[neilep (OP)]

Hi non supersonic flying Peeps,

I was upset when Concorde flew it's last flight a few years ago.....I know it was economically non viable but when we strive for progress the last flight dawned regress. It was the end of Supersonic commercial flight !!...one could leave London by 10am and arrive in Washington before you left !!

I was very lucky to have flown on Concorde four times **

So, are there any plans for a replacement ?...










** A blatant lie !!

[ukmicky]

Welcome back son.

You lucky bastard ,or should i say you lucky rich bastard:)  you flew on Concorde 4 times.

Did you watched that program on Concorde last night. I think there have been designs but believe it would not be cost effective in this day and age

[Karen W.]

This was a cool Link, I hope it works, Lots of history and whats happening..   

http://www.concordesst.com/

[neilep (OP)]

Welcome back son.

You lucky bastard ,or should i say you lucky rich bastard:)  you flew on Concorde 4 times.

Did you watched that program on Concorde last night. I think there have been designs but believe it would not be cost effective in this day and age

LOL !!..Hi dad !!..did you not see my note below the rest of my note ?!!..I was lying about flying on Concorde !!....Yes..I saw the program...but I caught the one that finsihed 5:30am this morning..*le sigh*...it's what made me think about this thread.

Hugs the UKMicky......YAYYYYYYYYYYY !!!

[neilep (OP)]

This was a cool Link, I hope it works, Lots of history and whats happening..   

http://www.concordesst.com/

YAYYYYYYYYY !!..hugs the karen...thank ewe Karen mam...what a great link...

[Karen W.]

 There is also one there somewhere where you can go visit the cocorde take tours, I believe it is close to you and prices were resonable a museum I believe..It was cool...Kids would love it.. They had a map to get there you should go do it!!

www.brooklandsconcorde.com

It was on that page also but there it is..

[neilep (OP)]

Thank ewe Karen mam.

In the early days of Concorde's development my daddy ran an engineering agency who supplied some of the engineers who worked on this fine plane.

This is another great website thak you Karen

[Karen W.]

 Your welcome..Well no wonder me friend is such a smart cookie.. he comes by it naturally...  [] []

[DoctorBeaver]

The only reason Concorde was economically unviable is because it wasn't American. If it had been then the major U.S. airlines would have bought some & it wouldn't have been shut out of a squillion American airports.

Rant over  [!]

[neilep (OP)]

The only reason Concorde was economically unviable is because it wasn't American. If it had been then the major U.S. airlines would have bought some & it wouldn't have been shut out of a squillion American airports.

Rant over  [!]

Excellent Point !!....Bravo !!..Hugs the Beaver.

Are ewe sure it wasn't because it had the volume of a zillion sticks of TNT that it was banned from all those airports ?...hmm....nope...ewe're right !!

[eric l]

The only reason Concorde was economically unviable is because it wasn't American. If it had been then the major U.S. airlines would have bought some & it wouldn't have been shut out of a squillion American airports.

Rant over  [!]

I'm afraid the Concorde came at the wrong moment.  The concept behind it was that almost everything was sacrificed to have that extra speed, hence a low number of seats (and from what I hear not very comfortable seats at that) and engines that consumed hellish amounts of fuel.
Concorde started to fly commercially right at the time of an energy crisis, when prices went up for good.  And about the same time, environmental issues were getting more and more important. 
The next generation of planes got bigger rather than faster, and that evolution is still going on.
To speak in evolutionary terms :  Concorde was at the end of a line that was no longer adapted to the changing environment.
But it sure was a splendid bird to watch !

[neilep (OP)]

The only reason Concorde was economically unviable is because it wasn't American. If it had been then the major U.S. airlines would have bought some & it wouldn't have been shut out of a squillion American airports.

Rant over  [!]

