Concorde descent and landing

Nice video.

I have toured the Concorde but never got to fly on it. I got close once. I had a full fare BA ticket that cost over $5,500 and asked about upgrading. I figured if it was a thousand or so dollars it would be worth it for the experience. It was going to cost me an additional FIVE thousand dollars! needless to say that was one experience I could do without.
 
smigaldi said:
Nice video.

I have toured the Concorde but never got to fly on it. I got close once. I had a full fare BA ticket that cost over $5,500 and asked about upgrading. I figured if it was a thousand or so dollars it would be worth it for the experience. It was going to cost me an additional FIVE thousand dollars! needless to say that was one experience I could do without.
Click to expand...

Talk about a wasteful society (not you). Nobody, or their time, or their activities is worth the type of fuel and mechanical outlay that the Concorde required. For them to believe they are worth it is one epitome of malignant ego.

Although I admired it as an aeronautical achievment, I was not sorry to see the Concorde fleet grounded permanently.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Talk about a wasteful society (not you). Nobody, or their time, or their activities is worth the type of fuel and mechanical outlay that the Concorde required. For them to believe they are worth it is one epitome of malignant ego.

Although I admired it as an aeronautical achievment, I was not sorry to see the Concorde fleet grounded permanently.
Click to expand...

Lets say I have to be in Europe as quickly as possible, regardless of cost....what was my option?

Be careful with such statements, afterall, everytime we fly, we're doing the same thing since Motorcycles and Cars are slower and more fuel efficient in many cases....
 
SkyHog said:
Lets say I have to be in Europe as quickly as possible, regardless of cost....what was my option?

Be careful with such statements, afterall, everytime we fly, we're doing the same thing since Motorcycles and Cars are slower and more fuel efficient in many cases....
Click to expand...

Yep, I hear ya. But an order of magnitude in fuel and other costs to go supersonic? What's soooo very important? Nothing.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Yep, I hear ya. But an order of magnitude in fuel and other costs to go supersonic? What's soooo very important? Nothing.
Click to expand...

Dave, it's all relative to the value of one's time. I harbor no ill will towards anyone who can afford to fly supersonic. Heck, every time I spent 12 hours getting to Europe (or worse yet 14+ to Aisa) I'd fantasize about flying on the Concord. And like Nick said there are plenty folks who believe that you shouldn't be allowed to waste all that avgas flying yourself around when you could just as easily take a bus. On the other end of the scale there's driving to work vs mass transit, riding the bus vs riding a bicycle, and riding a bicycle vs walking.
 
I know a couple who flew JFK to Europe on Concorde. I'm not sure what their tickets cost but if it was $10,000 apiece it was about the same as they spent getting from Denver to JFK on one of those extravagant business jets...
 
gismo said:
Dave, it's all relative to the value of one's time. I harbor no ill will towards anyone who can afford to fly supersonic. Heck, every time I spent 12 hours getting to Europe (or worse yet 14+ to Aisa) I'd fantasize about flying on the Concord. And like Nick said there are plenty folks who believe that you shouldn't be allowed to waste all that avgas flying yourself around when you could just as easily take a bus. On the other end of the scale there's driving to work vs mass transit, riding the bus vs riding a bicycle, and riding a bicycle vs walking.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that's the common rationale. (I'm very familiar with it as an aviator, even had the fantasies!)

Military applications excluded, it is the idea that the percieved relative value of ones time is high enough to be in the realm of the super high monetary costs and even higher environmental damages that are required for supersonic passenger flight. It's just egotistical over-BSing. Just as true for the ill fated Valkyrie as for the Concorde and even more true for the fantasy of hypersonic commercial passenger flight.

Does the guy really even HAVE to be there at all? And if so, if the guy's really that super important, then the parties on the other side of the ponds WILL wait another 6 hours or so for such important people.
 
Last edited:
Dave Krall CFII said:
Yes, I know that's the common rationale. (I'm very familiar with it as an aviator, even had the fantasies!)

Military applications excluded, it is the idea that the percieved relative value of ones time is high enough to be in the realm of the super high monetary costs and even higher environmental damages that are required for supersonic passenger flight. It's just egotistical over-BSing. Just as true for the ill fated Valkyrie as for the Concorde and even more true for the fantasy of hypersonic commercial passenger flight.

