERSONIC over land.

United946
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

Re: United946

Thu Aug 12, 1999 2:52 am

First of all United946, next time please try to skip bad words on this forum specially from a person like you that seems to be a pilot! So when you use that kind of vocabulary my friend what kind of pilot you must be???? Ok but that's your problem and you have to deal with that always. My father always said to me that I should respect people and know how to use the exact words in the exact places, that's why I like him, and that's why I teeching my kids to do the same.
Now after filtering your words of course I have the right to answer you. This is not a matter of USA versus Europe, this is a fact, don't you like it? Ok! That's your OWN problem, the story is written and Concorde have a place in the civil aviation history as a major step to improve lots of new things about aviation, NOBODY ever tried to follow them, so they get the prize, simple as that!!!
Finnally I started following aviation since I was 3 years old, before you're born, and I don't receive lessons from nobody, and specially from an unpolite person like you!
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
flyCMH
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 1999 12:15 pm

RE: Concorde Flying Over Land

Thu Aug 12, 1999 3:43 am

British Airways usually flies a charter Concorde flight to Columbus biennually. It's quite an amazing thing to witness in person. But it is extremely loud on takeoff. Usually what British Airways does when they fly into CMH, is they fly in, pick up passengers for a champaign flight to Washington D.C., fly to D.C. (subsonic flight), then return to CMH, stay overnight, and set out for London in the morning. I would assume that the Concorde flights fly at supersonic speeds across the Atlantic then slow down to subsonic speeds once they reach the states. I was hoping that they would come again this year, but it doesn't seem likely sonce the charters are usually in June or July.
BTW, what happened in the previous posts? Must have been bad, considering CV990's reaction and the deleation of the post.
 
Guest

RE: CV990

Thu Aug 12, 1999 6:01 am

CV990, you just made my point. The Concorde issue isn't USA vs. Europe. But in your previous post, you said this:

"When Concorde appeared it was big mess in the USA, why? Because for the 2nd. time european
aircraft builders had a lead over the american guys ( first one was with the Comet! )! So USA had to
do something regarding that, and that's why Concorde can't fly over USA."

That sounds like a USA vs. Europe statement to me. And although my choice of words was not wise, my point remains the same: Any statement that the US government banned the Concorde from overflying US airspace at supersonic speeds because the government was jealous, angy, or trying to "even the field" for Boeing's SST project, is COMPLETELY FALSE. You didn't back up your statement with facts.

I never disputed anybody's assertion that the Concorde was a major aviation milestone. Like many pilots, I would jump at an opportunity to fly one. So please don't misquote me.

Let's try to be civil and keep the conversations to aviation. Not competition among nations.

United946
 
Guest

RE: United To Buy Concorde?

Thu Aug 12, 1999 8:03 am

Hi all
Just wanted to raise this little fact some of us seem to forget: Concorde is not allowed to fly supersonic over Europe.... In fact BA recently modified the JFK-LHR flights so that Concorde goes to subsonic speeds farther away from the shores adding an extra 5 minutes to the flight. Also: why would someone fly Concorde if it has to fly at subsonic speeds but still has to pay an expensive ticket? Concorde has huge operation and maintenance costs and the plane, whether it flies super or subsonic, means expensive ticket.
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: United946

Thu Aug 12, 1999 5:45 pm


Listen United946. If there are someone that is really worried about keeping the things in aviation I'm one of them, but you were the one that started the fire when you get that personall, is or is not true that Comet and Concorde were ahead when they came back? Is it or is not true that when we discuss matters regarding aviation some fellows from the other side of the pound" get really worried and always come with same issue "Europe versus USA"? Well we have to admit the facts if Concord was a big blow to american supersonic aviation industry why not face it? I'm sure american companies when they saw Concorde starting to fly they probably expected the plane would last 3, 4 or maybe 5 years! Well the plane is flying for almost 25 years and still going strong!!! Another thing you said is to use facts, I don't understand how can you say that Concorde can't fly supersonic over land, why? Do you know how many charter flights Concorde does every year? Do you know that BA had a flight from London to the Middle East with this plane in the past, did you know that Singapore Airlines started ( although briefly ) a flight with Concorde from Singapore to London and even painted a plane with their colours? Do you remember seeing the Concorde painted with Braniff colours and flying in USA? So why do you say that? Don't think that you are misleading people with those "not accurate" informations? That's the point I want to express, I'm not a guy that like to fight for these type of issues, I love aviation, as I said to you I'm been following aviation since a small kid, I passed all my life related with aviation - as an outsider always - I also had the previlege to fly around the world a few times, and also know some people that flew for many years pilots that started from the DC-3 untill the 747, so I have - saying this humbly - a good acknoledgement about aviation and I'm the last person inn the word that want to burn this forum with issues like "The big airline war between Europe versus America", all I said were facts! And most of my flights were in american aircrafts and I do love to visit America, as a matter of fact I hope to return in 2 years! You see, I'm an ordinary man!!!
I hope this conversation will clean all the bitter we had and consider yourself invited ( with your family ) to visit my farm in the South of Portugal anytime, just send a small message by my personall E-Mail!
Take care!
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
ord
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

