10 ms·

Indeed. Concorde's largest downfall wasn't technical, it was social. The original expectation was that she would rapidly climb, go supersonic over land, and su

Indeed. Concorde's largest downfall wasn't technical, it was social. The original expectation was that she would rapidly climb, go supersonic over land, and supercruise all the way to her destination. If this was possible it was reasonably economical. Problem is that sonic-booms over populated areas are a big "no no." So Concorde was forced to wait until she got out over the atlantic to supercruise, which meant more time spent in her inefficient subsonic configuration and longer flight times. In 1976 the US actually banned Concorde due to noise complaints. The ban was lifted in 1977 after changes mentioned above.

melling 9y ago
The ban was lifted for subsonic travel overland, right? NASA is working on quieter supersonic flight, which reduces the sonic boom on the ground. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build... Hopefully, we get commercial supersonic flight in some form in the 2020’s. http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28351/supersonic-bizjet-manufacturer-spike-fly-scaled-demo/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28351/supersoni... https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/boom-supersonic-jet/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/boom-supersonic-jet/
- vilhelm_s 9y ago
  Not yet, I think? There was some discussion in July this year: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2017-07-03/congress-eyes-future-supersonic-travel https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/20... Eventually the bill passed, it has a provision that the FAA should "obtain the input of aerospace industry stakeholders regarding the appropriate regulatory framework and timeline", and report back next year. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997/text#toc-H6A36C132E87C4D5DBECD7205976B9082 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997...
- masklinn 9y ago
  > The ban was lifted for subsonic travel overland, right? Yes but as scrumper notes that made it inefficient.
  - melling 9y ago
    You are overlooking the obvious problem. Subsonic planes already existed. Even it it was just as efficient at subsonic speed, I doubt if it was as cost effective as a 737, for example. The Concorde seated 100 people, in first class. If you can’t fly at supersonic speeds, you aren’t going to spend the extra money.
pavlov 9y ago
Maybe the Concorde would be a better fit for trans-Pacific flights today? All of the relevant destinations on both sides of the ocean (Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, Singapore, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle) are right by the sea, which of course isn't the case for Paris and London where the Concorde flew from.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I don’t think Concorde has enough range to be viable for Pacific routes. Maybe a redesigned version with greater range would work well though.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    It could stop in Hawaii.
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      On most (all?) the round-the-world charters that Concorde did, it had two stopovers on every transpacific leg, one in Honolulu and the other variously in Papeete, Guam, or Fiji (and likely elsewhere, I've not looked exhaustively). That said, the furtherest north any of those charters landed in the far east was Hong Kong.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      Anchorage, Alaska was a more common stopover between the U.S. West Coast and Japan, Korea, etc. in the days before airliners could easily cross the Pacific in one hop. ANC is still a major refueling and sorting stop for air cargo -- most all air cargo between China and the mainland U.S. passes through Anchorage. The Anchorage FedEx hub is only passed by Hong Kong and Memphis in terms of volume, and the UPS hub is also one of the largest for that company. That's counterintuitive when you look at a flat map, but not on a globe. Here's a flat projection of some great circle routes: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-NRT-SIN,SFO-HKG-SIN http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-NRT-SIN,SFO-HKG-SIN Note that the shortest path goes a lot closer to Alaska than it does Hawaii.
KGIII 9y ago
The Concorde was also really expensive. I was able to fly on it twice, once each direction, near the end of their operations. I only flew on it because they'd announced they were shutting down and I wanted to fly supersonic before they went out of business. It was very expensive. I think it was in '03 and the price was just something like $12,000 for the two flights. It was high enough that I put it on a credit card. The prices had a lot of variation and I flew first class but they had a higher class that they called Concorde, as I recall.
- kobeya 9y ago
  GP was explaining why it was expensive.
- martinald 9y ago
  Yes, it was a premium product. But if you're a banker/lawyer going between NY and London a lot and your billable rate is $crazy, it's super good value. I think there is an enormous market for something like Concorde now, much more than there was before. The amount of super rich has increased massively (and each of them have way more money). I think you'd even see executives using it over their own private jets for the speed increase - which means tickets could be crazy expensive, as operating a jet is very pricey. I suppose it'd depend a bit on if you could get WiFi on it though. Wonder if that is possible at supersonic speeds?
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    I seem to recall reading about a supersonic business jet being designed by some company or other.
    - simonh 9y ago
      There are several companies working on the idea. There’s been a lot of work done recently on advanced aerodynamic designs that would significantly reduce the sonic boom for a given size of aircraft. On smaller planes this might reduce it to levels that would be considered tolerable over populated areas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_business_jet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_business_jet
jdietrich 9y ago
Also, they substantially over-estimated the importance of speed over comfort. Concorde's narrow fuselage made it remarkably cramped and uncomfortable. The galleys were also tiny, precluding the elaborate à la carte dining that is now standard in the front seats of widebody jets. For the kind of customer that used Concorde, the idea of being pampered in Business or First was often much more attractive than saving a couple of hours. Today, Concorde would struggle to compete on overall journey time with the A318s flying out of London City Airport. The speed advantage of Concorde would be badly eroded by the Kafkaesque nightmare of travelling via Heathrow.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > For the kind of customer that used Concorde, the idea of being pampered in Business or First was often much more attractive than saving a couple of hours People vastly underestimate the effect lay-flat travel had on demand for the Concorde. Consider the time differences between London and New York. An overnight lay-flat loses a traveller little to no daytime. A Concorde, while faster, is less comfortable and leaves and/or arrives at an awkward time for a business traveller.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    The major(and I will take the risk and say - only) benefit of the concorde was the amazing ability it gave some people of making a New York<->London return trip in one day. For some businessmen that was absolutely invaluable - they could jump on a plane in the morning, have their meeting in New York, and be back in London late in the evening. No other plane offers that.
    - mandevil 9y ago
      Note that this very much only worked one way: Europe to the US, not vice-versa, because of the curvature of the Earth (and even then, better for London versus Paris because of geography). Since the plane needs to be full on all of it's flights to pay it's costs, this was quite the problem and very much a limit on routes that could be profitable.
greenhouse_gas 9y ago
The problem was also connected to latency vs. bandwidth. Since the Concorde was a luxury airliner, it couldn't fly as often as a regular airplane. If you're in London and you find out you need to be in NY right now at all costs, it may be faster to hop on a business jet or even a commercial flight rather than wait for the next Concorde. And as first class (and business jets) got comfortable, the need to get out of the air ASAP is much less than it used to be.
baybal2 9y ago
>In 1976 the US actually banned Concorde due to noise complaints. The ban was lifted in 1977 after changes mentioned above. US banned concorde because Boeing ordered the government to ban it

