Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest pete1_leeds

40 years ago... now sadly missed

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Though it does not fly anymore, you can still visit and board one of the most iconic of all Concordes (G-BOAC) at Manchester Airport. They'll let you sit in the pilot's seat (which much to my wife's embarrassment I insisted on doing - unlike myself, who only got to do it on the ground, she was lucky enough to take a flight on an Air France Concorde a few years ago and sit in the pilot's seat when it was doing Mach 2). There's something particularly exciting about sitting in that seat if you are an aviation buff, it has a really exciting cockpit, so well worth a visit. Even people who have little or no interest in aviation love the Concorde, and it's the only aircraft I know of, with perhaps the exception of a Spitfire, which people used to stop in the street and watch when it occasionally used to fly over my house landing at Manchester. I even saw one do a low fly by just off the deck at Barton's tiny grass strip a few years ago when they used to have an airshow there, which was a sight to behold. As you say, an icon for most people.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Though it does not fly anymore, you can still visit and board one of the most iconic of all Concordes (G-BOAC) at Manchester Airport. They'll let you sit in the pilot's seat (which much to my wife's embarrassment I insisted on doing - unlike myself, who only got to do it on the ground, she was lucky enough to take a flight on an Air France Concorde a few years ago and sit in the pilot's seat when it was doing Mach 2). There's something particularly exciting about sitting in that seat if you are an aviation buff, it has a really exciting cockpit, so well worth a visit. Even people who have little or no interest in aviation love the Concorde, and it's the only aircraft I know of, with perhaps the exception of a Spitfire, which people used to stop in the street and watch when it occasionally used to fly over my house landing at Manchester. As you say, an icon for most people.Al
indeed when i was a kid we lived below the approach flight path to RWY 14 EGNM and we would always rush outside at easter and other bank holidays when they did the occasional special flights from/to EGNM when we heard it coming (which you could along time in advance) as you say everyone would come out of their houses and look up at this icon and huge sound of its engines..never got the chance to fly as i was too young and my parents were not super rich.. i hope they get the one remaining airworthy aircraft in france back up and doing special one off flights like they are trying to.. be great to this flying again

Share this post


Link to post
a true icon for most of us..
What proves the concorde was a true icon was the fact that for the first time since the titanic, when it crashes, people mourned the loss of the machine as well as the people.I personally think we've gone backwards since concorde, and should re-introduce supersonic flight. Concorde was the pinnacle of modern commercial aviation to me.

Share this post


Link to post

On the other side of the Pond, I used to see it coming in on approach into JFK every morning going to work, out on Long Island. It was sad to see her retired. I still think she had a few good years left in her, but I guess the cost of operating her just got to high.

Share this post


Link to post
What proves the concorde was a true icon was the fact that for the first time since the titanic, when it crashes, people mourned the loss of the machine as well as the people.I personally think we've gone backwards since concorde, and should re-introduce supersonic flight. Concorde was the pinnacle of modern commercial aviation to me.
No it wasn't. Concorde was a technological achievement but otherwise economically, financially, and environmentally it was a disaster.The funding requred to develop it prevented any other civil aircraft being developed in the UK. While the UK was developing Concorde to carry a dmall number of rich people the 747 was being developed to provide transport for everyone. 14 Concordes were sold the only buyers were British Airways and Air France. 1414 Boeing 747s have been produced - a hundred times as many. the UK Government. The cost of the 16 production Concordes was

Share this post


Link to post

Whilst all that is true, it's been said that it was more of a technological achievement to produce the Concorde than it was to pull off the Apollo moon mission in 1969 - often by engineers who worked on Apollo - and if that is even close to being true, then you can only step back and be amazed at the engineering feat it represents. Similarly, whilst it was indeed hardly the pinnacle of economic flight for the masses (I think Boeing deserves that accolade), it's not strictly true to say that the airlines regarded Concorde as financially valueless. Both Air France and British Airways knew that operating the Concorde was a great marketing ploy because of what it represented to both the British and French people - i.e the best airliner in the world for those who were not disposed to look at the bean counting behind that prestigious image. For the prices they charged in later years to fly on board the thing, it was, if not hugely profitable then not a massive loss maker either, and certainly great as a means to add prestige to the Airline's Corporate Identity. I think even the most ardent Boeing 747 fan would admit that it was hardly operating Boeing 747s that enabled BA to use their strapline: 'The World's Favourite Airline' and not be laughed out of town, and BA is one of the biggest operators of the 747 type. It's no secret that before the regulations grounded Concorde, Richard Branson tried very hard to change that and get hold of the aircraft so that Virgin Atlantic could operate it, and you don't have to be an accountant to know what a shrewd businessman he is.The most successful airliner of all time - and indeed one of the safest - is the Boeing 737, but one can hardly see Joe Public shedding a tear when it stops flying one day, and it is going to, because Boeing have its replacement on the drawing boards, and that's coming from someone who personally regards the 737 as one of the true icons of aviation, right up there with the DC-3. There can't be many people who've never flown on a B737, but if you ask most people what plane they went on, they most likely won't be able to name that type. I think that notion is the measure of Concorde, it might not have been a success for the accountants, but in the hearts of your average Joe, it was all that and more.Al