Does the guy really even HAVE to be there at all? And if so, if the guy's really that super important, then the parties on the other side of the ponds WILL wait another 6 hours or so for such important people.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just not gonna understand why you insist this is always an ego thing. IMO for most passengers it's the relationship between how they value the cost vs how they value their time. Both can be precious quantities and for someone who has a lot more money than time, a Concord ride could be a real bargain. In any case I strongly support anyone's ability to make that choice for themselves.
 
gismo said:
I guess I'm just not gonna understand why you insist this is always an ego thing. IMO for most passengers it's the relationship between how they value the cost vs how they value their time. Both can be precious quantities and for someone who has a lot more money than time, a Concord ride could be a real bargain. In any case I strongly support anyone's ability to make that choice for themselves.
Click to expand...

I just think it would've been damn cool to ride in. Once in a lifetime thing. :D
 
Getting to drive something in afterburners for more than a few minutes would be way cool to begin with. Now, having to take 300 miles to slow it down would just be sweeeet. I got a ride in an F16 in Germany and I thought the quick climb to FL180 was the bees knees. I was grinning so much, I looked like a failed plastic surgery event.

I wonder if the concorde and the blackbird ever ended up on parallel tracks and journeyed over the ocean blue in the same airspace at the same time. The SR wouldn't won if they were racing of course.
 
Dave, I really don't understand your resentment in this regard. It's exactly the same feeling that others have towards us in GA who fly around burning AvGas and Jet A. It's identical to the theories about why business jets shouldn't exist.

I do agree that in many cases there was probably an ego trip going on. The thing is (like business jets), there are cases where it's worth the money and outlay. If there's something going on in Europe that's held up at a cost of $100,000/day (which does happen), then it's worth it to pay $10,000 to get someone there who can fix the problem. Same with business jets.

Either way, the fleet is retired now. I did hate having them take off. Those things used to fly over the shop I worked at. Way to darn loud.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I did hate having them take off. Those things used to fly over the shop I worked at. Way to darn loud.
Click to expand...

Now you know how the folks in the residential neighborhoods near the airport feel when you take that twin up for a ride. :lol: :D
 
wbarnhill said:
Now you know how the folks in the residential neighborhoods near the airport feel when you take that twin up for a ride. :lol: :D
Click to expand...

Two points:

1) There's a very significant dB level between any piston aircraft (at least any that I've heard) and the Concorde. Even when the Concorde was up climbing out of however many thousand feet it was above us, it was still so loud that we'd have to shout to be heard over it in the shop with the doors closed, and still couldn't hear eachother. It was deafeningly loud then, even worse when outside. If you've been to Osh and watched the Harrier just sit and hover for 5 minutes straight for the fun of burning Jet A, it's that loud. Jets are plenty loud. Afterburners are just insane. It's kinda the difference between having a 9mm handgun vs. a rocket launcher.

2) Note that I didn't say it shouldn't fly for that reason, I just said I didn't like it. :)

Interesting to note: Coming into BDR last night (in said twin), on short final for 24 there are a bunch of houses right on the water, and some other houses near the airport that no doubt complain about the plane traffic, all of which were built after the airport was constructed. I do try to keep the plane quiet, and the Aztec is actually not a tremendously loud aircraft anyway.
 
gismo said:
I guess I'm just not gonna understand why you insist this is always an ego thing. IMO for most passengers it's the relationship between how they value the cost vs how they value their time.
Click to expand...
I don't know why people talk about ego like it is a bad thing. Ego keeps the wheels of the economy turning and (among other things) kept Concorde and various other airplanes in the air for awhile. These days the trend is to need to justify everything as a legitimate business expense, which is often correct but sometimes hard.
 
A consultant I know had to get to Europe in a big hurry for a previous employer. They bought him a ticket on the Concorde. He flashed his ATP card when he boarded and wound up taking the flight in the jump seat. DROOOOOL!!!!!
 
I don't see it as resentment Ted, and like Lance and the others, I actually support anyones ability to fly in an SST. I just don't let myself fall into the realm of subclinical delusions of grandeur that facilitates people actually believing that they and their activities are really worth the multifaceted, exponentially high costs of SST PAX travel.

SSTs aren't even in the same league as conventional airliners or GA, especially in their upper atmospheric environmental damages, let alone simple monetary costs. If they were really worth their salt in usefulness to business and personal pleasure pursuits, the fleet would have been kept airworthy and still be in regular use.

