Would business travellers still have been flying on Concorde had BA and Air France had to pay the actual price of the aircraft in the first place and charge people the actual cost of the flight rather than run it at a loss?

Branson thought the market would bear it. BA and AF refused to sell the fleet to them.

The 747 and aircraft like it has allowed the cost of air travel to fall. This has allowed more people to enjoy it’s benefits and on that basis it has had more on an impact that Concorde.

It’s still driven by economics, rather than technological or engineering progress. It’s taken >24 hours to get from the UK to Oz for the best part of half a century now. That it’s not reduced in time over those 50 years is about as much evidence as you’ll ever need that progress has not been made.

If you’re measuring progress by the cost reductions in flight, then surely this bloke is the pinnacle: 😯

Yeah, no doubt it is very useful indeed that people can fly en mass across the Atlantic in comfort at a reasonable price. But it’s not thrilling or exciting or cool. It’s just stuff.
It’s like art. Technically a beautiful picture has very little intrinsic value, probably less than say, a room that’s been painted. The painted room is far more useful and practical but it doesn’t stir the soul. It doesn’t make you feel alive or human. Obviously if you’re not getting this then it’s pointless me trying to explain it.

My wife has four times, each time was an business class upgrade, she was flying business a lot. Got a fair bit of Concorde memorabilia somewhere.

The main reason (at the time) that Concorde services were restricted to a handful of destinations was that the yanks were pissy that their boeing copy was clearly never going to work

No, the main reason was the sonic boom tests that the US mil/FAA had done over Oklahoma in the 60’s. It wasn’t conducted that well, and while most people thought they could live with sonic booms, a sizeable minority complained. Bear in mind that the US (and maybe Concorde) would be overflying mainland US on scheduled services and believed the way forward in passenger flight was SST,it was important to know the public perception of regular sonic booms. And while mostly the public said OK, large enough numbers said uh-uh, no chance, and this being the US, that was the end of SST flight. The French and British pushed on regardless, and then were “surprised” when the US wouldn’t allow FTS flights over US mainland 🙄

technologic marvel, without a doubt. It was also a nightmare to work on, it was massively expensive and complex to operate, with a dwindling supply of spares that meant that at some point it would have all had to come to and end.

samuri – Member

But it’s not thrilling or exciting or cool.

It is. Well, it was. But by our prowess we’ve made the exciting commonplace. Paradox of progress, we think it’s impressive to fly someone round the world in a metal tube once but unimpressive to fly a million people around the world every day.

If you only valued something because it was scarce, it was never really that good- it’s the rarity you’re valuing not the thing itself.

If you only valued something because it was scarce, it was never really that good- it’s the rarity you’re valuing not the thing itself.

Cobblers

The value is the sex of the thing, not the scarecity. Not only does it look, sound and feel awesome but it was pushing the boundaries, setting the limit of human capability. ‘look at us, we’re ace!’ Now we’ve done that, as you say, it’s been downgraded into commonplace (transporting millions huge distances) but we’re not doing it at Mach 2 or with a moving nose cone. No-one is banning our planes from their airspace because they smash windows and that’s almost a sad thing.

I’ll stop now though because I’m aware I’m starting to sound a bit Clarkson. 😉

That it’s not reduced in time over those 50 years is about as much evidence as you’ll ever need that progress has not been made.

No, it’s evidence that it still takes 24 hours. If you think that progress hasn’t been made then you have an exceptionally narrow set of parameters.

zokes – Member

Cobblers

If we had a thousand concordes doing run of the mill flights, it’d lose the exclusivity/novelty people are mourning. And for that matter if we had one 747 those same people would relish flying by 747.

See also: A380.

This reminds me of spending summers in South Devon as a child and regularly hearing the sonic boom just after about 8pm I seem to remember as it went through the sound barrier somewhere off southern Ireland.

Also miss seeing and hearing it every day as it crossed over South Oxfordshire on it’s way out at about 11:05 in the morning and 19:05 in the evening.

It still takes 24 hours to fly to Australia but in real terms it’s far cheaper than it used to be. My mum’s brother emigrated to Aus in the 50s, she thought she’d never see him again. Now, even as retired teachers they can afford to go. They’ve seen sunrise at Uluru, tropical jungles, deserts, oriental cities, wonders of the world. I’ve cycled on great mountains, crossed continents, swam in distant oceans, lived in different cultures and even met my wife all thanks to affordable air travel. A generation or two ago this would have impossible with my means.

So tell me again I have no soul, go on. I think that giving these opportunities to the common person is far more valuable than letting a few rich businessmen get to New York for their meeting a bit faster.