Share this post


Link to post
No it wasn't. Concorde was a technological achievement but otherwise economically, financially, and environmentally it was a disaster.
Yes, you're absolutely correct but leaving money out of the equation it remains probably the most iconic passenger aircraft ever developed and one which turned heads whether you were an aviation nut or not.I was one of 10,000 people at Manchester when Concorde arrived and departed on 23 October 2003 and all of us who were there will never forget the experience.When the 747 is eventually retired there will be no tears even though it was a huge money earner for all concerned. Some things transcend money. Concorde was one.Compare the cost to getting man on the moon. Was it worth it? No. Did it make you feel proud as an American? Yes, of course. That's how Brits feel about Concorde.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah-spreadsheets and practicality vs. dreams and the human spirit.The 1960's went on the dreams and the human spirit side.Now we are in the spreadsheet and practicality side.I know which era I preferred and feel lucky to have experienced it.....I feel sorry for those that haven't and will not.

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah-spreadsheets and practicality vs. dreams and the human spirit.The 1960's went on the dreams and the human spirit side.Now we are in the spreadsheet and practicality side.I know which era I preferred and feel lucky to have experienced it.....I feel sorry for those that haven't and will not.
You may have enjoyed the era of "dreams and human spirit" but you probably didn't pay for it yourself. It was at someone else's expense - in the case of Concorde the taxpayer.I repeat, that as mode of transport Concorde was a disaster. Sales never met development costs. The only airlines to buy it were the British and French state-owned airlines who had no choice. The only reason the UK government did not cancel it was political. The French had vetoed the UK's entry into the Common Market and the UK Government did not want to upsetthem again because it was preparing another application. It was known even then that Concorde was not a viable proposition. BOAC wrote its cost off Concorde's costs in 1979 because it was valueless in earning terms. Later the same year the two airlines were given the remaining unsold aircraft and engines.Concorde's single transatlantic fare was 10 times the economy class fare. Heathrow ATC gave Concorde priority over other aircraft for take-off. Fully laden 747s were delayed so as not to delay the fewer numbe of passengers on Concorde. The whole project was misjudged and resulted in taxpayers money providing subsided transport for the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
You may have enjoyed the era of "dreams and human spirit" but you probably didn't pay for it yourself. It was at someone else's expense - in the case of Concorde the taxpayer.I repeat, that as mode of transport Concorde was a disaster. Sales never met development costs. The only airlines to buy it were the British and French state-owned airlines who had no choice. The only reason the UK government did not cancel it was political. The French had vetoed the UK's entry into the Common Market and the UK Government did not want to upsetthem again because it was preparing another application. It was known even then that Concorde was not a viable proposition.BOAC wrote its cost off Concorde's costs in 1979 because it was valueless in earning terms. Later the same year the two airlines were given the remaining unsold aircraft and engines.Concorde's single transatlantic fare was 10 times the economy class fare. Heathrow ATC gave Concorde priority over other aircraft for take-off. Fully laden 747s were delayed so as not to delay the fewer numbe of passengers on Concorde. The whole project was misjudged and resulted in taxpayers money providing subsided transport for the rich.
...and all the discoveries , benefits and new technology that came as a by product of these "non practical projects for the rich" helped who?There are lots of things in life that are valueless in earning terms-sometimes those very things are the things that make life worth living.I flew a trip this week with a friend who needed to build cross country time in a 172. The trip took almost as long as it would have to have driven.There was nothing practical or cost saving about the flight-but it sure felt good-in fact made me feel very high on life.You can't put a price tag on that-that is what makes life worth living imho. Kinda missing in todays world-maybe why so many people feeling empty and unsatisfied in our time?

