No. Quite clearly it had utility to a miniscule number of people.
I'd define 2.5m people as somewhat larger than "miniscule".
That makes it useless to the people who paid for it.
I think it's pretty well documented that those 2.5m people paid for at least some of it, otherwise it wouldn't have been for the elite few, if it was free. And maxtorque has done a pretty good job of demonstrating that quite a lot of the technology developed for Concorde is now in use on current planes. No, I'm not saying these technologies wouldn't have been developed without Concorde, but that investment from the public purse into them has clearly trickled down to the modern Airbus fleet.
You need to look up the definition of efficiency.
I'm sure he'd rather redefine it.
You need to look up the definition of efficiency.The evidence you supplied is un-peer reviewed and also does not take into account other recent additions such as the batteries on only last 8 years on average, so you need to be replacing those. Not the most "efficient" thing.
You mean apart from the numerous peer-reviewed papers cited in the very first link I posted? The peer-reviewed papers that specifically address the impacts of battery manufacture and disposal?
I'd define 2.5m people as somewhat larger than "miniscule".
Could you please tell us a) how many [u]different[/u] people flew on Concorde during its lifetime and b) its percentage of total commercial air travel in the same period.
I think it's pretty well documented that those 2.5m people paid for at least some of it,
Yet they were still subsidised heavily by the public purse.
I see one of the regular windbags is huffing and puffing like a good un today, I would name names but he/she/it will run off and tell teacher 😆 not that that would be in the least bit hyocritical 😉
You mean apart from the numerous peer-reviewed papers cited in the very first link I posted?
Why not just use them as your source, rather than a secondary, non-peer-reviewed report?
Why not just use them as your source, rather than a secondary, non-peer-reviewed report?
Because the report is the only one I'm aware of that pulls together those different sources into one place.
Could you please tell us a) how many different people flew on Concorde during its lifetime
No. But I'm pretty sure it's not a 'miniscule' number
Yet they were still subsidised heavily by the public purse.
But they did pay for some of it, right? So presumably not useless to all the people who paid for it.
I see one of the regular windbags is huffing and puffing like a good un today
Huffing after just one post, piggy? You need more exercise...
No. But I'm pretty sure it's not a 'miniscule' number
In the context of utility, I find that unlikely. Regardless, your assertion is unproven.
But they did pay for some of it, right? So presumably not useless to all the people who paid for it.
Concorde ran as a publicly-owned loss for many years. That meant that every single ticket cost the taxpayer more money. If you really believe that the tiny number of beneficiaries constitute utility on any meaningful scale, well...
If you really believe that the tiny number of beneficiaries constitute utility on any meaningful scale, well...
If flying on the thing is the only condition by which one can benefit from Concorde, sure. Can you prove that's the case?
If you really believe that the tiny number of beneficiaries constitute utility on any meaningful scale, well...
Given the number of people on this thread who've never flown on it who liked it, it clearly had a lot of utility, even for those who never did fly on it, but appreciated its engineering.
And if you want to go down that route, the amount of government money spent on other things that have no use to the vast majority renders the amount spent on Concorde, by your definition, miniscule.
If flying on the thing is the only condition by which one can benefit from Concorde, sure. Can you prove that's the case?
Prove a negative? No, I can't.
Prove a negative? No, I can't.
So you mean it might not be useless to everyone after all?
Given the number of people on this thread who've never flown on it who liked it, it clearly had a lot of utility, even for those who never did fly on it, but appreciated its engineering.
Again, the key word here is "scale".
And if you want to go down that route, the amount of government money spent on other things that have no use to the vast majority renders the amount spent on Concorde, by your definition, miniscule.
Feel free to start a separate thread on any of these things. Though a defence of "but Sir! Look how much other stuff cost" is a bit weak, to say the least.
So you mean it might not be useless to everyone after all?
It might not be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Again, the key word here is "scale".
It is. I work with many people who never even saw Concorde in the flesh. Having discussed it over coffee with a few of them this morning, most of them appreciated it to. So its appeal seems to be global. Not bad for something so useless.
Feel free to start a separate thread on any of these things.
You seem to have been happy enough to debate other topics on here for quite some time. Why the change now?
Though a defence of "but Sir! Look how much other stuff cost" is a bit weak, to say the least.
Seems to be one you're not prepared to argue, however
It might not be.
Hallelujah!
It is. I work with many people who never even saw Concorde in the flesh. Having discussed it over coffee with a few of them this morning, most of them appreciated it to. So its appeal seems to be global. Not bad for something so useless.
So you're saying that it's a nice piece of design for us to appreciate? Well, I don't mind in principle that my tax is used to make art galleries and museums free to the public, but there's a limit.
