9 ms·

Wasn't it the ticket price and crowded cabin that killed the Concorde? With even business travelers having to arrive 90+ minutes early to the airport for intern

Wasn't it the ticket price and crowded cabin that killed the Concorde? With even business travelers having to arrive 90+ minutes early to the airport for international travel anyway, the value proposition of being in the air for a shorter time just isn't really there, especially if the longer flight puts you on a lie-flat bed in a widebody.

donalhunt 6y ago
"the average supersonic flight time on the transatlantic routes was just under 3.5 hours." (NYC -> Paris) Flying subsonic requires you to be at the airport 60-90mins before the flight too (though i know some airports have that as low as 45mins). Still a considerable reduction to the "in the air" time.
- ghaff 6y ago
  When the Concorde was flying, my dad was flying first class from JFK to Europe on a regular basis. He told me that at one point he got upgraded to a Concorde flight which was normally something like a 30% premium over first class at a time when tickets tended to cost more than today. (So probably something equivalent to maybe a $10K ticket today.) He told me that it was a cool experience once. But now, rather than having a relaxed first class meal on an overnight flight [EDITED: He may have taken daytime flights], he was getting into London in the middle of rush hour. He could probably have flown the Concorde had he wanted to but didn't have any real interest in taking it again. And, today, with modern lie-flat business class and entertainment systems, there's even less reason to fly supersonic IMO, unless you're a CEO, lawyer, investment banker etc. flying from NY to London to have lunch with someone, seal some deal, and be back home for dinner.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    On the eastward leg, I guess it’s a difference of sleeping on a lie-flat seat vs. sleeping at home (unless you get one of the few daytime flights). But if you arrive in the morning in London, isn’t that rush-hour too?
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Possibly. This was a long time ago and I have no idea what specific flights he tended to take. Maybe it was a daytime flight. (When I'm going to London these days, I tend to take a daytime flight if possible even though it means getting up at some truly god-awful hour in the morning. I'm too old to take red-eyes unless I have absolutely no choice. And then I try to upgrade.)
  - jjk166 6y ago
    The same argument would suggest that spacious and luxurious ocean liners would be much preferable to flying across the ocean in a cramped tube. Sure flying is a cool experience but unless you're a CEO, lawyer, investment banker, etc do you really need to be in London by tomorrow morning?
    - ghaff 6y ago
      There's a big difference between saving a few hours and saving a few days. The ship will likely also be quite a bit more money and have a very limited set of departures. And somehow I doubt very many companies are going to give you that time off and pay for your trans-Atlantic trip on the Queen Mary 2. I doubt most companies would be big on you taking a trans-continental train trip in the US for business either. (Though I've taken overnight trains in Europe.)
      - mikepurvis 6y ago
        > quite a bit more money You can get a taste of this when you look at the cost of long distance rail— for example, a trip like The Canadian (four days in total), which VIA understandably sells as a cruise ship type experience rather than practical travel: https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/rockies-and-pacific/toronto-vancouver-canadian https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/ro... Obviously some of the cost difference is just the massive economy of scale enjoyed by airlines, but at the end of the day there are certain fixed costs associated with being in their care for such a long period of time. Even with a cheap ticket where you don't get a sleeper bed and have to buy/pack your own food, they still have to staff the train that whole time.
        ghaff 6y ago
        The last time I needed to go to Chicago (from Boston), just for kicks I looked at taking a sleeper train. There was really no way I could justify either the time or the money for a business trip. I did take the overnight from London to Edinburgh a year or two ago. It was actually pretty convenient but it still almost certainly cost more than flying.
  - fragmede 6y ago
    > And, today, with modern lie-flat business class and entertainment systems, AND teleconferencing. Having a team, and not just CEO/lawyer/ibanker/etc, in NY working with a team in London is far easier today, compared to before the era of cheap video conferencing. Still too far from the real thing, but jetting over to the Atlantic for a quick conversation to clear something up, and coming right back isn't as necessary as it once was.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      And also presumably handling physical documents and such. Coming out of the current situation I certainly hope that travel gets back to some semblance of normal. But I do expect that we'll probably collectively decide that some of the in-person ritual can be cut back on.
