Concorde

joegriffinjnr

Hi all, when British Airways were withdrawing Concorde from service, Virgin boss Richard Branson offered 1 million a pop to buy the five of them. As we all know British Airways declined. Do you think Virgin should of been giving a chance to operate these birds? Do you think they would be still flying today on a commercial basis with virgin? What routes would Virgin have used them on?

joegriffinjnr

joegriffinjnr wrote: »

Hi all, when British Airways were withdrawing Concorde from service, Virgin boss Richard Branson offered 1 million a pop to buy the five of them. As we all know British Airways declined. Do you think Virgin should of been giving a chance to operate these birds? Do you think they would be still flying today on a commercial basis with virgin? What routes would Virgin have used them on?

Air France and Airbus said Non !

It would have been JFK.

joegriffinjnr

Why would Airbus say no? So they don't have to store spare parts etc?

owenc

I don't think it was necessary.

You could get the flight to New York down from 7 hours to 5 hours if they increased the speed to 700mph.

But alas airlines have not increased the average speeds..

L1011

owenc wrote: »

I don't think it was necessary.

You could get the flight to New York down from 7 hours to 5 hours if they increased the speed to 700mph.

But alas airlines have not increased the average speeds..

Which is quite significantly faster than the aircraft can actually do, and ignores the headwinds also - 700mph over ground would be supersonic airspeeds most of the time.

joegriffinjnr wrote: »

Why would Airbus say no? So they don't have to store spare parts etc?

Yes, and insure themselves against liability for it etc as the holder of the type cert. I believe the type cert hasn't yet been cancelled due to the remaining litigation over Paris though.

man98

While I think it was a publicity stunt, had it gone through? I'd say Heathrow to JFK, Toronto, Dulles(?) or possibly Boston.

owenc

MYOB wrote: »

Which is quite significantly faster than the aircraft can actually do, and ignores the headwinds also - 700mph over ground would be supersonic airspeeds most of the time.



Yes, and insure themselves against liability for it etc as the holder of the type cert. I believe the type cert hasn't yet been cancelled due to the remaining litigation over Paris though.

Well still its rediculous that airplanes are so slow these days. We have gone back..

youtube!

I miss Concorde! Nothing like it before or since.

man98

owenc wrote: »

Well still its rediculous that airplanes are so slow these days. We have gone back..

There's this thing called rising fuel costs. The quicker you go, the more you burn.

markpb

man98 wrote: »

There's this thing called rising fuel costs. The quicker you go, the vastly more you burn.

.

owenc

man98 wrote: »

There's this thing called rising fuel costs. The quicker you go, the more you burn.

Well then slow the planes down to 100mph then sure.

robinph

youtube! wrote: »

I miss Concorde! Nothing like it before or since.

I see it most days on the drive to work. Have to concentrate and remember not to crash the car on the roundabout every time.

man98

owenc wrote: »

Well then slow the planes down to 100mph then sure.

There's an optimum speed for aircraft, and I'll go ahead and make the assumption that you're not employed in the Aviation Industry. Increasing speeds from 100mph to 500mph cuts 23 hours off a journey. At this speed, 40k feet altitude, planes are doing just fine. No need to assume that no manufacturers have looked into an efficient SST.

Reoil

man98 wrote: »

There's this thing called rising fuel costs. The quicker you go, the more you burn.

There's a reason why the tickets cost thousands of pounds...
It wasn't just for a bottle of champaign you know!

Fabio

While I agree with all of you who are saying the SST idea was just not efficient, it was a marker of a more "optimistic" era in a sense. Plenty of people at that time said that it could not be done, including Boeing. But sure enough it could be. It was changing circumstances around economic difficulties and the price of oil that rocked the boat. Those circumstances aside it was technically brilliant.

postitnote

I remember watching a BBC doc a few years back on Concorde regarding the pricing of seats.

http://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-from-the-concorde/

During the first 6 years of operation, the fantastic Concorde lost money for British Airways..