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone knows that Concorde wasn't the most economical of projects. But as has been said, even today people don't dwell on that side of the aircraft's history. It was the fact that ordinary people could travel at super high speeds in this elegant aircraft which made it an icon, especially back in the 70's. No doubt a certain sense of pride was achieved as well for the British and French for making the whole thing happen. Sometimes you just have to look past the fact that it never made any money back or it wasn't the most environmentally friendly thing.

Share this post


Link to post
...and all the discoveries , benefits and new technology that came as a by product of these "non practical projects for the rich" helped who?There are lots of things in life that are valueless in earning terms-sometimes those very things are the things that make life worth living.I flew a trip this week with a friend who needed to build cross country time in a 172. The trip took almost as long as it would have to have driven.There was nothing practical or cost saving about the flight-but it sure felt good-in fact made me feel very high on life.You can't put a price tag on that-that is what makes life worth living imho. Kinda missing in todays world-maybe why so many people feeling empty and unsatisfied in our time?
What "benefits and new technology" came from Concorde that wouldn't also have cime from the develoipment of military supersonic aircraft?I'm sure you enjoyed your 172 flight. But you didn't expect the tasxpayer to subsidise it did you?
Everyone knows that Concorde wasn't the most economical of projects. But as has been said, even today people don't dwell on that side of the aircraft's history. It was the fact that ordinary people could travel at super high speeds in this elegant aircraft which made it an icon, especially back in the 70's. No doubt a certain sense of pride was achieved as well for the British and French for making the whole thing happen. Sometimes you just have to look past the fact that it never made any money back or it wasn't the most environmentally friendly thing.
The only "ordinary people" were those you bought charter flights when the airlines couldn't find anything better to do with Concorde. Otherwise, only the rich could afford it. Anyway, is it really a good use of taxpayer's money to give them the pleasure of travelling at supersonic speeds?Anyway, all these justifications and claims are made with hindsight and are simply trying to disguise the fact that Concorde was a failure in transport terms and failed to meet its objectives claimed by its supporters. Claiming it was an icon etc can't alter that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
What "benefits and new technology" came from Concorde that wouldn't also have cime from the develoipment of military supersonic aircraft?I'm sure you enjoyed your 172 flight. But you didn't expect the tasxpayer to subsidise it did you?The only "ordinary people" were those you bought charter flights when the airlines couldn't find anything better to do with Concorde. Otherwise, only the rich could afford it. Anyway, is it really a good use of taxpayer's money to give them the pleasure of travelling at supersonic speeds?Anyway, all these justifications and claims are made with hindsight and are simply trying to disguise the fact that Concorde was a failure in transport terms and failed to meet its objectives claimed by its supporters. Claiming it was an icon etc can't alter that fact.
I have a friend at work who took the last ride on the Concorde. He is not rich, and not even all that interested in aviation. I asked him why he was spending the big bucks to do so and he said-"so I can say to myself I flew faster than most will ever experience". Not rich, not waste, but perhaps vision and the things in life that go beyond spreadsheets?Well I guess technically the tax payer did subsidize my 172 flight as in the US as we don't pay for atc (directly that is-we pay a gas tax) like those in Europe do. Of course Ga brings much money in other areas (I spent quite a bit of money on my trip on hotels, food,fuel, taxis, rental cars, and tourist activities so when one looks beyond the spreadsheet there is a benefit). The taxpayers also paid to put men on the moon. With your mindset it would have never happened. It was much more practical to put unmanned vehicles there-but somehow I think we are all better, not only for the technologies that were developed that went outside the space program, but a sense of accomplishment and pushing of our vision of what mankind can accomplish.By the way-witnessing the Concorde land once is one of the things that excited me about aviation-one of the causes that pushed me into becoming a pilot and a flight simmer. I never rode it-but it did have ramifications beyond its' daily route.

Share this post


Link to post

You have effectively conceded my point that that Concorde failed in its objective as a transport system. If it had succeeded you wouldn't be deploying your present arguments - you'd be pointing to its success. The British and French taxpayers didn't subsidise it so that someone "... can say to myself I flew faster than most will ever experience". Nor did they subdidise it so that it would encourage someone else " ...into becoming a pilot and a flight simmer." They subsided it because they were told that it would be a viable transport system. It failed to become that. The difference between Concorde and the US moon-landing programme is that the latter succeeded!"