  - mpclark 6y ago
    I remember people flying out to NY on Concorde from the UK (left at about 11am?), getting in almost a whole day of business, and then flying back 'slowly' on a 747 overnight. Was still expensive though!
  - chiph 6y ago
    Dad got to fly it once too. Air France was about to go on strike at any moment and the agent at CDG looked at the clock, looked at dad, looked back at the clock, and changed the ticket to Concorde. He said it was an amazing experience. But he'd never pay for a ticket himself, and the company was pretty tight with expense money, so they weren't going to do it either.
- harha 6y ago
  Boarding closes somewhere between 30-15mins before the flight, if you travel without luggage I’m pretty sure it should be possible to be at the airport around 45 mins before the flight and still make it, especially in an all business class configuration with fast track. On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York). I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable.
  - LyndsySimon 6y ago
    > Boarding closes somewhere between 30-15mins before the flight, if you travel without luggage I’m pretty sure it should be possible to be at the airport around 45 mins before the flight and still make it, especially in an all business class configuration with fast track. Given the cost premium associated with the Concorde, I seriously doubt if it were flying today passengers would be going through the "regular" TSA lines. The airline would certainly pay for a separate line just for SST passengers with a much shorter delay, and would likely shorten the time between ending boarding and being in the air as much as possible. Most travelers on an SST wouldn't have checked baggage - the whole point is to get there and back as quickly as possible, after all. It really should be a matter of "arrive, go directly through security, board, and depart". Regional airlines have much this type of experience today. I can fly from my home town of Harrison, AR to Memphis, TN on Southern Airways for $98 round trip. That's departing Sunday evening and returning Wednesday afternoon. There is no TSA in HRO, and that airline has its own terminal that bypasses TSA in MEM. You can easily arrive ten or fifteen minutes before your flight boards, with checked baggage, and comfortably make it. This is something of a special case - FedEx corporate is in Memphis and Harrison is the general office for one of its subsidiaries, FedEx Freight, so there is probably enough business travel to keep daily service profitable. I believe FedEx also keeps a small number of company cars at the Memphis terminal for employee use. For the airline, Harrison is one of two fuel stops between Dallas and Memphis, so any business they're able to pick up is gravy. It also means that a single person can fly from my small town to Dallas and back on short notice for about the same cost as driving. Given that domestic regional airlines can offer such fast service today, I don't see why a well-funded premium international route couldn't do the same. It just doesn't make sense to when travel time isn't the selling point. > On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York). My last international flight was from Virginia to Montreal, and customs on both legs was relatively painless. A previous flight on that route had my group pulled aside going into Canada by customs due to some confusion over the boxes of conference swag we had with us, but even that only took fifteen minutes or so to work out. We shipped it next time. > I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable. Yep - while the change in business culture was likely the biggest reason for the demise of transatlantic SST service, the fact that time in the air is just not a big part of overall time spent traveling for most people is why they couldn't shift their market focus.
thatfrenchguy 6y ago
I’m not sure at that time it was 90+ minutes. It’s not 90+ minutes today if you go business class either
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  Especially when they can get to the front of the check-in line, exit control line and security. I never understood the skip-security and skip exit-control line: those are public services.
  - Miraste 6y ago
    They're not public services, they're security theater with no real effectiveness. The skip programs are effectively official acknowledgement of that.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      I agree they’re theatre, but letting 1st class queue-jump isn’t acknowledgement of that: they’re not skipping the checks themselves, just making the queue longer for everyone else.
  - hocuspocus 6y ago
    Nothing stops a publicly or semi-publicly owned service to have premium tiers. They don't offer the service for free.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      Then they should sell it directly to the public. The only issue with queue-jumping public disservice is that it discourages fixing the problem in the first place.
