Why did the Concorde fail?

[woodchucker]

You people are underachievers. I’m waiting for hypersonic commercial flight.

 

[Sundancer]

The Boeing SST might/might have had a chance at commercial viability, having as I recall far more seats, at least as proposed. Concorde was too small, I think, to haul enough butts to pay its way.

 

[GRG55]

I think the title of this thread is disingenuous.

Why does anybody think the Concorde "failed"?
Was someone expecting an airplane that first flew in 1969 to still be in commercial service?
It flew for 27 years. Using 1950s and 1960s technology; amazingly without a single Garmin avionics upgrade too.
Hardly a failure.

The failure, if there is one, is ours. When Concorde was retired it represented the very first time in human history we retired a publicly accessible conveyance and did not replace it with something capable of going even faster. For an engineer and a private pilot I thought it was a truly sad day that there wasn't a next gen Concorde being introduced.

I was living in the Middle East in 2003 and transiting through London regularly. Just by coincidence I was in the biz class BA lounge in Terminal 4 on the day of the final flights of the BA Concordes. The lounge overlooked the gates where three Concordes were docked and a fourth, the final final BA flight, was due to arrive. Some sort of party (wake?) with all sorts of invited celebrities was going on in the Concorde lounge one floor directly below. Did not seem something worth celebrating to me at the time.

Let's remember that this airplane flew for the first time just 4 weeks after the 1969 first flight of the Boeing 747. But the Concorde had a much longer gestation, as designing and building a passenger carrying airplane that could fly safely subsonic and supersonic was a wee bit more complicated problem. And therefore it locked-in the technology of that era. It's a wonder it lasted for more than four decades after its maiden flight, into the next century.

As for commercial viability and the comparisons with flying long haul First Class today, that wasn't an option at the time the Concorde was under development. In the mid-1960s commercial airliners could barely get across the North Atlantic. I flew in a DC-8 from London Heathrow across the North Atlantic in 1965. We had to stop at Prestwick, Scotland to ensure the plane had a full load of fuel and we landed at Gander, Newfoundland for more fuel before proceeding to the west coast (which involved two more fuel stops). In those days it was considered dangerous to have passengers in the airplane while re-fueling, so every stop involved going down the roll up stairs and walking across the tarmac to the terminal, from where this kid watched the proceedings back on the ramp.

The first Learjet had flown only 2 years earlier (1963), and five more years after that before a Gulfstream GII made the first business jet crossing of the Atlantic.

The idea of a supersonic premium commercial service must have seemed quite appealing in those times. Today we don't think anything of flat beds, movie screens, plated meals and internet access during non-stop flights of 15 hours or more. Who could have imagined that was even possible 50 years ago?

If nothing else, I still think Concorde is one of the most beautiful bits of aviation art ever created, up there with the Supermarine Spitfire and the Lockheed F104 Starfighter (and the Piper Aztec ).

 

[GRG55]

Very tight but the angle they have those things mounted at didn't help my perceptions either. Was in there 3 months ago.

It looks like they have them mounted at the high angle of attack for approach. Note the "tailwheel" on the Concorde.

 

[Possum]

Concord at Oshkosh 1988

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I think the title of this thread is disingenuous.

Why does anybody think the Concorde "failed"?
Was someone expecting an airplane that first flew in 1969 to still be in commercial service?
It flew for 27 years. Using 1950s and 1960s technology; amazingly without a single Garmin avionics upgrade too.
Hardly a failure.

The failure, if there is one, is ours. When Concorde was retired it represented the very first time in human history we retired a publicly accessible conveyance and did not replace it with something capable of going even faster. For an engineer and a private pilot I thought it was a truly sad day that there wasn't a next gen Concorde being introduced.

If the Concorde was economical, chances are it would still be in commercial service. The Boeing 747 is still flying. I saw some this past weekend at KORD. The Boeing 737 had its first flight in 1967 and it is still being built; you see those everywhere. Likewise, if supersonic flight were economical, there probably would be a successor. The A380 production is low enough that it might not break even, and it is a much more "modern" plane (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-a...on-to-six-planes-a-year-sources-idUKKBN1E51VH ).

The idea of a supersonic premium commercial service must have seemed quite appealing in those times. Today we don't think anything of flat beds, movie screens, plated meals and internet access during non-stop flights of 15 hours or more. Who could have imagined that was even possible 50 years ago?

If nothing else, I still think Concorde is one of the most beautiful bits of aviation art ever created, up there with the Supermarine Spitfire and the Lockheed F104 Starfighter (and the Piper Aztec ).

I couldn't afford the supersonic premium service, nor can I afford the premium service with the flat beds and the rest of it. Keeping a 777 aloft for over 18 hours with a single refueling is an impressive feat too. On such a long flight, I wish we could go sub-orbital though. I was going to say " go ballistic", but some passengers already do that without leaving the ground. Going that way be faster, could reduce or eliminate sonic booms, but I don't know how much fuel it takes to get 500 passengers into space for even such a short time. Probably too much.

It was a pretty plane for sure. I don't know that over land, the sonic booms would be louder than the engines since you could sure hear them flying approach to JFK. They couldn't be mistaken for any other plane.

