Concorde ‘B’ (2014)(heritageconcorde.com)
heritageconcorde.com
Concorde ‘B’ (2014)
https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b
218 comments
> The plane was conceived in the era of big government bankrolled air travel and doesn't have a role in the reality of flying buses we see today.
This is a little bit unfair. Among other innovations, Concorde was the first production airliner with fly-by-wire controls (first flown March 1969!). The people who worked on it carried their experience to later highly successful designs such as the Airbus 300 and Airbus 320 series, which is a backbone of modern air travel.
The 737 MAX fiasco shows that Boeing still hasn't caught up with what Airbus was doing in the 1980s.
This is a little bit unfair. Among other innovations, Concorde was the first production airliner with fly-by-wire controls (first flown March 1969!). The people who worked on it carried their experience to later highly successful designs such as the Airbus 300 and Airbus 320 series, which is a backbone of modern air travel.
The 737 MAX fiasco shows that Boeing still hasn't caught up with what Airbus was doing in the 1980s.
> The 737 MAX fiasco shows that Boeing still hasn't caught up with what Airbus was doing in the 1980s.
The Air France 447 accident demonstrated to me that Airbus hadn't really thought things through either. Pilots entered conflicting inputs and the plane averaged them out instead of giving (good, actionable) feedback.
Side question: is fly-by-wire an obviously good idea for passenger airplanes? It's ubiquitous in e.g. fighter jets because of the inherent aerodynamic instability of those platforms, making them hard or impossible ("Hopeless diamond") to fly without computer assistance. Passenger jets have different goals and are built to have stable flight -- the plane wants to fly level. My takeaway from Air France 447 was that I want more Boeing-style (linked, mechanical) controls in passenger airplanes than I want fly-by-wire. Am I off base?
The Air France 447 accident demonstrated to me that Airbus hadn't really thought things through either. Pilots entered conflicting inputs and the plane averaged them out instead of giving (good, actionable) feedback.
Side question: is fly-by-wire an obviously good idea for passenger airplanes? It's ubiquitous in e.g. fighter jets because of the inherent aerodynamic instability of those platforms, making them hard or impossible ("Hopeless diamond") to fly without computer assistance. Passenger jets have different goals and are built to have stable flight -- the plane wants to fly level. My takeaway from Air France 447 was that I want more Boeing-style (linked, mechanical) controls in passenger airplanes than I want fly-by-wire. Am I off base?
My understanding is that there is no 'best option'. Dual input is a situation that shouldn't ever happen while a crew is flying according to protocol.
In AF447 it has been established that the crew failed to follow multiple protocols, ignored warnings (including the audible "dual input") and while design / instrument improvements have been put forward, it's not clear they would have avoided that tragedy. The conflicting inputs only happened during the final seconds of descent.
Here's a good discussion on the why: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/23577/why-do-ai...
The latest Boeing 787 has switched to fly-by-wire.
EDIT: an eerily straight-forward report of how the AF447 flight came down: https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-ha...
In AF447 it has been established that the crew failed to follow multiple protocols, ignored warnings (including the audible "dual input") and while design / instrument improvements have been put forward, it's not clear they would have avoided that tragedy. The conflicting inputs only happened during the final seconds of descent.
Here's a good discussion on the why: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/23577/why-do-ai...
The latest Boeing 787 has switched to fly-by-wire.
EDIT: an eerily straight-forward report of how the AF447 flight came down: https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-ha...
> Side question: is fly-by-wire an obviously good idea for passenger airplanes?
Once you have electric control, you can start putting logic between pilot inputs and actual control surface movements. You can create dynamic, real-time-conditions-based safety stops that prevent pilots from doing common mistakes like pitching up too much and falling from the sky.
With direct control, it's up to pilots to figure out where the limits are and ensure that they are not crossed. With advanced fly-by-wire, pilots can resort to setting goals and it's up to the control system to figure out how far the aircraft can go (within safety limits) to meet them.
This is really difficult to get right, but saves lives when it finally works.
It's like memory safety in computer programming. If you're really good at programming and you never make mistakes, then you don't need it, but most people make mistakes from time to time and are better off when something checks that their buffers don't overflow and variables don't go uninitialized.
Once you have electric control, you can start putting logic between pilot inputs and actual control surface movements. You can create dynamic, real-time-conditions-based safety stops that prevent pilots from doing common mistakes like pitching up too much and falling from the sky.
With direct control, it's up to pilots to figure out where the limits are and ensure that they are not crossed. With advanced fly-by-wire, pilots can resort to setting goals and it's up to the control system to figure out how far the aircraft can go (within safety limits) to meet them.
This is really difficult to get right, but saves lives when it finally works.
It's like memory safety in computer programming. If you're really good at programming and you never make mistakes, then you don't need it, but most people make mistakes from time to time and are better off when something checks that their buffers don't overflow and variables don't go uninitialized.
> Once you have electric control, you can start putting logic between pilot inputs and actual control surface movements. You can create dynamic, real-time-conditions-based safety stops that prevent pilots from doing common mistakes like pitching up too much and falling from the sky.
Which may end up doing more harm than good, as seen in Air France 447.
Which may end up doing more harm than good, as seen in Air France 447.
Quite the opposite! Protections are built for situations just like the AF447, where pilots have a perfectly flyable aicraft, but crash because they are disoriented, don't understand what's going on, and accidentally push the aircraft out of safe flying margins.
The AF447 didn't have automatic protections available due to sensor failure. Flight computers detected the failure and degraded flight controls into direct mode with less protections than under normal operating conditions. While flying on their own, pilots performed below their expected standard and there was not enough information available from sensors for automatic systems to save them.
The AF447 didn't have automatic protections available due to sensor failure. Flight computers detected the failure and degraded flight controls into direct mode with less protections than under normal operating conditions. While flying on their own, pilots performed below their expected standard and there was not enough information available from sensors for automatic systems to save them.
> The AF447 didn't have automatic protections available due to sensor failure. Flight computers detected the failure and degraded flight controls into direct mode with less protections than under normal operating conditions.
Notably the net result was that when the pilots did the right thing (pitching down) and the sensors recovered, a stall warning sounded.
> While flying on their own, pilots performed below their expected standard
You're talking as though pilot performance is a constant. Notably these pilots had little experience flying "on their own", precisely because of these automated systems, and were thrown in at the deep end, having to take over flying under bad conditions.
Notably the net result was that when the pilots did the right thing (pitching down) and the sensors recovered, a stall warning sounded.
> While flying on their own, pilots performed below their expected standard
You're talking as though pilot performance is a constant. Notably these pilots had little experience flying "on their own", precisely because of these automated systems, and were thrown in at the deep end, having to take over flying under bad conditions.
> Notably the net result was that when the pilots did the right thing (pitching down) and the sensors recovered, a stall warning sounded.
This is to be expected. Pilots learn on their first single-engine prop trainer that stall horns are primitive mechanical devices based on airflow over the wing and warnings may trigger intermittently when the airflow is seriously disturbed. It's additive: blasting alarm indicates that something is wrong, but lack of warning doesn't mean that everything is right.
