4 ms·

People are willing to pay for supersonic flight. Concorde made a profit on most of it's flights, and it was only after the World Trade Center attacks and subseq

People are willing to pay for supersonic flight. Concorde made a profit on most of it's flights, and it was only after the World Trade Center attacks and subsequent downturn in international commercial flight that it became a problem. Also, because not many Concordes were made, the R&D costs were never properly amortized. The sonic boom however is an issue - Concorde was limited to a small selection of routes that passed mainly over water (e.g. London -> New York) because it was not allowed to go supersonic over a lot of countries. If you could fly supersonic all the way from London to Tokyo, or San Fransisco, or Sydney, then I'm sure it would be worth even more.

frozenport 14y ago
I think 9/11 was coincidental and unrelated. The important trend in 2001+ was the growth of telecommunications phenomena that reduced travel demand. I am not sure if the sonic boom was nearly as big a problem as it was made out to be. I think we can do some cursory math. If 30% was at 50% of the speed, the total distance covered would be 85% less, adding about 20% flight time increase. Something that normally takes 8+ hours now take 3 or 4 hours. Did this kill the concord?
- justincormack 14y ago
  It was very reliant on dotcom and banking transit between London and NY. The sitcom bust killed a lot of that.
- geori 14y ago
  Airline stocks went down almost 40% the next day. Yes, the economy went down because of other factors, but the immediate hit to airlines was definitely caused by 9/11.
Someone 14y ago
Wikipedia disagrees about the profits on "most of its flights". It says "it is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit, unlike their French counterpart". That is half the fleet for slightly over half the years of operation. The linked-to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2935337 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2935337 says: "British Airways […] was reckoned to make a £20m annual operating profit from its London-New York Concorde service." But also: "By 1975, the year before commercial launch, more than £1.2bn - at least £11bn today - had been spent." So, their margin on investment was 1.6% or so, starting about ten years after the investments were made. They would have needed a lot more planes to get their investments back. To fill them with passengers, fares would have to drop. Lower fares means they needed even more planes, etc. Concorde also was limited to long distance flights. On shorter routes, its fuel economy did not compensate for a slightly shorter (boarding+flight+deboarding) time.

frozenport 14y ago

I think 9/11 was coincidental and unrelated. The important trend in 2001+ was the growth of telecommunications phenomena that reduced travel demand. I am not sure if the sonic boom was nearly as big a problem as it was made out to be. I think we can do some cursory math. If 30% was at 50% of the speed, the total distance covered would be 85% less, adding about 20% flight time increase. Something that normally takes 8+ hours now take 3 or 4 hours. Did this kill the concord?

justincormack 14y ago
It was very reliant on dotcom and banking transit between London and NY. The sitcom bust killed a lot of that.
geori 14y ago
Airline stocks went down almost 40% the next day. Yes, the economy went down because of other factors, but the immediate hit to airlines was definitely caused by 9/11.

Someone 14y ago

Wikipedia disagrees about the profits on "most of its flights". It says "it is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit, unlike their French counterpart". That is half the fleet for slightly over half the years of operation. The linked-to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2935337 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2935337 says: "British Airways […] was reckoned to make a £20m annual operating profit from its London-New York Concorde service." But also: "By 1975, the year before commercial launch, more than £1.2bn - at least £11bn today - had been spent." So, their margin on investment was 1.6% or so, starting about ten years after the investments were made. They would have needed a lot more planes to get their investments back. To fill them with passengers, fares would have to drop. Lower fares means they needed even more planes, etc. Concorde also was limited to long distance flights. On shorter routes, its fuel economy did not compensate for a slightly shorter (boarding+flight+deboarding) time.