melling 9y ago

The ban was lifted for subsonic travel overland, right? NASA is working on quieter supersonic flight, which reduces the sonic boom on the ground. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build... Hopefully, we get commercial supersonic flight in some form in the 2020’s. http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28351/supersonic-bizjet-manufacturer-spike-fly-scaled-demo/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28351/supersoni... https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/boom-supersonic-jet/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/boom-supersonic-jet/

vilhelm_s 9y ago
Not yet, I think? There was some discussion in July this year: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2017-07-03/congress-eyes-future-supersonic-travel https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/20... Eventually the bill passed, it has a provision that the FAA should "obtain the input of aerospace industry stakeholders regarding the appropriate regulatory framework and timeline", and report back next year. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997/text#toc-H6A36C132E87C4D5DBECD7205976B9082 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997...
masklinn 9y ago
> The ban was lifted for subsonic travel overland, right? Yes but as scrumper notes that made it inefficient.
- melling 9y ago
  You are overlooking the obvious problem. Subsonic planes already existed. Even it it was just as efficient at subsonic speed, I doubt if it was as cost effective as a 737, for example. The Concorde seated 100 people, in first class. If you can’t fly at supersonic speeds, you aren’t going to spend the extra money.

pavlov 9y ago

Maybe the Concorde would be a better fit for trans-Pacific flights today? All of the relevant destinations on both sides of the ocean (Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, Singapore, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle) are right by the sea, which of course isn't the case for Paris and London where the Concorde flew from.