 

[FlyingTiger]

I think the Concord was actually making money in the 90s after ownership conducted a study and realized they could charge a LOT more for tickets. Then the Paris crash and 9/11 occurred in the span of 14 months and sealed it's fate.

 

[GRG55]

If the Concorde was economical, chances are it would still be in commercial service. The Boeing 747 is still flying. I saw some this past weekend at KORD. The Boeing 737 had its first flight in 1967 and it is still being built; you see those everywhere. Likewise, if supersonic flight were economical, there probably would be a successor. The A380 production is low enough that it might not break even, and it is a much more "modern" plane (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-a...on-to-six-planes-a-year-sources-idUKKBN1E51VH ).


...

The 747 built in 1969, or a 1967 Boeing 737 is most definitely NOT still in commercial service today. They would not be economic either.

The versions today are heavily modified derivatives of those first generation aircraft, bearing passing resemblance and I suspect few interchangeable parts. If you read my post you will note I lament the fact a "next gen" Concorde wasn't in the cards.

If the macro-economic conditions that existed, and were forecast to continue at the time Concorde was developed had persisted, the economic outcome might have been different. But the real killer for Concorde was the enormous, and not widely expected run-up in crude oil and jet fuel prices between the first flight in 1969 and first commercial service in 1976. Perhaps Concorde is the aviation equivalent of the 1968 L71 427 Corvette - the ultimate expression of that era, fun while it lasted, but a limited production product of its time.

"The large-engine Corvettes are extraordinarily fast and marginally civilized.” Car & Driver​

Thankfully not every human endeavor need be commercially successful. Otherwise we wouldn't be celebrating a 50th anniversary on July 20th next year. And that's yet another limited production product of its time that deserved a "next gen" version that took us further and faster imo.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The 747 built in 1969, or a 1967 Boeing 737 is most definitely NOT still in commercial service today. They would not be economic either.

The versions today are heavily modified derivatives of those first generation aircraft, bearing passing resemblance and I suspect few interchangeable parts. If you read my post you will note I lament the fact a "next gen" Concorde wasn't in the cards.

If the macro-economic conditions that existed, and were forecast to continue at the time Concorde was developed had persisted, the economic outcome might have been different. But the real killer for Concorde was the enormous, and not widely expected run-up in crude oil and jet fuel prices between the first flight in 1969 and first commercial service in 1976. Perhaps Concorde is the aviation equivalent of the 1968 L71 427 Corvette - the ultimate expression of that era, fun while it lasted, but a limited production product of its time.

"The large-engine Corvettes are extraordinarily fast and marginally civilized.” Car & Driver​

Thankfully not every human endeavor need be commercially successful. Otherwise we wouldn't be celebrating a 50th anniversary on July 20th next year. And that's yet another limited production product of its time that deserved a "next gen" version that took us further imo.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your point of view. However, there is enough of a market for the 747 and 737 to have been modified to fit the market needs. For whatever reason, the Concorde didn't fit the goals of the airlines and so wasn't widely adopted.

 

[GRG55]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your point of view. However, there is enough of a market for the 747 and 737 to have been modified to fit the market needs. For whatever reason, the Concorde didn't fit the goals of the airlines and so wasn't widely adopted.

I don't think the goal of providing a fast, premium, long distance commercial service changed that much. But the available means to achieve it, and the changing external economic constraints imposed completely re-shaped the way that evolved.

If the alternative is to make two fuel stops flying from London to New York, Concorde looked like a pretty good alternative if you had the means. But the available solutions to travel long distances by air expanded with the introduction of the Boeing 747. Pretty soon many those re-fueling stops, like the ones I experienced in 1965, and the time they added to a trip, disappeared permanently as the 747 quickly expanded non-stop range. Combine that with persistently higher fuel prices after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and the entire economics of per-seat-cost long haul air travel shifted against the small, fuel swilling Concorde airframe. It was arguably already past its "best before date" when it entered commercial service in 1976.

Boeing made a big bet that the jumbo jet was the best solution and killed its SST in 1971 after government funding for the program was terminated. It proved the correct commercial decision.

Many decades later Boeing made a bet that direct point-to-point long haul for people would dominate over hub-and-spoke, and developed the 787. And as you noted the Airbus A380 outcome has proved Boeing once again made the correct commercial decision.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I don't think the goal of providing a fast, premium, long distance commercial service changed that much. But the available means to achieve it, and the changing external economic constraints imposed completely re-shaped the way that evolved.

If the alternative is to make two fuel stops flying from London to New York, Concorde looked like a pretty good alternative if you had the means. But the available solutions to travel long distances by air expanded with the introduction of the Boeing 747. Pretty soon many those re-fueling stops, like the ones I experienced in 1965, and the time they added to a trip, disappeared permanently as the 747 quickly expanded non-stop range. Combine that with persistently higher fuel prices after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and the entire economics of per-seat-cost long haul air travel shifted against the small, fuel swilling Concorde airframe. It was arguably already past its "best before date" when it entered commercial service in 1976.