      - hocuspocus 6y ago
        I think it's a little more complex than that: * Some low-cost airlines (like EasyJet) are pretty much doing just that, their premium membership give you access to priority lanes without any other significant benefit (since they don't really offer any). * I don't think anyone wants ticketing to get even more complicated. It's obviously a lot easier and more rewarding for airlines to treat their frequent/business flyers well and make everyone else take the slow lines. * First and business classes don't fill up the planes, airlines are directly impacted by shitty airports that can't embark/disembark/transfer 80% of their passengers (and luggage) quickly enough. You can't say there's zero incentive to fix the problem.
hanoz 6y ago
I've heard it said that the crowded cabin was one of the attractions for some, given whom you might literally be rubbing shoulders with.
- jandrese 6y ago
  Did you hear this from a BA marketing person, because that's some fantastic spin.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
    I know someone that sat next to Sting.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      It's a selling point for anybody who buys first class tickets.
kitteh 6y ago
I think the world of business travel has changed quite a bit since the Concorde. The amount of companies willing to pay for first class compared to years ago is much different I suspect. Pre-Covid we've had over a decade of corporate travel tools (sup fellow Concur users) that scrutinize your flight selection and flag any flight that is outside the bounds set by your company (what do you mean you don't want to wait 8 hours to take an extra hop and wait for a connection? Please justify this). Certainly there are a few company's who will pay for the upgrade for a flight over X hours, but a Concorde flight was always a top tier class - not an upgrade to business.
Theodores 6y ago
The July 2000 crash and 9/11 meant there were no customers. The clincher was the decision by Airbus to stop making spare parts. In its latter years Concorde was a revenue earner. The product evolved into a very expensive thrill ride, sold to the same demographic that would go on cruises. These customers didn't care about a crowded cabin and they would gladly get to the airport extra, extra early. Many of them had promised themselves a trip on Concorde for decades. They were in it for the journey and not the destination. These flights, e.g. to see 'Santa in Lapland', sold out in advance so there were no empty seats. The crash in 2000 didn't entirely dampen customer enthusiasm, however, 9/11 came along and it was a different era. Airbus deciding to stop making spares was a convenient get out for BA and Air France.
r00fus 6y ago
In the late 90s, I got to the airport 20m ahead of the scheduled departure time, rushed to to the gate at 5m ahead of scheduled departure time, and got on the plane with no hassles. 911, Patriot Act and TSA changed all that for the worse.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I've always been a get to the airport with plenty of time to spare person to avoid the stress. But I briefly worked for someone in downtown Boston in the late 90s who I would sometimes travel with. I'd be looking at my watch in the office maybe a half hour before flight time and be like "Joe. Don't you think we should be headed to the airport now?"
- bb611 6y ago
  Pre-COVID I traveled frequently to see family on the opposite coast, this is still possible with TSA Pre and only carry on bags at most major airports. However, it's risky now because airlines are under much more pressure to get flights off the gate, and they'll gladly close the door on you if somehow they have a quick boarding process.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Yeah. I’ve gotten to a gate 30 minutes ahead of time because I’ve been in a lounge or just had a connecting flight and basically gotten a cross “Why are you so late?” at the gate.
p_l 6y ago
Not really. What killed Concorde was combination of politics (voices to get rid of it in both BA and AF, Airbus not wanting to continue support contracts), the extra time lost after 9/11 (the door replacements took more time), and finally airlines finding out that they can bring the same profit with normal wide bodies. Because yes, Concorde was wildly profitable by 2000 - winter quarters it was majority of British Airways profit. The problem with Airbus was that they really wanted Concorde to die (and pretty please buy more A340 and maybe A380 in its place) and the quality of their parts was getting worse - especially vertical stabilizers, which had increasing rate of failures.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Airliners at the end of their service life are usually very profitable, because you aren’t counting on their cost if replacement. And of course parts are going to be expensive on a plane that’s been out of production for nearly 30 years.
rbanffy 6y ago
Long distance phone calls getting cheaper and not needing operator assistance certainly didn't help much.

