remcor
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:25 am

Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:59 am

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
 
Cadet57
Posts: 7174
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:02 am

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.
 
AlitaliaMD11
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:19 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:02 am

Um... probably noise?
No Vueling No Party
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:05 am

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.
 
photopilot
Posts: 3087
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:16 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:09 am

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.
 
remcor
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:25 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:11 am

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?
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:13 am

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
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:07 pm

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 avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:15 pm

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
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm

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 . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
D L X
Posts: 11701
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:11 pm

You guys do realize that the Concorde actually WAS extremely loud.... don't you? Afterburners, ya know?
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:50 pm

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
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:37 pm

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...?
 
speedmarque
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:37 pm

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:46 pm

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

[Edited 2006-09-27 10:07:09]
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:03 pm

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.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:06 pm

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.
 
JPair
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 6:36 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:36 pm

What or who is a NIMBY?
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:41 pm

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

Accronym for Not In My Back Yard.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/NIMBY
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:35 pm

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
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8103
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:36 pm

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
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2000 5:49 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:03 pm

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
 
katekebo
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 12:02 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:15 pm

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
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:24 pm

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."
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:27 pm

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.
 
MichiganMAN
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:47 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:27 pm

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
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:42 pm

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 23):

Whatever.

Ironically, the uproar about the noise prompted Concorde personnel to devise a departure that involved an early left turn off 31L (Canarsie?). The procedure was so successful that other types were obliged to do the same. Concorde actually helped to reduce the noise problem at JFK.
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:45 pm

B2707SST

Excellent post.

...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...

A little bit of well deserved recognition for a man who stood up for his beliefs and opinions when it would undoubtedly have been...easier...for him to say nothing.

...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....

Quite so.

Best regards

Bellerophon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23496
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:09 am

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 aggressive against the US SST since billions were being spent developing it.

And as RichardPrice noted, the USAF subjected OKC to supersonic runs using B-58 Hustler medium-range strategic bombers to measure sound overpressure at various altitudes, humidity, and speeds. The results of those tests were that supersonic transit over populated areas was pretty much unacceptable. India referenced these tests when they fought BA's desires to allow Concorde to perform overnight supersonic transits over the sub-continent to service South Asia.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 8):
This is speculation, but IF Boeing had made the 2707 and sold some, I believe 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.

While the 2707 certainly had a capacity advantage (upwards of 300-350 in a two-class config), the desire to "one-up" Concorde and the TU-144 with a Mach 2.7 cruise speed resulted in a very heavy plane composed of expensive materials so I'm not sure the CASM would have worked out in the end. Boeing was calculating they'd need 500 sales to turn a positive RoI and that RoI would not begin until the 400th frame. So when Congress killed funding, there was no way Boeing was going to continue on their own dime as it would require every dollar they had to complete it.
 
User avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:22 am

Universal even portrayed some protesters in the film Concorde: Airport 79'. Some people will complain about anything. Several years ago I remember reading that some people in California didn't want off shore drilling 200 miles out to see, because it would spoil the view. I remember the article saying something that a building would have to be 2.5 miles high to see that far out to sea.

I remember seeing a photo once of a non-flying prototype SST that was in a hanger that was being used by for a church and they were trying to sell the plane. I think that may have been in Newsweek 10 years ago or so. Does anyone remember that? The picture had the plane in there with chairs set up all around it.
My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23496
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:28 am

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 30):
I remember seeing a photo once of a non-flying prototype SST that was in a hanger that was being used by for a church and they were trying to sell the plane. I think that may have been in Newsweek 10 years ago or so. Does anyone remember that? The picture had the plane in there with chairs set up all around it.

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 Boeing Museum of Flight that the B2707-100 mock-up was to be an exhibit so it may have existed at that time and was then destroyed.

When Boeing scrapped the B2707-300 mockup, Hiller Aviation Museum purchased it.
 
SJCRRPAX
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:29 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:48 am

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 states to deliver a couple of dozen wealthy people to LA or SF, but the U.S can't ban a noisy aircraft? There were also people worried about sonic booms on whale migration and believe it or not Ozone depletion was even a topic back than. Bottom line the Concorde was not needed.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:53 am

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 32):
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 states to deliver a couple of dozen wealthy people to LA or SF, but the U.S can't ban a noisy aircraft? There were also people worried about sonic booms on whale migration and believe it or not Ozone depletion was even a topic back than. Bottom line the Concorde was not needed.

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.
 
access-air
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:55 am

Quoting MichiganMAN (Reply 26):
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.

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 Access-Air Sep 26 2006 in Civil Aviation)

Access-Air
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:59 am

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 23):
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.

mmmm spoken by a true aviation enthusiast  Yeah sure


As an aside, growing up as a kid in Cornwall in the far South West of the UK, we used to hear concorde as it went supersonic once it reached the open water. A dull boom boom. Sometimes the windows would rattle and invariably the dog would bark.

In later years when my job had me working in offices close to final approach at LHr, it was the only aircraft we could hear from inside the building. At around 5.30 each evening, it would come ion to land - and yes it was loud, but as a real aviation enthusiast I didn't care - she just looked beautiful  Smile
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23496
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:03 am

I've been near the flightline when Concorde took off and she was damn loud, but I loved it, nonetheless.  Smile
 
User avatar
Qatara340
Posts: 1605
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 2:07 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:33 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
I've been near the flightline when Concorde took off and she was damn loud, but I loved it, nonetheless.

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 windows sometimes broke in Bahrain and that people complained of the noise it created. Also, he said that the aircraft had to fly at sub-sonic speed over the land since it frightened the animals and people who lived below.
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
FLY2LIM
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:01 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:51 am

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



Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 18):
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.

