Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: To shoot for the moon?

  1. #1
    Senior Member hiss srq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Around here and near there.
    Posts
    5,565

    To shoot for the moon?

    So I was looking at a photograph tonight a member of this site took recently. This photo was of an airplane to be specific. While in the general scheme of things this is a pretty normal event that occurs a thousand times a day for me it got me to thinking a bit. This particular airplane was a Boeing KC135 Tanker which is the military variation of the Boeing 707 commercial airliner. The particular airplane in the photograph was a 52 year old example of this model of airplane. This airplane is currently serving in the Turkish Air Force as one of their most fore front support aircraft assisting all other capible aircraft many 3 or more times younger than it in the defense of Turkey the US and every other nation using the type. It is very clearly visible just how much "plastic surgery" has been done on this airplane to bring it to the current acceptable standard for operation. This is fine and dandy I guess...... But than the question of age again comes back up. 52 years old. This airplane design was the fore father of every other commercial airliner in service to one extent or another. It was designed about 60 years ago and first flew in the mid late 50's. The point I am getting to is that if you compare this airplane to say a Boeing 777 or an Airbus A330 or even an Embraer 145 for argument sake in reality there is not very much difference. On the small side of things there are plenty of obvious diffrences, EFIS, fly by wire, newer more fuel efficent and quiet engines, carbon fibre and alloy are the bones of newer planes but they still do the exact same thing the exact same way at pretty much the same speeds and altitudes that the 707/KC135 5 plus decades earlier did. This certainly speaks to the daring of engineers with a slide ruler and a calculator who designed this airplane soo many years ago and their sheer talent for such ventures. But........ At the same time, it also speaks I think to our lazyness as people in this time when technology in every other sector except for maybe cranes and paperclips has advanced at an exponetially higher rate around us. Why is it that we have lost our want to advance? In a time when we do have the technology and knowladge to be able to travel from say new York to Sydney in about 3 hours and 80,000 feet in altitude are we still spending 26 hours to do the trip with one and sometimes two stops at 40,000 feet or less? Why is it that we spend soo much money making airplanes that can fly 500 feet overhead and nearly be unheard when we could have spent the money to build one that can go to 80,000 feet, being totally unheard, save airspace, save fuel and save time? Am I making sense? Why are we lacking? Why in half a century are we nearly where we were at the beginning of that time frame? I think it speaks to a lack of imagination frankly. We have lost our can do spirit as a society. Your opinions are welcome.
    Southwest Airlines-"Once it pop's it's time to stop" Southwest Airlines-"Our Shamu's are almost real" Southwest Airlines -"We blow our top real easy" Southwest Airlines- "You can't top us..... really"

  2. #2
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,470

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    I don't think we're lacking. I don't think we're failing. The United States is still at the forefront of technology, and everything we're creating, where we currently stand, is on-point with what the demand for the world environment I today.

    The KC's are used, especially second-hand, because it saves money and quite simply....can still be used. Why by brand new plane for something.

    As for 80,000ft and 3 hours...there's no demand for it. The technology would be too expensive. It's just unnecessary.

    Which technology do you think has "advanced at an exponetially higher rate"? The only things I can think of are communication, information and navigation, all of which are fully up-to-speed with aviation, not to mention it's the military sector that created most of it...those who you seem to say are slacking.
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  3. #3
    Senior Member Idlewild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    386

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    I'm with Hiss. Composites,efficient engines and LCD's are all fine. We're still only going 500 + mph. What the commercial aviation industry needs is a HST with eco-friendly engines, an acceptable carrying load and economical operating expenses. It's almost 2010. The very basics of a HSP airliner should have been built in 1990. Around eight years after Reagan initiated the cancelled program.
    Spotters have been Homeland Security before HS was a glimmer in the president's eye.

  4. #4
    Senior Member moose135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    8,067

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Idlewild
    What the commercial aviation industry needs is a HST with eco-friendly engines, an acceptable carrying load and economical operating expenses.
    How does the saying go: Fast, Good, or Cheap - pick two...

  5. #5
    Senior Member hiss srq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Around here and near there.
    Posts
    5,565

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil D.