> were thrown in at the deep end
Shallow end. Like stall warnings, airspeed indicators are also known to become unreliable relatively often. It's like loss of cabin pressure, bird strike or a blown tire. Every pilot can reasonably expect it to happen to them, unlike the 737 MAX crashes that took place in completely uncharted territory that nobody knew to be afraid of or prepare for.
This makes the official animation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-hbWO0gL6g really puzzling. Speed keeps wildly jumping around throughout the event, an obvious sign that it's faulty. At one point, airspeed indication drops by 200 knots in three seconds to almost zero without any other indications supporting it. Everything else remains consistent. Nose is pitched up and stable. Altitude is dropping fast, vertical speed is negative. Stall warning is blasting, albeit intermittently, and the aircraft is experiencing a characteristic stall buffeting as turbulent airflow develops around wings. Why would any pilot look at that and give a nose up command? It goes opposite to their training and the flying instinct that every pilot should have.
If anything, the AF447 case shows that automatic protections should be developed further, to work under wider range of conditions than they currently do.
Had some other failure disoriented the crew instead (eg engine failure), and had the protections remained active, they probably would've saved the flight.
This is to be expected. Pilots learn on their first single-engine prop trainer that stall horns are primitive mechanical devices based on airflow over the wing and warnings may trigger intermittently when the airflow is seriously disturbed. It's additive: blasting alarm indicates that something is wrong, but lack of warning doesn't mean that everything is right.
> were thrown in at the deep end
Shallow end. Like stall warnings, airspeed indicators are also known to become unreliable relatively often. It's like loss of cabin pressure, bird strike or a blown tire. Every pilot can reasonably expect it to happen to them, unlike the 737 MAX crashes that took place in completely uncharted territory that nobody knew to be afraid of or prepare for.
This makes the official animation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-hbWO0gL6g really puzzling. Speed keeps wildly jumping around throughout the event, an obvious sign that it's faulty. At one point, airspeed indication drops by 200 knots in three seconds to almost zero without any other indications supporting it. Everything else remains consistent. Nose is pitched up and stable. Altitude is dropping fast, vertical speed is negative. Stall warning is blasting, albeit intermittently, and the aircraft is experiencing a characteristic stall buffeting as turbulent airflow develops around wings. Why would any pilot look at that and give a nose up command? It goes opposite to their training and the flying instinct that every pilot should have.
If anything, the AF447 case shows that automatic protections should be developed further, to work under wider range of conditions than they currently do.
Had some other failure disoriented the crew instead (eg engine failure), and had the protections remained active, they probably would've saved the flight.
> It's additive: blasting alarm indicates that something is wrong, but lack of warning doesn't mean that everything is right.
In which case surely the warning does more harm than good - if the warning is sounding you need to check, and if the warning isn't sounding you... still need to check.
> Shallow end. Like stall warnings, airspeed indicators are also known to become unreliable relatively often. It's like loss of cabin pressure, bird strike or a blown tire. Every pilot can reasonably expect it to happen to them
Sure, which is why it's something that should be practised under normal conditions, rather than something that you do only when it's icing.
> It goes opposite to their training and the flying instinct that every pilot should have.
But how is a pilot supposed to develop that instinct if they're not hand flying often?
In which case surely the warning does more harm than good - if the warning is sounding you need to check, and if the warning isn't sounding you... still need to check.
> Shallow end. Like stall warnings, airspeed indicators are also known to become unreliable relatively often. It's like loss of cabin pressure, bird strike or a blown tire. Every pilot can reasonably expect it to happen to them
Sure, which is why it's something that should be practised under normal conditions, rather than something that you do only when it's icing.
> It goes opposite to their training and the flying instinct that every pilot should have.
But how is a pilot supposed to develop that instinct if they're not hand flying often?
I would argue that removing humans from all but oversight is a good goal, even though there may be growing pains along the way.
What we don’t have data for is how many accidents would have happened if not for the systems that prevented them. But we should be able to compare incidents of aircraft with and without such systems and get an idea of the (no pun) impact fly-by-wire has had on safety.
In other words, the answer is, show me the data.
What we don’t have data for is how many accidents would have happened if not for the systems that prevented them. But we should be able to compare incidents of aircraft with and without such systems and get an idea of the (no pun) impact fly-by-wire has had on safety.
In other words, the answer is, show me the data.
Side question: is fly-by-wire an obviously good idea for passenger airplanes?
Fly by wire is about removing the weight and complexity of mechanical control systems. A pilot wouldn't likely have the strength to move the controls without fly by wire. However, I don't think that's what you are asking. Fly by wire does not inherently have to be computer assisted; it could simply translate your input to a control surface movement without interpretation. Of course, to get any kind of feedback, it is going to have to be computer generated. The question is where to draw the line.
Finally, you compared Airbus to Boeing. Both are fly by wire. The difference is, I guess, that the control yokes on Boeing are mechanically linked to each other but not on Airbus. However, from the yokes to the control surfaces is fly by wire either way. My understanding is that the difference is in philosophy of how much the computer does for you.
I hope I got all this right.
Fly by wire is about removing the weight and complexity of mechanical control systems. A pilot wouldn't likely have the strength to move the controls without fly by wire. However, I don't think that's what you are asking. Fly by wire does not inherently have to be computer assisted; it could simply translate your input to a control surface movement without interpretation. Of course, to get any kind of feedback, it is going to have to be computer generated. The question is where to draw the line.
Finally, you compared Airbus to Boeing. Both are fly by wire. The difference is, I guess, that the control yokes on Boeing are mechanically linked to each other but not on Airbus. However, from the yokes to the control surfaces is fly by wire either way. My understanding is that the difference is in philosophy of how much the computer does for you.
I hope I got all this right.
Mostly right! Fly by wire doesn't inherently have to do with whether a pilot has the strength to move the controls or not - airliners in the pre fly-by-wire era still had hydraulic actuation of control surfaces, which allow pilots to multiply the force of their inputs. The main question/difference here is how much physical feedback the control system gives to the pilot - basically how much harder to move the stick it gets as the actual pressures on the control surface increase. Whether it's an electronic system or a hydraulic one in between the cockpit controls and the surfaces doesn't HAVE to mean that the physical feedback is all that different. It does make it easier to do non-linear ramping of the feedback though.
You also can do more complicated mappings of control inputs to control surface movements more easily with FBW (you can think of automatic traction control in a car as a somewhat analogous system - it uses differential braking per wheel, which the driver has no direct control over, to attempt to straighten out the path of the car and follow the driver's inputs from the steering wheel). As another comment mentioned, this has been happening in fighter jets for a long time, mostly due to how inherently aerodynamically unstable they are.
You also can do more complicated mappings of control inputs to control surface movements more easily with FBW (you can think of automatic traction control in a car as a somewhat analogous system - it uses differential braking per wheel, which the driver has no direct control over, to attempt to straighten out the path of the car and follow the driver's inputs from the steering wheel). As another comment mentioned, this has been happening in fighter jets for a long time, mostly due to how inherently aerodynamically unstable they are.
