WIederling
Posts: 9054
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Thu May 18, 2017 5:12 pm

BaconButty wrote:
They knew there was no commercial case but went ahead anyway.

The commercial case was smashed to pieces when the US realized that their "One Up" SST would never work out.
Nimbies were allowed to progress on their path or even encouraged.
With a working SST on their hands to gift to the world the US would have walked straight over any opposition.

The kind of thing that used to happen at the zenith of the western world before our decline at the hands of bankers.


don't mention the abomination.
Murphy is an optimist
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Thu May 18, 2017 8:43 pm

Do not believe everything SRB has said about Concorde. The contract price for the first five frames ordered by BOAC was the same as that for the subsequently cancelled PA order, namely £25 million per frame. As at October 2013 £25 million was equivalent in real terms to US$450 million.

The myth of both BA and AF getting the frames free of charge has grown out of an unusual set of circumstances. The British and French governments underwrote the construction of a total of twenty frames. At the end of the day they found themselves owning a total of two frames, one each, with no prospect of making a commercial sale.

The solution was to sell them for a very nominal sum to AF and BA. The price paid by AF was 1 FF. That paid by BA was as much as twelve times higher at £1.

BA took delivery of their £1 Concorde in February 1980 while it was registered G-BFKW. For the next 12 months it was parked at LHR and used as a source of spares. But soon another frame parked at FZZ became a new source of spares from BAC. So BA spent a reported £1 million on making their £1 frame suitable to enter commercial service and reregistered it G-BOAG.

I do not know how much BA paid for their sixth frame. But if we assume that it was also £25 million the total purchase price of their fleet of seven is probably in excess of US $ 3 billion at 2017 prices.
 
Arion640
Posts: 2656
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Thu May 18, 2017 8:59 pm

vv701 wrote:
Do not believe everything SRB has said about Concorde. The contract price for the first five frames ordered by BOAC was the same as that for the subsequently cancelled PA order, namely £25 million per frame. As at October 2013 £25 million was equivalent in real terms to US$450 million.

The myth of both BA and AF getting the frames free of charge has grown out of an unusual set of circumstances. The British and French governments underwrote the construction of a total of twenty frames. At the end of the day they found themselves owning a total of two frames, one each, with no prospect of making a commercial sale.

The solution was to sell them for a very nominal sum to AF and BA. The price paid by AF was 1 FF. That paid by BA was as much as twelve times higher at £1.

BA took delivery of their £1 Concorde in February 1980 while it was registered G-BFKW. For the next 12 months it was parked at LHR and used as a source of spares. But soon another frame parked at FZZ became a new source of spares from BAC. So BA spent a reported £1 million on making their £1 frame suitable to enter commercial service and reregistered it G-BOAG.

I do not know how much BA paid for their sixth frame. But if we assume that it was also £25 million the total purchase price of their fleet of seven is probably in excess of US $ 3 billion at 2017 prices.


G-BOAF is also a £1 Concorde. G and F was not part of the original order. G was used for spares until 1984 when G-BBDG became avaliable G went back into service. AG was registered before it became a spares source.
Great Britain: the worlds gateway to Europe.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22398
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Thu May 18, 2017 10:34 pm

WIederling wrote:
The commercial case was smashed to pieces when the US realized that their "One Up" SST would never work out.
Nimbies were allowed to progress on their path or even encouraged.
With a working SST on their hands to gift to the world the US would have walked straight over any opposition.

Yep, that's what it has to be, those noble Europeans and their dreams squashed by those evil Americans yet again. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Concorde was terribly fuel inefficient, was terribly short ranged, and was terribly loud. How dare those American nimbys protest something that loud? They must be doing it out of hate for Europeans, not because they want to sleep at night. Oh, and all those Asians who want to sleep at night? Who cares, they're brown skinned former colonials, we'll just ignore them.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Arion640
Posts: 2656
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Thu May 18, 2017 10:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
WIederling wrote:
The commercial case was smashed to pieces when the US realized that their "One Up" SST would never work out.
Nimbies were allowed to progress on their path or even encouraged.
With a working SST on their hands to gift to the world the US would have walked straight over any opposition.

Yep, that's what it has to be, those noble Europeans and their dreams squashed by those evil Americans yet again. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Concorde was terribly fuel inefficient, was terribly short ranged, and was terribly loud. How dare those American nimbys protest something that loud? They must be doing it out of hate for Europeans, not because they want to sleep at night. Oh, and all those Asians who want to sleep at night? Who cares, they're brown skinned former colonials, we'll just ignore them.


When they tried to bring Concorde to JFK in the late 70's, It would have been no louder on landing than a 707 or DC8. Now If America had suceeded in creating a SST, the amount of NIMBIES would be a lot less. This is just how things are.