    Which technology do you think has "advanced at an exponetially higher rate"? The only things I can think of are communication, information and navigation, all of which are fully up-to-speed with aviation, not to mention it's the military sector that created most of it...those who you seem to say are slacking.
    Phil,
    These advances may be a result in part of aviation and more so war and other reasons but at the same time if you take all of these technologies and seperate them into their basic industries with the computer for example. 20 years ago having a computer was like flying on the Concorde, only a few had the privladge to experince it. Now, 20 years later everyone has a computer it seems and the computers are millions of times more capible than they were 20 years ago. Commercial air travel on the other hand is pretty much the same as it was though 20 years ago. Sure you can shot a CATIIIB approach totally hands off to 20 feet now and see the runway through fog on a G550 but we still spend 10 hours going to Italy. We just make less noise and there are a few asthetic bells and whistles to keep you entertained on the way. see my point?
    Southwest Airlines-"Once it pop's it's time to stop" Southwest Airlines-"Our Shamu's are almost real" Southwest Airlines -"We blow our top real easy" Southwest Airlines- "You can't top us..... really"

  6. #6
    Senior Member lijk604's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    4 air miles SE of ISP.
    Posts
    4,143

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Ryan, while I can agree with you to a point, I think Moose's short and sweet response said it the best. We have the ability to make something Mach 2, we have the ability to make something that flies at 80,000ft. The problem is the costs associated in making that dream come true, and what the "cash strapped" airlines are willing to pay for. I'm sure given unlimited resources Boeing, Airbus, heck, even Embraer could come up with a great design, and and workable model, the problem is it would cost so much, no one would buy it. So, they stickto what we all know, make minor advancements (composites, better efficiency, quieter aircraft) and can keep the costs managable to those who would buy it.

    Remeber just because 1 or 2 individuals may be willing to spend whatever it takes to get the aircraft of their dreams, the manufacturers need to sell a certain amount of that type to break even or they just wouldnt build it. Case in point, the A380...the largest pax aircraft around right now. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think Airbus said they needed to sell 240 of them to break even on the project. Airbus went ahead with the build because at the time, they forecasted some 400+ would be ordered and sold due to global demand. Well, during the build process economies got tight, and we all know what happened in 2008 to the financial sectors of the world. I think Airbus is still far short of the 240 orders needed to turn a profit on this project, and honestly if it wasn't for the EU subsidies to Airbus, they probably would be on the brink of collapse right now.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Omaha/Offutt AFB, NE
    Posts
    190

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by moose135
    How does the saying go: Fast, Good, or Cheap - pick two...
    Well said, Moose... It's not so much a matter of not having the technology or technical know how, as it is a matter of practicality. At what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in? At what point do we (individuals, groups or corporate entities) draw the line between convenience and practicality/fiscal sensibility? As a customer who's made several long hauls (Eg: ICN-JFK-ICN/ ICN-ATL-ICN/ XJD-BUD-FRA-BWI) in the last 5 years, would I prefer an aircraft that could cut JFK-ICN from 14 hrs down to 10? Absolutely! Would I be willing to pay several thousand for that convenience? Unfortunately, no... And for the most part, your average traveler, weather on leisure, business or government orders isn't going to pay that price either.

    While the technology and know how to build aircraft like these has existed for decades now, as others have mentioned, the cost to develop and operate such high performance aircraft on regular long haul trunk routes would be prohibitively expensive. Among several other factors (politics included), these were two overarching factors that caused Boeing to scrap their SST in the late '60s. While the Concorde did make it to service, note that the total production run was right about 20 frames, of which only 13 ever saw scheduled service with BA and AF. BAC and Aerospatiale encountered the same issues as Boeing, and yet forged ahead with an aircraft that saw limited service and commanded an unrealistically high fare premium for regular service... Which in the long run, proved unsustainable to both airlines.

    I do agree that we must continue to forge ahead with technological improvements in the aviation sector, particularly in researching a way to increase cruise speed while improving fuel burn as well as passenger comfort... But supersonic travel? Unfortunately I think this ship has seen its day come and go- it's just not fiscally sensible or physically practical...
    "Never ask an Irishman if he wants another drink... He'll only ask "Why wouldn't I?" in return..." -Lewis Black

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Romford, Essex - UK
    Posts
    354

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    In a time when we do have the technology and knowladge to be able to travel from say new York to Sydney in about 3 hours and 80,000 feet in altitude are we still spending 26 hours to do the trip with one and sometimes two stops at 40,000 feet or less? ........... I think it speaks to a lack of imagination frankly. We have lost our can do spirit as a society. Your opinions are welcome.
    I fully agree we have the know how to build a 300 seat son of Concorde now, Boeing where going to make the Sonic cruiser which would flown close to mach 1 with 300 people and it still would have been faster than any other subsonic plane.

