5 ms·
Concord was actually a cash cow for all airlines who had them. The only reason why airlines stopped using Concord was because of the crash and the inherent safe
by justmedep 2y ago
Concord was actually a cash cow for all airlines who had them. The only reason why airlines stopped using Concord was because of the crash and the inherent safety issues that were found. But the actual business model worked - limited in scope but it was highly profitable.
“That said, the airlines that flew the Concorde did make a profit. Concorde was only ever purchased by two airlines: BA and Air France. While the concept of the Concorde might not have been a worldwide hit, it was certainly a good market fit for these two airlines at the time.”
Overall it was obviously a money looser because of the high development costs (paid for by the governments).
- anovikov 2y agoIt worked because not just the development costs were paid for by the government, but acquisition costs were, too. Planes were given to the airlines for free, completely paid for by the states. Also, only be BA made good profit on it and only after mid-1980s. Air France could barely break even. If not the PR effect that put those airlines above all others as the only ones flying supersonically, they'd never make any sense to either of them. These days, they'd certainly not be viable as private planes are now much more available and much cheaper than they used to be back in the day and these save a lot more time than supersonic flights. BA fare for LHR-JFK roundtrip was 10K pounds back in 2000, $15.2K at the average exchange rate, that's $28K inflation adjusted! Who'd pay that kind of money today for a commercial flight?
- Jakob 2y agoNot taking away from your point, just for comparison: A British Airways first class LHR-JFK roundtrip is $10K today for an 8h flight. Supersonic would be 3h.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwaway2037 2y agoIs Boom aiming to be faster than the Concorde? I don't think so. Their website says: > Overture will carry 64-80 passengers at Mach 1.7 Concorde flew NYC<->LON in 3.5 hours. I guess Boom will fly the route in about 4 hours. Also, regular commercial flights on NYC<->LON are currently 7 hours. Also, using Google Flights, I priced LHR<->JFK on first class about T+1month for 7 days (Mon->Mon). It is about 5.3K USD round trip. I am surprised that it is so cheap. I guess that route is very competitive. I don't understand the excitement on HN about Boom. The market is tiny. This is a terrible investment. What is the global demand for this aeroplane (if they ever build it)? Maybe... max 200. Look at the order book from the 1960s when the Concorde first flew. Less than 100 total orders. Are people forgetting about how incredibly loud is a sonic boom? It is unlikely that it will get rights to fly over land, just like the Concorde. Also, it is terrible for the environment. The Concorde burned fuel (passenger miles per liter) at roughly twice the rate of non-supersonic aeroplanes. (Various edits.)
- anovikov 2y agoThey claim they have sonic boom solved by modifying the airframe shape. Otherwise, i agree with you. It will be a thing of no real consequence just like the original Concorde.
- WalterBright 2y ago> Are people forgetting about how incredibly loud is a sonic boom? Is it? I lived in Kansas in the 1960s. Sonic booms from the AF base were common. They weren't that loud. Electric storms (a regular in Kansas) were considerably louder. > The Concorde burned fuel (passenger miles per liter) at roughly twice the rate of non-supersonic aeroplanes. 5-7 times as much. My dad said when he pushed his jet supersonic, you could watch the gas gauge unwind.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- WalterBright 2y ago> Who'd pay that kind of money today for a commercial flight? Government people. I remember Kissinger flying on it. A first class ticket on the Titanic would be $50,000 today.
- michaelt 2y agoThe problem with $50,000 tickets is a higher price means fewer customers, and at a certain point that means less money coming in overall, worse economies of scale, and less ability to cover your upfront engineering costs. The Toyota Camry is a $30,000 car that sells 300,000 units per year. The Lamborghini Huracan is a $300,000 car that sells 600 units per year. Much easier to cover the costs of developing a reliable electrical system, or a new hybrid drivetrain, when you're Toyota. Concorde couldn't repay its development costs for the same reason.
- engineer_22 2y ago...and yet, despite your lamentations, Lamborghini operates a profitable business.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 2y agoIn fairness, there's little practical benefit (and, in fact, a lot of downsides) to a supercar whereas a plane that does trans-oceanic in half the time is useful--of course, if you can build it, and sell tickets economically for maybe today's business class prices--keeping in mind that a lot of people flying business are doing so on upgrades/miles.
- zabzonk 2y agoI used to work for a big 6 accountancy and audit firm. their senior partners used to fly concorde, wheras us underlings flew virgin upper class (like first class on other carriers).
- usrusr 2y ago> Who'd pay that kind of money today for a commercial flight? People willing to throw money at connecting with others who do the same thing. That was the main value proposition back then I think, getting from continent to continent in a short time has never been more than a tangential benefit. Of course this type of business only really works when everybody involved claims the opposite.
- anovikov 2y agoToday these people hang out at private jet FBOs.
- Telemakhos 2y ago> Who'd pay that kind of money today for a commercial flight? Nobody. That's part of Boom's plan: they want to make the Overture jet cheap enough to fly that tickets will cost about what business class costs on regular intercontinental flights. They're keeping the problems of the Concorde in mind as part of the design process.