Norodnik,
You assert that BA made a tidy profit on the Concorde. If that is true, and I have heard the contrary from industry insiders, it must be minus the tremendous development costs. I know that is hard for someone from a socialist background to comprehend but there was a cost in the Concorde’s creation and that cost must be balanced against any income the aircraft generates..
BahrainLad,
One of us is speaking out of our backside, but I assure you, it is not I.
The 747:
The 747 was initially proposed as a cargo aircraft at Pan Am's (Juan Trippe’s) request --and a passenger aircraft. (Don’t confuse Boeings early design proposal for the CX-HLS –later the C-5 –with the 747.) It was envisioned by Boeing and the carriers that the 747 was a stop-gap people mover that would be killed stone dead by the SST. (see Flying magazine, May 1987 by Nigel Moll) It had to be a viable freighter after the hordes moved off to the SST. The cockpit was initially planned for below the freight deck but that was later changed to above. It was found that a first class section up top was cheaper than a longer aircraft to accommodate same. I just watched a new Wings episode where the 747 engineers and management staff talked about the conflict between what is technically feasible and what is financially viable. Remember, TWA and Pan Am were the launch customers. The double-decker 747 was the initial design but they were afraid you'd never be able to fill it past break-even. So, they opted for a small upper deck for first class -to fair the cockpit. (Only after detailed wind studies of why the SP version was so economical did they realize the impact of the upper deck fairing and it's relation to the wing. The Big Top evolved and spelled the end for the SP. It did more work for nearly the same fuel burn. )
The American SST Program:
Your assertion that more was spent by Uncle Sam “playing Boeing off against Lockheed” is way off the mark.
Boeing competed against North American in the B-70 contract --and lost. Boeing took their experience from the supersonic bomber and put it into NASA’s SCAT (Supersonic Commercial Air Transport). Boeing had set up a SST study group in 1958 and was fully prepared to embark on the project in 1963. After Pan Am’s announcement that year that they would buy Concorde, President Kennedy announced a national SST program for the US. In January of 1964, Boeing submitted a design against Lockheed’s and North American’s. Early in the program, North American was eliminated. Boeing and Lockheed were asked to redesign their studies to larger aircraft in order to lower seat mile costs. It was becoming readily apparent that if the SST was to become a transportation system readily accessible by the average public, something had to be done to lower costs.
Initially, all funding was from within the competing companies. As design work began it was obvious that this program was going to be financially unsustainable for one private company. Early in the competition and after detailed analysis on four different designs by the two companies, Boeing had devoted over 20 million to the project. In 1965, the US Government stepped in to help finance the design and construction. An 18 month competitive phase was commenced and Boeing was funded to build a mock-up as Lockheed was eliminated. By 1967, Boeing was given the green light to build two prototypes but they asked for more time to work out configuration development. In 1969 the configuration was finalized and Boeing was ready for construction. Boeings final design was for a 286 foot long 635K lb titanium beast capable of carrying 250-321 passengers at a cruise speed of 1800 mph (mach 2.7).
American politics in 1970 were polarizing around the Vietnam War and economic woes. The American public demanded to know why their tax funds were being used for private ventures. By 1971, 15% of the airframe was completed and all major technological hurdles were well within hand. The program was within budget and on schedule. On the 24th of March 1971, the US Government cancelled funding for the project under mounting pressure from both the taxpayers (a deep recession had begun in the US in 1969) and the environmentalists (noise and ozone questions). Boeing was refunded their design costs and the program cancellation turned out to be a blessing in disguise: By the oil embargo of 1973, seat mile computations were rendered obsolete for all jet aircraft then in existence. This spelled the end of inefficient aircraft. This is why the Concorde production was ceased after less than 20 aircraft
With a few Concordes already in existence, financial realities meant only flag carriers for France and Great Britain would fly the aircraft.
Gentleman, the point is two parties chose to go down a road. One party was forced to turn back. The other was too far down the road. One is no better for the decision it made . The Europeans built a beautiful machine that was state of the art. The American XB-70 was equally elegant. The Tupelov was slightly bovine from certain angles but it too had it's charm. No aircraft lover can deny the planes that were built are stunning.
But, to say the SST players who built their aircraft were anything more than technologically successful is pure hallucination. It is widely agreed upon that the Boeing SST would have met the same dismal fate. Perhaps BA did make some money with the Concorde. That's easy when you only pay a pound per aircraft. To conveniently omit the fact that the development costs of the aircraft came from the taxpayers of the two countries involved (the vast majority of which never traveled on the aircraft) in disingenuous.
FURTHERMORE, The Concorde vs 747 argument is like arguing which is better: Apples or Oranges? They are two distinctly different approaches to moving people around the globe.
One thing is for sure: The 747 program has paid for itself over and over. It created a new market by lowering airfares. More people have traveled the world thanks to the 747 than any other aircraft in commercial history.
Each new Boeing program literally bets the farm. The same is now true for AirBus. The failure of the 707, 747, 777 would have killed the company. Remember, the 747 was seen as Boeing as a stop-gap to the SST. Only by the failure of the SST to be financially viable did the 747 realize the success we have seen over the past three decades. The 747 has been made in numbers that far exceed those of Concorde and each 747 has been paid for by someone other than the US taxpayer. In fact, Air Force One and it's stand-in were former airline aircraft. Same with the Airborne Laser Laboratory. Even with that level of success, Boeing nearly closed it's doors after not receiving any orders from 1969-72. It’s because they are an independent entity.
That doesn't make the Boeing team winners and the European teams losers. It's just the way the different programs worked out. Now the Europeans have decided to go big and slow. They may be very successful but one thing is certain, they are trying desperately to pay the bills as they go along because the realize, as did Boeing many times in the past, if this design is unsuccessful, it may mean an end to their company.
Jealousy has nothing to do with it. It's simply a matter of economics. I am not trying to take one atom of credit away from the team who designed and built Concorde. She’s a splendid machine. I merely want to point out the fact that as a revenue producing appliance, she never had a chance.
BoeingBoy1 – The 737 family is the commercial aircraft which has been built in more numbers than any other commercial jet aircraft in history. It hold a hull loss record half that of the rest of the industry. If you are suggesting that only one A-320 aircraft has been involved in an accident, I believe you are also incorrect.
PT
