Why did the Concorde fail?

I miss this aircraft and I'm surprised a similar aircraft hasn't been in operation.
 
Costs and extremely limited airport route choices. Costs exceeded what Air France and BA were willing to eat when Airbus said they would no longer support the aircraft. The Paris crash due to crew error and a bad fuel tank design didn't help any.

If the Concorde had been allowed to overfly land at sonic cruise speeds it most likely would still be flying. But the NIMBYs cried about the sonic booms enough that the plane was only allowed to operate over oceans.
 
I wouldn't call 27 years of commercial service a failure. As far as it becoming commercially obsolete and being removed from service, think about the economics. People who can afford to fly in a supersonic jet would, other than for novelty, rather spend 6 hours in a lay-flat seat in the front of a quieter A330 or 767 than 4 hours crammed into a noisy plane with 2+2 seating from front to back. Combine that with having only a small handful of places in the world that the Concorde could land and you end up with a lot of passengers who actually save time and gain comfort by flying on other types. That, and with the advent of broadband, low-latency internet connections around the world, it just doesn't make that much of a difference anymore if you save 2 or 3 hours off your trip from New York to London or Paris.
 
iamtheari said:
I wouldn't call 27 years of commercial service a failure. As far as it becoming commercially obsolete and being removed from service, think about the economics. People who can afford to fly in a supersonic jet would, other than for novelty, rather spend 6 hours in a lay-flat seat in the front of a quieter A330 or 767 than 4 hours crammed into a noisy plane with 2+2 seating from front to back. Combine that with having only a small handful of places in the world that the Concorde could land and you end up with a lot of passengers who actually save time and gain comfort by flying on other types. That, and with the advent of broadband, low-latency internet connections around the world, it just doesn't make that much of a difference anymore if you save 2 or 3 hours off your trip from New York to London or Paris.
Click to expand...
27 years of subsidized commercial failure would be a better description.
 
ARFlyer said:
Costs and extremely limited airport route choices. Costs exceeded what Air France and BA were willing to eat when Airbus said they would no longer support the aircraft. The Paris crash due to crew error and a bad fuel tank design didn't help any.

If the Concorde had been allowed to overfly land at sonic cruise speeds it most likely would still be flying. But the NIMBYs cried about the sonic booms enough that the plane was only allowed to operate over oceans.
Click to expand...
Being old enough to remember when military jets regularly made booms over populated areas, there would be little "back yard" that was touched if supersonic transport becomes popular. Don't forget that on a coast-to-coast flight, you have a coast-to-coast boom following the aircraft. I love airplanes, but there's no way I'd vote to allow overland flight, until the boom is mitigated.
 
iamtheari said:
I wouldn't call 27 years of commercial service a failure.
Click to expand...

To put the Concorde's safety record in perspective, I recall reading that the 737 fleet makes more takeoffs and landings in one week than the Concorde did in its history. The Paris crash showed it was a fragile design.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Click to expand...

It always needed a backup airplane on standby. Passengers who paid for Concorde are not going to settle for a different airplane in case of mechanical trouble. Basically two airplanes for every one flight. Its not a viable plan in today's airline environment.
 
Interesting newsreel clips about the battle over Concorde noise here. This video can't be played embedded in another website like this one, so you have to go to YouTube to watch it. Start at the 40-minute mark for the relevant portion.


(This is from the classic 12-hour 1987 BBC series "Reaching for The Skies," the best aviation documentary ever.)
 
sarangan said:
It always needed a backup airplane on standby. Passengers who paid for Concorde are not going to settle for a different airplane in case of mechanical trouble. Basically two airplanes for every one flight. Its not a viable plan in today's airline environment.
Click to expand...

When I flew into JFK I only saw one on the ramp, never two.
 
mscard88 said:
When I flew into JFK I only saw one on the ramp, never two.
Click to expand...