The fact that the SSTs were allowed to die and the big wigs somehow figured out how to maintain their businesses without any SSTs at all proves my points.

Ted DuPuis said:
Dave, I really don't understand your resentment in this regard. It's exactly the same feeling that others have towards us in GA who fly around burning AvGas and Jet A. It's identical to the theories about why business jets shouldn't exist.

I do agree that in many cases there was probably an ego trip going on. The thing is (like business jets), there are cases where it's worth the money and outlay. If there's something going on in Europe that's held up at a cost of $100,000/day (which does happen), then it's worth it to pay $10,000 to get someone there who can fix the problem. Same with business jets.

Either way, the fleet is retired now. I did hate having them take off. Those things used to fly over the shop I worked at. Way to darn loud.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I wonder how Dave feels about the soon-to-be space tourism flights, such as on SpaceShip Two? Nobody "needs" to go into the edges of space, especially at $100K a pop (or whatever the price is)... does that mean they shouldn't have that opportunity if their "ego" and "wallet" support it?

I agree that there are probably rare situations where the SST trip could be considered "the only option", but as long as it IS (was) an option, if you had the money to afford it, that's a choice you're free to make! Or not! ;-)
 
Actually, all the Concorde's death proved was that there weren't enough people willing to pay the money to support its operation.

I understand where you're coming from (seeing as I'm one of the people who thinks the President should fly in a Citation or Gulfstream rather than a 747), but your reasoning I disagree with.
 
Year: 2015
Setting: talking head on CNN
Topic: the end of GA
Position: over regulation of GA that has effectively ended GA really should not be a concern to anyone

"GA isn't even in the same league as conventional transportation, especially in its atmospheric environmental damages, let alone simple monetary costs. If GA was really worth its salt in usefulness to business and personal pleasure pursuits, it would have been kept active and still be in regular use.

The fact that the GA was allowed to die and the big wigs somehow figured out how to maintain their businesses without any small aircraft at all proves my points."

I say, judge not least ye be judged.

I'm working hard, creating jobs, investing in the future. Some day, should everything work out right and my calculated bets pay off, I'd love to be able to spend money in a way that some people find extravagant. Heck, when I lived in China, my Chief Engineer rode an electric scooter to work. He had a Masters in Engineering and 20 years experience in the industry and rode an electric scooter. How extravagant do you think your car is to him? Then again, to a starving family in Africa, my Engineers scooter looks pretty extravagant.

Dave Krall CFII said:
SSTs aren't even in the same league as conventional airliners or GA, especially in their upper atmospheric environmental damages, let alone simple monetary costs. If they were really worth their salt in usefulness to business and personal pleasure pursuits, the fleet would have been kept airworthy and still be in regular use.

The fact that the SSTs were allowed to die and the big wigs somehow figured out how to maintain their businesses without any SSTs at all proves my points.
Click to expand...
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I wonder how Dave feels about the soon-to-be space tourism flights, such as on SpaceShip Two? Nobody "needs" to go into the edges of space, especially at $100K a pop (or whatever the price is)... does that mean they shouldn't have that opportunity if their "ego" and "wallet" support it?

I agree that there are probably rare situations where the SST trip could be considered "the only option", but as long as it IS (was) an option, if you had the money to afford it, that's a choice you're free to make! Or not! ;-)
Click to expand...

Like I said, I support their freedom to use SSTs, I just don't support their delusions of grandeur that they think they are actually worth the superhigh costs involved in furtherance of their routine activities as CEOs, super models or whatever.

The spacerides are a good example illustrating the difference between an extravagent occasional indulgence and a repititious, ongoing activity by an individual needlessly commuting in an SST.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Like I said, I support their freedom to use SSTs, I just don't support their delusions of grandeur that they think they are actually worth the superhigh costs involved in furtherance of their routine activities as CEOs, super models or whatever.
Click to expand...

Which was cheaper, a Concorde ticket from NY to London, or a bizjet trip from NY to London? Does every CEO suffer from "delusions of granduer", or is it OK for them to take a bizjet? Come on. :rolleyes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Which was cheaper, a Concorde ticket from NY to London, or a bizjet trip from NY to London? Does every CEO suffer from "delusions of granduer", or is it OK for them to take a bizjet? Come on. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Check out closely the environmental and purchase costs per mile per passenger for the SSTs and you may see what I mean. Those routine SST users are the only ones I've razzed about here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top