You seem to have been happy enough to debate other topics on here for quite some time. Why the change now?
You were the one complaining about thread derailment.
Seems to be one you're not prepared to argue, however
Be my guest.
Hallelujah!
I had hoped that Russell's teapot might give you a clue, but apparently not. This is basic stuff Zokes, and you're failing.
You were the one complaining about thread derailment.
Nope, actually it was molly, claiming Maxtorque's facts about Concorde weren't relevant. I just quipped that his prius was a lot less relevant.
This is basic stuff
it is
and you're failing.
And you are
> If flying on the thing is the only condition by which one can benefit from Concorde, sure. Can you prove that's the case?Prove a negative? No, I can't.
[i]Russells' Teapot etc[/i]
Your whole line of reasoning has been that Concorde benefited a tiny number of people, citing its small scale of operations and low passenger throughput. We asked you to prove that only the people who flew on Concorde benefitted from Concorde - a key part of your reasoning - and you can't. Meanwhile, we've offered proof that other people can benefit from Concorde who have not flown on it, which refutes your claim, and I have to break all of this down into tiny chunks so you can understand it, yet you think you're the clever one?
I AM THE KING OF THE INTERNET, NOT YOU
Jamie, if you're out there, photoshop me a crown!
Nope, actually it was molly, claiming Maxtorque's facts about Concorde weren't relevant. I just quipped that his prius was a lot less relevant.
So you weren't complaining? It's certainly how it came across.
And you are
Save it for the playground - you'd fit right in.
FFS! A really interesting thread on Concorde and people's experiences of it and by page 7 a pointless personal bicker about guess what? Bloody cars again!
Can we get back to experiences of Concorde please and leave all your cars and mindless bickering out of it?
(Yes, I can't rant like Stephen Fry).
Despite having no strong feelings about concorde (probably more "meh" than "yay"), I was enjoying reading this thread - to be fair, it opened my mind to what was good about concorde hearing others' opinions, links etc. Any chance we could stop carrying on arguments from other threads onto this one?
EDIT: 🙂 ononeorange was obviously feeling the same.
I was lucky enough to take a trip on Concorde to new york in 2003 - fantastic experience! Amazing take-off and climb (30k ft in 8 mins as opposed to more like 30 in a conventional plane!)
Excellent service, and the concorde lounge at heathrow. I was sat in front of Simon le Bon and Anthony Keidis was a few seats further back!
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
You're a bit old to be sitting on that chap's knee.
concorde lounge at heathrow.
The CCR is still very pleasant!
Love the cockpit pic above!
Your whole line of reasoning has been that Concorde benefited a tiny number of people, citing its small scale of operations and low passenger throughput.
Incorrect. My line of reasoning is that the tiny number of direct beneficiaries on their own does not justify its enormous cost.
We asked you to prove that only the people who flew on Concorde benefitted from Concorde - a key part of your reasoning - and you can't.
You are asking me to prove that everyone who hasn't flown on it hasn't benefitted from it. You are asking me to prove a negative. See Russell's teapot.
Meanwhile, we've offered proof that other people can benefit from Concorde who have not flown on it, which refutes your claim, and I have to break all of this down into tiny chunks so you can understand it, yet you think you're the clever one?
Where is this proof? All I'm seeing is unsupported assertions.
I AM THE KING OF THE INTERNET, NOT YOU
Not on this evidence, you're not.
I think the Adelaide bagpipes are bored 😉
A mate of mine flew back from New York on Concorde, she said it was tiny and a bit uncomfortable, the food and service was amazing and from take off in New York she was back home in Wales in less than 6 hours. She said that was really bewildering.
Thinking about that is astonishing, no internet back then, mobiles were the size of bricks and you only had four channels on the telly yet you could cross the Atlantic in the blink of an eye.
I AM THE KING OF THE INTERNET, NOT YOUNot on this evidence, you're not.
You're clearly arguing with a moron, now you look silly 😉
My line of reasoning is that the tiny number of direct beneficiaries on their own does not justify its enormous cost.
But we agree anyway! Now let's go outside.
Love the cockpit pic above!
I should think that phrase required a bit of careful typing. 🙂
🙂
You're clearly arguing with a moron, now you look silly
Ha!
Anyway, I shall leave zokes to one side as he has nothing to offer.
Do you know what, I do think Concorde is pretty cool, and I dare say I would've enjoyed a flight in one. I suppose I would put it in the same category as the Sydney Opera House - too late, too small, too expensive, not very good at what it was supposed to do, yet somehow captured the public's imagination.
Last ever concorde landing - BAe Filton in November 2003
[img] 
[/img]
We all went onto the airfield to watch it land. Pilots taxied around for ages waving at us all with flags flying out of the windows...
