Todos
← Back to Squawk list
London to NYC in just 3.4 hours? A roundtrip will set you back $5,000
Virgin Galactic to go where the Concorde failed, into commercial supersonic flight After more than a decade of dormancy commercial supersonic flight may soon return to the skies. The Soviet Tupolev supersonic aircraft flew just a few dozen flights back in 1977, and the Concorde, flown by British Airways and Air France, retired in 2003 after a fatal accident three years earlier that compounded economic problems. But now Richard Branson and his Virgin empire are ready to try it again. According to… (arstechnica.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
How did the Concorde fail, to go into commercial supersonic flight?!? It was in service with 2 airlines for over 30 years, and had only one accident. You call that a fail?!?
It was never profitable. As expensive as the tickets were, British Airways and Air France had to subsidize them. That is why the Concorde never found any buyers outside the national carriers of the countries behind its development.
Other Airlines such as Singapore Airlines, Lifthansa, and JAL, and many more had placed orders for it.
If they did, they never operated the aircraft. There were two short-term wet leases (one to Braniff, one to Singapore) that used aircraft and pilots from British Airways.
While the Concorde was technically impressive, commercially it was a failure. No airline today wants to (or can afford to) operate an aircraft that doesn't make money.
At $5000 a seat for a transatlantic flight, it wouldn't be in line with other business class seats, with the added advantage of a much shorter flight time. If they get this project off the ground, I think they would have packed planes -- there aren't that many seats to fill.
While the Concorde was technically impressive, commercially it was a failure. No airline today wants to (or can afford to) operate an aircraft that doesn't make money.
At $5000 a seat for a transatlantic flight, it wouldn't be in line with other business class seats, with the added advantage of a much shorter flight time. If they get this project off the ground, I think they would have packed planes -- there aren't that many seats to fill.
Sorry, there is no edit function: that was meant to say "it would be in line".
I guess your right, it as expensive to operate, but O don't think calling it a failure is necessary, gas at certain times was very expensive, like in the 70's, and 80's. But now that you clarified your point, I can understand where you are coming from, on tour opinion about the Concorde, commercially.
Eric, profitability, IMO, was the cause for its demise. The Concorde's crash just hastened its retirement.
As far as the Concorde's safety record is concerned, one fatal accident over the total flying hours of its entire very small fleet makes the accident rate rather poor when compared to airliners with thousands of aircraft of a particular type flying maybe 6+ hours per day on average.
As far as the Concorde's safety record is concerned, one fatal accident over the total flying hours of its entire very small fleet makes the accident rate rather poor when compared to airliners with thousands of aircraft of a particular type flying maybe 6+ hours per day on average.