4 ms·
At supersonic cruise (M2) Concorde used fuel at the same rate as a Jumbo, a quick google search reveals this: "BA said a 747 cost $100,000 to fly each way acro
by peteri 10y ago
At supersonic cruise (M2) Concorde used fuel at the same rate as a Jumbo, a quick google search reveals this:
"BA said a 747 cost $100,000 to fly each way across the atlantic in wages, fuel, maintenace etc, before fixed costs. At the same time Concorde was costing $120,000".
Having read in the past the various Concorde threads on pprune.org, one view was that it was killed of by Airbus who didn't want to keep on supporting it as the manufacturer so helped get rid of the certificate of airworthiness. see this url http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm for at least one view.
- goodcanadian 10y agoThe 747 carries ~450 passengers. The Concorde carried ~100. So, the Concorde is 4.5 times worse on a per capita basis. EDIT: Actually, ~5.4 times worse if you take into account the 1.2x difference in cost.
- ulfw 10y agoBritish Airways' 747-400 carry between 275 and 345 passengers, depending on configuration. But still. Similar in principle :) http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/boeing747-400 http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fle...
- goodcanadian 10y agoDepends on the airline, I suppose. Air Canada used to fly 747-100s with 400 seats: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/historical/b747-100.html http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/historical/b747-100....