Technologically, Concorde was great, but ultimately of little benefit. It looked lovely and impressed schoolboys with speed, but large scale air transport is equally impressive as an achievement. When you fly on a jumbo you are benefitting from a vast engineering and logistical effort that allows you to do the incredible, and not risk your life doing it.

You need yo learn to appreciate the world in which you live, even if it doesn’t win anything in Top Trumps.

It may take 24 hours to get to Aus, but so what? What diference would it make if it took 12? What’s really cool is that the cost is slashed, not the time. I would far rather be able to travel to the US in 8 hours once a year than 3 hours once a lifetime. I want to travel, to see and do stuff. Concorde did not help me do that.

When you fly on a jumbo you are benefitting from a vast engineering and logistical effort that allows you to do the incredible, and not risk your life doing it.

Well, not really, it just slightly modified the existing guide book on how to design an aircraft.

Concorde wrote a different book.

If we had a thousand concordes doing run of the mill flights, it’d lose the exclusivity/novelty people are mourning.

Yep, but instead of tedious 787s bursting into flames, we’d have been developing technology to attempt to fly at mach 2+ whilst sipping frugally at fuel. We’d also get places one heck of a lot quicker, which is (ocean liners excepted) sort of the reason for transport: to make the bit between leaving where you were and getting to where you’re going as quick as possible.

Sure jumbos made it quicker than going by boat, but there has been no progress beyond that leap. Getting there in 3 hours rather than 6 was progress. That it now takes 6 hours again is regress.

See also: A380.

Great, a slightly bigger bus.

It may take 24 hours to get to Aus, but so what? What diference would it make if it took 12?

The return journey would take a whole day less, meaning I could spend an extra day with my family.

Concorde was run at a loss for many years then BA took on a guy to try and sort it out. He spoke to many of the passengers who were business people and whose tickets were booked by their PA/secretary. Almost without exception the passengers though their tickets cost twice as much as they had actually paid so BA doubled the price of the tickets and started making money.
9/11 was the nail in the coffin though as several hundred of Concorde’s most frequent flyers were killed.

In New York I saw a Blackbird and Concorde.
The Blackbird was all lumps and bumps underneath. Concorde however was all sleak and lovely.
You just couldn’t help watching Concorde even though you saw it every day. I miss it.
Bloody yanks.

Yep, but instead of tedious 787s bursting into flames, we’d have been developing technology to attempt to fly at mach 2+ whilst sipping frugally at fuel

Only if you’re planning to reinvent the laws of physics.

The return journey would take a whole day less, meaning I could spend an extra day with my family.

It would cost far more, meaning you could afford to fly there less often.

I’m with molgrips on this one; much more to do with status and international one-upmanship than actual transport. It was the equivalent of having a rich peoples lane on the motorway. I suspect that the internet and video-conferencing would have killed it off long before the environmental concerns and the flagrant waste of fuel did.

Cleared the concorde for take-off from Heathrow on the first test flight after the modifications following the crash in Paris.

Cleared G-BOAD for take-off on it’s final flight to New York before it was installed on Intrepid.

Was also the last controller at Heathrow to instruct a concorde to fly a missed approach.

Sadly never flew on it 🙁

It would cost far more, meaning you could afford to fly there less often.

Actually, it’s leave that I have an issue with, not money, so that time is more valuable than the dollars

Only if you’re planning to reinvent the laws of physics.

Look at Concorde, then look at any other passenger jet. It near as dammit did reinvent the laws of physics. The 747 has more in common with a Lancaster Bomber by comparison.

Actually, it’s leave that I have an issue with, not money, so that time is more valuable than the dollars

So we’re back to a convenience for the privileged few.

Look at Concorde, then look at any other passenger jet. It near as dammit did reinvent the laws of physics. The 747 has more in common with a Lancaster Bomber by comparison.

Err no. In order to go very fast, it consumes lots of fuel, and transports very few people. The 747 is a far more useful aircraft, which is why it’s still in service.

Flew on it a few times, wasn’t really a very pleasant place to be compared to modern business class on A380, 787 etc. It was far too expensive to operate, would be crippling at 2013 economics and the saving of 3hrs over a conventional flight didn’t offset the number of times it was delayed due to technical issues.

Err no. In order to go very fast, it consumes lots of fuel, and transports very few people. The 747 is a far more useful aircraft, which is why it’s still in service.

OK. Skype consumes a lot less fuel than a 747. It’s also instantaneous. Scrap the 747?

Do you really need to fly anywhere any more?

It was far too expensive to operate,

That being the case, why did Branson want to buy and operate the fleet?

Also, when you look at its fuel efficiency compared to a modern aircraft its staggering. I think Concorde had an equivalent passenger fuel economy of about 15mpg versus a 747 which was about 110mpg. Modern aircraft like the A350, 787 and CSeries are about 30% more efficient than that, so you are looking at 20 times difference in fuel efficiency per passenger.