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 London (I now realize it was right around 5 p.m.) and I heard this huge noise in the sky, much, much louder than a typical plane. I looked up and there she was, gliding in for a landing. It was an awesome sight, one I'll cherish forever. It was sometime in the early eighties and I was walking around the city, which I love to do.
That boy was loud, no question about it.

FLY2LIM
Faucett. La primera linea aerea del Peru.
 
B752OS
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:59 am

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 sight to see!
 
User avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:04 am

What US cities did a concorde ever visit. Excluding any regularly scheduled service.
My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:11 am

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.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
vc10
Posts: 1352
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:12 am

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.concordesst.com/history/destinations.html

littlevc10
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:18 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 33):
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.

So are noise standards at LHR set that way? Will the A380 be allowed to exceed standards because there are fewer of them?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:18 am

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

 irked  Ignorant and bigoted comment. Most of the protesters had no idea where the thing was built, nor would they have cared.

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

 no  No, they don't...where did you get that idea? Supersonic flight is restricted to specified military ranges, and most of those are over water.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:23 am

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 20):
Of course. Does anyone seriously think the Port Authority would have banned the B2707?

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 the B2707 was expected to be quieter than Concorde because of the superior low-speed performance of its variable-sweep wing and flap systems:

Can General Electric's giant GE-4 augmented turbojets meet design objectives and airport noise criteria? Fran Fox of LAX is doubtful. "The best studies we can make of the Boeing SST at the moment show that it does not fit in," Fox told me in February 1967. "The facts are that today's jet produce about 105 PNdb (perceived noise decibels) while the SST is way up to 120 PNdb. We don't think we can expect people to live under 120 PNdb blasts."

Even JFK's noise limit of 112 PNdbs, established back in 1951, would be exceeded by the Boeing SST taking off and landing under 120 PNdb conditions. The Port of New York Authority's general counsel, Sidney Goldstein, warns that under this rule, still effective, "no jet aircraft may take off or land... without permission."

Says Fox: "Unless the lateral noise contour is improved, we have the right to forbid SSTs from coming into LAX. We could legally forbid them to land here, which is what we're threatening to do."

The issue at JFK was that Concorde could meet noise restrictions with specific takeoff and landing procedures, but PANYNJ did not think this was acceptable. However, their motivation (egged on by NIMBYs and the nascent environmentalist movement) was anti-noise, not specifically anti-Europe or anti-Concorde. Most SST opponents at the time lumped all supersonic aircraft into one generic class; these people did not care whether they were built by Boeing, Lockheed, BAe, Aerospatiale, etc. I have no doubt that if the 2707 had flown as planned, JFK and LAX would have fought it as well.

The argument that the fight over Concorde landing rights was payback for the US SST program or an example of not-invented-here syndrome simply does not hold water, because the same people who were fighting Concorde had previously fought and eventually killed the 2707. They didn't care who built the SSTs, they just wanted them all banned.




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

Not over populated areas unless in case of emergency, and we're taking about fighters weighing <100,000 lbs. at most. The boom signatures of a supersonic dash fighter and a large intercontinental supersonic transport are in completely different classes.

In any case, Boeing and the FAA expected by 1967 that the 2707 could not fly supersonically over populated areas. Operation Bongo (boom tests over OKC) and Operation Heat Rise (a transcontinental Mach 2.2 B-58 Hustler flight in 1962) made it clear that the public would not tolerate it and the potential for property damage was serious. The Concorde team, especially the French, held out hope until boom tests were conducted over Wales and Scotland, but these reached the same conclusion.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:26 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 45):
So are noise standards at LHR set that way? Will the A380 be allowed to exceed standards because there are fewer of them?

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 of shape over?

Thats the real issue here, people making the comparison of the treatment of aircraft that make a handful of departures and arrivals a day verses the treatment of aircraft that make hundreds if not thousands of departures and arrivals a day.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:49 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 49):
You really think less than 10 departures and arrivals a day is something to get bent out of shape over?

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?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:31 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 45):
So are noise standards at LHR set that way? Will the A380 be allowed to exceed standards because there are fewer of them?

Doesn't it meet current regulations?
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:48 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 51):
Will the A380 be allowed to exceed standards because there are fewer of them?

The only one who's "getting bent out of shape" is you.

Au contrair, you are the one asking asinine questions - the A380 meets all of Heathrows strict noise requirements by large margins.

The people getting bent out of shape are those comparing Concorde (few and far between) to 737s (regulars) and other aircraft.

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...8_25_a380_EA_flight_completed.html

Quote:

Designed to operate out of any airport where today’s largest aircraft can, using shorter runways and generating half the noise, the A380 complies with some of the world’s strictest noise restrictions (QC1 for landing and QC2 for take off at London’s Heathrow), reinforcing the A380’s growing recognition as the quietest large aircraft in the world.
 
cadet93
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 12:56 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:56 am

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 air being sucked out of the cabin, then you would hear ...."OHHHH MY"... Usually the people who just sucked in all the air because were not ready for the sudden acceleration. It was like being on a roller-coaster during the big drop. I must say there was a loud grumble from the engines as it rushed quickly up and away from the populated areas to limit the amount of noise the people lucky enough to be near our flight path were located. Oh, to have a good camera, and the roof top location to take the pictures I wanted to post on here.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:16 am

I asked you:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 45):
So are noise standards at LHR set that way? Will the A380 be allowed to exceed standards because there are fewer of them?

and you reply

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 49):
You can apply to the CAA and get special dispensation, sure.

And then you say:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 53):
you are the one asking asinine questions - the A380 meets all of Heathrows strict noise requirements by large margins.

So why did you say they can apply for a special dispensation, if they already meet noise restrictions?

If you don't want asinine questions, quit giving asinine answers.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos