4 ms·

> Concorde was eventually undone by its excessive noise and fuel consumption, limited capacity, and destructive high-altitude emissions. This is incorrect. “Hi

> Concorde was eventually undone by its excessive noise and fuel consumption, limited capacity, and destructive high-altitude emissions. This is incorrect. “High altitude emissions” had zero to do with Concorde being retired. https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Concorde-retired-in-2003-despite-having-a-good-operational-history-barring-the-2000-crash https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Concorde-retired-in-2003-d... It might seem that the author of this piece has a problem with facts — there seems to be a willingness to distort the truth to fit some kind of leftist agenda.

freeflight 9y ago
"A new fleet of supersonic aircraft with similar particle emissions would significantly increase stratospheric aerosol surface areas and may increase ozone loss above that expected for NOx emissions alone." [0] See also [1] [0] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/270/5233/70 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/270/5233/70 [1] http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-10-08/news/1995281022_1_ozone-sulfur-exhaust-particles http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-10-08/news/1995281022_...
- briandear 9y ago
  That the Concorde polluted isn’t disputed — what I am referring too is the reason for the airplane’s grounding. Pollution wasn’t the reason the Concorde stopped flying.
- markonen 9y ago
  Seems unlikely to me that a new fleet of supersonic aircraft would use engines from a bomber that first flew in 1952[1]. I am assuming that modern engines would not have "similar particle emissions". For example, I would imagine that they wouldn't have afterburners. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan
briandear 9y ago
Allow me to respond to the downvotes: the author decries the “race to the bottom” due to deregulation and “vile predatory capitalism,” yet that very capitalism is what made air travel so affordable to the masses. In 1974, very few families could afford to fly. Now pretty much anyone in the middle classes can afford it. That “vile” capitalism created competition and that resulted in being able to fly round trip from Denver to Frankfurt for roughly $1000 while in the halcyon 70s, such a trip would have been far more cost prohibitive. It wasn’t regulation that made flying something almost everyone could afford — it was the very capitalism the author seems to abhor. As far as the downvotes — it’s clear the author has some leftist agenda — first of all lying about the reasons for the ending of Concorde — it wasn’t some environmental nonsense about emissions or noise or even fuel costs — it had to do with maintenance availability. That is just a fact. Next complaining about capitalism that enabled the masses to travel while attempting to evoke Hunter S Thompson when describing drinking champagne on the upper deck. How ironic that the author savors the exclusivity of the upper deck, while complaining about capitalism that creates the opportunity to actually make money to buy an upper deck ticket.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  To be even more picky it is somehow elitist leftism. Anyway, the Concorde had not exactly a backlog of reservations when it was retired, besides whatever technical and environmental reasons, the same "capitalism" that allowed it to exist seemingly didn't produce enough people willing to pay fares of around US$ 12,000 for a US/EU round trip[1]. And most probably Mr.Berk would have appreciated the champagne with the caviar (which is a no-no[2]). [1] roughly, around the time it was retired, 2003: https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-concorde-6783087 https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-conc... [2] same article, page 2: https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-concorde-6783087/?page=2 https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-conc...
- pjc50 9y ago
  Concorde was of course a state-subsidised vanity project sponsored by arch-socialist Tony Benn: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/oct/17/theairlineindustry.g21 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/oct/17/theairlinei... (Entertaining little bit of Sir Humphrey in a quote there: ""Secretary of state, we should tell you that Whitehall agreed before the election that whoever won, the Concorde would be cancelled."")
- digitalzombie 9y ago
  > Now pretty much anyone in the middle classes can afford it. https://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/484941939/a-portrait-of-americas-middle-class-by-the-numbers https://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/484941939/a-portrait-of-ameri... Quote from NPR "Since economists first began keeping track in 1970, every decade has ended with fewer people in the middle class than at the start. And 2015 was the first year on record when Americans in the middle-income bracket did not make up the majority of the country" Middle class can afford it now you say and yet the middle class is shrinking and the poor class is growing. Are you ignoring the inequality and shrinking of the middle class when you make such a statement? > deregulation and consolidation If there were many air lines and now they are consolidated to fewer is this not anti competition? Or is the market going to fix it by less regulation? Here's the graph from the 1970s to 2010s: http://psf_blog.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AirlineMergers.jpg http://psf_blog.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/201... Do you believe in the concept of natural monopoly Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly)? If so what's your solution to that? edit/update: Something in the back of my mind was skeptical about your claim of airflight being cheaper without source. It seems more like you're making a statement base on feeling. I googled: Note here's one article that stated that it went up on average by a bit adjusting for inflation: http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-tips/airlines-airports/airfare-cost-change http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-tips/airlines-airport... Another article argued that the statistics ignore the outlandish carry baggage checkin that in fact it is more costly today to fly than it is in the 70s. https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/blog/seat2B/2014/05/don-t-believe-the-airfare-spin-cost-to-travel-is.html https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/blog/seat2B/2014/05/...