    But in all these cases due to tree huggers and bean counters they keep on stopping SSTs and pre-SSTs by using what ever logical excuse they can get their hands on.

    If they had their way the 707, DC8 and 747 would have never happened as at the time these planes where also very expensive to build, their plane tickets where very expensive and only rich people could afford to fly on them, but these planes still happened and people did buy expensive plane tickets.

    Same can be applied now to airlines having 1st and business class on the same plane as economies class.

    Demand is down to marketing things right, look at how BA made a profit on Concorde and AF made a loss yet they both flew Europe to JFK.

    BA had a great marketing team for Concorde, AF didn't.

    While the Concorde did make it to service, note that the total production run was right about 20 frames, of which only 13 ever saw scheduled service with BA and AF.
    It was 14 production Concordes (7 each for BA and AF) and 6 pre production + test ones.

    BAC and Aerospatiale encountered the same issues as Boeing, and yet forged ahead with an aircraft that saw limited service and commanded an unrealistically high fare premium for regular service...
    No they didn't.

    How much do you think a BA Concorde ticket was ?

    It was only 20% more than 1st class ticket on 747, so any one who could afford 1st class could easily afford 20% more for Concorde to get to point B in half the time of 747.

    Concorde was designed to fly Europe to JFK, but before 2000 paris crash it also did a lot of a round the world charter flights and proved it could go any where round the world faster than any subsonic plane.

    Which in the long run, proved unsustainable to both airlines.
    No it wasn't.

    What do you call a long run, 5 miles down the road ?

    Isn't 27 years a long run ?

    In winter 2002 BA had a lot of advanced paid for tickets for their winter 2003 Heathrow - Barbados flights. So demand for BA Concorde was always there, Winter 2002 - Spring 2003 they invested £80 million ($132 million US dollars) on spare parts and service contracts for Concorde to make it through winter 2003.

    In 2004 etc they would have done the same thing, they had solid plans in place to uprate the cabins so they reflected 2003 and not 1993.

    They had all this money invested in Concorde, if there was no demand and no profit they would not have invested so much money in Concorde.

    On every BA flight it either broke even or made a clear profit so demand was there.

    They would have brought back in to service G-BOAB so 6 BA Concordes would have been flying.

    They had plans to keep Concorde flying until 2015 and beyond thats how confident BA where in Concorde.

    So believe me for BA Concorde made money.

    In the 1970's a lot of other airlines had options to buy Concorde but as soon 1970s middle east war happened they all got scared off by listening to their bean counters and ran away.

    But in the 1980s and 1990s it was well known that these airline bosses envied BA and AF for having Concorde and some airlines became allies with BA so their passengers could upgrade to Concorde if they wanted.

    This was well known about.

    Concorde was a huge marketing tool for BA.

    Only reason Concorde was grounded was due to AF pulling out as it made a loss on their flights due to bad marketting, after this Airbus would not let any one else fly Concorde.

    They put huge financial pressure on BA, BA thus had to in effect pay for AF + BA Concorde parts and service contracts which only BA would use.

    BA could not afford it.

    After this BA also had to scrap / write off £80 million ($132 million US dollars) on spare parts and service contracts BA had already paid to make Concorde through winter 2003 - spring 2004 + they had to refund pre paid Concorde tickets for Winter 2003 so BA made a huge loss on Concorde being scrapped.

    If Airbus had let branson or other airlines to fly Concorde, the financial pressure on BA would have been halfed so BA could have still flown Concorde at a profit.

    The American Concorde never got off the ground because the US government of the time chose Boeing who had no SST experience in making the USA Concorde.

    If they had chosen Lockheed who made the SR71a and F104 the USA would have had its own Concorde, we all know how good and popular American planes are so by now the world would been dominated by a 2009 version of Lockheeds Concorde.