When I was in another airliner at IAD and taxied by one, I only saw one, as well. I remember thinking how small it was. Then going through one of the test articles at the Imperial War Museum Duxford a couple decades ago I saw that it was small. Really small and tight.

iamtheari said:
The other one was on the tarmac.
Click to expand...

Where is "the tarmac"? You've been listening to the talking heads in the media too much.
 
When I worked at Braniff we flew the Concorde Dfw to dc with a Braniff crew. Loved asking the pilots what supersonic was like since I knew they couldn’t do it. Concorde was obsolete the day it flew, the engines were a 50s design, Olympia engines from a bomber. It was loud even subsonic, no way it could pass noise restrictions in place now. there was no lower lobe for cargo, the interior was tiny being basically 2x 2 coach sized seats with very small windows. Not even a E&E compartment, you passed the avionics on way to cockpit. Also a fuel hog. I very much doubt a Concorde flight ever made a profit.
I’d rather spend twice the time in first class than being crammed in a Concorde, plus the seat cost more than first class.
As far as supersonic flight, you would never know it if the sign on the wall didn’t tell you.
 
Ultimately, physics (drag) makes it very costly to fly at supersonic speeds, rendering supersonic commercial flight economically challenging, if technically quite feasible. There was also an environmental issue of objectionable noise for overland flight.

I do despise the 6-7 hour transatlantic flights, though. Too bad supersonic flight is not currently economically feasible for most.
 
Ghery said:
When I was in another airliner at IAD and taxied by one, I only saw one, as well. I remember thinking how small it was. Then going through one of the test articles at the Imperial War Museum Duxford a couple decades ago I saw that it was small. Really small and tight.



Where is "the tarmac"? You've been listening to the talking heads in the media too much.
Click to expand...
If you have to explain the joke ...
 
I loved sonic booms as a kid of the 60s.

Haven't heard a sonic boom since 1992 when the space shuttle was landing in Florida. And it shook me right out of bed....:lol::lol:
 
nothing wrong with the plane.....it just was economically not viable. ;)
 
You have to overcome nine times as much drag at 1,500 mph as you do at 500 mph. You have to build an airplane that can handle the the very different aerodynamics of both subsonic and supersonic flight, not to mention the extreme temperatures of Mach 2+. It can be done; it's just not economically sustainable as a commercial venture.
 
having said that.....there are three commercial ventures developing supersonic passenger planes. We should see them flying soon.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
having said that.....there are three commercial ventures developing supersonic passenger planes. We should see them flying soon.
Click to expand...
Yes. And go out of business in ten years if they have not solved the technical issue of fuel flow and sonic boom.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
my godmother rode on the thing (sts) twice. Main complaint was the cramped cabin and noise for the time saved. Personal Volumetrics (aka intl first class) can largely ameliorate the extra time spent in the air.
 
Beautiful plane, Virgin offered to buy a few from BA for the price BA paid for them, exactly 1 British Pound, unfortunately the bad blood over the hacking scandal made BA behave like a spoiled 5 year old
 
Got to go inside the Concorde and its Russian counterpart in Germany quite a few years ago. It did seem very tight.

9d762e64e4817b3d89fd92661c87f923.jpg

ca7c2787f97fb634908947d685cbebe8.jpg
bf1b33fda45fd1125929637d144f1870.jpg
a61078be7eabbc900a697e4d9ea14ccb.jpg
7eab175b65c226657bb0aebf8a298003.jpg
 
Heftiger said:
Got to go inside the Concorde and its Russian counterpart in Germany quite a few years ago. It did seem very tight.

9d762e64e4817b3d89fd92661c87f923.jpg

ca7c2787f97fb634908947d685cbebe8.jpg
bf1b33fda45fd1125929637d144f1870.jpg
a61078be7eabbc900a697e4d9ea14ccb.jpg
7eab175b65c226657bb0aebf8a298003.jpg
Click to expand...
Very tight but the angle they have those things mounted at didn't help my perceptions either. Was in there 3 months ago.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
having said that.....there are three commercial ventures developing supersonic passenger planes. We should see them flying soon.
Click to expand...