..The Concorde team decided to do some market research. They asked businessmen how much they thought a Concorde ticket cost. The answer, “Most of them didn’t know. It was their secretaries or travel companies doing the bookings. When they were asked to guess, because they were senior, very important people, they all guessed that the fare was higher. ”

...“So very simply, we said, we’ll charge them what they think they are paying. And so we put the fares up”...

...Concorde ticket prices were doubled to over $7,000, one way, in today’s prices. As a result, Concorde was repositioned to provide a super-elite class for bankers, the rich, and the famous. Concorde became the place to be seen.

What a fantastic marketing strategy

Jimmy444

Fabio wrote: »

While I agree with all of you who are saying the SST idea was just not efficient, it was a marker of a more "optimistic" era in a sense. Plenty of people at that time said that it could not be done, including Boeing. But sure enough it could be. It was changing circumstances around economic difficulties and the price of oil that rocked the boat. Those circumstances aside it was technically brilliant.

Also the fact that it could only fly supersonic over water to avoid noise disturbance and damage from the sonic boom severely limited its viability.

Simon Gruber Says

This was posted in another thread a few weeks back. Skip halfway through and you can get an idea of just how loud it was at full tilt with the reheaters on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ShTUVIzCI

billy few mates

joegriffinjnr wrote: »

Hi all, when British Airways were withdrawing Concorde from service, Virgin boss Richard Branson offered 1 million a pop to buy the five of them. As we all know British Airways declined. Do you think Virgin should of been giving a chance to operate these birds? Do you think they would be still flying today on a commercial basis with virgin? What routes would Virgin have used them on?

There's not a chance in hell Richard Branson would have been able to operate those things and he knew it, but like his more modern protégés he was a master of the sound bite and knew the resulting publicity that comments like that would generate.
Few people realise just how labour intensive Concorde was to operate, they were notoriously unreliable and most days BA and AF struggled to to have enough serviceable airframes to operate the program. They were so likely to 'go tech' that BA actually prepared two A/C for each departure in case the one planned to operate dropped dead before departure. It was also widely known that the manufacturers back room development and support had become untenable as it was no longer commercially viable for them to commit the resources necessary for the ongoing maintenance and development for such a small fleet of A/C, without their continued support no airline would be able to operate the A/C. Spare parts were also becoming more and more difficult to procure as most of the companies had stopped making the components required so it became necessary to cannibalise one A/C to service another etc etc....
Those things were on their last legs before the AF crash, the crash was just another nail in the coffin...

Tenger

joegriffinjnr wrote: »

....

That pic must be fake....no way you can have 3 VS aircraft with the same livery so close together!!

Tenger

Fabio wrote: »

...... it was a marker of a more "optimistic" era in a sense....... It was changing circumstances around economic difficulties and the price of oil that rocked the boat. Those circumstances aside it was technically brilliant.

Indeed. The 1960's saw the development of the Concorde, the TU-144, and the Boeing SST concept. You have to remember that back then the ubiqitous of commercial flying was not around. We see air-travel as mass market, then it was for the rich and famous.

In fact as part of the B747 it was thought that the SST would superseded it quite quickly. However the oil crisis of the mid 70's along with the genesis of modern mass air travel made the B747 the dominant aircraft of modern aviation,

Rotunda Shill

Iran Air had two firm orders for Concord, even had a model in their London headquarters, after the coup 1979 the order was retracted.

Tenger

Rotunda Shill wrote: »

Iran Air had two firm orders for Concord, even had a model in their London headquarters, after the coup 1979 the order was retracted.

http://www.concordesst.com/history/orders.html

smurfjed

Owenc.... a modern B747 flies at 86% of the local speed of sound (LSS), that aircraft can go over 90%, but the fuel burn increases so much that it isn't viable. Most modern aircraft will operate between 80-86% of the LSS. Some corporate aircraft can fly faster, the Gulfstream 650 can fly at .925, but even on this aircraft accelerating from .85 to .90 will cost you 1000 nms in range due to the extra fuel burn.
A huge percentage of airlines operating costs are for fuel, thats why they strive to achieve fuel savings with things like cost index, landing flap, reverse thrust, single engine taxi etc. Unfortunately the market wants CHEAP, not fast.