    But US government of the 1960s - early 1970s chose Boeing instead of Lockheed.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Omaha/Offutt AFB, NE
    Posts
    190

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetinder
    It was 14 production Concordes (7 each for BA and AF) and 6 pre production + test ones.
    I stand corrected in the details, nevertheless, a VERY small production run...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetinder
    No they didn't. How much do you think a BA Concorde ticket was?
    Not my point here... My comments were in response to Hiss' train of thought as to why we don't have an aircraft with SST or transsonic speeds for general day to day use on the major trunk routes... While Concorde was affordable to those with the coin to spend, it wasn't to the average international passenger looking to get from A to B. The aircraft was expensive to develop, operate and maintain. There's no question about that. Given those three factors, each seat on the aircraft commanded a premium fare, which for the average traveler is unrealistically high. Was it successful in its niche, yes... But as a multi- frequency per day long haul trunkliner? Not a chance, even trans Atlantic...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetinder
    Concorde was designed to fly Europe to JFK, but before 2000 paris crash it also did a lot of a round the world charter flights and proved it could go any where round the world faster than any subsonic plane.
    No argument there... It's performance was eye watering!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetinder
    No it wasn't. What do you call a long run, 5 miles down the road ? Isn't 27 years a long run ?
    27 is long, but others have easily outlasted it... Check the 737, 747 and DC-9 families for no kidding longevity. All three right in the 35-40 year (round numbers) service bracket on main day to day routes. Think of it this way, if the SST was so successful, why wasn't it on multiple frequencies (ie: 3+ flights) LHR-JFK or CDG-JFK- as examples- per day? Simple, it wasn't in demand. Were first class seats in demand? Sure, but by your info, it was clear that more travelers bought tickets in standard first class, or in economy. In doing so, those passengers demonstrated a price sensitivity that drove the carriers' to schedule higher capacity aircraft as opposed to Concorde. In the long run, it made operating Concorde unfeasible. High costs, high prices, low demand. It was un-sustainable formula. Pure and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetinder
    Winter 2002 - Spring 2003 they invested £80 million ($132 million US dollars) on spare parts and service contracts for Concorde to make it through winter 2003. In 2004 etc they would have done the same thing, they had solid plans in place to uprate the cabins so they reflected 2003 and not 1993.They had all this money invested in Concorde, if there was no demand and no profit they would not have invested so much money in Concorde.
    Any sensibly run business spends money to keep its equipment and property in top form... While I don't debate you on BA's expenditures to do just that, bear in mind here that the $132 million cost is being recouped across only 7 airframes. This expenditure would have been aproved against forecast loads/trip revenues (not always accurate numbers) and would have been broken down and passed along to the passengers as increased fares and in some cases, potentially reduced service. Take that expenditure against a fleet of 30 747's each with 350+ seats (for example) and it becomes a less and less noticeable financial burden to your average traveler.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetinder
    In the 1970's a lot of other airlines had options to buy Concorde but as soon 1970s middle east war happened they all got scared off by listening to their bean counters and ran away.
    Exactly. The aircraft proved unfeasible and inefficient to operate in the same way as a 747, DC-10 or (later) a 767 over long haul routes. The airlines didn't have or anticipate enough demand to fill ~100 first class seats, whereas they did have the demand to fill roughly 30 FC seats, along with 250 (or more) economy seats on many routes. The numbers just didn't work, and it would have been folly to try to force the situation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetinder
    Only reason Concorde was grounded was due to AF pulling out as it made a loss on their flights due to bad marketting, after this Airbus would not let any one else fly Concorde.
    Agreed... Airbus did give BA the shaft on this one, and it was particularly disappointing from an enthusiast's standpoint...


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetinder
    The American Concorde never got off the ground because the US government of the time chose Boeing who had no SST experience in making the USA Concorde. If they had chosen Lockheed who made the SR71a and F104 the USA would have had its own Concorde...
    Flows directly to my earlier statement about politics... The Johnson Administration played its games, as per usual at the time. Boeing got the nod in 1966... This inexperience in turn led to high development costs and (as a result) high projected operating costs, along with a protracted development cycle and a later than targeted entry into service. Nixon cut it off in '71. Even if the aircraft had made it to service, the complexity of the aircraft (swing wings, triple hinged nose, new engines and a host of other items) still would have generated a high ownership cost which likely would have resulted in higher fares for passengers booking seats on 2707- served routes. I shudder to think what Lockheed would have produced. The maintenance headaches likely would have made the C-5 seem reliable! :mrgreen:

    I don't doubt your Concorde knowledge- I'm rather impressed- but I used the example as a means to illustrate the point that an SST type aircraft isn't what's wanted or needed, and isn't sustainable in service in the modern airline world. If the airlines can put sufficient butts in seats on a 777 to meet FC, Biz and Economy demands on a given route, X times per day, and that airframe either maximizes efficiency or is a reasonable compromise, then why spend the extra $$ on an airplane than costs more (on multiple levels), probably carries less, commands a higher sector fare as a result and could easily drive down demand on that route? Just doesn't make good business sense!
    "Never ask an Irishman if he wants another drink... He'll only ask "Why wouldn't I?" in return..." -Lewis Black

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Romford, Essex - UK
    Posts
    354

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hussman75
    I stand corrected in the details, nevertheless, a VERY small production run...
    It was only a small run because short sighted bean counters forced their airlines to do this. Just like sighted bean counters forced the UK government of the 1960s to scrap the British Space Program.