mikeash 9y ago
I don’t think Concorde has enough range to be viable for Pacific routes. Maybe a redesigned version with greater range would work well though.
- kobeya 9y ago
  It could stop in Hawaii.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    On most (all?) the round-the-world charters that Concorde did, it had two stopovers on every transpacific leg, one in Honolulu and the other variously in Papeete, Guam, or Fiji (and likely elsewhere, I've not looked exhaustively). That said, the furtherest north any of those charters landed in the far east was Hong Kong.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    Anchorage, Alaska was a more common stopover between the U.S. West Coast and Japan, Korea, etc. in the days before airliners could easily cross the Pacific in one hop. ANC is still a major refueling and sorting stop for air cargo -- most all air cargo between China and the mainland U.S. passes through Anchorage. The Anchorage FedEx hub is only passed by Hong Kong and Memphis in terms of volume, and the UPS hub is also one of the largest for that company. That's counterintuitive when you look at a flat map, but not on a globe. Here's a flat projection of some great circle routes: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-NRT-SIN,SFO-HKG-SIN http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-NRT-SIN,SFO-HKG-SIN Note that the shortest path goes a lot closer to Alaska than it does Hawaii.

KGIII 9y ago

The Concorde was also really expensive. I was able to fly on it twice, once each direction, near the end of their operations. I only flew on it because they'd announced they were shutting down and I wanted to fly supersonic before they went out of business. It was very expensive. I think it was in '03 and the price was just something like $12,000 for the two flights. It was high enough that I put it on a credit card. The prices had a lot of variation and I flew first class but they had a higher class that they called Concorde, as I recall.

kobeya 9y ago
GP was explaining why it was expensive.
martinald 9y ago
Yes, it was a premium product. But if you're a banker/lawyer going between NY and London a lot and your billable rate is $crazy, it's super good value. I think there is an enormous market for something like Concorde now, much more than there was before. The amount of super rich has increased massively (and each of them have way more money). I think you'd even see executives using it over their own private jets for the speed increase - which means tickets could be crazy expensive, as operating a jet is very pricey. I suppose it'd depend a bit on if you could get WiFi on it though. Wonder if that is possible at supersonic speeds?
- digi_owl 9y ago
  I seem to recall reading about a supersonic business jet being designed by some company or other.
  - simonh 9y ago
    There are several companies working on the idea. There’s been a lot of work done recently on advanced aerodynamic designs that would significantly reduce the sonic boom for a given size of aircraft. On smaller planes this might reduce it to levels that would be considered tolerable over populated areas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_business_jet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_business_jet

jdietrich 9y ago

Also, they substantially over-estimated the importance of speed over comfort. Concorde's narrow fuselage made it remarkably cramped and uncomfortable. The galleys were also tiny, precluding the elaborate à la carte dining that is now standard in the front seats of widebody jets. For the kind of customer that used Concorde, the idea of being pampered in Business or First was often much more attractive than saving a couple of hours. Today, Concorde would struggle to compete on overall journey time with the A318s flying out of London City Airport. The speed advantage of Concorde would be badly eroded by the Kafkaesque nightmare of travelling via Heathrow.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> For the kind of customer that used Concorde, the idea of being pampered in Business or First was often much more attractive than saving a couple of hours People vastly underestimate the effect lay-flat travel had on demand for the Concorde. Consider the time differences between London and New York. An overnight lay-flat loses a traveller little to no daytime. A Concorde, while faster, is less comfortable and leaves and/or arrives at an awkward time for a business traveller.
- gambiting 9y ago
  The major(and I will take the risk and say - only) benefit of the concorde was the amazing ability it gave some people of making a New York<->London return trip in one day. For some businessmen that was absolutely invaluable - they could jump on a plane in the morning, have their meeting in New York, and be back in London late in the evening. No other plane offers that.
  - mandevil 9y ago
    Note that this very much only worked one way: Europe to the US, not vice-versa, because of the curvature of the Earth (and even then, better for London versus Paris because of geography). Since the plane needs to be full on all of it's flights to pay it's costs, this was quite the problem and very much a limit on routes that could be profitable.

greenhouse_gas 9y ago

The problem was also connected to latency vs. bandwidth. Since the Concorde was a luxury airliner, it couldn't fly as often as a regular airplane. If you're in London and you find out you need to be in NY right now at all costs, it may be faster to hop on a business jet or even a commercial flight rather than wait for the next Concorde. And as first class (and business jets) got comfortable, the need to get out of the air ASAP is much less than it used to be.

baybal2 9y ago

>In 1976 the US actually banned Concorde due to noise complaints. The ban was lifted in 1977 after changes mentioned above. US banned concorde because Boeing ordered the government to ban it