I wonder, how in the world non-hydraulic assisted airliners flew?
They would have used pulleys and I think they still do:
https://www.ralmark.com/aircraft-pulley/overview/
https://www.ralmark.com/aircraft-pulley/overview/
The control cable system of a B-52 looks like something that belongs on a bicycle. Steel cables on big open pulleys.
The two things (fly-by-wire control system, and linked controls) are not mutually exclusive.
> Passenger jets have different goals and are built to have stable flight -- the plane wants to fly level
I can think of a particular passenger jet that doesn't.
I can think of a particular passenger jet that doesn't.
The 777 is the safest ever plane with 5 hull losses, two of which were due to Malaysia Airlines "issues". And it is a fly by wire aircraft.
A380 has zero hull losses and zero fatalities.
That characterisation feels a bit unfair on MH, who certainly weren't at fault for the plane shot down over Ukraine, and may not have been responsible for the disappearance MH370 either, depending on which theory you think is most likely.
I'm not blaming MH "issues" on the airline, I'm just also not blaming them on Boeing.
Indeed and both asiana and emirates were blamed on the controls design - auto throttle behavior
In that it was disabled by the pilots.
Boeing would have preferred to have introduced a new narrow body aircraft, on their own schedule. But the new version of the 737 was announced before they got there, by American Airlines.
At that point it's either repudiate AA's announcement, harming relations with a customer worth at least 100 aircraft, or go build the thing. And if they build it, they're stuck with a bunch of the problems with the 737, like being unable to change how the controls work.
If they could sub out the control system from mechanical cables to fly by wire, they wouldn't have had any visible issues with the Max.
At that point it's either repudiate AA's announcement, harming relations with a customer worth at least 100 aircraft, or go build the thing. And if they build it, they're stuck with a bunch of the problems with the 737, like being unable to change how the controls work.
If they could sub out the control system from mechanical cables to fly by wire, they wouldn't have had any visible issues with the Max.
This, exactly.
i know its a controversial post but its right for more reasons as well. Concorde was economically advantageous as long as fuel represented a small percentage of operational costs it launched in 1973 during the oil crisis and all the way through the OPEC embargo, and almost immediately became the most expensive plane any airline could choose to operate.
Airlines also had to contend with when and where to execute supersonic flight, as a boom over a populated city would immediately draw negative publicity. pushback in some cities in europe reduced the Concordes routes and speeds significantly in 1976
Concorde produced nitrogen oxides in its exhaust, which, despite complicated interactions with other ozone-depleting chemicals, are understood to result in degradation to the ozone layer at the stratospheric altitudes it cruised. while concord was a small fleet, 500 of them could become an ecological disaster.
Concorde's high cruising altitude meant passengers received almost twice the flux of extraterrestrial ionising radiation as those travelling on a conventional long-haul flight. the flight deck had a radiometer and an instrument to measure the rate of decrease of radiation. If the radiation level became too high, Concorde would descend below 47,000 feet. to my knowledge we still havent produced a SST that solves the radiation concern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
i know its a controversial post but its right for more reasons as well. Concorde was economically advantageous as long as fuel represented a small percentage of operational costs it launched in 1973 during the oil crisis and all the way through the OPEC embargo, and almost immediately became the most expensive plane any airline could choose to operate.
Airlines also had to contend with when and where to execute supersonic flight, as a boom over a populated city would immediately draw negative publicity. pushback in some cities in europe reduced the Concordes routes and speeds significantly in 1976
Concorde produced nitrogen oxides in its exhaust, which, despite complicated interactions with other ozone-depleting chemicals, are understood to result in degradation to the ozone layer at the stratospheric altitudes it cruised. while concord was a small fleet, 500 of them could become an ecological disaster.
Concorde's high cruising altitude meant passengers received almost twice the flux of extraterrestrial ionising radiation as those travelling on a conventional long-haul flight. the flight deck had a radiometer and an instrument to measure the rate of decrease of radiation. If the radiation level became too high, Concorde would descend below 47,000 feet. to my knowledge we still havent produced a SST that solves the radiation concern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
I think you've just illustrated revisionist revisionist history.
The original text is true. The Concorde was what the airlines, aircraft makers, and the public wanted. It was fast. It was expensive. It was a trophy project. All things that appeal to one or more of those segments.
What changed was that fuel got too expensive, deregulated airlines started cutting corners everywhere, and people's priorities changed.
The world went from people wearing their Sunday suits to embark on a flight to people piling into Southwest air buses in their pajamas without bathing.
So the history is correct. It's just that the world has changed.
/Flew on the Concorde in the mid-1990's.
The original text is true. The Concorde was what the airlines, aircraft makers, and the public wanted. It was fast. It was expensive. It was a trophy project. All things that appeal to one or more of those segments.
What changed was that fuel got too expensive, deregulated airlines started cutting corners everywhere, and people's priorities changed.
The world went from people wearing their Sunday suits to embark on a flight to people piling into Southwest air buses in their pajamas without bathing.
So the history is correct. It's just that the world has changed.
/Flew on the Concorde in the mid-1990's.
The priority for people was never getting somewhere supersonic. BA needed to fly what amounted to subway service between JFK and LHR in order to make SST worthwhile to the very, very small subset of people who could afford it. However, due to how small that subset was, they were flying a dozen half-full flights per day. If they cut back on the number of flights, they removed the time savings of the Concorde and it was cheaper and far nicer to just fly an overnight flight on a 747. Didn't help that it had the hourly mx requirements of a fighter jet.
Yup.
There is a reason why Boom Supersonic is only targeting a plane that comfortably seats 50.
There is a reason why Boom Supersonic is only targeting a plane that comfortably seats 50.
Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde, it was partly the world changing, but also budget overruns and the sonic booms. Also, part of “the world changing” was that the 747 appeared, a plane that Concorde couldn’t really compete with, economically.
Also, it seems the bill for development of the Concorde was paid for by the governments of Great Britain and France, and wasn’t fully accounted for in the unit price.
If so, that made it a much more attractive proposition. I also would think some airlines placed pre-orders in a defensive move (if it had become wildly successful, airlines flying slow planes could get in trouble)
I doubt any manufacturer would have dared to design and build a supersonic plane if they had to have to pay for all development (Boeing had a competing project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707), but that, too, seems to have been heavily government sponsored)
Also, it seems the bill for development of the Concorde was paid for by the governments of Great Britain and France, and wasn’t fully accounted for in the unit price.
If so, that made it a much more attractive proposition. I also would think some airlines placed pre-orders in a defensive move (if it had become wildly successful, airlines flying slow planes could get in trouble)
I doubt any manufacturer would have dared to design and build a supersonic plane if they had to have to pay for all development (Boeing had a competing project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707), but that, too, seems to have been heavily government sponsored)
In some ways, the 747 was also designed for a different world. The hump housed a first class lounge originally. https://www.pinterest.com/nickverreos/747-upper-deck-flying-...
