Air France Concorde for Dulles.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In "BIG SKY".
Age: 84
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France Concorde for Dulles.
Air France will deliver a Concorde to Washington, Dulles (IAD) on Thursday June 12 at 10-10. This will be it's last flight and it will then go to the new Smithsonian Museum on the SE corner of the field.
There is also a rumor that BA will run one as a flag waving exercise later in the year from LHR to IAD and then to JFK.
We are coming to the end of an era, shame.
There is also a rumor that BA will run one as a flag waving exercise later in the year from LHR to IAD and then to JFK.
We are coming to the end of an era, shame.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hungary
Age: 39
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Id die to see them all fly in unison as a low pass over Heathrow. Id love to hear the noise complainers complain at that! I guarantee though, that they will be awe inspired by the, most likely, famous invent in aviation for many years. Dont you agree?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it ironic that the country which contributed largely to the failure of Concorde as a commercial proposition should want one for display.
Trophy hunting perhaps?
A 'great white elephant' head for the collection.
Trophy hunting perhaps?
A 'great white elephant' head for the collection.
Isn't it ironic that the country which contributed largely to the failure of Concorde as a commercial proposition should want one for display.
I always thought that it was doomed by economics , not by a country. Hell, there was the whole world to fly (and it tried) ignoring any country that didn't appreciate it fully. In the end it tried to be friends with the only foreign country that had the money to support it. Now at least that friendly country is willing to put up a monument to that friendship.
At least that's better than a graveyard without a tombstone.
.......er - no, lets get our 'facts' straight here. The USA killed Concorde from Day 1, make no mistake.
As Brimson (?) suggested, Americans love competition as long as they win. The Boeing product was way behind and was never to be a winner. Concorde was and they couldn't have it, hence the Congress approval of noise bans etc.
The success of Airbus must relly annoy!
As Brimson (?) suggested, Americans love competition as long as they win. The Boeing product was way behind and was never to be a winner. Concorde was and they couldn't have it, hence the Congress approval of noise bans etc.
The success of Airbus must relly annoy!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: U.S.
Age: 50
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the USA killed the Concorde from day 1, it sure took a long 30+ years for the thing to die.
And I thought that it was BA and Air France maitenance woes that stopped the Concorde from flying. Airbus better not get too annoying or they'll be next...or so I hear.
K
And I thought that it was BA and Air France maitenance woes that stopped the Concorde from flying. Airbus better not get too annoying or they'll be next...or so I hear.
K
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al E. Vator, et al,
Soooo, Stage II and Stage III (and soon to be Stage IV) noise restrictions in place throughout the world are some wierd hangover from the anti-Concorde crowd in Washington DC?
You are kidding right?
C'Mon guys! Lay off the Guinness for a moment. Boeing's SST was TWICE the size of the Concorde and even on that scale they realized they couldn't make it economically viable. With worldwide noise restrictions around the corner, betting the company on a VERY expensive program with no assurance the plane would be financially viable, Boeing pulled the plug.
Boeing is an independent corporation. The Concorde was paid for largely by the governments of England and France. Any suggestion that a billion dollar aerospace programme is a "winner"when it yielded less than two dozen aircraft being sold to their respective flagship carriers for one pound sterling each is pure hogwash!
Technological marvel? Yes, they are remarkable aircraft for their time. But please don't try to re-write history. Boeing simply chose not to do the programme --just like today with super-jumbo development. AirBus went down that road. Boeing has chosen another path. (Oh, and by the way A380 fans, the Boeing team originally designed the 747 as a double-decker. After millions in research, they redesigned it to it's current configuration. Evidently their data still shows two decks are not better than one. Time will tell.)
In todays cost-conscious world, you'll likely never see another aircraft like the Concorde. It was a good ride for us airplane buffs, but it is over.
PT
Soooo, Stage II and Stage III (and soon to be Stage IV) noise restrictions in place throughout the world are some wierd hangover from the anti-Concorde crowd in Washington DC?
You are kidding right?
C'Mon guys! Lay off the Guinness for a moment. Boeing's SST was TWICE the size of the Concorde and even on that scale they realized they couldn't make it economically viable. With worldwide noise restrictions around the corner, betting the company on a VERY expensive program with no assurance the plane would be financially viable, Boeing pulled the plug.
Boeing is an independent corporation. The Concorde was paid for largely by the governments of England and France. Any suggestion that a billion dollar aerospace programme is a "winner"when it yielded less than two dozen aircraft being sold to their respective flagship carriers for one pound sterling each is pure hogwash!
Technological marvel? Yes, they are remarkable aircraft for their time. But please don't try to re-write history. Boeing simply chose not to do the programme --just like today with super-jumbo development. AirBus went down that road. Boeing has chosen another path. (Oh, and by the way A380 fans, the Boeing team originally designed the 747 as a double-decker. After millions in research, they redesigned it to it's current configuration. Evidently their data still shows two decks are not better than one. Time will tell.)
In todays cost-conscious world, you'll likely never see another aircraft like the Concorde. It was a good ride for us airplane buffs, but it is over.
