If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article , Pooh Bear writes: wrote: One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris. BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years - hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger numbers by the time it was back in service. The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction. Agreed, but that wasn't their problem. It was a political decision by the British and French governments to design and build the plane. Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would buy them after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'. As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and performance airframe. Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use. The Pacific stage lengths are much too long. Uhuh. Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England, Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a divert airfield. It worked ! To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case) ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300 miles. (IIRC, the California-Honolulu leg is the longest single stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more expensive proposition. Would BA or AF have been even allowed rights to operate Pacific routes though? Graham |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
... Peter Stickney wrote: In article , Pooh Bear writes: wrote: One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris. BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years - hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger numbers by the time it was back in service. The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction. Agreed, but that wasn't their problem. It was a political decision by the British and French governments to design and build the plane. Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would buy them after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'. As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and performance airframe. Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use. The Pacific stage lengths are much too long. Uhuh. Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England, Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a divert airfield. It worked ! To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case) ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300 miles. (IIRC, the California-Honolulu leg is the longest single stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more expensive proposition. And, it should also be pointed out, never flew. John |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Pooh Bear writes: Peter Stickney wrote: In article , Pooh Bear writes: wrote: One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris. BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years - hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger numbers by the time it was back in service. The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction. Agreed, but that wasn't their problem. Actually, I'd say that it is. In the Real World, it still costs money to develop and produce something. That money gets paid out no matter what. If you can't make it back, its a net loss of resources. Now, I suppose that you could subscribe to the delusion that Government Money isn't really money, and so doesn't matter, but even the most Ardent Socialist would agree that it is a marker for resources spent that could have been spent otherwise. How many Dog Shelters in Battersea, or Labour Exchanges in East Acton could have been supported with the dosh that was dumped into Concorde? It was a political decision by the British and French governments to design and build the plane. Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would buy them after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'. Actually, the bottom fell out of Concorde orders in the late '60s, before the oil proce hikes. Concorde was too limited. There was no growth in the airframe, and its operating economics were miserable by even 1960s standards, let alone amortizing R&D. But then again, it had been so long since the British Aviation Industry as a whole had actually sold enough airliners to amortize R&D that I wonder if they realized that they could. (The only airliners to make money for theri manufacturers were the Viscount and the BAC 1-11. (Well, the COmet IV may have, as well) Everythig else - Vikings, Ambassadors, Heralds, Britannias, Vanguards, VC.10s - (And those are only ht eones that made it into production) all ended up as losers, economically. As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and performance airframe. Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use. Passenger capacity has nothing to do with it, other than being the airplane's reason for existing. The real problems are fuel capacity and performance. Concorde didn't have any reserves available that could be diverted to either. Over the COncorde's career, there were enough such emergencies that there would have been at least 5 or 6 losses, in this context. The Pacific stage lengths are much too long. Uhuh. Without a doubt, for revenue service. An inflight emergency on the San Fran-Hawaii leg would have meant a lost airplane due to fuel exhaustion, in most cases. Plus, even the shorter legs are still damned long - Even if you duplicated the route of the Pan Am flying boats - San Francisco-Honolulu-Midway-Wake-Manila-Hong Kong - it's still unworkable wrt safety, and the stops would have added tremendously to the travel time, annoyed the passengers, and shortened the life of the airframes. Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England, Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a divert airfield. It worked ! Only over that particular route. To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case) ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300 miles. (IIRC, the California-Honolulu leg is the longest single stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more expensive proposition. Would BA or AF have been even allowed rights to operate Pacific routes though? They would have had to have been able to demonstrate that they could fly the routes with a proper safety margin, first. It would have been possible, but embarassing, to stage Concordes across the U.S., if you wanted to run a through service from, say, London to Tokyo. BA and Braniff had an arrangement where Braniff flew a Concorde service to Florida from New York, ocerland. The U.S. (or Canadian) legs would have had to be subsonic, of course, and teh Concorde's low subsonic ceiling (Nothing you can do about that, either) hamstrung it in terms of range and speed - It's embarassing to by getting on what's supposed to be the World's Fastest Airliner, and having every 727 or DC-9 beat you from New York to LA or SFO. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Peter Stickney wrote:
