5 ms·

"...where Concorde failed?" Hold on, when did Concorde "fail"? Concorde was profitable: https://simpleflying.com/did-british-airways-make-a-profit-flying-conco

"...where Concorde failed?" Hold on, when did Concorde "fail"? Concorde was profitable: https://simpleflying.com/did-british-airways-make-a-profit-flying-concorde/ https://simpleflying.com/did-british-airways-make-a-profit-f... ---- The reasons for Concorde's discontinuation are legion - I think even if it weren't for the 2000 Air France crash it would have been discontinued simply due to the age of the fleet, what other airlines are still running 50+ year-old airframes today? Let alone those with very inefficient engines by today's standards.

Sebb767 5y ago
But it didn't refresh its fleet, either. The Concorde itself might've been successful, but supersonic flight mostly died with it.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Politicians are notoriously impatient people with short attention spans that seldom go beyond a term. Concorde 2, which was more efficient, was cancelled while the planes we can think of prototypes were put in commercial service.
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    Mass tourism began in the 1970s. Airliners needed something that could carry 350 tourists to Spain or Hawaii cheaply.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      A supersonic transport can carry twice as many passengers per day as a subsonic widebody.
      - mikro2nd 5y ago
        How does cost per passenger-km compare?
        rbanffy 5y ago
        Ticket should cost anything between 2 to 4 times a normal one. If it works, it’ll capture a lot of business and first class tickets from normal airliners
        mikro2nd 5y ago
        I meant cost to the operator... ;)
        rbanffy 5y ago
        My guess is that it'd be twice as much. It uses about 3 times more fuel than a modern widebody, but flies about 3 times faster than them too, so they'd be able to fly at least twice as frequently. All things considered, I'd expect ticket prices at twice the price of coach, perhaps less, but the added convenience of extra departure times and shorter flights would enable a lot of elasticity.
Tuna-Fish 5y ago
> Concorde was profitable Only because the planes were sold to the carrier for a nominal (£1, iirc) price. If you consider the development and construction costs, the Concorde is billions in the hole.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > Concorde is billions in the hole. This is the role of governments. From this R&D hole, aerospace jobs were maintained, people were trained, technologies were developed and a whole lot of other side benefits to both countries involved. It’s not unlike NASA’s space program - if you look at the market value of the equipment built, it’s just an enormous money sink. We all know it’s not.
  - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    NASA and JPL and other ostensible civilian employers of rocket-scientists and other aerospace engineering experts has a nice side-effect of effectively giving the government a strategic-reserve of highly-skilled experts who can be reassigned to ASAT, ICBM and bomber weapons development at short-notice - and also means those same experts aren't employed by any rival or potential rival superpowers. ...kinda like how the US's civilian nuclear fusion programs were/are a way to keep people who-just-so-happen to be nuclear weapons experts gainfully employed and handily available after the cold war ended. Y'know... just in case!
notahacker 5y ago
> Concorde was profitable Your own article points out that it really, really wasn't, especially not for the parties investing in its development, not their customers who profited mainly because they got the aircraft at knockdown prices (and operated it without any supersonic competition) in what was later described as one of the worst deals ever negotiated by any government $3bn was spent developing an aircraft they hoped would be the next generation of flight. Only 14 ever saw commercial service, and most were basically given away because nobody else wanted them. The article suggests BA made $0.75bn profit (Air France less) over three decades, which meant they wouldn't have made a profit on operating it if they'd paid normal purchase prices for mass-market commercial aircraft, never mind if they'd had to underwrite the costs of the R&D programme which is what Boom needs customers to do...
- willyt 5y ago
  But it jump started Airbus, a hugely successful aircraft manufacturer, the difference between Airbus and Boeing is the dependence on fly-by-wire a technology that was first used outside the military in Concorde. So yes it was £3BN down but Airbus supports > 100,000 jobs in Britain, France and Germany. If you compare it to the current Space Launch System, which is a vapourware project which exists to provide a channel for government subsidy to the US Aerospace industry it makes more sense.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    I agree, indirectly it lead to another company being hugely successful, which was probably a net win in terms of indirect tax revenues for the government (less because of the tech innovation and more because despite writing off £3bn on the project itself they also see returns from Airbus and every other domestic aerospace supply chain company that came afterwards, and all profitable airline operations, and all businesses aided by more available, cheaper flight) But if Boom did likewise their investors won't see a penny. Viewed from that perspective, Boom only succeeds if they make and deliver aircraft at a profit (or get strategically acquired by Boeing or Airbus).
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago

