2 ms·
Concorde never paid those initial costs, and had massive subsidies [https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-aid-to-concorde.html https://ww
by lazide 1y ago
Concorde never paid those initial costs, and had massive subsidies [https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-aid-to-concorde.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending...].
It was able to coast, eventually, but that’s some very fancy accounting.
“French Transport Minister Daniel Hoeffel, saying France ''will not and cannot abandon Concorde,'' signed a new agreement with Air France this week. The French Government, which with Britain had spent more than $2 billion developing the world's first supersonic passenger aircraft, will pay 90 percent of the plane's estimated operating losses for the next three years, compared with 70 percent in the past.
Under the new pact, the French taxpayer will contribute $66 million this year to the cost of Air France's champagne-and-caviar service linking Paris with New York, Washington, Caracas and Rio de Janeiro. In 1982, when losses are expected to decline slightly, the subsidy will be about $64 million, and in 1983, $59 million.”
- wat10000 1y agoRevenue exceeding ongoing costs after writing off development costs is not very fancy accounting.
- lazide 1y agoIt wasn’t just dev costs.
- epicureanideal 1y agoIn my opinion, there are worse ways for governments to subsidize aerospace and materials research and development, improve the connectivity between nations, generate national prestige, give people optimism for the future, and so on. 2 billion doesn't sound like a lot. It's a drop in the bucket compared to US military expenditures. If California High Speed Rail loses a little bit of money, I won't be too upset by it. Unfortunately the up front costs are much higher, but at the same time, massive, massive infrastructure development is happening in California all along the length of the state, and the government is acquiring the rights to develop public transportation both now and into the future on that land. Again, there are worse ways to spend the money in my opinion.
- lukan 1y agoI am not sure if there are much worse ways, as this here means normal people subsidizing rich peoples luxory fast flights. Bad for climate. Bad for the people below enjoying the noise. Bad for all the other things you could do with 2 billion. (A lot) Only good for people who want jetting quickly around the World. And it is good for material research, but that's the same argument for military development.
- robertlagrant 1y agoBear in mind those are 1981 dollars.
- sidewndr46 1y agoYes, the worse way is to just jail all the engineers and have them work while in the Gulag.