OK. Skype consumes a lot less fuel than a 747. It’s also instantaneous. Scrap the 747?

Do you really need to fly anywhere any more?

Define need.

That being the case, why did Branson want to buy and operate the fleet?

Because he thought he could get them for £1 each and sell over-priced tickets to the privileged few.

Because he thought he could get them for £1 each and sell over-priced tickets to the privileged few.

He actually ended up offering £5m each to try and buy them. It was a personal thing to him and would have cost him a fortune in the long run. Just like buying so many of the those A340’s have cost him big.

Because he thought he could get them for £1 each

Yeah. 🙄

BA wouldn’t sell them as they’d lose face, prestige, and the service to their main rival. Canning the service and ensuring no competitor could offer it meant that at least they could try to retain their Concorde customers through First and Business on conventional services.

Define need.

Well, in the context of the direction this has gone, i.e. that concorde used too much fuel, what would you deem a worthy use of Jet A-1? Business can be conducted by Skype and email, you can see family and friends on skype, share photos and videos instantly. You don’t actually need to travel anywhere much.

zokes – Member

Great, a slightly bigger bus.

As opposed to a faster bus 😕

As opposed to a faster bus

When the purpose of travelling is to get to where you’re going as soon as possible after leaving where you were, a bigger bus that moves no faster than hardly represents progress. A bus that can get you there quicker is progress.

Else, why bother with a 747 at all – ships are much bigger

Do you drive at 100mph to ensure you get there quicker but having burnt a lot of fuel, or do you drive at 70mph as a trade-off between fuel efficiency and speed?

The return journey would take a whole day less, meaning I could spend an extra day with my family.

You’d have to work longer to afford it, which is time away from your family (unless you’re on Gates or Murdoch money).

zokes – Member

When the purpose of travelling is to get to where you’re going as soon as possible after leaving where you were, a bigger bus that moves no faster than hardly represents progress.

And if that was the sole measure of transport progress, you would have an excellent point. But then, if speed was all that mattered for transport, we’d still have concordes, so your argument is neatly self frustrating.

Yeah.

BA wouldn’t sell them as they’d lose face, prestige, and the service to their main rival. Canning the service and ensuring no competitor could offer it meant that at least they could try to retain their Concorde customers through First and Business on conventional services.

Branson offered to buy them for £1 each. Look it up.

Your comments about brand prestige just prove the notion that Concorde is a rich person’s trinket.

Well, in the context of the direction this has gone, i.e. that concorde used too much fuel, what would you deem a worthy use of Jet A-1? Business can be conducted by Skype and email, you can see family and friends on skype, share photos and videos instantly. You don’t actually need to travel anywhere much.

I don’t recall saying people shouldn’t fly – you’re inventing an argument here.

If people are to fly, doing it economically makes more sense than doing it uneconomically. Something airline operators are well aware of, which is why they don’t use Concorde.

Else, why bother with a 747 at all – ships are much bigger

To New York:

Concorde: 3.5 hours
747: 7 hours
Ship: 144 hours

🙄

I don’t recall saying people shouldn’t fly – you’re inventing an argument here.

You didn’t. However, one of the main arguments against Concorde is its fuel consumption vs conventional aircraft. If that’s important to you, have you considered that not flying uses considerably less fuel than flying?

To New York:

Concorde: 3.5 hours
747: 7 hours
Ship: 144 hours

But the QM2 can carry 2600 passengers, surely that’s more efficient? It’s certainly more comfortable than a 747 even in first. And as CFH has already said, it’s not really just 3.5 hours difference between the Concorde and a 747 if you have to stay an extra night either side of your meeting, it’s a whole extra day in total.

Your comments about brand prestige just prove the notion that Concorde is a rich person’s trinket.

I never said otherwise, and it clearly was. That the rich were willing to pay for it would normally indicate it is superior by some metric to cheaper options. A bit like cars, or mountain bikes, for that matter. Perhaps the ASDA special is a greater sign of progress than some blinged-up Santa Cruz, because more people can ride ASDA specials? Better get all the bike companies to close down their R&D departments working out the next composite masterpiece as ASDA have done them on the progress and technology front.

You didn’t. However, one of the main arguments against Concorde is its fuel consumption vs conventional aircraft. If that’s important to you, have you considered that not flying uses considerably less fuel than flying?

Is it? I think it’s an argument that Concorde isn’t quite as great as you seem to believe.

I don’t fly much btw.