Sebb767 5y ago

But it didn't refresh its fleet, either. The Concorde itself might've been successful, but supersonic flight mostly died with it.

rbanffy 5y ago
Politicians are notoriously impatient people with short attention spans that seldom go beyond a term. Concorde 2, which was more efficient, was cancelled while the planes we can think of prototypes were put in commercial service.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  Mass tourism began in the 1970s. Airliners needed something that could carry 350 tourists to Spain or Hawaii cheaply.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    A supersonic transport can carry twice as many passengers per day as a subsonic widebody.
    - mikro2nd 5y ago
      How does cost per passenger-km compare?
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        Ticket should cost anything between 2 to 4 times a normal one. If it works, it’ll capture a lot of business and first class tickets from normal airliners
        mikro2nd 5y ago
        I meant cost to the operator... ;)
        rbanffy 5y ago
        My guess is that it'd be twice as much. It uses about 3 times more fuel than a modern widebody, but flies about 3 times faster than them too, so they'd be able to fly at least twice as frequently. All things considered, I'd expect ticket prices at twice the price of coach, perhaps less, but the added convenience of extra departure times and shorter flights would enable a lot of elasticity.

Tuna-Fish 5y ago

> Concorde was profitable Only because the planes were sold to the carrier for a nominal (£1, iirc) price. If you consider the development and construction costs, the Concorde is billions in the hole.

rbanffy 5y ago
> Concorde is billions in the hole. This is the role of governments. From this R&D hole, aerospace jobs were maintained, people were trained, technologies were developed and a whole lot of other side benefits to both countries involved. It’s not unlike NASA’s space program - if you look at the market value of the equipment built, it’s just an enormous money sink. We all know it’s not.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  NASA and JPL and other ostensible civilian employers of rocket-scientists and other aerospace engineering experts has a nice side-effect of effectively giving the government a strategic-reserve of highly-skilled experts who can be reassigned to ASAT, ICBM and bomber weapons development at short-notice - and also means those same experts aren't employed by any rival or potential rival superpowers. ...kinda like how the US's civilian nuclear fusion programs were/are a way to keep people who-just-so-happen to be nuclear weapons experts gainfully employed and handily available after the cold war ended. Y'know... just in case!

notahacker 5y ago

> Concorde was profitable Your own article points out that it really, really wasn't, especially not for the parties investing in its development, not their customers who profited mainly because they got the aircraft at knockdown prices (and operated it without any supersonic competition) in what was later described as one of the worst deals ever negotiated by any government $3bn was spent developing an aircraft they hoped would be the next generation of flight. Only 14 ever saw commercial service, and most were basically given away because nobody else wanted them. The article suggests BA made $0.75bn profit (Air France less) over three decades, which meant they wouldn't have made a profit on operating it if they'd paid normal purchase prices for mass-market commercial aircraft, never mind if they'd had to underwrite the costs of the R&D programme which is what Boom needs customers to do...

willyt 5y ago
But it jump started Airbus, a hugely successful aircraft manufacturer, the difference between Airbus and Boeing is the dependence on fly-by-wire a technology that was first used outside the military in Concorde. So yes it was £3BN down but Airbus supports > 100,000 jobs in Britain, France and Germany. If you compare it to the current Space Launch System, which is a vapourware project which exists to provide a channel for government subsidy to the US Aerospace industry it makes more sense.
- notahacker 5y ago
  I agree, indirectly it lead to another company being hugely successful, which was probably a net win in terms of indirect tax revenues for the government (less because of the tech innovation and more because despite writing off £3bn on the project itself they also see returns from Airbus and every other domestic aerospace supply chain company that came afterwards, and all profitable airline operations, and all businesses aided by more available, cheaper flight) But if Boom did likewise their investors won't see a penny. Viewed from that perspective, Boom only succeeds if they make and deliver aircraft at a profit (or get strategically acquired by Boeing or Airbus).
- scoopertrooper 5y ago