    But now Russia, France and USA all make money from space rockets, Britain could have done the same but our government listened to bean counters.

    Given those three factors, each seat on the aircraft commanded a premium fare, which for the average traveler is unrealistically high. Was it successful in its niche, yes... But as a multi- frequency per day long haul trunkliner? Not a chance, even trans Atlantic...
    Sorry have to disagree.

    BA and AF pushed the seat price of Concorde up as they didn’t want normal people to fly on her. They only wanted VIPs, pop stars, yuppies, businessmen, bankers and rich people to fly on Concorde so the high seat price pushed the seats out of the range of normal people.

    If more Concordes had been made and ticket prices had been set lower then being a multi- frequency per day long haul trunk liner would have been normal for it.

    Concorde was never designed to be a one off design, just like the 707, DC8 and 747 where not designed to be one offs. All these planes where developed and evolved from the original to what they are and where very successful.

    Same would have happened to Concorde, in the later half of 1970s Concorde B was being designed which would have been bigger, longer range and carried more people.

    But our short sighted government scrapped it and we lost a world beating SST.

    If Concorde B had been allowed to develop and evolve by now we would have had 300 seat Concorde B capable of flying LA to Tokyo or LHR to LA in one jump at mach 2.

    Technically nothing was stopping us.

    it wasn't to the average international passenger looking to get from A to B.
    It would have been if BA had dropped its prices while still making a profit.

    The aircraft was expensive to develop
    It was very expensive to develop but you need to understand why.


    Unlike the 707 and other subsonics which already had general data on how they would behave at x speed, at x height and with x passengers there was no similar data on Concorde.

    Concorde had to fly as fast an F14 but had to carry 100 people + crew in normal clothes and land at normal airports. The passengers didn’t need to know how to fly Concorde or the dangers of mach 2 flight or g-forces at 60,000 ft.

    Concorde had be as safe and as reliable as a normal car to be used every day for 30 years or more.

    That was a very tall spec and no hard data (in civil aviation) existed on this, nothing existed like this. No one knew how a huge delta wing would behave carrying 100 people, there where so many unknowns.

    Airbus had to find out and develop all these things as they went a long.

    Due to her speed and altitude Concorde was also tested more than any other airliner in history, Concorde developed cutting edge technology never used before all this cost huge sums of money hence why the development costs where so high. That data still exists and forms a base on which future SSTs can be built at bit less cost as you don’t need to re-invent the wheel.

    But the cost of design, development of Concorde, the design for every thing including 14 production Concordes was still a lot less than the wooden model Boeing gave the US tax payer.

    operate and maintain. There's no question about that.
    No it wasn’t, if it was that expensive then BA (being a PLC) would have grounded Concorde in the 1980s.

    No argument there... It's performance was eye watering!
    Not when you flew on it as you never felt the speed, you never felt breaking the sound barrier, you never felt mach 1 or mach 2.

    You just looked at the clock and where then told you’ve arrived at JFK and that was it.

    You only ever saw this raw power if you saw her on take off as nothing could beat a Concorde take off, it was spectacular.

    However next time you flew to New York on a subsonic, 3 ½ hrs after take off your body expected to be in JFK, but when your mind knew you still had another 4 hrs stuck on a 747 that’s when Concorde’s speed hit you and you realised what Concorde was.

    27 is long, but others have easily outlasted it... Check the 737, 747 and DC-9 families for no kidding longevity. All three right in the 35-40 year (round numbers) service bracket on main day to day routes.
    Concorde would have done the same as BA had real plans to extend her life to 2015 and beyond, I think round 1998-2000 BA’s CEO said this on UK tv.

    But when Air France and Airbus pulled the plug, when Airbus and Air France refused to let any one else take over Air France Concordes BA had where forced in to some thing they didn’t want.

    Same principle can be applied to any other airliner.

    Think of it this way, if the SST was so successful, why wasn't it on multiple frequencies (ie: 3+ flights) LHR-JFK or CDG-JFK- as examples- per day?
    Until the Paris crash for BA it was.

