"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt wrote:

If you add up all the costs involved with Concorde and all the revenues
the
costs exceed revenue.

I notice you avoid answerign the question.

Here's a simpler one for you, since you appear to be suffering from an
inability to remember the identification of the last or even current
American commercial SST; has Boeing ever been profitable if costs were
to be calculated as the you indicate for Concorde? Remember Boeing gets
enormous, and largely unaccounted subsidies from the US government. The
costs for Concorde included the costs of building and operating the wind
tunnels used for testing. Boeing OTOH has those costs 100% underwritten
by the US taxpayer.

Not to mention never having to pay royalties on those jet engines.

The SST was dumped because it was realized it could not be a commercial
success. Darn smart business decision. You brought up Boeing not me. I
seriously doubt your claims about subsidies regarding Boeing's commercial
operation can be supported.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.