Share this post


Link to post
You have effectively conceded my point that that Concorde failed in its objective as a transport system. If it had succeeded you wouldn't be deploying your present arguments - you'd be pointing to its success. The British and French taxpayers didn't subsidise it so that someone "... can say to myself I flew faster than most will ever experience". Nor did they subdidise it so that it would encourage someone else " ...into becoming a pilot and a flight simmer." They subsided it because they were told that it would be a viable transport system. It failed to become that. The difference between Concorde and the US moon-landing programme is that the latter succeeded!"
I think you have missed my point completely. Do explain how putting men on the moon was a financial success though..

Share this post


Link to post
I think you have missed my point completely. Do explain how putting men on the moon was a financial success though..
You have missed my point. Concorde was developed a a means of transport and it was claimed it would be financially viable. It wasn't so it was a failure.The moon landing programme was developed to put men on the moon. It did and so was a success.To reiterate, Concorde was a failure because it didn't achieve its objectives: the moon landing programme was a success because it achieved its.Concorde's objectives never were to allow someone "... can say to myself I flew faster than most will ever experience" nor to encourage someone else " ...into becoming a pilot and a flight simmer." or any other the other so-called advantages claimed with hindsight once its failure became apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
You have missed my point. Concorde was developed a a means of transport and it was claimed it would be financially viable. It wasn't so it was a failure.The moon landing programme was developed to put men on the moon. It did and so was a success.To reiterate, Concorde was a failure because it didn't achieve its objectives: the moon landing programme was a success because it achieved its.Concorde's objectives never were to allow someone "... can say to myself I flew faster than most will ever experience" nor to encourage someone else " ...into becoming a pilot and a flight simmer." or any other the other so-called advantages claimed with hindsight once its failure became apparent.
mgh,Concorde's aim was to transport people to destinations faster than anyone else could. If you were happy to pay a premium for that privilege (and many were) then it could be deemed a success. I firmly believe that had it not been for 9/11 and the Paris crash it would still be flying today.But I don't expect you to accept that argument because you appear to have a real downer on Concorde. I personally don't believe the money spent on the space race was money well spent but I still have a huge admiration for all the people involved in the projects and I'll never forget the sight of an Apollo launch.You know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. :(

Share this post


Link to post
You have missed my point. Concorde was developed a a means of transport and it was claimed it would be financially viable. It wasn't so it was a failure.The moon landing programme was developed to put men on the moon. It did and so was a success.To reiterate, Concorde was a failure because it didn't achieve its objectives: the moon landing programme was a success because it achieved its.Concorde's objectives never were to allow someone "... can say to myself I flew faster than most will ever experience" nor to encourage someone else " ...into becoming a pilot and a flight simmer." or any other the other so-called advantages claimed with hindsight once its failure became apparent.[/quote/]Ok-I'll spell it out and then I give up.How many aircraft that did not make it financially continue to inspire us? Spruce Goose, Northrop flying wing, and the recent Eclipse jet for example. The entire history of aviation has for the most part been a financial disaster-yet we still find inspiration from it.So by my definition and it appears others in this thread-the Concorde was a success. It pushed the limits of technology, took passengers well above the speed of sound which had never been done before and may not ever again, was and still is the pinacle of what is possible in airline travel, and brought pride to the countries that developed it.If you choose to keep the definition whether it was a profitable endevour as the meaning of whether it was a success- so be it-but what a limiting viewpoint. As pointed out above- declaring putting men on the moon as a success vs. the Concorde is a poor one. It cost logarithmically more tax payer money to put men on the moon than to explore/accomplish the same task with unmanned vehicles. The decision was made to use men for the human inspiration/victory aspect. It still remains an inspiration-at least to some of us, as does the Concorde. As a smarter person than me once declared-money isn't everything.