    For 27 years and especially after the 1980s (when BA started making real money from Concorde) they proved demand was there and to meet demand they had 4 Concorde flights per day, every day from LHR to JFK, JFK to LHR.

    With remaining 2 as backups for each flight, if one being used had failed the backup Concorde would have been used and last Concorde was used on charter flights or was being serviced.

    If BA could have got their hands on more Concordes, they would have and would have had more flights per day, the sky was the limit.

    You can use the same principle to any airline and any type of plane.

    Air France never marketed their Concorde’s correctly, so they lost out big time and I feel only kept theirs flying for national pride.


    In the long run, it made operating Concorde unfeasible. High costs, high prices, low demand. It was un-sustainable formula. Pure and simple.
    LOL.

    No it didn’t demand was normal to high as BA broke even or made money on every Concorde flight.

    Until Concorde was forced out of service by Airbus and Air France the formula was sustainable as over 20 years of service proved it was sustainable in the long run.

    Simple, it wasn't in demand. Were first class seats in demand? Sure, but by your info, it was clear that more travellers bought tickets in standard first class, or in economy.
    Most 1st class travellers didn’t know a Concorde ticket was only 20 % more than 1st class (as BA never told them), they thought Concorde ticket was 2-3 times price of 1st class when it wasn’t.

    drove the carriers' to schedule higher capacity aircraft as opposed to Concorde.
    They only did that as they didn’t have Concorde so they had to offer some thing different and bit cheaper, but this didn’t kill Concorde, it just made Concorde even more desirable and she still made loadsa money for BA.

    Any sensibly run business spends money to keep its equipment and property in top form... While I don't debate you on BA's expenditures to do just that, bear in mind here that the $132 million cost is being recouped across only 7 airframes. This expenditure would have been approved against forecast loads/trip revenues (not always accurate numbers) and would have been broken down and passed along to the passengers as increased fares and in some cases, potentially reduced service.

    Take that expenditure against a fleet of 30 747's each with 350+ seats (for example) and it becomes a less and less noticeable financial burden to your average traveller. .
    Not really writing off / scrapping $132 million on goods and service pre paid for but not used was still a huge loss, waste of time, money and resources for BA.

    Imagine if you bought a new car, spent huge sums on pre-paying for parts and servicing in the future but where suddenly forced to scrap the car and you could not get refund on these pre paid things, you’d make a huge loss and I bet you’d be cheesed off.

    Same principle applied to BA and as I said before I feel Airbus forced BA to do this.

    Exactly. The aircraft proved unfeasible and inefficient to operate in the same way as a 747, DC-10 or (later) a 767 over long haul routes.
    No it didn’t, Until 2000 Paris crash every xmas Concorde even flew to Lapland on the father xmas flights with young kids and families.

    For 27 years the plane was feasible and for the speed it flew 0 – 1350 mph Concorde was more efficient than 747, DC-10 or (later) a 767 over long haul routes and over the same speed range.

    For short haul routes (LHR to Paris, LHR to Scotland, LHR to Ireland or LHR to main land Europe) Concorde could not fly economically as her airframe and engines where never designed to do this, where as A380, 747, DC-10 or (later) a 767 can fly short haul routes extremely easily.

    Concorde was purely designed to fly intercontinental routes (UK / France to America, UK / France to Canada, UK/France to Caribbean islands, France to South America) at mach 2 as that’s where her airframe design and engines showed what she could do and boy she did it as nothing could touch her.

    The airlines didn't have or anticipate enough demand to fill ~100 first class seats, whereas they did have the demand to fill roughly 30 FC seats, along with 250 (or more) economy seats on many routes. The numbers just didn't work, and it would have been folly to try to force the situation...
    That’s wrong, leaving a side a few hundred $s business class and 1st class on a 747 are around 100 seats, the same seats which until 2000 Paris crash filled Concorde.

    Until 2000 Paris crash Concorde and 1st class, Business and Economy on 747 existed extremely happily together as demand for both was there.

    Like I said on every Concorde BA either broke even or made money, if in the mid 1990s BA had not got greedy and pushed up the price their Concorde tickets demand would have out stripped supply.

    The 737 was never designed to 100% economy class, it was designed as a mixture but Ryan Air (a huge budget airline in Europe) sells tickets dirt cheap and almost every flight is full.

    Ryan air proved they could make money by selling dirt cheap 737 tickets instead selling very expensive 737 tickets.