donalhunt 6y ago

"the average supersonic flight time on the transatlantic routes was just under 3.5 hours." (NYC -> Paris) Flying subsonic requires you to be at the airport 60-90mins before the flight too (though i know some airports have that as low as 45mins). Still a considerable reduction to the "in the air" time.

ghaff 6y ago
When the Concorde was flying, my dad was flying first class from JFK to Europe on a regular basis. He told me that at one point he got upgraded to a Concorde flight which was normally something like a 30% premium over first class at a time when tickets tended to cost more than today. (So probably something equivalent to maybe a $10K ticket today.) He told me that it was a cool experience once. But now, rather than having a relaxed first class meal on an overnight flight [EDITED: He may have taken daytime flights], he was getting into London in the middle of rush hour. He could probably have flown the Concorde had he wanted to but didn't have any real interest in taking it again. And, today, with modern lie-flat business class and entertainment systems, there's even less reason to fly supersonic IMO, unless you're a CEO, lawyer, investment banker etc. flying from NY to London to have lunch with someone, seal some deal, and be back home for dinner.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  On the eastward leg, I guess it’s a difference of sleeping on a lie-flat seat vs. sleeping at home (unless you get one of the few daytime flights). But if you arrive in the morning in London, isn’t that rush-hour too?
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Possibly. This was a long time ago and I have no idea what specific flights he tended to take. Maybe it was a daytime flight. (When I'm going to London these days, I tend to take a daytime flight if possible even though it means getting up at some truly god-awful hour in the morning. I'm too old to take red-eyes unless I have absolutely no choice. And then I try to upgrade.)
- jjk166 6y ago
  The same argument would suggest that spacious and luxurious ocean liners would be much preferable to flying across the ocean in a cramped tube. Sure flying is a cool experience but unless you're a CEO, lawyer, investment banker, etc do you really need to be in London by tomorrow morning?
  - ghaff 6y ago
    There's a big difference between saving a few hours and saving a few days. The ship will likely also be quite a bit more money and have a very limited set of departures. And somehow I doubt very many companies are going to give you that time off and pay for your trans-Atlantic trip on the Queen Mary 2. I doubt most companies would be big on you taking a trans-continental train trip in the US for business either. (Though I've taken overnight trains in Europe.)
    - mikepurvis 6y ago
      > quite a bit more money You can get a taste of this when you look at the cost of long distance rail— for example, a trip like The Canadian (four days in total), which VIA understandably sells as a cruise ship type experience rather than practical travel: https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/rockies-and-pacific/toronto-vancouver-canadian https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/ro... Obviously some of the cost difference is just the massive economy of scale enjoyed by airlines, but at the end of the day there are certain fixed costs associated with being in their care for such a long period of time. Even with a cheap ticket where you don't get a sleeper bed and have to buy/pack your own food, they still have to staff the train that whole time.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        The last time I needed to go to Chicago (from Boston), just for kicks I looked at taking a sleeper train. There was really no way I could justify either the time or the money for a business trip. I did take the overnight from London to Edinburgh a year or two ago. It was actually pretty convenient but it still almost certainly cost more than flying.
- fragmede 6y ago
  > And, today, with modern lie-flat business class and entertainment systems, AND teleconferencing. Having a team, and not just CEO/lawyer/ibanker/etc, in NY working with a team in London is far easier today, compared to before the era of cheap video conferencing. Still too far from the real thing, but jetting over to the Atlantic for a quick conversation to clear something up, and coming right back isn't as necessary as it once was.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    And also presumably handling physical documents and such. Coming out of the current situation I certainly hope that travel gets back to some semblance of normal. But I do expect that we'll probably collectively decide that some of the in-person ritual can be cut back on.
- mpclark 6y ago
  I remember people flying out to NY on Concorde from the UK (left at about 11am?), getting in almost a whole day of business, and then flying back 'slowly' on a 747 overnight. Was still expensive though!
- chiph 6y ago
  Dad got to fly it once too. Air France was about to go on strike at any moment and the agent at CDG looked at the clock, looked at dad, looked back at the clock, and changed the ticket to Concorde. He said it was an amazing experience. But he'd never pay for a ticket himself, and the company was pretty tight with expense money, so they weren't going to do it either.
harha 6y ago
Boarding closes somewhere between 30-15mins before the flight, if you travel without luggage I’m pretty sure it should be possible to be at the airport around 45 mins before the flight and still make it, especially in an all business class configuration with fast track. On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York). I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable.
- LyndsySimon 6y ago
  > Boarding closes somewhere between 30-15mins before the flight, if you travel without luggage I’m pretty sure it should be possible to be at the airport around 45 mins before the flight and still make it, especially in an all business class configuration with fast track. Given the cost premium associated with the Concorde, I seriously doubt if it were flying today passengers would be going through the "regular" TSA lines. The airline would certainly pay for a separate line just for SST passengers with a much shorter delay, and would likely shorten the time between ending boarding and being in the air as much as possible. Most travelers on an SST wouldn't have checked baggage - the whole point is to get there and back as quickly as possible, after all. It really should be a matter of "arrive, go directly through security, board, and depart". Regional airlines have much this type of experience today. I can fly from my home town of Harrison, AR to Memphis, TN on Southern Airways for $98 round trip. That's departing Sunday evening and returning Wednesday afternoon. There is no TSA in HRO, and that airline has its own terminal that bypasses TSA in MEM. You can easily arrive ten or fifteen minutes before your flight boards, with checked baggage, and comfortably make it. This is something of a special case - FedEx corporate is in Memphis and Harrison is the general office for one of its subsidiaries, FedEx Freight, so there is probably enough business travel to keep daily service profitable. I believe FedEx also keeps a small number of company cars at the Memphis terminal for employee use. For the airline, Harrison is one of two fuel stops between Dallas and Memphis, so any business they're able to pick up is gravy. It also means that a single person can fly from my small town to Dallas and back on short notice for about the same cost as driving. Given that domestic regional airlines can offer such fast service today, I don't see why a well-funded premium international route couldn't do the same. It just doesn't make sense to when travel time isn't the selling point. > On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York). My last international flight was from Virginia to Montreal, and customs on both legs was relatively painless. A previous flight on that route had my group pulled aside going into Canada by customs due to some confusion over the boxes of conference swag we had with us, but even that only took fifteen minutes or so to work out. We shipped it next time. > I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable. Yep - while the change in business culture was likely the biggest reason for the demise of transatlantic SST service, the fact that time in the air is just not a big part of overall time spent traveling for most people is why they couldn't shift their market focus.