But the QM2 can carry 2600 passengers, surely that’s more efficient? It’s certainly more comfortable than a 747 even in first. And as CFH has already said, it’s not really just 3.5 hours difference between the Concorde and a 747 if you have to stay an extra night either side of your meeting, it’s a whole extra day in total.

Unlikely. Cruise ships are notoriously fuel hungry.

I wonder how many people ever took advantage of returning from New York in the same day?

I never said otherwise, and it clearly was. That the rich were willing to pay for it would normally indicate it is superior by some metric to cheaper options.

You kept telling us that flying faster was progress, now you’re changing your tune. The fact that Concorde was never more than a subsidised niche tells us it was inferior to other options by most measures.

Better get all the bike companies to close down their R&D departments working out the next composite masterpiece as ASDA have done them on the progress and technology front.

We can see many examples of trickle-down benefitting cheaper bikes because of R&D on expensive bikes. Can you say the same about Concorde? No.

This guy did!!

Queen Elizabeth

Cunard states that the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 travels 49.5 feet per imperial gallon of diesel oil (3.32 m/l or 41.2 ft/US gal), and that it has a passenger capacity of 1777.[41] Thus carrying 1777 passengers we can calculate an efficiency of 16.7 passenger miles per imperial gallon (16.9 l/100 p·km or 13.9 p·mpg–US).

Pretty much identical to Concorde!

Can you say the same about Concorde? No.

You’d be surprised. Fly-by-wire being the first that springs to mind, and the technology used to slow the air flow into the jet engines for more efficient operation was used in several military applications. The engines were also the first I think to be controlled by the forerunner of the modern ECU.

I don’t fly much btw.

Good for you. But if in your eyes fuel consumption is one of the biggest downsides of Concorde, then surely you have to agree that not flying all all uses a damn sight less?

You kept telling us that flying faster was progress, now you’re changing your tune.

Am I? Flying fast is clearly better than flying slow, unless you happen to like sitting in an aircraft for longer than necessary. That we proved flying times could be cut in at least 2, but now can’t be any more is by no measure progress. We used to be good at something, now we’re merely average – that’s regression, not progression. The same generally applies to trains and ships too.

That we’ve now stopped around the 580 knot mark for air travel is like aspiring to get a grade C at school, when you could, if you put the work in, walk out with straight As. The reason the grade C is not a grade A is because C isn’t the best grade you can get. Nether is sub-sonic flight on a Boeing bus.

One day, there’ll probably be another Concorde. It will probably go faster, further, and more efficiently than the previous one by some margin. There is no way anyone could classify that as not being technological progress.

The fact that Concorde was never more than a subsidised niche tells us it was inferior to other options by most measures.

Funny, they made money from it. They obviously thought Branson would make money from it too, or else they’d have happily watched him fall on his arse with it.

You’d be surprised. Fly-by-wire being the first that springs to mind, and the technology used to slow the air flow into the jet engines for more efficient operation was used in several military applications. The engines were also the first I think to be controlled by the forerunner of the modern ECU.

So fly by wire was invented for Concord? I thought it came from the military. The engines were I believe derived from existing military techology.

Good for you. But if in your eyes fuel consumption is one of the biggest downsides of Concorde, then surely you have to agree that not flying all all uses a damn sight less?

I didn’t say it was one of its biggest downsides. Given how few of them were in service, it’s not hugely important in the big scheme of things. Fuel consumption would be a strong argument against mass supersonic travel.

Am I? Flying fast is clearly better than flying slow

It might be, it might not. A lot depends on other factors which you keep ignoring.

That we proved flying times could be cut in at least 2, but now can’t be any more is by no measure progress.

We can move more people at lower cost by other means. How is that regress?

We used to be good at something, now we’re merely average

Wasting public money? Moving very few people at exorbitant cost?

Funny, they made money from it. They obviously thought Branson would make money from it too, or else they’d have happily watched him fall on his arse with it.

Err, no. BA made an operating profit for only part of its service life, because the aircraft were sold to them at a fraction of their value and the rarity of the aircraft meant they could charge high prices. Air France lost money, and the whole thing was dependent on vast public subsidy.

No doubt Branson could’ve made an operating profit from £1 aircraft.

molgrips – Member
It still takes 24 hours to fly to Australia but in real terms it’s far cheaper than it used to be. My mum’s brother emigrated to Aus in the 50s, she thought she’d never see him again. Now, even as retired teachers they can afford to go. They’ve seen sunrise at Uluru, tropical jungles, deserts, oriental cities, wonders of the world. I’ve cycled on great mountains, crossed continents, swam in distant oceans, lived in different cultures and even met my wife all thanks to affordable air travel.

Ahh, but have they seen attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion? 🙂

Genuine OfficeLoLlage here! How to explain? 🙂