You say Concorde was short ranged which indeed it was, but when it was first introduced, many flights heading to Europe seem to have a stupid amount of stop overs anywhere. So even though the Pan Ams 747's of the day had range, they would fly a route like DTW-JFK-LHR-CDG-FCO or whatever. Did range really matter? When Concorde flights first commenced, fuel was dirt cheap offsetting its fuel guzzling. Your comparing concorde to todays travel, direct flights and cheap ticket prices, not the era it was designed and intended to be operated in.
Great Britain: the worlds gateway to Europe.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22398
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Fri May 19, 2017 1:03 am

Arion640 wrote:
When they tried to bring Concorde to JFK in the late 70's, It would have been no louder on landing than a 707 or DC8.

Yes, but unless they were going to build a new aircraft for each flight, eventually they'd have to take off too!

Arion640 wrote:
Now If America had suceeded in creating a SST, the amount of NIMBIES would be a lot less. This is just how things are.

We'll never know. The noise lobby was quite strong in those days, precisely because of those 707s and DC8s.

Unfortunately some here pretend they know, because they have an agenda to push.

Arion640 wrote:
You say Concorde was short ranged which indeed it was, but when it was first introduced, many flights heading to Europe seem to have a stupid amount of stop overs anywhere. So even though the Pan Ams 747's of the day had range, they would fly a route like DTW-JFK-LHR-CDG-FCO or whatever. Did range really matter? When Concorde flights first commenced, fuel was dirt cheap offsetting its fuel guzzling. Your comparing concorde to todays travel, direct flights and cheap ticket prices, not the era it was designed and intended to be operated in.

It was the aggregation of the issues (low range, high fuel and other operational costs, high noise levels) that guaranteed the Concorde would not become a commercial success. It might have hit its mark initially, but shortly after introduction fuel prices shot up and advances in the high bypass turbofan engine allowed for payload/range curves that the Concorde could not in general compete against. It's hard to imagine how an American SST would avoid the same fate.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1287
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 4:29 pm

WIederling wrote:
The commercial case was smashed to pieces when the US realized that their "One Up" SST would never work out.
Nimbies were allowed to progress on their path or even encouraged.

Arion640 wrote:
When they tried to bring Concorde to JFK in the late 70's, It would have been no louder on landing than a 707 or DC8. Now If America had suceeded in creating a SST, the amount of NIMBIES would be a lot less. This is just how things are.


This is not at all accurate. The environmental and anti-noise groups who opposed Concorde were the same people who fought and eventually helped kill the US SST program:

Image

Were they NIMBYs? Absolutely. But "not invented here" syndrome had nothing to do with it. Concorde service to the USA began at Dulles, since the Secretary of Transportation could and did directly authorize landing rights. The Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General were involved in litigation against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's attempt to deny Concorde landing rights at JFK.

Concorde was a magnificent engineering achievement, but its commercial failure is down to high operating costs and lack of market demand, not some vague US conspiracy against a foreign aircraft.
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
Aircanada0140
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:08 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 5:00 pm

Didn't Singapore Airlines also operated the Concorde? I had an old book of London Heathrow back in early 80s and had a picture of Singapore with their Concorde.
 
2175301
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 5:22 pm

My memories of that time period in America are quite clear... People - a lot of people... did not like sonic booms. The US Military seemed to enjoy "booming" everywhere... windows were rattled, and in a few cases broken (I witnessed that). People were upset - the average people were upset. I lived a bit north of Madison Wisconsin at the time and we had military jet sonic booms routinely for several years during the days and occasionally during the night.

So to propose an aircraft that was going to be much larger - and by simple extraction (not necessarily accurate extraction) have a much larger sonic boom created a lot of concern; very real and very emotionally packed concerns.

The concerns on sonic booms were so great and universal across the US that after a few years the US Military was generally restricted on where they could do them (except for emergency or "special" situations). My memories of the time was that the sonic boom concern in the US was very much the reason the Boeing SST was canceled.

The Sonic Boom issue had nothing to do with the Concord being a foreign aircraft. The same people who fraught Military sonic booms and the Boeing SST could also focus on the Concord.

A reality is that if the US Military had not "practiced" sonic booming most towns and cities in the US (that's the only explanation I can come up with for how many places experienced them), and restricted them up front; that there may have been little public opposition to the SST; and aviation history would have been different.

Have a great day,
 
vc10
Posts: 1414
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 5:54 pm

Didn't Singapore Airlines also operated the Concorde? I had an old book of London Heathrow back in early 80s and had a picture of Singapore with their Concorde.

No , but G-BOAD was painted in SIA colours on the port side and there was a partnership between SIA and BA on the London- Bahrain - Singapore route.
SIA cabin crew operated alternate sectors on this route, but the flight deck crew were always BA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say Concorde was short ranged which indeed it was, but when it was first introduced, many flights heading to Europe seem to have a stupid amount of stop overs anywhere. So even though the Pan Ams 747's of the day had range, they would fly a route like DTW-JFK-LHR-CDG-FCO or whatever. Did range really matter? When Concorde flights first commenced, fuel was dirt cheap offsetting its fuel guzzling. Your comparing concorde to todays travel, direct flights and cheap ticket prices, not the era it was designed and intended to be operated in
.