    If the same business model had been used on Concorde believe me there would have been huge punch ups as business men and people fought to fly on Concorde.

    Even if a Ryan Air Concorde ticket had been sold for around £1000 one way it still would have been cheaper than business class on 747, more people would have flown on Concorde than any other plane.

    The demand for an SST is there for the taking.

    Agreed... Airbus did give BA the shaft on this one, and it was particularly disappointing from an enthusiast's standpoint...
    In Nov 2003 Mike Bannister - Chief BA Concorde pilot did a lecture on Concorde, he said a huge lot of people who used Concorde regularly where extremely upset at her demise as now their journey times for LHR – JFK where increased to 3 days instead of 3 ½ hrs.

    1 business day = 7 hrs excluding 1 hr lunch

    So it took 1 business day to fly from LHR to JFK, 1 day to do business and roughly 1 business day to get home = 3 days (72 hrs).

    With the added cost of hotel rooms I guess the total cost of the business flight was more than a Concorde flight and all this adds up.

    Even now in the days of webcams, seeing each other face to face in real life is lot more important that talking to each via a tv screen.

    Concorde filled this basic human need.

    Flows directly to my earlier statement about politics... The Johnson Administration played its games, as per usual at the time. Boeing got the nod in 1966... This inexperience in turn led to high development costs and (as a result) high projected operating costs, along with a protracted development cycle and a later than targeted entry into service. Nixon cut it off in '71.

    Even if the aircraft had made it to service, the complexity of the aircraft (swing wings, triple hinged nose, new engines and a host of other items) still would have generated a high ownership cost which likely would have resulted in higher fares for passengers booking seats on 2707- served routes.
    True and that’s where Boeing fell down and Europe (France, UK, USSR) succeeded as the designs for their SSTs where much simpler.

    When Boeing realised their mistake and made their design simpler but it was to late and USA Concorde was scrapped.

    I shudder to think what Lockheed would have produced. The maintenance headaches likely would have made the C-5 seem reliable! :mrgreen:
    Why ?

    The F104 was a brilliant fighter which was sold to countless air forces, Nasa used it a lot to set world speed records, the SR71 is still the fastest long range air breathing plane ever made, its a true legend.

    Due to the F104 and SR71 Lockheed had the experience and know how to make an a USA SST which would have been as simple as Concorde in design and maintenance costs as for an SST.

    I am extremely confident they would have succeeded.

    I don't doubt your Concorde knowledge- I'm rather impressed-
    Thanks ?

    Its been a labour of love and over 27 years you get to know most things.

    but I used the example as a means to illustrate the point that an SST type aircraft isn't what's wanted or needed, and isn't sustainable in service in the modern airline world.
    Sorry have to disagree, when the 707, DC8 and BAC Comet came seats on all those planes where probably equal to the price of Concorde seats v 747 seats in 2003.

    But people still flew on those planes as lots of them had been made, over time using economies of scale the seat prices gradually came down to more realistic level.

    Same can be done for any SST. If lots of Concordes had been made over time using economies of scale the seat prices gradually would have came down to more realistic level with out charging huge prices.

    If the airlines can put sufficient butts in seats on a 777 to meet FC, Biz and Economy demands on a given route, X times per day, and that airframe either maximizes efficiency or is a reasonable compromise, then why spend the extra $$ on an airplane than costs more (on multiple levels), probably carries less, commands a higher sector fare as a result and could easily drive down demand on that route? Just doesn't make good business sense
    Unlike Air France which is mainly state owned ,in 1980s BA was privatised and became a real business.

    For 27 years and especially after the 1980s when BA started making real money from Concorde they proved demand was there and to meet demand they had 4 Concorde flights per day, every day from LHR to JFK, JFK to LHR.

    With remaining 2 as backups for each flight and last one was used on charter flights or was being serviced.

    If BA could have got their hands on more Concordes, more flights per day would have happened each way, the sky was the limit.

    When public found out how much they could do in one day, they jumped on Concorde like Homer Simpson jumps on donuts. Its all about saving time and getting from A to B in the fastest possible time.

    Why be stuck on a plane for 7 hrs when you can fly the same distance in half the time ?

    People will pay more to get from A to B faster than before.

    If people didn’t care about getting fast from A to B then there was no reason to make 707, you could have still used propeller planes like the constellation to fly the same route.

    Or you could have used ships as before planes each ship carried hundreds/thousands of people to get from A to B.