Share this post


Link to post

There is another point to consider when merely looking at the 'bean counting' aspect of Concorde. You should note that part of the reason for Concorde's lack of major sales was that there were huge blocking moves put on it from the US aircraft industry, with many manufacturers lobbying US Congress to make life hard for Concorde when it came to getting approval to fly to the US. You can't really blame US aircraft manufacturers for doing that of course, they were just protecting their interests and doing what any smart businessman would have also done in their place, but it is nonetheless the case. It was not the only aircraft to suffer such a fate either.At the time of Concorde's inception, things were not the same in the airline industry as we know now, with many unknown quantities; the 747 had not yet made its first commercial flight, the 737 had only gone into service two years before, the Airbus was still mostly a dream at Hawker Siddeley and propliners were a common sight at major airports. Historically the block on flying into the US for several years meant that for a large part of its early times, Concorde was forced to fly to destinations which were not the original target profile for its design (notably Bahrain). This was hardly a showcase for the airliner and clearly damaged sales (as it was intended to do), so it's quite apparent that with no approval for the transatlantic crossing for which it had been designed, there could be no major sales to anyone willing to fight a cost battle on high speed crossings of that ocean. Even so, you will note that in addition to Air France and British Airways, Braniff also operated the Concorde on lease, as did Singapore Airlines, so there definitely was interest in doing so, but the blocks put on that route made it a moot point until the damage was done.I think it is fair to say that had sales not been stymied by the business motives of rival manufacturers, we probably would have seen further developmental marks of Concordes which would doubtless have employed more economical engines and increased passenger capacity, as is the case with other aircraft. The similarly vintaged Boeing 737 is a case in point, with it originally being a noisy 100 seater (same as Concorde) turbojet powered aircraft that only had thirty produced (just ten more than Concorde) before Boeing seriously considered closing its production lines down due to poor sales. Only Lufthansa showed any real interest in the first 737. It's worth noting it was while Boeing were still developing their own SST, that cancelling the 737 was considered, but with the threat of it effectively countered by other means, Boeing dropped their SST ambitions and stuck with the 737. The 737 is now (in its 900ER variant) a 200-seater (capacity doubled) with quieter turbofan engines and a considerably longer range (again doubled), which just goes to show how much an aircraft can change over the years if it is given the chance to grow.All that makes an interesting historical footnote of course, but you also have to consider that whilst Concorde was not a sales success, what it did lead to was the technological advances in European aircraft and engine manufacture which are still evident today with the likes of Airbus Industrie and Rolls Royce. So the money ploughed into Concorde which ensured the continuing existence of all the Airbus partners, and all the ancilliary industries which surround it, are what the taxpayers really got for their money, in addition to the Concorde. Weight that up in accounting terms and the jobs it saved in Europe and it's not quite the finacial disaster it might seem, except possibly for Boeing, whose sales are matched by Airbus these days. How's that for irony?Al

Share this post


Link to post

As a smarter person than me once declared-money isn't everything.True: it ain't. Since Dec. 17 1903, the global airline industry has produced a net loss. So have the not financially viable endeavors of dating women; marriage and parenting, by the way. Not to mention so many other worthwile but ruinous pursuits, involving airplanes and/or women. I don't know many other kinds, personnally. But I don't have any regrets. ben

Share this post


Link to post

RayConcorde's aim wasn't to transport people to destinations faster than anyone else could. It was to transport people to destinations faster than anyone else could at a price. When I was qualifying as an engineer there was a saying that "an engineer is some one who can do for 10 bob what any fool can do for a pound". Cost has always been an essential element of good engineering.Passengers paid a premium but it wasn't enough. The rich were being subsidised by the rest of us. I do know the value of the billion pound subsidy that the taxpayer put into Concorde. It could have provided a lot more useful things.GeoffI'm not impressed by your analogies. The Spruce Goose was an passenger aircraft that never carried a passenger. I don't call that a success. I understand that of the Northrop flying wings neither the B35 nor the B49 ever entered service so hardly were a success. The Eclipse was built by a company that appears to have got its costing wrong, had to increase its price and limited its servicing and yet still failed, resulting in staff losing their jobs. Again hardly a success.You may think that money may not be everything but it is to those who don't have it and to those who see it being wasted.Both of you seem to be happy to take an elevated view and ignore costs and speak about inspiration etc etc but let's just consider facts. The original estimates of Concorde's development costs were between

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah-there are lots of things in life I can't justify on a spreadsheet basis-like mentioned above-raising 3 kids and lots of life mistakes that left me richer in spirit though poorer in the $$$.... If your only goal is $$$ and the bottom line-good luck-life will be shallow and unrewarding. You can't take those bottom line figures with you to the grave.I took this trip a few weeks ago that could have been made by car much cheaper..