But when business class came in, it got converted into an upper deck of business class seats in most configurations.
But when business class came in, it got converted into an upper deck of business class seats in most configurations.
British Airways equipped that section as Economy for many years. It was like flying in a short 737 up there!
The Shah flew the Concorde and apparently liked it so much, ordered 3 (Condorde 'B') on the spot. Typically ahead of his time, his vision was for making Iran a major hub along the lines of what Dubai and Qatar have done in the interim.
Interesting to note that China apparently also ordered Concordes.
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/29/archives/shah-of-iran-rep...
Interesting to note that China apparently also ordered Concordes.
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/29/archives/shah-of-iran-rep...
I wouldn’t use the Shah of Iran‘s intents as indicator of economical feasibility.
And that’s ignoring the possibility that that order was in return for other transactions (for example, they got enriched uranium from France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France–Iran_relations#Nuclear_... says they refused to continue to provide Iran with enriched uranium after the 1979 Islamic revolution, so they must have been delivering it before) and the technology to make it (https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/12/29/the-shahs-atomic-dreams...) and hundreds of Chieftain tanks from Britain (https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=33866)
And that’s ignoring the possibility that that order was in return for other transactions (for example, they got enriched uranium from France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France–Iran_relations#Nuclear_... says they refused to continue to provide Iran with enriched uranium after the 1979 Islamic revolution, so they must have been delivering it before) and the technology to make it (https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/12/29/the-shahs-atomic-dreams...) and hundreds of Chieftain tanks from Britain (https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=33866)
The Shah of Iran bailed out France's nuclear industry. That is why Islamic Republic has shares in a French nuclear fuel processing concern.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/26/world/france-and-iran-men...
> I wouldn’t use the Shah of Iran‘s intents as indicator of economical feasibility.
Or people who post from surface knowledge. Sure.
-- ps --
In 1975 Sweden's 10 per cent share in Eurodif went to Iran. The French government subsidiary company Cogéma and the Iranian Government established the Sofidif (Société franco–iranienne pour l'enrichissement de l'uranium par diffusion gazeuse) enterprise with 60 and 40 per cent shares, respectively. In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25 per cent share in Eurodif, which gave Iran its 10 per cent share of Eurodif. Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi lent 1 billion dollars (and another 180 million dollars in 1977) for the construction of the Eurodif factory, to have the right of buying 10 per cent of the production of the site.
"President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'."[27] The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."
A 1974 CIA proliferation assessment stated "If [the Shah] is alive in the mid-1980s ... and if other countries [particularly India] have proceeded with weapons development we have no doubt Iran will follow suit."[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/26/world/france-and-iran-men...
> I wouldn’t use the Shah of Iran‘s intents as indicator of economical feasibility.
Or people who post from surface knowledge. Sure.
-- ps --
In 1975 Sweden's 10 per cent share in Eurodif went to Iran. The French government subsidiary company Cogéma and the Iranian Government established the Sofidif (Société franco–iranienne pour l'enrichissement de l'uranium par diffusion gazeuse) enterprise with 60 and 40 per cent shares, respectively. In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25 per cent share in Eurodif, which gave Iran its 10 per cent share of Eurodif. Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi lent 1 billion dollars (and another 180 million dollars in 1977) for the construction of the Eurodif factory, to have the right of buying 10 per cent of the production of the site.
"President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'."[27] The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."
A 1974 CIA proliferation assessment stated "If [the Shah] is alive in the mid-1980s ... and if other countries [particularly India] have proceeded with weapons development we have no doubt Iran will follow suit."[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear
The also made decent long-range, Mach 2 bombers. (For the time)
The FAA's position on booms changed dramatically once Boeing abandoned their project. Many Europeans believe the ban on supersonic flights over the US mainland was more about protecting US manufacturers.
They used to advertise Concorde in movies with lines like "did you know the Concorde will get you there in half the time?"
"The Concorde was what the airlines, aircraft makers, and the public wanted. It was fast. It was expensive. It was a trophy project. "
There's a difference between aspiration and market reality.
'The Public' never actually wants a 'Trophy Project' to the extent that they are not willing to actually pay for it out of their own pockets. Yes, they might like the idea, but what matters is "are people willing to pay the price"?
I suggest there was probably a lot of hubris in the project, that said, there's probably a lot of demand these days for such a thing.
There are a lot of hyper-rich people and they desperately need status.
Also, in Finance, there are a lot of 'important people' who's time is actually valuable. With long-flight times what they are, doing an Atlantic or Pacific run 'very fast' actually is just 'worth it' even for the company paying for it.
There's a difference between aspiration and market reality.
'The Public' never actually wants a 'Trophy Project' to the extent that they are not willing to actually pay for it out of their own pockets. Yes, they might like the idea, but what matters is "are people willing to pay the price"?
I suggest there was probably a lot of hubris in the project, that said, there's probably a lot of demand these days for such a thing.
There are a lot of hyper-rich people and they desperately need status.
Also, in Finance, there are a lot of 'important people' who's time is actually valuable. With long-flight times what they are, doing an Atlantic or Pacific run 'very fast' actually is just 'worth it' even for the company paying for it.
There's a difference between aspiration and market reality
It was a market reality for 27 years — longer than most of the companies that employ people who post on HN.
It was a market reality for 27 years — longer than most of the companies that employ people who post on HN.
It was propped up by governments for 27 years as a source of national pride.
One can argue that they got a lot more value out of it than the equivalent amount of money spent on fighter jets and bombers though, and those are just as much prestige projects.
One can argue that they got a lot more value out of it than the equivalent amount of money spent on fighter jets and bombers though, and those are just as much prestige projects.
A lot of the innovation, which went into this plane later went into Airbus offerings.
There would arguably be no FBW (fly-by-wire)[1] in commercial aviation without the Concorde.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire
There would arguably be no FBW (fly-by-wire)[1] in commercial aviation without the Concorde.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire
The R&D probably also was somewhat shared with the supersonic nuclear bombers of the same era. Much like spaceflight and ballistic missiles.
By 1960 just about everyone had realized that there was no future in high-altitude supersonic bombers, so I doubt there was any significant military R&D for Concorde to ride the coattails of after that, if there ever was.
The engines were derived from the BAC TSR-2, and at least on the British side there was a some shared from other interceptor projects.
Every jet engine, barring the first few independently-developed ones, was derived from predecessors, so this may mean something significant, or it may not.
The TSR-2 never went into production, which raises the question of which (if any) of these projects was riding the coattails of the other. I accept that the total bill written-off could have been reduced if there was some R&D cost-sharing, but, as the TSR-2 was a ground-hugging strike aircraft intended for relatively short European-theater missions as opposed to intercontinental flight, I suspect the issues that needed R&D were quite different for the two aircraft.