If anyone's interested in the history of its development, the whole sorry tale is in here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yXFGxmy0xL0C&lpg=PP1&dq=great%20planning%20disasters&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=great%20planning%20disasters&f=false
See Chapter 4. Estimated development cost of £2billion at 1980 prices!
I once heard Concorde while I was on a boat in the Celtic Sea. Double bang out of nowhere as it went supersonic.
I've also heard a Vulcan bomber at the Farnborough air show and was impressed that it set off all the car alarms in the IBM car park nearby. I used to hear Vulcan's a lot as they flew from Manston near where I grew up, but hearing it again reminded me that planes like motorbikes used to be noisier.
Where are they all now ?
Estimated development cost of £2billion at 1980 prices!
So, about the same as the Falklands war, and it didn't even cost hundreds of deaths. It was also a much more worthwhile use for the Olympus engine than successfully getting a solitary 1000 lb bomb to make a hole that was filled in a couple of days later.
Do you know what, I do think Concorde is pretty cool, and I dare say I would've enjoyed a flight in one.
See, wasn't that difficult after all, was it?
I suppose I would put it in the same category as the Sydney Opera House - too late, too small, too expensive, not very good at what it was supposed to do, yet somehow captured the public's imagination.
Though famously controversial at its inception, it's one of the Australian tourism industry's biggest draw cards, as evidenced by prices that in dollar per "unit of ransos' definition of utility" terms would make your eyes water. And that's just to wander round the bloody thing, never mind actually watch an opera*
I think the Adelaide bagpipes are bored
Nah, I was watching telly
Thinking about that is astonishing, no internet back then, mobiles were the size of bricks and you only had four channels on the telly yet you could cross the Atlantic in the blink of an eye.
Still, it was utterly useless 😉
*also an utterly useless thing
I think we should leave the past in the past, arguments that cannot be won, and any other petty bickering stemming from (valid) differences in opinion.
So, i'll just put up these as a way of distraction:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
?sfvrsn=0.7113041297221527[/img]
Just LOOK at the thing! That right there is what made kids stop in the street and point (yes,like those "Pointless" Ferraris too!) and if that's all it did, well, that's enough for the young kid still in me!!
😉
I love the thing as a beautiful plane.. but the original statement was that we had regressed since it was created rather than entered the future. I do not thing this is true. The future is here, it is amazing, it is just not as fast.
Although, for most of us, it is still faster anyway even without Concorde.
Used to go over my flat in Reading just around 11am shortly after takeoff every weekday, and no matter how often you had seen it, when you heard the rumble, you always looked up with a smile on your face.
So, about the same as the Falklands war, and it didn't even cost hundreds of deaths. It was also a much more worthwhile use for the Olympus engine than successfully getting a solitary 1000 lb bomb to make a hole that was filled in a couple of days later.
And? Are you assuming that I think the Falklands war was worthwhile? As I said earlier, if all you have is "other stuff costs money too" then you really don't have much of an argument.
See, wasn't that difficult after all, was it?
You never asked. Instead, you repeatedly claimed that which isn't true.
Though famously controversial at its inception, it's one of the Australian tourism industry's biggest draw cards, as evidenced by prices that in dollar per "unit of ransos' definition of utility" terms would make your eyes water. And that's just to wander round the bloody thing, never mind actually watch an opera*
Actually, it's pretty useless for Opera. There's a chapter about it in the book I linked to earlier.
I note that you're making a reasonable economic argument for its utility, something you have failed to do for Concorde.
Never flew on it but grew up near Prestwick airport where they trained a lot of the pilots so I saw it lots of times.
Never failed to brighten my day whenever I saw it.
Genuinely sad it isn't flying any more.
Supersonic flight isn't the barrier it use to be, but I suspect there is no money in it versus an A380 full of paying passengers - taking slightly longer to get there but paying a lot less than they would have to get there quicker.
"Supersonic flight isn't the barrier it use to be"
No? Laws of physics changed recently?
I do think that A380 is an amazing aircraft too. As someone said above, it really just shouldn't fly but does and very well too.
EDIT
'Alpha Charlie' is kept at Manchester airport (sadly now under cover). They give tours around her, also she's a wedding venue.Where are they all now ?
I got a day off school back in 2003 to see the last flight of Concord. Don't think I'll ever forget. Was very cool seeing it come in. The speech was great too.
Recently driving home at night, country lanes, at about 2 in the morning. I suddenly feel the car shake and make an awful noise. This got worse and worse so I stopped. Next thing a Chinook flies over me. Unbelievably low. Swear the fuselage touched the hedgerow. Scared the life out of me and then smiled.