The 707 and probably DC-8 could make that trip in one hop as well, and were doing so during 1965, but such aircraft weren't very numerous. It "only" took twice the time as the Concorde, as it does now. One could argue that the Concorde came out 11 years too late (in commercial service in 1976), since the older planes that had to stop for refueling along that route were displaced by long range jets by then, including the 747.

Boeing made a big bet that the jumbo jet was the best solution and killed its SST in 1971 after government funding for the program was terminated. It proved the correct commercial decision.

Many decades later Boeing made a bet that direct point-to-point long haul for people would dominate over hub-and-spoke, and developed the 787. And as you noted the Airbus A380 outcome has proved Boeing once again made the correct commercial decision.

Boeing really did make a big bet back then. Not many companies would take such risks, especially today.

 

[GRG55]

The 707 and probably DC-8 could make that trip in one hop as well, and were doing so during 1965, but such aircraft weren't very numerous...

I don't think so. Check out my personal experience in a DC-8 on that route in 1965 (post 43). Those airplanes might perhaps have been able to do that route (London - NY) non-stop if they left passengers behind and loaded with fuel. But the full plane I was on in 1965 had to stop for fuel after leaving London before heading over the water. And back then Gander was a busy little airport fueling airplanes arriving westbound and departing eastbound. Now its a ghost town.

Going across the Pacific in 1964, on my first ever airplane ride, again in a DC-8, we stopped for fuel in Anchorage and Tokyo before reaching Hong Kong. I flew a Qantas 707 on the next leg of that trip, and an Air France 707 on the Asia to Europe leg heading back, and it was the same story - stop for fuel in Tehran, then Vienna and finally arrive London. Those early commercial jets weren't very big and didn't have much range.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I don''t think so. Check out my personal experience in a DC-8 on that route in 1965 (post 43). Those airplanes might perhaps have been able to do that route non-stop if they left passengers behind and loaded with fuel. But the full plane I was on in 1965 had to stop for fuel after leaving London before heading over the water. And back then Gander was a busy little airport fueling airplanes arriving westbound and departing eastbound. Now its a ghost town.

Going across the Pacific in 1964, on my first ever airplane ride, again in a DC-8, we stopped for fuel in Anchorage and Tokyo before reaching Hong Kong. I flew a Qantas 707 on the next leg of that trip, and an Air France 707 on the Asia to Europe leg heading back, and it was the same story - stop for fuel in Tehran, then Vienna and finally arrive London. Those early commercial jets weren't very big and didn't have much range.

The early jets couldn't do so if there was a head wind, and I stand corrected about the DC-8, it didn't have the legs. A version of the 707 was used by Quantas for the San Francisco to Sydney run (https://worldairlinenews.com/tag/707-138/ ) in 1959.

 

[FloridaPilot]

(IMO) I believe a Concorde type airplane would do well in today's market. All of those corporate guys that are flying Gulf streams, (There are a LOT of them) It would actually save them a lot of money flying overseas. You guys know how much an annual is for a G6 or overhaul? I believe the Concorde is not with us today because it didn't adjust to today's climate, (The airplane itself) People also were complaining about the environmental impact as well.

Here are a few companies out there:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supersonic-flight-prepares-for-takeoff-again-1522850332

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...t-took-another-big-step-toward-its-ncna828431

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/hypersonic-jet-flies-anywhere-in-the-world-three-hours/

 

[GRG55]

The early jets couldn't do so if there was a head wind, and I stand corrected about the DC-8, it didn't have the legs. A version of the 707 was used by Quantas for the San Francisco to Sydney run (https://worldairlinenews.com/tag/707-138/ ) in 1959.

The Qantas 707s had 10 ft chopped out of them to make them lighter. The route still required fuel stops in Hawaii and Fiji.

Nevertheless the 707 and DC-8 (and the Comet) were remarkable achievements when one considers how big a performance increment they represented from the immediately preceding generation of commercial airliners.

So was the Concorde.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The Qantas 707s had 10 ft chopped out of them to make them lighter. The route still required fuel stops in Hawaii and Fiji.

Nevertheless the 707 and DC-8 (and the Comet) were remarkable achievements when one considers how big a performance increment they represented from the immediately preceding generation of commercial airliners.

So was the Concorde.

Yes, I see, you are correct- Boeing made enough variants it is difficult to pick them out. With 2 fuel stops, a 14-15 hour flight is incredible back then for that route, considering I had to put up with a miserable so-and-so sitting in the center seat for 15 hours non-stop between LA and Sydney last November. The person in the aisle seat told me she was happy to see the back of her too.
Some 707-320 variants could make a long flight:

• June 1961 - On EL AL's maiden scheduled flight from New York to Tel Aviv, utilizing a new jet Boeing 707 aircraft, three world records were established: the fastest flight (9 hours 33 minutes), the first regular scheduled nonstop service on this route and the world’s longest nonstop commercial flight (5,760 miles).

http://www.elal.co.il/elal/english/...om_items/usa_news_65th_anniversary261113.html

So some of them did have the range to go non-stop between NYC and Europe, but there weren't many of those planes around.

Interesting discussion!