As for supersonic interceptors, the missiles that rendered the high-altitude supersonic bomber irrelevant did the same for the interceptor. The only supersonic interceptor both developed and deployed by the UK was the EE/BAC Lightning, the predecessor of the TSR-2. At least, unlike the TSR-2, this airplane was put into production and into service.
The TSR-2 never went into production, which raises the question of which (if any) of these projects was riding the coattails of the other. I accept that the total bill written-off could have been reduced if there was some R&D cost-sharing, but, as the TSR-2 was a ground-hugging strike aircraft intended for relatively short European-theater missions as opposed to intercontinental flight, I suspect the issues that needed R&D were quite different for the two aircraft.
As for supersonic interceptors, the missiles that rendered the high-altitude supersonic bomber irrelevant did the same for the interceptor. The only supersonic interceptor both developed and deployed by the UK was the EE/BAC Lightning, the predecessor of the TSR-2. At least, unlike the TSR-2, this airplane was put into production and into service.
The two engines were designed and built at the same plant (Filton: I lived a few 100 yards from the fence in the 80s -- noisy at times). So there was significant benefit from the previous military projects even if only that they didn't need to build a new plant, test stands, and staff up a new design team.
> propped up by governments for 27 years
Research revealed that passengers thought that the fare was higher than it actually was, so the airline raised ticket prices to match these perceptions.[70][191] It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operating_economics
Research revealed that passengers thought that the fare was higher than it actually was, so the airline raised ticket prices to match these perceptions.[70][191] It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operating_economics
True, but given the vast write-off of development costs, this falls short of an argument for the economic viability of the B model project, which is the issue here.
I think its reasonable to write off development costs, given that it was the first of its kind. This is why we have government funded research: to create technologies that would be too risky for any private company to pursue. The question shouldn't be "is it profitable to create the first one?", its "once we've solved the hard problems, can the industry be profitable?".
> The question shouldn't be "is it profitable to create the first one?", its "once we've solved the hard problems, can the industry be profitable?".
Given that the original project ran into delays and overages throughout, it strains credibility to propose that, starting with the 'B', all the hard problems would be in the past, and that performance would henceforward live up to the promises.
Given that the original project ran into delays and overages throughout, it strains credibility to propose that, starting with the 'B', all the hard problems would be in the past, and that performance would henceforward live up to the promises.
The market reality was that it had only two customers operating only two routes for much of that time whilst most of the aircraft those customers had essentially been given sat on the ground. And it wasn't for lack of unsuccessful experimentation with other routes.
It was government subsidised market reality until it finally failed.
In economics this is the difference between 'demand' and mere 'desire'.
Internet told me that there are a lot of average people who “dream” of existing products; they would “invent” technologies as boring as sliced bread and exhibit cognitive dissonance when shown the specimen of it.
Like if I put a loaf of bread and start eating it before them, they would keep describing the Hypothetical Sliced Bread and that table would look like a live Monty Python filming.
For literature loving people, need-item is subset of want-item chosen by urgency or necessity, but I think maybe logical processes for needs and wants of average people are completely separate that they don’t care how two correlates or overlaps.
Like if I put a loaf of bread and start eating it before them, they would keep describing the Hypothetical Sliced Bread and that table would look like a live Monty Python filming.
For literature loving people, need-item is subset of want-item chosen by urgency or necessity, but I think maybe logical processes for needs and wants of average people are completely separate that they don’t care how two correlates or overlaps.
Were you a business executive flying on a corporate flight? I was under the impression that the vast majority of concorde passengers were flying on behalf of their employer and had a very high position at their company. Eg the kind with escorts and possibly white powder being served up at their business meetings. o_O
Didn't know average people flew it.
Didn't know average people flew it.
-'Average' people got to fill the seats not taken by the rich and famous on occasion. (I flew it once - BA 747 LHR-JFK, Concorde JFK-LHR, mid-nineties. The round trip was organized by an aviation magazine, once the ‘wow, I’m on the Concorde’ novelty wore off (a couple of minutes after going supersonic), the experience was rather underwhelming.
Glad to have experienced it, though.
Glad to have experienced it, though.
The “public” isn’t people willing to put on business suits to travel. The “public” wanted to be able to afford to travel and that’s not what the Concorde brought.
The “public” you’re referring to is the small 0.1% of the population that gets annoyed when Delta One is sold out.
The “public” you’re referring to is the small 0.1% of the population that gets annoyed when Delta One is sold out.
Why did airlines want Concorde to be expensive?
The airlines didn't. The aircraft makers did.
Nobody wanted. It's just that the technology to make it less expensive didn't exist. Better engines and more range could help a bit, but it'd still be more expensive than cramming a lot ot people inside a 747.
In 1972, at list prices, 24M for a 747-100 and 34M for a Concorde, which is a fair bit more expensive… and then that's _vastly_ more expensive per seat.
If the plane can fly twice as often, it has, effectively, double the capacity.
Still, supersonics will need some major breakthrough in operational cost.
Still, supersonics will need some major breakthrough in operational cost.
The Concorde wasn't what the airlines, aircraft makers, and the public wanted by the stage the followup project was cancelled because airlines wouldn't buy it, the aircraft maker hadn't sold any and some of the few routes of the first gen aircraft kept open flew mostly empty.
> The plane was conceived in the era of big government bankrolled air travel and doesn't have a role in the reality of flying buses we see today.
Doesn't government still bankroll the whole airline industry? I read about some massive handouts to both Lufthansa and The Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) due to the coronavirus; perhaps it was even more extreme 50 years ago.
Doesn't government still bankroll the whole airline industry? I read about some massive handouts to both Lufthansa and The Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) due to the coronavirus; perhaps it was even more extreme 50 years ago.
The government doesn't bankroll air travel, at least not in the same way. I believe the quoted statement is referring to propping up the prices of flights via the pre-deregulation era. The government no doubt supports airlines in plenty of other ways, but the mechanism has changed, as have the behaviors it incentivizes.
Yep. The routes look like flights of fantasy rather than reality. A stopover in the Soviet Union? Flights crossing large parts of a US that had banned supersonic flight? Regular all business class flights between Lisbon and Caracas? [the actually-built generation of Concordes can and did fly Paris/Caracas with a stopover in Lisbon... just not very frequently]
The improvements to fuel economy, range and sound would have made little difference to the commercial viability of a niche of aircraft that already spent most of the time on the tarmac because the tiny handful built and basically given away weren't allowed to fly most routes or remotely approach economic viability for most others.
The governments threw their money at a project later called the Airbus A320 instead. Difficult to say they were wrong...
The improvements to fuel economy, range and sound would have made little difference to the commercial viability of a niche of aircraft that already spent most of the time on the tarmac because the tiny handful built and basically given away weren't allowed to fly most routes or remotely approach economic viability for most others.
The governments threw their money at a project later called the Airbus A320 instead. Difficult to say they were wrong...
> revisionist history.
Not revisionist, speculative, as the B never came into being.
> logistics of flying the Concorde .. expensive and just not that desirable
Research revealed that passengers thought that the fare was higher than it actually was, so the airline raised ticket prices to match these perceptions. (Wikipedia)
> routing
Hmm...vastly improved routing was one of the main benefits touted for Concorde B discussed in the fine article.
> plane was conceived in the era of big government bankrolled air travel
It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit. (Wikipedia)
Furthermore, it was actually (American) government that had a significant hand in killing the Concorde, by imposing overflight restrictions that made it far less useful. Of course this had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the US competition to Concorde never took off.
> doesn't have a role in the reality of flying buses we see today.
Concorde was operating profitably at time of its retirement, which came after an accident and issues with keeping the fleet in the air.
Not revisionist, speculative, as the B never came into being.
> logistics of flying the Concorde .. expensive and just not that desirable
Research revealed that passengers thought that the fare was higher than it actually was, so the airline raised ticket prices to match these perceptions. (Wikipedia)
> routing
Hmm...vastly improved routing was one of the main benefits touted for Concorde B discussed in the fine article.
> plane was conceived in the era of big government bankrolled air travel
It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit. (Wikipedia)
Furthermore, it was actually (American) government that had a significant hand in killing the Concorde, by imposing overflight restrictions that made it far less useful. Of course this had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the US competition to Concorde never took off.
> doesn't have a role in the reality of flying buses we see today.
Concorde was operating profitably at time of its retirement, which came after an accident and issues with keeping the fleet in the air.
Boom is a YC company building a modern, supersonic passenger airliner: https://boomsupersonic.com/
Unless the engine question is solved, I don't see any of the new wave of civilian SSTs (Boom, Spike, Aerion) going anywhere.
The airplane talk, let alone an SST, is pretty much all about the engine. So, with none of them putting an engine on the table, whatever else they do is, honestly speaking, pointless.
Be sceptical.
The airplane talk, let alone an SST, is pretty much all about the engine. So, with none of them putting an engine on the table, whatever else they do is, honestly speaking, pointless.
Be sceptical.
I'm not involved in aerospace. What is "the engine question"?
There is simply no civilian engine out there for an SST. Even original Concorde engines are not what they need today.
Even the best military engines today will barely work for the role.
They need around 20t of dry thrust at speeds at speeds around Mach 1.7-2.0, and big enough fan for takeoff at the same time.
Even the best military engines today will barely work for the role.
They need around 20t of dry thrust at speeds at speeds around Mach 1.7-2.0, and big enough fan for takeoff at the same time.
The name is both great and awful at the same time.
It's reminiscent of an ancient sci-fi series, Fireball XL-5.
Who names a rocket "Fireball"?
Who names a rocket "Fireball"?
I feel like they are playing themselves here. The NIMBYs only need to look at the company name and know they don't want that near their back yard.
The plane will be known by the product name, not the company name. >99% of the public couldn't tell you the name of the company that built the Concorde.
In fairness to the public, the two companies involved in producing Concorde have each changed names 3+ times after merging with other major aircraft and industrial concerns, and are each now fading memories as part of the two largest European aerospace & defense conglomerates.
I'd actually wager a significant portion of the population would correctly say Airbus, but for the wrong reasons - it's the only French aerospace company they can think of.
I did a straw poll among some friends and got a lot of "I don't know what that is. Do you mean the grape?"
I'd actually wager a significant portion of the population would correctly say Airbus, but for the wrong reasons - it's the only French aerospace company they can think of.
I did a straw poll among some friends and got a lot of "I don't know what that is. Do you mean the grape?"
If the name of one of the companies making the concorde was Boom, I'm very sure people would know it.
[deleted]
> Window or aisle? No need to choose
This is a realtor talk right here. Selling limitations as benefits.
This is a realtor talk right here. Selling limitations as benefits.
Call me a pessimist, can we really afford to lunch new “modern” supersonic airplanes when the climate crisis has reached an irreversible turning point, with no solution in sight.
I think efforts like these suffer from serious disconnect at best, or some criminal lack of ethics at worst.
I think efforts like these suffer from serious disconnect at best, or some criminal lack of ethics at worst.
Would range have mattered as much to make the Concorde more palatable for airlines and travelers? I have always been under the impression the main reason the Concorde didn't see more commercial success was because the cabin was small. It seems like what was really needed was a design that could hold more passengers.
I don't think that the cabin size per se really made that much difference. Supersonic flight is always going to cost a lot more than subsonic, so you're targeting the segment that wants the speed/prestige of going Mach 2 and is willing to pay. There aren't that many of these people, and they tend to be sensitive to schedule, so you have to run the service fairly often. That means that you either run a small airplane or give away a lot of seats (even with 100 seats, at least towards the end, British Airways was giving free upgrades to Concorde for a large fraction of the seats).
I think that today the supersonic airliner market is still quite tough, because first class has gotten so good. For transatlantic, you only save four hours, and you can spend that sleeping fairly comfortably or using your computer with provided power and pretty good Wi-Fi.
Where there is more legitimate value is transpacific, where supersonic might shave 10 hours. However, due to the higher fuel burn, there's almost no way to avoid stopping for gas, which erodes the advantage both in time and comfort.
I think that today the supersonic airliner market is still quite tough, because first class has gotten so good. For transatlantic, you only save four hours, and you can spend that sleeping fairly comfortably or using your computer with provided power and pretty good Wi-Fi.
Where there is more legitimate value is transpacific, where supersonic might shave 10 hours. However, due to the higher fuel burn, there's almost no way to avoid stopping for gas, which erodes the advantage both in time and comfort.
Supercruise is actually more fuel efficient than subsonic flight. You're going faster but also through less dense air and the engine works more efficiently. The major impetus for the concorde was actually to save on fuel costs. The reason the concorde lost out was that it was using inefficient turbojets at the same time that subsonic airliners were adopting the much more efficient turbofans. Turbofans for supersonic flight wouldn't be developed until the 80s.
This is wildly incorrect. Supersonic is much higher drag. A Concorde got 17 mpg/passenger in supercruise. A 737 gets 80-90.
What you are probably thinking of is that drag peaks in the transonic region (Mach 0.95-.99, say) but the Mach 0.85-.9 mostbairliners cruise at is much lower drag than either.
What you are probably thinking of is that drag peaks in the transonic region (Mach 0.95-.99, say) but the Mach 0.85-.9 mostbairliners cruise at is much lower drag than either.
Drag is higher, but jet engines are more efficient at higher speeds which compensates for the increased drag. Overall propulsive efficiency is at a minimum at mach 1, above that it starts increasing again. Beyond a certain point (supercruise) you get higher overall propulsive efficiency than at any subsonic point.
Again incorrect! Look at the data. In what universe is having 12x the fuel burn (per unit of time) or 5x (by mile) “more efficient”.
A Supercuruising Concorde has higher fuel flow than a (much much larger) 747.
Your whole “engines more efficient at higher speed” argument is totally unsupported by facts. Supersonic flow is a major problem is jet engines. They have to use special very-high drag inlets to slow it down to subsonic velocity to actually combust.