Bizjets are where supersonic flight becomes viable. The super mega wealthy will be willing to pay for it. Commercially, it was a publicity stunt effectively.

Heftiger said:
Got to go inside the Concorde and its Russian counterpart in Germany quite a few years ago. It did seem very tight.

9d762e64e4817b3d89fd92661c87f923.jpg

ca7c2787f97fb634908947d685cbebe8.jpg


bf1b33fda45fd1125929637d144f1870.jpg
a61078be7eabbc900a697e4d9ea14ccb.jpg
7eab175b65c226657bb0aebf8a298003.jpg
Click to expand...

The Russian Concordeski was basically industrial espionage and was a much worse design. Way, way less reliable, way, way less efficient, and more cramped. I remember seeing that in true Communist form, they tried to make Concordeski a more plebeian aircraft, 5 across. Although supposedly the Russian commie leader flew around in one, too.

I remember the thing taking off from JFK over the Jag shop I worked at in the early 2000s in Garden City Park, LI. Stupidly, stupidly loud. Re-engine the things to make them quieter and it'd be much, much better. I remember the final flight departing, and we were all happy to have it done with. That was before I was a pilot or into airplanes, though. I wish they still had one they could fly to Osh, though.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Being old enough to remember when military jets regularly made booms over populated areas, there would be little "back yard" that was touched if supersonic transport becomes popular. Don't forget that on a coast-to-coast flight, you have a coast-to-coast boom following the aircraft. I love airplanes, but there's no way I'd vote to allow overland flight, until the boom is mitigated.
Click to expand...

I do think the Air Force should have an exemption every few years to demonstrate Sonic Booms on the 4th of July. I miss hearing them once in awhile.

Brian
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The Russian Concordeski was basically industrial espionage and was a much worse design. Way, way less reliable, way, way less efficient, and more cramped. I remember seeing that in true Communist form, they tried to make Concordeski a more plebeian aircraft, 5 across. Although supposedly the Russian commie leader flew around in one, too.
Click to expand...

On the opposite side of the coin American Astronauts are riding to Space on a updated Soviet R-7 ICBM, which was the worlds first ICBM. Due in part to the Space Shuttle being overly complicated, long turn around times, and cost heavy.
 
It was a sleek jet with clean lines nonetheless.
 
chemgeek said:
I do despise the 6-7 hour transatlantic flights, though. Too bad supersonic flight is not currently economically feasible for most.
Click to expand...

6-7 hours is a hop, skip and a jump. Try SFO-SIN some time. 18 hours. Even worse, LAX-SIN. 19 hours. Nonstop. You are on the wrong coast going the wrong way to complain. Heck, to have your trans-Atlantic flight I first have to ride a trans-con, and that alone will be 5-6 hours. Then wait (these days at EWR) for the trans-Atlantic flight. :D
 
Ghery said:
6-7 hours is a hop, skip and a jump. Try SFO-SIN some time. 18 hours. Even worse, LAX-SIN. 19 hours. Nonstop. You are on the wrong coast going the wrong way to complain. Heck, to have your trans-Atlantic flight I first have to ride a trans-con, and that alone will be 5-6 hours. Then wait (these days at EWR) for the trans-Atlantic flight. :D
Click to expand...

You're off by a couple of hours... SFO-SIN is 16, LAX-SIN is 17 hours. Usually a bit less.
I wouldn't mind doing that in First. But I think only United flies those routes non-stop, and United is godawful in any class.
 
mtuomi said:
You're off by a couple of hours... SFO-SIN is 16, LAX-SIN is 17 hours. Usually a bit less.
I wouldn't mind doing that in First. But I think only United flies those routes non-stop, and United is godawful in any class.
Click to expand...

Those are UA. I've ridden the SFO-SIN flight. In coach (thank goodness, E+). And it is a LOOOOONG flight. Even in a 787.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top