RE: CV990

Thu Aug 12, 1999 11:04 pm

Some of your statements are incorrect. First of all, although Braniff flight crews did fly the Concorde from DFW to the East Coast, it was at SUBSONIC speeds. Second, the Concorde was NEVER painted in Braniff colors.

As for the plane itself, I don't believe it was a "big blow" to the US as you put it. The US could have built an SST if it had wanted to, but it would not have been a prudent business decision to do so. Why build something just to say "Ha, we're better than anyone else!" when all you're going to do is lose money on the project. No company or industry has ever succeeded with this business philosophy. From a business perspective, the US was wise in choosing NOT to build an SST.
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

Answer To Ord!

Fri Aug 13, 1999 12:50 am

I'm going to answer you right away! I'm not so sure if Concorde was or not painted with Braniff livery but I'm 100% sure they operated with american registration. Another I would like to ask you is why in USA you can fly supersonics and in the rest of the world you can? Do you think this is not a protection measure agains't the Concorde operation? Please explain me that, and IF... USA had indeed builted a supersonic aircraft would USA banned flying around USA? Simple questions that I would like your feedback. Now finally a small statement that I also would like to have your feedback - Do you think that if Concorde was such a "MONEY LOOSER" airlines like BA or Air France would keep flying them FOR 25 YEARS loosing money? - this plane is normally 70% or more of its capacity full of passengers, yesterday for example a full Air France Concorde was in the sky to see the eclipse!!!! I don't have nothing else to say, facts say everything!
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
ord
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

CV990

Fri Aug 13, 1999 3:38 am

I will try and respond to your comments as best I can:

1. You may not be sure, but I am - no Concorde was ever painted in Braniff colors. You are correct in stating that they operated with an American registration (I believe stickers were applied to the aircraft when they landed in the US).

2. You cannot fly SSTs (at supersonic speeds) in the US because of the noise regulations. You say SSTs can operate at supersonic speeds in the rest of the world. This may be true - I don't know. Can an SST fly at supersonic speeds in Japan? Australia? Brazil? I don't know. Besides, to compare countries' policies would be futile. The US does not do this as protectionism. You don't see the US preventing Airbus planes from flying to the US, do you?

3. If the USA had built an SST, I do believe that it would have had to be flown at subsonic speeds over the US. It would not have been banned completely, just at supersonic speeds. I don't know about your country, but there were/are many environmental groups in the US with influence which would have successfully blocked flight at supersonic speeds.

4. You jump to conclusions without reading what I am saying. I NEVER said an American-built SST would be unprofitable for the airlines (although it may have been). What I said was it would have been economic suicide for the MANUFACTURERS (Boeing, Douglas and/or Lockheed) to have built one. They couldn't afford the development on their own, and even with government help the project was not economically viable. Why spend all that money to build something you'll only sell a handful of. That's exactly why Boeing at this time is not building a bigger 747 - it would be unprofitable! There is not a big enough market for such a plane; they would never recoup the development costs by selling only a few number of planes. Finally, if the Concorde is SO profitable for BA and AF, why did they buy such a limited number? According to your numbers, their entire fleets should be Concordes and then they'd be the most profitable airlines in the world.