freeflight 9y ago

"A new fleet of supersonic aircraft with similar particle emissions would significantly increase stratospheric aerosol surface areas and may increase ozone loss above that expected for NOx emissions alone." [0] See also [1] [0] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/270/5233/70 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/270/5233/70 [1] http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-10-08/news/1995281022_1_ozone-sulfur-exhaust-particles http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-10-08/news/1995281022_...

briandear 9y ago
That the Concorde polluted isn’t disputed — what I am referring too is the reason for the airplane’s grounding. Pollution wasn’t the reason the Concorde stopped flying.
markonen 9y ago
Seems unlikely to me that a new fleet of supersonic aircraft would use engines from a bomber that first flew in 1952[1]. I am assuming that modern engines would not have "similar particle emissions". For example, I would imagine that they wouldn't have afterburners. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan

briandear 9y ago

Allow me to respond to the downvotes: the author decries the “race to the bottom” due to deregulation and “vile predatory capitalism,” yet that very capitalism is what made air travel so affordable to the masses. In 1974, very few families could afford to fly. Now pretty much anyone in the middle classes can afford it. That “vile” capitalism created competition and that resulted in being able to fly round trip from Denver to Frankfurt for roughly $1000 while in the halcyon 70s, such a trip would have been far more cost prohibitive. It wasn’t regulation that made flying something almost everyone could afford — it was the very capitalism the author seems to abhor. As far as the downvotes — it’s clear the author has some leftist agenda — first of all lying about the reasons for the ending of Concorde — it wasn’t some environmental nonsense about emissions or noise or even fuel costs — it had to do with maintenance availability. That is just a fact. Next complaining about capitalism that enabled the masses to travel while attempting to evoke Hunter S Thompson when describing drinking champagne on the upper deck. How ironic that the author savors the exclusivity of the upper deck, while complaining about capitalism that creates the opportunity to actually make money to buy an upper deck ticket.

jaclaz 9y ago
To be even more picky it is somehow elitist leftism. Anyway, the Concorde had not exactly a backlog of reservations when it was retired, besides whatever technical and environmental reasons, the same "capitalism" that allowed it to exist seemingly didn't produce enough people willing to pay fares of around US$ 12,000 for a US/EU round trip[1]. And most probably Mr.Berk would have appreciated the champagne with the caviar (which is a no-no[2]). [1] roughly, around the time it was retired, 2003: https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-concorde-6783087 https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-conc... [2] same article, page 2: https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-concorde-6783087/?page=2 https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-conc...
pjc50 9y ago
Concorde was of course a state-subsidised vanity project sponsored by arch-socialist Tony Benn: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/oct/17/theairlineindustry.g21 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/oct/17/theairlinei... (Entertaining little bit of Sir Humphrey in a quote there: ""Secretary of state, we should tell you that Whitehall agreed before the election that whoever won, the Concorde would be cancelled."")
digitalzombie 9y ago
> Now pretty much anyone in the middle classes can afford it. https://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/484941939/a-portrait-of-americas-middle-class-by-the-numbers https://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/484941939/a-portrait-of-ameri... Quote from NPR "Since economists first began keeping track in 1970, every decade has ended with fewer people in the middle class than at the start. And 2015 was the first year on record when Americans in the middle-income bracket did not make up the majority of the country" Middle class can afford it now you say and yet the middle class is shrinking and the poor class is growing. Are you ignoring the inequality and shrinking of the middle class when you make such a statement? > deregulation and consolidation If there were many air lines and now they are consolidated to fewer is this not anti competition? Or is the market going to fix it by less regulation? Here's the graph from the 1970s to 2010s: http://psf_blog.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AirlineMergers.jpg http://psf_blog.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/201... Do you believe in the concept of natural monopoly Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly)? If so what's your solution to that? edit/update: Something in the back of my mind was skeptical about your claim of airflight being cheaper without source. It seems more like you're making a statement base on feeling. I googled: Note here's one article that stated that it went up on average by a bit adjusting for inflation: http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-tips/airlines-airports/airfare-cost-change http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-tips/airlines-airport... Another article argued that the statistics ignore the outlandish carry baggage checkin that in fact it is more costly today to fly than it is in the 70s. https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/blog/seat2B/2014/05/don-t-believe-the-airfare-spin-cost-to-travel-is.html https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/blog/seat2B/2014/05/...