The air being thinner doesn’t help, either. It’s basic chemistry... every unit of fuel you burn requires X units of oxygen. The density doesn’t really matter - except that denser air moving slower decelerates less and thus causes less drag.
A Supercuruising Concorde has higher fuel flow than a (much much larger) 747.
Your whole “engines more efficient at higher speed” argument is totally unsupported by facts. Supersonic flow is a major problem is jet engines. They have to use special very-high drag inlets to slow it down to subsonic velocity to actually combust.
The air being thinner doesn’t help, either. It’s basic chemistry... every unit of fuel you burn requires X units of oxygen. The density doesn’t really matter - except that denser air moving slower decelerates less and thus causes less drag.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The concorde used turbojet engines with afterburners. That's 10 to 50x the fuel consumption of a comparable turbofan like the one a modern airliner uses. If you are using 5x the fuel with an engine that should be burning 10x the fuel, you must be using it in a way that is twice as efficient.
No, that’s just dumb. BURNING MORE = LESS EFFICIENT
Vehicle A takes 10 gallons of fuel to move 4 passengers 500 miles.
Vehicle B takes 40 gallons of fuel to move 4 passengers 500 miles.
In what possible universe is vehicle B more fuel efficient than Vehicle A?
Vehicle A takes 10 gallons of fuel to move 4 passengers 500 miles.
Vehicle B takes 40 gallons of fuel to move 4 passengers 500 miles.
In what possible universe is vehicle B more fuel efficient than Vehicle A?
Again, I'm not saying the concorde is a more efficient vehicle, I'm saying flying supersonically is more efficient than flying subsonically. The concorde was an extremely inneficient plane because it used inneficient engines. Were it to use engines with the same efficiency as modern turbofans, it would be more efficient overall.
I'm saying put vehicle A's engine in vehicle B to make some far more efficient vehicle C and it'll only take 5 gallons of fuel to move 4 passengers 500 miles.
I'm saying put vehicle A's engine in vehicle B to make some far more efficient vehicle C and it'll only take 5 gallons of fuel to move 4 passengers 500 miles.
As wind resistance increases with the square of the speed and is the major resistive force when traveling by air it's really hard to become more efficient by going faster.
It's probably true that Concorde, with its supersonic optimized design would have been less efficient traveling at Mach 0.95, even when traveling at its optimum speed a subsonic optimized airliner is going to require significantly less fuel per passenger mile. I mean this is one reason Concorde failed: the oil crisis turned its high fuel consumption into a serious liability.
It's probably true that Concorde, with its supersonic optimized design would have been less efficient traveling at Mach 0.95, even when traveling at its optimum speed a subsonic optimized airliner is going to require significantly less fuel per passenger mile. I mean this is one reason Concorde failed: the oil crisis turned its high fuel consumption into a serious liability.
Drag increases proportional to the square of velocity times the density. At higher speeds, you can fly at higher altitudes for a given lift to drag ratio. Higher altitudes -> lower air densities. Drag overall does increase, but at a slower rate than just looking at the velocity alone would suggest. The efficiency of jet engines increases with both altitude and airspeed (which is why subsonic airliners fly as close to the speed of sound as they can get btw). At and slightly above the speed of sound drag dominates, but engine efficiency eventually becomes more important again past Mack 1.6.
The important thing to remember here is that at the same time as the concorde was being developed, another technbology, the high bypass turbofan, was also developed. This looks like and is commonly referred to by the layperson as a jet engine, but the two are very different. A Turbofan is 10 to 50 times more efficient than an afterburning turbojet, regardless of speed. The concorde didn't have turbofans, the planes it was competing with did. You slap the concorde's engines onto any other airframe and fly at any other speed, it's still going to burn an order of magnitude more fuel than a turbofan aircraft.
Compare the concorde to turbojet powered aircraft it is competitive. The turbojet powered boeing 720 got 16 passenger miles per gallon and the 727 got 10. In that context the concorde's 17 at over twice the speed looks pretty good.
The important thing to remember here is that at the same time as the concorde was being developed, another technbology, the high bypass turbofan, was also developed. This looks like and is commonly referred to by the layperson as a jet engine, but the two are very different. A Turbofan is 10 to 50 times more efficient than an afterburning turbojet, regardless of speed. The concorde didn't have turbofans, the planes it was competing with did. You slap the concorde's engines onto any other airframe and fly at any other speed, it's still going to burn an order of magnitude more fuel than a turbofan aircraft.
Compare the concorde to turbojet powered aircraft it is competitive. The turbojet powered boeing 720 got 16 passenger miles per gallon and the 727 got 10. In that context the concorde's 17 at over twice the speed looks pretty good.
Air pressure difference between FL350 (traditional airliners) and FL600 (Concorde) is about 1/2. But the speed difference was about 2.5x, so overall you would expect Concorde to need to expend about 3.125 times as much energy per flight hour. Even with the flight time divided by 2.5 you're burning more fuel for the trip.
Interesting to consider a Concorde like design today using a slightly scaled up version of the P&W F135 supercruise capable turbofans.
But you'd still be competing with highly efficient turbofans like the GEnx series in a cost dominated aviation market. Also you still have issues like not being able to fly over land in the US that seriously limit the potential market.
Interesting to consider a Concorde like design today using a slightly scaled up version of the P&W F135 supercruise capable turbofans.
But you'd still be competing with highly efficient turbofans like the GEnx series in a cost dominated aviation market. Also you still have issues like not being able to fly over land in the US that seriously limit the potential market.
So your argument continues to be that the aircraft that is provable, and AS YOU ADMIT, is less efficient, is somehow "more efficient" because "reasons".
And I say that " I'm saying flying supersonically is more efficient than flying subsonically." is a complete load of rubbish unsupported by science or data.
If you study aerospace engineering you derive this in undergrad. Again, the whole reason supersonic transports were pursued in the 60s was to reduce fuel costs, and the attempts were abandoned when turbofans proved a better method of achieving that goal.
Then why did the Valkyrie B-70 have a longer range flying supersonic than subsonic?
Exactly. Even with modern first/business seating, subsonic trans-Pacific is still a long flight even from the West Coast even if the seating is comfortable and the food is good. But as I recall you need something like 2x the range of the Concorde even to fly a route like SFO-NRT. And, as you say, if you need to fuel up in Anchorage say, you lose a lot of the time advantage.
Yeah, and the problem is that there is a range death spiral, so you can't just scale up the plane. More range needs more fuel, which is more weight, so the efficiency goes down, so you need more fuel... I don't think that supersonic transpacific is really solvable with current technology. You either have to refuel mid-air or go suborbital or use a different fuel.
And at some point, if you can make 20 or 24 hours of flying comfortable enough and maybe have good enough communication systems, who cares? (OK, there are a few people who want to go back and forth to Japan in the least time possible. But, let's get real. Air Force One isn't a supersonic jet.)
It's mostly a case of dialing in the space and price per passenger for the market. Given enough space and entertainment options--hey, live performances in the lounge!, celebrity chefs--very few of us really care that much about getting to a destination 12 hours faster.