 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

SST Program

Fri Aug 13, 1999 3:57 am

ORD wrote:

"What I said was it would have been economic suicide for the MANUFACTURERS (Boeing, Douglas and/or Lockheed) to have built one. They couldn't afford the development on their own, and even with government help the project was not economically viable. Why spend all that money to build something you'll only sell a handful of."

I remind you that both Boeing and Lockheed were competing hard for the american SST program and they were also very optimist. By then, many airlines and even people at Boeing thought that the 747 was an airplane with limited future because the SST was going to take all the business. Forecasts at the time predicted a market for up to 1250 SST's between 1972 and 1978.
As you can see the MANUFACTURERS were interested to built one.

The SST project was cancelled ONLY by a decision from the Congress in 1971, NOT a MANUFACTURERS decision. A smart decision due to the enormus sucess of the 747 BUT not a manufacturers decision.

Luis, Faro, Portugal
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

About Concorde Sales!

Fri Aug 13, 1999 4:22 am

Well ORD, I saw your answer carefully and I would like to comment on that!

1 - It was you that said that " if US was protecting against the Concorde, they would do the same about the Airbus", well I'm not going to start again that battle " Boeing versus Airbus", we're talking about real facts, infact as I said before you see Concorde flying around, I feel though that American market is profitable to BA and AF, otherwise they would stop flying!

2 - Another thing I don't understand is why is saying that sentence " If Concorde is so profitable BA and AF should have lots of Concordes ", please I would like a better explanation for that because what I think is Concorde got the slice of the market they wanted, I think BA and AF have 5 Concordes each, they fly regulary with the planes, the plane is safe, the plane as a status builted agains't every expectations, they use it quite often so, what else? Only 10? Well it keeps flying and making money!!! And what I said about 70% its real, now tell me? How many airlines have 70% in their airplanes? So!
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
Buff
Posts: 1066
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:29 pm

RE: United To Buy Concorde?

Fri Aug 13, 1999 5:47 am

I think there are many assumptions in this thread that are making the discussion go around in circles.1. Concorde is at its economical best in a M2.0 cruise climb to a destination at the limit of its range, taking into account legal and practical reserves.2. 99% (my figure) of traffic between LHR and JFK is business traffic - people who can go to their London office at 08:30, check their mail, drive to LHR arriving at 10:00, getting on the airplane for a 10:30 push, arriving at JFK at 09:30, and going to a 10:00 meeting in New York. Once their meeting is over, go back to London the same day.3. There are precious few runs that provide Concorde with this kind of yield - taking into account it cannot/is not allowed to fly supersonic over most populated lands in the world.4. To fly Concorde economically at subsonic speeds would require shutting down of two of its engines in flight, and faring their inlets/exhausts! A simple course in jet aerodynamics for those interested will illustrate the reasons behind that statement!5. Concorde is a noisy airplane on take-off. I've seen/heard it many times myself. The most uneconomical part of the LHR - JFK leg is that along the M4 to the Bristol channel AP. To that point, it cruises at M0.9/FL280. Very slow, very quiet.All politics aside, I hope that adds something constructive to this "discussion".Best Regards,Buff
 
Concorde SST
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 1999 3:51 am

RE: The Magnificent Concorde

Fri Aug 13, 1999 7:12 am

Well, well, well, this has certainly turned into an interesting subject!

I may be wrong, but I think that all of those that have contributed their thoughts on this subject, would feel the same as I do about the Concorde, it is a beautiful aircraft and a technical marvel! I’m sure too, that we all wished that more airlines from all over the world would have been able to added it to their fleet. The only other airline that I know of that actually had one painted in their color scheme was Singapore Airlines. I’ve heard about the Braniff deal, but all I’ve ever found was a color drawing. And of course the Pepsi promotion. How terribly sad that we couldn’t see this magnificent aircraft in other airline colors! Wouldn’t be cool to have an artist digitally enhance other airline colors onto the Concorde just for fun?

Finally, let’s not lose sight of why we are all here, the sharing and, discussion, of our interest in aviation. Plus in the short time I’ve been involved in this forum, I have learned a great deal, and enjoy hearing what others know from all over the world.

What will be the next hot topic?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], blackbox67, Blankbarcode, Borut, changyou, Eirules, iamlucky13, KarelXWB, n729pa, paulsaz, RIPYW777, SCQ83, SGAviation, speedygonzales, tespai and 228 guests