3 ms·

Even more than a supersonic jet, Concorde was a successful attempt to create a homegrown European airspace industry. The aircraft itself was a pioneer in fly-by

Even more than a supersonic jet, Concorde was a successful attempt to create a homegrown European airspace industry. The aircraft itself was a pioneer in fly-by-wire technologies, which Airbus (the current name of the consortium that build Concorde) later commercialized, also at an initial loss. In this way, the entire business was kickstarted by the governments of Britain and France. The net result was a company that now outsells Boeing, especially in light of the latter's quality issues. Even though Concorde never made money (and never really could make money w/ the supersonic restrictions it had), I think it was still a win for the companies and countries involved.

KineticLensman 3y ago
> I think it was still a win for the companies and countries involved Agree, although I'd love to know how many of Concorde's backers were considering this long-game effect. I suspect that the Airbus of today would be seen as even more fantastic than a supersonic aircraft.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  It was pretty fundamental. At the time commercial aviation was a different two horse race between Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass. The aviation industry in Europe was not doing well and those industries and their suppliers represented millions of jobs.
panick21_ 3y ago
This kind of ignores the alternative reality. The idea that well if not Concorde then nothing else would have existed and whatever would have existed wouldn't have been 'European'. This isn't really true. If you look at the British case for example, there were alternative planes in development that asked for British funding. While those projects were British lead, they had specifically designed them to have suppliers all over Europe, including France. Now that plane could have been a failure or a success, we wont know. Looking at the design, it seems to have some potential. The French on the other hand might have invested their money in another kind of plane primarily from France but with supply chains outside of France as well. You could see something like Airbus emerging out of that too. Or maybe something that wasn't Airbus but like Airbus. Or a you could see a British lead company that has success in the narrow body world and later a French plane with success in the Wide-body world. Those could eventually merge. History could have gone many ways, and could have failed many ways. That we have Airbus now does track back to Concord, but is not true that its clear that without Concord we wouldn't have something Airbus like.
- switch007 3y ago
  > but is not true that its clear that without Concord we wouldn't have something Airbus like. Did the parent claim that? Bit of a strawman if not.
esotericimpl 3y ago
[dead]
stby 3y ago
Historically though, Airbus exists despite the Concorde, not because of it. The A300 project ran in parallel and there where fights over funding between Airbus and Concorde. The French government also financed the Dassault Mercure at that time. The initial success of the A300 was also unrelated to the Concorde, so Europe would probably have gotten their successful aviation industry today either way.

KineticLensman 3y ago

> I think it was still a win for the companies and countries involved Agree, although I'd love to know how many of Concorde's backers were considering this long-game effect. I suspect that the Airbus of today would be seen as even more fantastic than a supersonic aircraft.

bobthepanda 3y ago
It was pretty fundamental. At the time commercial aviation was a different two horse race between Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass. The aviation industry in Europe was not doing well and those industries and their suppliers represented millions of jobs.

panick21_ 3y ago

This kind of ignores the alternative reality. The idea that well if not Concorde then nothing else would have existed and whatever would have existed wouldn't have been 'European'. This isn't really true. If you look at the British case for example, there were alternative planes in development that asked for British funding. While those projects were British lead, they had specifically designed them to have suppliers all over Europe, including France. Now that plane could have been a failure or a success, we wont know. Looking at the design, it seems to have some potential. The French on the other hand might have invested their money in another kind of plane primarily from France but with supply chains outside of France as well. You could see something like Airbus emerging out of that too. Or maybe something that wasn't Airbus but like Airbus. Or a you could see a British lead company that has success in the narrow body world and later a French plane with success in the Wide-body world. Those could eventually merge. History could have gone many ways, and could have failed many ways. That we have Airbus now does track back to Concord, but is not true that its clear that without Concord we wouldn't have something Airbus like.

switch007 3y ago
> but is not true that its clear that without Concord we wouldn't have something Airbus like. Did the parent claim that? Bit of a strawman if not.

esotericimpl 3y ago

[dead]

stby 3y ago

Historically though, Airbus exists despite the Concorde, not because of it. The A300 project ran in parallel and there where fights over funding between Airbus and Concorde. The French government also financed the Dassault Mercure at that time. The initial success of the A300 was also unrelated to the Concorde, so Europe would probably have gotten their successful aviation industry today either way.