Somehow though (and spending only my money) I feel more enriched by pushing the envelope , dreaming a little, and having a little adventure...something I find most pilots understand. There is no way to measure such an experience in monetary terms which in this case financially made no sense. On human terms- a different story.Too bad most miss out on this in this boring, unimaginative era which would now never produce a trip to the moon or a commercial airliner that would go faster than the speed of sound. The payoff was that these imaginative ideas were brought to fruition-period-regardless if they became successful commercial ventures-people back then dreamed, had goals with a higher purpose-and humanity was shown at its finest.As for the failures in the aviation business that have been there since the start-thank god that imagination is still left at least in the aviation field even with a similar continual proportion of failures. A few have even succeeded like Cirrus aircraft-and some like Eclipse have not. If computer models and spreadsheets had been around when the Wright brothers were experimenting they would have been told to give it up. Thank god they did not. Even though the odds are against it-aviation types seem to still push the envelope, though not always succeeding-a little bastion of humanity at its finest in a world of the exact unimaginative opposite.Somehow I think the humanity is/will ultimately be judged by its pushing the envelope of imagination and not a faithful adherence to a computer model based on only profits.Too bad we don't have Lindberg/Moon trips etc. in today's world but only what is practical based on a computer model. I feel lucky to have lived in an era of Moon walks and Concordes...which both I admire greatly-profit or not. Perhaps people would feel better about themselves today if the same era of can do it existed today. The Concorde was a magnificent machine, a culmination of thousands of years of dreams, and a manifestation of what the human spirit can do-period. Sorry you feel abused by it-but I don't think history feels the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah-there are lots of things in life I can't justify on a spreadsheet basis-like mentioned above-raising 3 kids and lots of life mistakes that left me richer in spirit though poorer in the $$$.... If your only goal is $$$ and the bottom line-good luck-life will be shallow and unrewarding. You can't take those bottom line figures with you to the grave.I took this trip a few weeks ago that could have been made by car much cheaper..
Somehow though (and spending only my money) I feel more enriched by pushing the envelope , dreaming a little, and having a little adventure...something I find most pilots understand. There is no way to measure such an experience in monetary terms which in this case financially made no sense. On human terms- a different story.Too bad most miss out on this in this boring, unimaginative era which would now never produce a trip to the moon or a commercial airliner that would go faster than the speed of sound. The payoff was that these imaginative ideas were brought to fruition-period-regardless if they became successful commercial ventures-people back then dreamed, had goals with a higher purpose-and humanity was shown at its finest.As for the failures in the aviation business that have been there since the start-thank god that imagination is still left at least in the aviation field even with a similar continual proportion of failures. A few have even succeeded like Cirrus aircraft-and some like Eclipse have not. If computer models and spreadsheets had been around when the Wright brothers were experimenting they would have been told to give it up. Thank god they did not. Even though the odds are against it-aviation types seem to still push the envelope, though not always succeeding-a little bastion of humanity at its finest in a world of the exact unimaginative opposite.Somehow I think the humanity is/will ultimately be judged by its pushing the envelope of imagination and not a faithful adherence to a computer model based on only profits.Too bad we don't have Lindberg/Moon trips etc. in today's world but only what is practical based on a computer model. I feel lucky to have lived in an era of Moon walks and Concordes...which both I admire greatly-profit or not. Perhaps people would feel better about themselves today if the same era of can do it existed today. The Concorde was a magnificent machine, a culmination of thousands of years of dreams, and a manifestation of what the human spirit can do-period. Sorry you feel abused by it-but I don't think history feels the same.
Hi Geof,Fore sure! And if flight had ever been required to be economically viable, female birds would not have laid eggs in a world of rampant egg theft, egg abuse, egg cracking, egg crashes caused by faulty nest design, and terrified little birds that, all to often can't flap'em well enough. ben

Share this post


Link to post
RayConcorde's aim wasn't to transport people to destinations faster than anyone else could. It was to transport people to destinations faster than anyone else could at a price. When I was qualifying as an engineer there was a saying that "an engineer is some one who can do for 10 bob what any fool can do for a pound". Cost has always been an essential element of good engineering.
It goes without saying that a premium would be paid for flying at Mach 2. I didn't include the obvious.
Passengers paid a premium but it wasn't enough. The rich were being subsidised by the rest of us.
Just as I (without children) subsidise other people's children for being educated. Presumably you are equally outraged at the banks being bailed out by taxpayers. And compared to those Concorde's costs are absolute peanuts.
I do know the value of the billion pound subsidy that the taxpayer put into Concorde. It could have provided a lot more useful things.
A billion pounds well spent as far as most of us are concerned. You disagree but you won't find much, if any, support for your stance on that.I imagine that if you're married and were considering children you would work out if they would be cost-effective and having decided they weren't, would advise your wife accordingly. Then again, perhaps money wouldn't be a factor.

Share this post


Link to post