6 ms·

Since when was "Concorde regulated out of existence"? Wikipedia says it's simply because of economical reason it was retired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con

by ivoras 10y ago

Since when was "Concorde regulated out of existence"? Wikipedia says it's simply because of economical reason it was retired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement Not every failure is an anti-free-market conspiracy.

djb_hackernews 10y ago
Regulation limited the addressable market size of Concorde. Economies of scale and all that.
jessriedel 10y ago
I have no love for this article, but everyone should be able to agree on a couple of points: (1) Cutting the size of the potential market by an order of magnitude can be the difference between economical and uneconomical. (2) Limitations on negative noise externalities should be implemented based on actual noise produced (dB, or whatever), not on whether the aircraft is supersonic per se.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
blahi 10y ago
I'm genuinely curious. Did you read the article?
rayiner 10y ago
Seriously. Physics killed the Concorde. The 787 can carry 2-3x as many passengers from London to New York using less than half the fuel of the Concorde. Engineering could have improved that somewhat, but not nearly enough.
- foota 10y ago
  Of course it can, it's thirty some years newer.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    The 787 is about 30 years newer than the 767, and only about 20% more efficient (both as a design target and in achieved performance). Jet-powered flight is very mature.
    - rtkwe 10y ago
      Is that historic efficiency? There's a lot of improvements that can be tacked on after market to improve efficiency iirc.
alistairSH 10y ago
The argument is the ban on over-land travel reduced the market for supersonic flight to a level that was economically unsustainable in the long-term. With the ban, there was no incentive to invest in upgrades or replacements for the Concorde. So, yes, economics killed the Concorde. But, it was the regulatory environment put in place 30-odd years ago that created those economic conditions.
- astrodust 10y ago
  The entire pricing model of airplane tickets has changed dramatically in thirty years. People seem completely unwilling to pay a premium for anything. It's as if they'd gladly give up another three inches of legroom for another $40 savings. The economic conditions were created by airlines mismanaging expectations.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    While that's certainly true, I often wonder what would have happened if super-sonic development continued. Certainly, at my income level, I would never pay for a Concorde ticket. But, if it were $800 vs $1200 for a 9-hour vs 4-hour flight (and all else equal), I might be tempted. That would allow a very early departure from DC and still be in Rome for lunch. Currently, the best option is usually an overnight flight, but I never sleep well on those.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      Do they serve lunch in Rome at 0400?
      - ghaff 10y ago
        An AM supersonic flight from the US east coast to western Europe gets you in around dinnertime. As I recall, that was what the Concorde did to London from NYC. My dad told me once after he got upgraded to the Concorde from the 747 he was on that he didn't care all that much for it because, rather than having a nice first class dinner on the plane, he was arriving in London at rush hour :-)
phire 10y ago
And many of those economic reasons were caused (or influenced) by regulations. The Concorde was only allowed to fly supersonic over water, making many potential flight routes are impossible. The New York to Mexico City route Required it to drop from mach 2 to mach 0.95 while flying over Florida before accelerating back up to mach 2, wasting a huge amount of fuel in the process. Originally it wasn't even allowed to land in the US, with Congress banning it outright. It wasn't allowed into New York until a year after its introduction. Sure, the larger issue was that it made too much noise in supersonic flight, maybe you could fix that in a newer aircraft. But with all the regulatory issues Concorde faced in it's lifetime, companies are disidentified from trying.
elidourado 10y ago
Keep in mind that authors don't always write the headlines and subheadlines.

by ivoras 10y ago

djb_hackernews 10y ago

Regulation limited the addressable market size of Concorde. Economies of scale and all that.

jessriedel 10y ago

I have no love for this article, but everyone should be able to agree on a couple of points: (1) Cutting the size of the potential market by an order of magnitude can be the difference between economical and uneconomical. (2) Limitations on negative noise externalities should be implemented based on actual noise produced (dB, or whatever), not on whether the aircraft is supersonic per se.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

blahi 10y ago

I'm genuinely curious. Did you read the article?

rayiner 10y ago

Seriously. Physics killed the Concorde. The 787 can carry 2-3x as many passengers from London to New York using less than half the fuel of the Concorde. Engineering could have improved that somewhat, but not nearly enough.

foota 10y ago
Of course it can, it's thirty some years newer.
- rayiner 10y ago
  The 787 is about 30 years newer than the 767, and only about 20% more efficient (both as a design target and in achieved performance). Jet-powered flight is very mature.
  - rtkwe 10y ago
    Is that historic efficiency? There's a lot of improvements that can be tacked on after market to improve efficiency iirc.

alistairSH 10y ago

The argument is the ban on over-land travel reduced the market for supersonic flight to a level that was economically unsustainable in the long-term. With the ban, there was no incentive to invest in upgrades or replacements for the Concorde. So, yes, economics killed the Concorde. But, it was the regulatory environment put in place 30-odd years ago that created those economic conditions.

astrodust 10y ago
The entire pricing model of airplane tickets has changed dramatically in thirty years. People seem completely unwilling to pay a premium for anything. It's as if they'd gladly give up another three inches of legroom for another $40 savings. The economic conditions were created by airlines mismanaging expectations.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  While that's certainly true, I often wonder what would have happened if super-sonic development continued. Certainly, at my income level, I would never pay for a Concorde ticket. But, if it were $800 vs $1200 for a 9-hour vs 4-hour flight (and all else equal), I might be tempted. That would allow a very early departure from DC and still be in Rome for lunch. Currently, the best option is usually an overnight flight, but I never sleep well on those.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Do they serve lunch in Rome at 0400?
    - ghaff 10y ago
      An AM supersonic flight from the US east coast to western Europe gets you in around dinnertime. As I recall, that was what the Concorde did to London from NYC. My dad told me once after he got upgraded to the Concorde from the 747 he was on that he didn't care all that much for it because, rather than having a nice first class dinner on the plane, he was arriving in London at rush hour :-)

phire 10y ago

And many of those economic reasons were caused (or influenced) by regulations. The Concorde was only allowed to fly supersonic over water, making many potential flight routes are impossible. The New York to Mexico City route Required it to drop from mach 2 to mach 0.95 while flying over Florida before accelerating back up to mach 2, wasting a huge amount of fuel in the process. Originally it wasn't even allowed to land in the US, with Congress banning it outright. It wasn't allowed into New York until a year after its introduction. Sure, the larger issue was that it made too much noise in supersonic flight, maybe you could fix that in a newer aircraft. But with all the regulatory issues Concorde faced in it's lifetime, companies are disidentified from trying.

elidourado 10y ago

Keep in mind that authors don't always write the headlines and subheadlines.