  11. #11
    Senior Member moose135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    8,067

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetinder
    No it didn’t demand was normal to high as BA broke even or made money on every Concorde flight.
    They made money on every flight - but at a premium over First Class prices, and at a price level that the average flyer couldn't approach.

    Most 1st class travellers didn’t know a Concorde ticket was only 20 % more than 1st class (as BA never told them), they thought Concorde ticket was 2-3 times price of 1st class when it wasn’t.
    I knew how much a ticket on Concorde cost - back in college (late '70s) a couple of buddies and I always talked about flying her, and we checked on the prices. If the cost was available to some college kids, I'm sure someone actually booking a ticket on BA could have found out the price.

    For 27 years the plane was feasible and for the speed it flew 0 – 1350 mph Concorde was more efficient than 747, DC-10 or (later) a 767 over long haul routes and over the same speed range.
    That's not true...

    Someone else did the math, but here is the gallons per passenger for a London to New York flight:

    Boeing 747-100: 57.7
    McD DC-10-3: 74.5
    Concorde:157.6

    Concorde was much less efficient on a per passenger basis. You'll argue that Concorde makes the trip much faster, and you're correct, but you pay a premium for that speed.
    It's like they say in auto racing: "Speed = money. How fast do you want to go?"

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Omaha/Offutt AFB, NE
    Posts
    190

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by moose135
    For 27 years the plane was feasible and for the speed it flew 0 – 1350 mph Concorde was more efficient than 747, DC-10 or (later) a 767 over long haul routes and over the same speed range.
    That's not true...

    Someone else did the math, but here is the gallons per passenger for a London to New York flight:

    Boeing 747-100: 57.7
    McD DC-10-3: 74.5
    Concorde:157.6

    Concorde was much less efficient on a per passenger basis. You'll argue that Concorde makes the trip much faster, and you're correct, but you pay a premium for that speed.

    It's like they say in auto racing: "Speed = money. How fast do you want to go?"
    Well put, Moose... Says everything in a nutshell. Couldn't say it more succinctly myself!
    "Never ask an Irishman if he wants another drink... He'll only ask "Why wouldn't I?" in return..." -Lewis Black

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    8,285

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Well put, Moose... Says everything in a nutshell. Couldn't say it more succinctly myself!
    Doesn't really matter, Jetinder will comeback and say its not true and come up with how the Concorde if still around would have cured cancer.

    Jetinder will you drop the Concorde BS already.... Really your auguring a useless point, the plane is gone and will never fly again, simple as that. 9 out of 10 posts with you is something about Concorde. Being passionate about something is fine but at some point you lose credibility. Like with this statement.

    That’s wrong, leaving a side a few hundred $s business class and 1st class on a 747 are around 100 seats, the same seats which until 2000 Paris crash filled Concorde.
    No 747 flying in 2000 had anywhere close to 100 F class seats. Even todays 747s do not have near 100 F or J seats, minus perhaps LH, but that's it. You're also trying to lump two classes of service together to compare it to a plane that had only once class. Your statement is flawed and shows how in these posts you twist things to get your point across, your reaching for straws and people know it.

    Economics 101 goes over consumer Demand...there is no demand for high speed air travel, if there was we'd have it, its that simple.

  14. #14
    Senior Member NIKV69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    IFP, ISP, JFK, IGM, SAN, VCV, LGA, LAX, SEE, LAS
    Posts
    4,258

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Guys I am quite surprised this thread has reached this point. Trust me I am expert at useless banter back and forth but the Concorde will never come back. It cost too much, was too loud and just doesn't fit into the current times economy or landscape for passenger transport in the sky. Was it a great aircraft? Sure it was, before its time too but with fuel prices they way they are and the fact even filling it with people paying 12-16k round trip wouldn't break even is just the plain truth. It is where it belongs on display for people to see. Maybe if we can achieve world peace and succeed with alternate energy to the point where a barrel of oil costs 20 bucks the Concorde can make a comeback but for now the point is past moot.
    'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Omaha/Offutt AFB, NE
    Posts
    190

    Re: To shoot for the moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Bird76
    Doesn't really matter, Jetinder will comeback and says its not true and come up with how the Concorde if still around would have cured cancer.
    Yep... Picked up on that pretty quick! No point in continuing, as it was beginning to feel like a dog chasing its tail- endlessly... So, I'm off to edit some more pics and sip a beer or three!
    "Never ask an Irishman if he wants another drink... He'll only ask "Why wouldn't I?" in return..." -Lewis Black

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •