3 ms·
Concorde didn't fail because there wasn't a market for fast travel between cities like London and New York. British Airways had no trouble filling them (at supe
by Reason077 11y ago
Concorde didn't fail because there wasn't a market for fast travel between cities like London and New York. British Airways had no trouble filling them (at super-premium prices), and it's Concorde operations were quite profitable.
The real problem was that there was no market for expensive planes that couldn't operate over land routes, or from many airports, because of the extreme noise and environmental concerns.
If supersonic passenger planes are ever going to be a reality again then these are the things that need to be addressed, and thankfully it seems NASA realises this.
- fluffysquirrel 11y agoI had never heard that Concorde was "quite profitable"; to the contrary, I believe it was heavily subsidized by its operators' respective governments as a point of national pride. e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-aid-to-concorde.html http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-... http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-01/business/fi-25795_1_supersonic-concorde http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-01/business/fi-25795_1_s...
- Reason077 11y agoDevelopment of the Concorde aircraft itself was heavily subsidised. But in service, it was profitable - at least for British Airways: On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit. Source: http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html