40 years ago... now sadly missed

[Geofa 108]

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..

[mgh 89]

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.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

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. :(

[Geofa 108]

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.

[Chock 17,769]

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

[CYXR 257]

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

[mgh 89]

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

[Geofa 108]

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.

[CYXR 257]

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

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

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.

[mgh 89]

Let's stick to the facts.Concorde was originally promoted on the basis that it up to 500 aircraft would be sold and the development cost would be less than