(Well, the COmet IV may have, as well) Everythig else - Vikings, Ambassadors, Heralds, Britannias, Vanguards, VC.10s - (And those are only ht eones that made it into production) all ended up as losers, economically. Don't forget the Trident! -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article , Pooh Bear writes: Peter Stickney wrote: In article , Pooh Bear writes: BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years - hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger numbers by the time it was back in service. The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction. Agreed, but that wasn't their problem. Actually, I'd say that it is. In the Real World, it still costs money to develop and produce something. That money gets paid out no matter what. If you can't make it back, its a net loss of resources. Now, I suppose that you could subscribe to the delusion that Government Money isn't really money, and so doesn't matter, but even the most Ardent Socialist would agree that it is a marker for resources spent that could have been spent otherwise. How many Dog Shelters in Battersea, or Labour Exchanges in East Acton could have been supported with the dosh that was dumped into Concorde? In the short term, yes you could have had more dog shelters. If you want to talk about employment exchanges, I suggest you consider how Margaret Thatcher's industrial policies ( large scale unemployment to cripple the left ) were funded by North Sea oil revenues ( taxes ). In the long term, Concorde paved the way for Airbus. Without Airbus there would be no European aviation industry of note. I doubt that anyone could have truly seen that far ahead - but the mould was cast back then. Graham |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 at 10:07:50 in message
, Peter Stickney wrote: Without a doubt, for revenue service. An inflight emergency on the San Fran-Hawaii leg would have meant a lost airplane due to fuel exhaustion, in most cases. Plus, even the shorter legs are still damned long - Even if you duplicated the route of the Pan Am flying boats - San Francisco-Honolulu-Midway-Wake-Manila-Hong Kong - it's still unworkable wrt safety, and the stops would have added tremendously to the travel time, annoyed the passengers, and shortened the life of the airframes. I am pretty sure that a Concorde flying from London to New York could be forced to descend halfway across to subsonic cruise and still make the destination. As I recall it was postulated that it might occasionally be necessary due to a sudden upsurge of Solar radiation. Radiation levels were monitored on the aircraft. A loss of one engine could also be dealt with in the same way. Just dug out a Concorde brochure, written when they still optimistically hoped to sell many and fly them all around the world. Pacific routes are included as follows West Coast of USA; Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Acapulco were all shown as legs to Honolulu. Onward links from Honolulu were to Tokyo and to Auckland and Sydney via a stop at Nandi. West Coast USA to Australia in 2 stops - that's all. Other routes include London to Vancouver and Los Angeles via Churchill in Canada and flown subsonic over the USA to Los Angeles. I am not convinced that the subsonic range of Concorde was significantly different from the supersonic range. -- David CL Francis |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
wrote: One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris. BA actually made good money on Concorde It looks to me that BA lose money twice: 1) the Concorde was never profitable 2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747 -- Fritz |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Fritz" wrote in message ... Pooh Bear wrote: wrote: One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris. BA actually made good money on Concorde It looks to me that BA lose money twice: 1) the Concorde was never profitable BA made money from Concorde since they were practically given the aircraft free, the taxpayer footed the development bill. 2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747 Perhaps but prior to the 1970's oil price hike most people thought supersonic was the way to go, including Boeing who had their own SST project. Keith |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jarg wrote:
"G Farris" wrote in message ... In article EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51, says... They thought that the passenger travel would be ALL SST. At the time that the SST took over, the 747s would be converted for cargo use. The 747 nose was designed to hinge up to provide fast and easy cargo loading. Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker. Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope that Boeing made the right decision. Why should we hope that?? G Faris Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into more jobs and more money for Americans! *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason. Graham |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
... Jarg wrote: "G Farris" wrote in message ... In article EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51, says... They thought that the passenger travel would be ALL SST. At the time that the SST took over, the 747s would be converted for cargo use. The 747 nose was designed to hinge up to provide fast and easy cargo loading. Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker. Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope that Boeing made the right decision. Why should we hope that?? G Faris Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into more jobs and more money for Americans! *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason. Graham Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish? Jarg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 27th 05 07:50 PM |
Unused plans question | Doc Font | Home Built | 0 | December 8th 04 09:16 PM |
Fly Baby Plans Off the Market | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 9 | June 6th 04 02:45 PM |
Modifying Vision plans for retractable gear... | Chris | Home Built | 1 | February 27th 04 09:23 PM |
Here's a silly question regarding plans | David Hill | Home Built | 21 | October 8th 03 04:17 AM |