3 ms·
We can easily model this in a sheet. Like this one: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JhvGd6iVWNweMM-PYk3zeyMQMmqbb8Bf4xC6N-QQRXQ/edit#gid=1961134728 http
by 0000011111 4y ago
We can easily model this in a sheet. Like this one: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JhvGd6iVWNweMM-PYk3zeyMQMmqbb8Bf4xC6N-QQRXQ/edit#gid=1961134728 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JhvGd6iVWNweMM-PYk3z...
At todays Jet 1 A US fuel price of $3.07 per gallon it would cost $108k to fill the Concord. Which holds 120 passengers. That comes out to a cost of $900 per person passenger on a full fight.
If the cost of fuel were double like a few months ago then that cost would be $1,800 per flight.
Compared to a Boeing 737 which has a fuel cost of ~24k at max capacity of 7,878 gallons at todays prices. A passenger limit of 177 and a fuel cost as low as $136.64 per passenger on a full fight.
- Retric 4y agoMeanwhile a one way ticket cost US$975 in 1977 or inflation adjusted about 4,700$ today. Which increased faster than inflation so by mid 90’s your talking around 6,000$ which is something like 12,000$ today. Thus fuel while expensive wasn’t a deal killer over most of it’s history as long as they could keep most seats filled.
- notahacker 4y agoThe "as long as they could keep most seats filled" was a deal killer though. There was enough demand for one return flight a day carrying a small proportion of the overall passengers on the immensely-popular with wealthy people JFK-LHR and JFK-CDG routes. That wasn't enough to utilise the 14 production aircraft properly, never mind enough demand for it to have been viable as an airframe programme ...
- Retric 4y agoThey both also used it for private charters which was apparently quite a profitable business. Anyway, the exclusivity was presumably more profitable than simply maximizing occupancy. That said, boom is building a significantly smaller aircraft which should again open up more possible routes.