thatfrenchguy 6y ago

I’m not sure at that time it was 90+ minutes. It’s not 90+ minutes today if you go business class either

Scoundreller 6y ago
Especially when they can get to the front of the check-in line, exit control line and security. I never understood the skip-security and skip exit-control line: those are public services.
- Miraste 6y ago
  They're not public services, they're security theater with no real effectiveness. The skip programs are effectively official acknowledgement of that.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    I agree they’re theatre, but letting 1st class queue-jump isn’t acknowledgement of that: they’re not skipping the checks themselves, just making the queue longer for everyone else.
- hocuspocus 6y ago
  Nothing stops a publicly or semi-publicly owned service to have premium tiers. They don't offer the service for free.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    Then they should sell it directly to the public. The only issue with queue-jumping public disservice is that it discourages fixing the problem in the first place.
    - hocuspocus 6y ago
      I think it's a little more complex than that: * Some low-cost airlines (like EasyJet) are pretty much doing just that, their premium membership give you access to priority lanes without any other significant benefit (since they don't really offer any). * I don't think anyone wants ticketing to get even more complicated. It's obviously a lot easier and more rewarding for airlines to treat their frequent/business flyers well and make everyone else take the slow lines. * First and business classes don't fill up the planes, airlines are directly impacted by shitty airports that can't embark/disembark/transfer 80% of their passengers (and luggage) quickly enough. You can't say there's zero incentive to fix the problem.

