Re: Concorde....

[Derek Copeland]

Jack's comments sound like sour grapes to me, because
Concord (English spelling) wasn't American! I seem
to remember that Boeing tried and failed to develop
a slightly bigger mach 2.5 swing-wing SST.

I am sure that Virgin Atlantic could have made a commercial
success of Concord, had they been allowed to do so.
It was quite succesful anyway until the Paris crash.
Maybe the British and French governments didn't want
their national flag carriers to be shown up by a true
private sector company.

Derek Copeland (UK)

At 03:54 11 June 2006, Jack wrote:
>
>Yes, check his email address, Graeme -- it doesn't
>exist. Another P. T.
>Barnum sucker-punch, as phony as 'Kenney's' daydreams
>of the Concorde,
>that blot on commercial aviation which served mostly
>to waste fuel, tax
>money, the environment, and lives in a search for yet
>another Jingoistic
>Corporate ego massage.
>
>The dozens of airlines who optioned and then refused
>Concorde, leaving
>the Governments of Britain and France deservedly holding
>the bag, are
>powerful evidence that the 'bean-counters' were right,
>as were the
>directors who actually made the [non]investment decisions.
>
>
>Jack
>

[Jack]

Derek Copeland wrote:

> Jack's comments sound like sour grapes to me, because
> Concord (English spelling) wasn't American! I seem
> to remember that Boeing tried and failed to develop
> a slightly bigger mach 2.5 swing-wing SST.

Why doubt that Boeing would have developed a fine SST if the money was
available? The money would have been available if it was deemed to be
commercially viable.

Sour grapes were de Gaulle's specialite, I believe.


Jack