I'm afraid the Concorde came at the wrong moment.  The concept behind it was that almost everything was sacrificed to have that extra speed, hence a low number of seats (and from what I hear not very comfortable seats at that) and engines that consumed hellish amounts of fuel.
Concorde started to fly commercially right at the time of an energy crisis, when prices went up for good.  And about the same time, environmental issues were getting more and more important. 
The next generation of planes got bigger rather than faster, and that evolution is still going on.
To speak in evolutionary terms :  Concorde was at the end of a line that was no longer adapted to the changing environment.
But it sure was a splendid bird to watch !

THANK EWE as always Eric..Hugs Eric.

Concorde was ahead of it's time.....

Could it be made today do you think...from scratch ?...or do we still not have the engineering know how to ' make it so ' ?...viable ?..feasible ?...

[Karen W.]

 You would think we could wouldn't you.. Things have a come along ways..

[wolfekeeper]

Concorde made BA a tonne of money. They made 1.75 billion on 1 billion costs over the 25+ years it flew. That's a LOT of money.

There's actually a new design out called Reaction Engines A2 that looks like it would fly at Mach 5, and be able to about triple the range of Concorde (Concorde's range was pretty poor, and lots of pacific routes were infeasible- the A2 has a range of 20,000 km and could fly London-sydney non stop in about 4.5 hours... compared to about 24 hours and 3 stops flying normally.)

[Bored chemist]

"Concorde made BA a tonne of money. They made 1.75 billion on 1 billion costs over the 25+ years it flew. That's a LOT of money."
It's not nearly as much as they would have made if they had just put a billion in the bank for those 25 years.
Concorde was beautiful, it was an excellent advert for BA. It did a reasonable job of proving that the UK and the French could cooperate (which is probably more of an achievement than supersonic flight).
But it wasn't really a commercial success.

[wolfekeeper]

Nah. You're not getting this.

Any time you spend £100 and get £175 back, that's pretty damn good business, and that's the kind of business Concorde did for BA year in, year out.

BA didn't spend the £1 billion upfront, that was all the costs including maintenance etc. They spent a few tens of millions for the aircraft.

BA made a very tidy profit flying rich bankers between London and New York thanks very much. I mean, why the heck do you think they flew the plane for 25 years! It sure as heck wasn't run at a loss!

It was BAC and Aerospatial (the manufacturers) and the French and British governments that funded building the planes that lost their shirts on it. The planes just didn't sell.

The seats on the planes sold very well.

At one point early on, Concorde was making a loss, and BA sent a survey around their market asking their customers how much they thought a seat cost. They all didn't know (their secretaries did all that menial stuff), and they guessed low by a factor 2 or 3. So BA raised prices accordingly and started making lots of money.

[DoctorBeaver]

Why was/is it referred to simply as Concorde? No other plane is. We don't say "Look, there's jumbo jet", we say "A jumbo jet". Why didn't anyone say "A concorde"? It was as if there was only 1.

[wolfekeeper]

It's just something done by the manufacturers and BA to make it sound truly epoch making; also you're sort of referring to the project, rather than the particular aircraft.

There's also the point that it was the only Concorde type, so it has stuck around. If there had been a Concorde B, C, D, E (and there was plans for Concorde B but they never lead to anything) then they would have had trouble sticking with it.

Also, it got picked up and used by the BBC, and they've often been the final arbiters of taste and grammar.

Similar things are done with other things in other cases. In America it's 'The astronaut is aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour'. In the UK the Notting Hill Carnival is often just "Carnival" or "Notting Hill Carnival" without the the.

[lyner]

It's the same with 'Father Christmas', when it's someone dressed up - but we have 'A Father Christmas' on the cake, when it's a model. That's the beauty of Language.

[DoctorBeaver]

Similar things are done with other things in other cases. In America it's 'The astronaut is aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour'. In the UK the Notting Hill Carnival is often just "Carnival" or "Notting Hill Carnival" without the the.

That's not the same thing. There is only 1 space shuttle called Endeavour" and only 1 Notting Hill Carnival. You don't say "Look, there's Space Shuttle". Referring to "Space Shuttle Endeavour" would be like referring to "Concorde Britannia" which would identify 1 particular plane, a unique item.