hanoz 6y ago

I've heard it said that the crowded cabin was one of the attractions for some, given whom you might literally be rubbing shoulders with.

jandrese 6y ago
Did you hear this from a BA marketing person, because that's some fantastic spin.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  I know someone that sat next to Sting.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    It's a selling point for anybody who buys first class tickets.

kitteh 6y ago

I think the world of business travel has changed quite a bit since the Concorde. The amount of companies willing to pay for first class compared to years ago is much different I suspect. Pre-Covid we've had over a decade of corporate travel tools (sup fellow Concur users) that scrutinize your flight selection and flag any flight that is outside the bounds set by your company (what do you mean you don't want to wait 8 hours to take an extra hop and wait for a connection? Please justify this). Certainly there are a few company's who will pay for the upgrade for a flight over X hours, but a Concorde flight was always a top tier class - not an upgrade to business.

Theodores 6y ago

The July 2000 crash and 9/11 meant there were no customers. The clincher was the decision by Airbus to stop making spare parts. In its latter years Concorde was a revenue earner. The product evolved into a very expensive thrill ride, sold to the same demographic that would go on cruises. These customers didn't care about a crowded cabin and they would gladly get to the airport extra, extra early. Many of them had promised themselves a trip on Concorde for decades. They were in it for the journey and not the destination. These flights, e.g. to see 'Santa in Lapland', sold out in advance so there were no empty seats. The crash in 2000 didn't entirely dampen customer enthusiasm, however, 9/11 came along and it was a different era. Airbus deciding to stop making spares was a convenient get out for BA and Air France.

r00fus 6y ago

In the late 90s, I got to the airport 20m ahead of the scheduled departure time, rushed to to the gate at 5m ahead of scheduled departure time, and got on the plane with no hassles. 911, Patriot Act and TSA changed all that for the worse.

ghaff 6y ago
I've always been a get to the airport with plenty of time to spare person to avoid the stress. But I briefly worked for someone in downtown Boston in the late 90s who I would sometimes travel with. I'd be looking at my watch in the office maybe a half hour before flight time and be like "Joe. Don't you think we should be headed to the airport now?"
bb611 6y ago
Pre-COVID I traveled frequently to see family on the opposite coast, this is still possible with TSA Pre and only carry on bags at most major airports. However, it's risky now because airlines are under much more pressure to get flights off the gate, and they'll gladly close the door on you if somehow they have a quick boarding process.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Yeah. I’ve gotten to a gate 30 minutes ahead of time because I’ve been in a lounge or just had a connecting flight and basically gotten a cross “Why are you so late?” at the gate.

p_l 6y ago

Not really. What killed Concorde was combination of politics (voices to get rid of it in both BA and AF, Airbus not wanting to continue support contracts), the extra time lost after 9/11 (the door replacements took more time), and finally airlines finding out that they can bring the same profit with normal wide bodies. Because yes, Concorde was wildly profitable by 2000 - winter quarters it was majority of British Airways profit. The problem with Airbus was that they really wanted Concorde to die (and pretty please buy more A340 and maybe A380 in its place) and the quality of their parts was getting worse - especially vertical stabilizers, which had increasing rate of failures.

valuearb 6y ago
Airliners at the end of their service life are usually very profitable, because you aren’t counting on their cost if replacement. And of course parts are going to be expensive on a plane that’s been out of production for nearly 30 years.

rbanffy 6y ago

Long distance phone calls getting cheaper and not needing operator assistance certainly didn't help much.