When Concorde was envisaged being able to cross the Atlantic either way non stop was considered a long range aircraft perhaps not as long as some but still long range. When you think that initially Concorde operated LHR-IAD non stop, a route which was right on the aircraft's limit due to the subsonic leg in the USA, and because some performance enhancing mods had not been fitted at that time. However it was normal to do the trip non stop , but there were occasions on the west bound route when aircraft did land at Gander amongst other places, but these were rare. East bound I do not recall aircraft landing at strange places except for weather or congestion at Heathrow .
With the mods incorporated when we operated from LHR to JFK, we often would not have full fuel tanks and on the service JFK to LHR we very rarely had full fuel tanks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now if you look at the complete program of Develope --build ---flight test--- - and operate the aircraft in Commercial service , and ask if it was a commercial success the answer would be NO , but if you ask was it commercial success for British Airways then you have to say that, except for a short period at the beginning and end of it's operational life, it was a commercial success for BA
 
FromCDGtoSYD
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:29 am

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 6:00 pm

Aircanada0140 wrote:
Didn't Singapore Airlines also operated the Concorde? I had an old book of London Heathrow back in early 80s and had a picture of Singapore with their Concorde.


It was a joint venture between BA and SQ, one side of the plane was in BA colours (BOAC at the time ?) and the other side was in SQ colours. It used to do LHR - BAH - SIN if I recall correctly. But it was still BA's aircraft.
 
Arion640
Posts: 2656
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 6:02 pm

If anyones bothered. Braniff had a similar deal with BA and added an extension from Dulles to Dallas. But never had the livery changed like with Singapore.
Great Britain: the worlds gateway to Europe.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7164
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 6:05 pm

Aircanada0140 wrote:
Didn't Singapore Airlines also operated the Concorde? I had an old book of London Heathrow back in early 80s and had a picture of Singapore with their Concorde.


Singapore and BA had a JV for a while, Singapore never had their own Concordes.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7164
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 6:11 pm

One thing people forget too is the Arab Oil embargo of the time and recession, not a great time to introduce a gas guzzling jet. What probably did the Concorde in more then anything was lack of Pacific Ocean Range. Had Los Angeles to Tokyo been achievable there would have been a Pacific market for it. Could of would of should of.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9920
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 6:13 pm

Arion640 wrote:
If anyones bothered. Braniff had a similar deal with BA and added an extension from Dulles to Dallas. But never had the livery changed like with Singapore.

IIRC it was a actually a bit more involved than the SQ deal as Braniff pilots flew the IAD-DAL leg while the aircraft was technically Braniff's with an American registration.
 
gunnerman
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 7:55 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 7:57 pm

JannEejit wrote:
In terms of take off noise, was Concorde really discernibly louder than any other low bypass jet of the 1970's ? I can recall bring equally deafened by departing VC-10's and those eardrum shattering Tridents. Obviously Concorde outlived those types operationally but was the noise really that bad or was it fighting against an already rolling bandwagon ?

In the 1990s, I used to work in a soundproofed building near Heathrow. All sorts of planes took off, including 747s and MD-11s, never heard any any of them - except Concorde.
 
GDB
Posts: 13277
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 8:20 pm

Well I can vouch for one thing, when NASA came to visit us in BA Concorde Engineering in late 1998, (they wanted to compare notes on keeping unique, out of production, specialised air vehicles running, keeping OEM's etc), they told us that they considered Concorde as akin to the Apollo Program. Ironic really, as they were here of course on Space Shuttle business.

To be fair though after the B2707 was axed, the Nixon administration made noises about banning SST's (Nixon was pissed off about the SST vote being lost), he wasn't there in 1976 so no issue at government level with IAD.
The Port Of NY were another matter, though I hear they are no ones favourites in general, though we fought that court case, with proper evidence too and won. (The sharp turn Concorde did over the bay minimise noise just after take off, was replicated by other noisy jets still flying at the time).

Many long term detractors of Concorde thought BA privatisation would end Concorde, in fact it both revived and extended it's service. As others have stated we brought the spares, paid HM Government several 10's of millions. Up to then, any profit made under the original support agreement, was shared with the government. In buying out the government stake, BA had the incentive to maximise the aircraft's potential, which they did.
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 10:23 pm

gunnerman wrote:
JannEejit wrote:
In terms of take off noise, was Concorde really discernibly louder than any other low bypass jet of the 1970's ? I can recall bring equally deafened by departing VC-10's and those eardrum shattering Tridents. Obviously Concorde outlived those types operationally but was the noise really that bad or was it fighting against an already rolling bandwagon ?

In the 1990s, I used to work in a soundproofed building near Heathrow. All sorts of planes took off, including 747s and MD-11s, never heard any any of them - except Concorde.


Sure, but my point was about how noisy it was perceived as being amongst it's 1970's airliner contemporaries. Trident, VC-10 etc... I realise it was much louder in the 90's amongst high bypass jets.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 738
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Did the Concorde "fail"?

Mon May 22, 2017 11:05 pm

jfk777 wrote:
Had Los Angeles to Tokyo been achievable there would have been a Pacific market for it.


Maybe. It would then mean asking people to pay a premium price to spend 10 hours in a 2x2 cabin. That's a pretty big ask.

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