PT
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the facts, at least as presented, you will see that the Concorde made a very nice profit for BA.
Sure you can point at the govt funding etc but that is the way it was in those days and the US does no less for Boeing et al with military and research funding.
In any event, all those Boeing 747's seem to be making a nice fat loss for most of the airlines around the world, maybe we should ground those as well.
Ah, but I forget, when its a US plane it will be the global economy, SARS, or a one off, when its Concorde, its the plane.
Sure you can point at the govt funding etc but that is the way it was in those days and the US does no less for Boeing et al with military and research funding.
In any event, all those Boeing 747's seem to be making a nice fat loss for most of the airlines around the world, maybe we should ground those as well.
Ah, but I forget, when its a US plane it will be the global economy, SARS, or a one off, when its Concorde, its the plane.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PlaneTruth, you're speaking out of your backside I'm afraid.
The facts are that the US Government spent far more money on attempting to play Boeing off against Lockheed with the SST proposal, than the British and French spent on Concorde. You got a wooden mock-up.....we got the most beautiful machine designed by man.
And, the 747 was never designed to be a double-decker.....in fact it was never designed for carrying passengers! It originally started out as a freighter (the reason for the hump being that there was one continuous cargo area without a cockpit at the front to get in the way of loading).
The facts are that the US Government spent far more money on attempting to play Boeing off against Lockheed with the SST proposal, than the British and French spent on Concorde. You got a wooden mock-up.....we got the most beautiful machine designed by man.
And, the 747 was never designed to be a double-decker.....in fact it was never designed for carrying passengers! It originally started out as a freighter (the reason for the hump being that there was one continuous cargo area without a cockpit at the front to get in the way of loading).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LTN uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like our american friends are a tiny bit jealous of concordes success.
Seems like the americans are also pissed that airbus 320 family now has the top spot of worlds most popular a/c.
Pause for thought: Anyone know of any other commercial a/c that has flown for 30yrs and only suffered a single loss?
ps, as far as making it to the moon - well there's a whole new story.
Seems like the americans are also pissed that airbus 320 family now has the top spot of worlds most popular a/c.
Pause for thought: Anyone know of any other commercial a/c that has flown for 30yrs and only suffered a single loss?
ps, as far as making it to the moon - well there's a whole new story.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Concorde was paid for largely by the governments of England and France.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, One more time for the slower folks...
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: below the sky
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a crying shame
It's a crying shame that an aircraft made in the 60's which can perform better than anything flying today on this planet is lost!.
We will spend most of our lives trying to watch it stooging around at airshows aka (vulcan) if granted a.w.c.
IDEA ... Fly it up & down the north sea supersonic (VIRGIN CONCORDE) loads of americans will come over here on a 380's (745) obsolete.......
Come on Tony & Richard get your ar$e into gear......
We will spend most of our lives trying to watch it stooging around at airshows aka (vulcan) if granted a.w.c.
IDEA ... Fly it up & down the north sea supersonic (VIRGIN CONCORDE) loads of americans will come over here on a 380's (745) obsolete.......
Come on Tony & Richard get your ar$e into gear......
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: newark
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points
Planetruth;
Your article was one of the best I ever have read on PPrune. While I don't agree with 100% of your points, it was very well written and extremely thoughtful.
As for why Air France stopped flying the Concorde to N.Y, it ws strictly economics. They were averaging only 20 passengers a flight which will kill any airline rather quickly!!! I will always remember playing rugby next to the airport in the early '80s and seeing this thing take-off. The ground shook and the both teams stood around to admire it's beauty and grace....and after the ground stopped shaking, the match continued.
Newark
Your article was one of the best I ever have read on PPrune. While I don't agree with 100% of your points, it was very well written and extremely thoughtful.
As for why Air France stopped flying the Concorde to N.Y, it ws strictly economics. They were averaging only 20 passengers a flight which will kill any airline rather quickly!!! I will always remember playing rugby next to the airport in the early '80s and seeing this thing take-off. The ground shook and the both teams stood around to admire it's beauty and grace....and after the ground stopped shaking, the match continued.
Newark
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newarksmells,
Exactly! Economics finally won out. (Well, that and those pesky rudders that Concorde kept shedding at cruise speed.)
People or Planes: Parts is parts and sadly they don't last forever.
PT.
Exactly! Economics finally won out. (Well, that and those pesky rudders that Concorde kept shedding at cruise speed.)
People or Planes: Parts is parts and sadly they don't last forever.
PT.
Plane Truth
You are wrong about the Air Force 1's and the Flying Laser Lab.
They were/are all new-build airframes AFAIK (the presidential a/c being highly modified 747-200s and the Flying Laser being based on the 744F I believe).
Of course, the US Govt is now helping Boeing's lean order book by giving them 100 tankers (KC767) to build....it's called politics & it goes on everywhere!
They were/are all new-build airframes AFAIK (the presidential a/c being highly modified 747-200s and the Flying Laser being based on the 744F I believe).
Of course, the US Govt is now helping Boeing's lean order book by giving them 100 tankers (KC767) to build....it's called politics & it goes on everywhere!