It's mostly a case of dialing in the space and price per passenger for the market. Given enough space and entertainment options--hey, live performances in the lounge!, celebrity chefs--very few of us really care that much about getting to a destination 12 hours faster.
Just build something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk , only three times longer, put it where it is needed. done. Optionally combine with exquisite duty-free shop for the passengers stretching their legs while it is refueled. How hard can it be?
Wouldn't a SFO-NRT flight do the layover in Hawaii? That seems much more direct, and in either case you're going to have to build the facilities to support the SST.
Look at the great circle route. Hawaii is way to the south. (Although Anchorage isn't quite on the way either.) As I recall when my dad was flying to Japan a lot--sometimes on the company plane--there would sometimes be refueling stops in Anchorage though that may have been leaving from Michigan.
It was very successful (if not wildly profitable) for most of it's life. It was a great example of a halo project.
Then the Air France crash happened in 2000. That hurt. Then They were brought back into service a bit over a year later, on September 11th, 2001. Talk about bad timing.
Even after BA retired them Richard Branson wanted to buy (and operate) the entire fleet.
Then the Air France crash happened in 2000. That hurt. Then They were brought back into service a bit over a year later, on September 11th, 2001. Talk about bad timing.
Even after BA retired them Richard Branson wanted to buy (and operate) the entire fleet.
It was never profitable on an accounting basis. Only if you ignore cost of construction.
There's a lovely LRB piece by Francis Spufford that covers (amongst other things) the accounting and procurement shenanigans required to avoid Concorde getting prematurely scrapped in the 80s, after it was clear it was a dead-end: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v24/n11/francis-spufford/lov... [paywall]
Gosh, from Wikipedia’s section on Concorde design there is this set:
- Concorde
- Mini Cooper
- Miniskirt
- Spitfire
- Tube Map
- Jaguar E-Type
What could be added to this list to induce total industrial design hysteria? InterCity 125? Instamatic? Mellor traffic lights?
- Concorde
- Mini Cooper
- Miniskirt
- Spitfire
- Tube Map
- Jaguar E-Type
What could be added to this list to induce total industrial design hysteria? InterCity 125? Instamatic? Mellor traffic lights?
Belisha Beacon
Bowler Hat
Wellington Bomber (geodesics)
Sinclair Calculator
Bowler Hat
Wellington Bomber (geodesics)
Sinclair Calculator
If curious see also
2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012995
2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012995
The background to this website is amazing!
Wasn't it the ticket price and crowded cabin that killed the Concorde? With even business travelers having to arrive 90+ minutes early to the airport for international travel anyway, the value proposition of being in the air for a shorter time just isn't really there, especially if the longer flight puts you on a lie-flat bed in a widebody.
I think the world of business travel has changed quite a bit since the Concorde. The amount of companies willing to pay for first class compared to years ago is much different I suspect. Pre-Covid we've had over a decade of corporate travel tools (sup fellow Concur users) that scrutinize your flight selection and flag any flight that is outside the bounds set by your company (what do you mean you don't want to wait 8 hours to take an extra hop and wait for a connection? Please justify this). Certainly there are a few company's who will pay for the upgrade for a flight over X hours, but a Concorde flight was always a top tier class - not an upgrade to business.
Not really. What killed Concorde was combination of politics (voices to get rid of it in both BA and AF, Airbus not wanting to continue support contracts), the extra time lost after 9/11 (the door replacements took more time), and finally airlines finding out that they can bring the same profit with normal wide bodies.
Because yes, Concorde was wildly profitable by 2000 - winter quarters it was majority of British Airways profit.
The problem with Airbus was that they really wanted Concorde to die (and pretty please buy more A340 and maybe A380 in its place) and the quality of their parts was getting worse - especially vertical stabilizers, which had increasing rate of failures.
Because yes, Concorde was wildly profitable by 2000 - winter quarters it was majority of British Airways profit.
The problem with Airbus was that they really wanted Concorde to die (and pretty please buy more A340 and maybe A380 in its place) and the quality of their parts was getting worse - especially vertical stabilizers, which had increasing rate of failures.
Airliners at the end of their service life are usually very profitable, because you aren’t counting on their cost if replacement. And of course parts are going to be expensive on a plane that’s been out of production for nearly 30 years.
In the late 90s, I got to the airport 20m ahead of the scheduled departure time, rushed to to the gate at 5m ahead of scheduled departure time, and got on the plane with no hassles.
911, Patriot Act and TSA changed all that for the worse.
911, Patriot Act and TSA changed all that for the worse.
I've always been a get to the airport with plenty of time to spare person to avoid the stress. But I briefly worked for someone in downtown Boston in the late 90s who I would sometimes travel with. I'd be looking at my watch in the office maybe a half hour before flight time and be like "Joe. Don't you think we should be headed to the airport now?"
Pre-COVID I traveled frequently to see family on the opposite coast, this is still possible with TSA Pre and only carry on bags at most major airports.
However, it's risky now because airlines are under much more pressure to get flights off the gate, and they'll gladly close the door on you if somehow they have a quick boarding process.
However, it's risky now because airlines are under much more pressure to get flights off the gate, and they'll gladly close the door on you if somehow they have a quick boarding process.
Yeah. I’ve gotten to a gate 30 minutes ahead of time because I’ve been in a lounge or just had a connecting flight and basically gotten a cross “Why are you so late?” at the gate.
I've heard it said that the crowded cabin was one of the attractions for some, given whom you might literally be rubbing shoulders with.
Did you hear this from a BA marketing person, because that's some fantastic spin.
I know someone that sat next to Sting.
It's a selling point for anybody who buys first class tickets.
The July 2000 crash and 9/11 meant there were no customers. The clincher was the decision by Airbus to stop making spare parts.
In its latter years Concorde was a revenue earner.
The product evolved into a very expensive thrill ride, sold to the same demographic that would go on cruises. These customers didn't care about a crowded cabin and they would gladly get to the airport extra, extra early. Many of them had promised themselves a trip on Concorde for decades. They were in it for the journey and not the destination.
These flights, e.g. to see 'Santa in Lapland', sold out in advance so there were no empty seats.
The crash in 2000 didn't entirely dampen customer enthusiasm, however, 9/11 came along and it was a different era. Airbus deciding to stop making spares was a convenient get out for BA and Air France.
In its latter years Concorde was a revenue earner.
The product evolved into a very expensive thrill ride, sold to the same demographic that would go on cruises. These customers didn't care about a crowded cabin and they would gladly get to the airport extra, extra early. Many of them had promised themselves a trip on Concorde for decades. They were in it for the journey and not the destination.
These flights, e.g. to see 'Santa in Lapland', sold out in advance so there were no empty seats.
The crash in 2000 didn't entirely dampen customer enthusiasm, however, 9/11 came along and it was a different era. Airbus deciding to stop making spares was a convenient get out for BA and Air France.
"the average supersonic flight time on the transatlantic routes was just under 3.5 hours." (NYC -> Paris)
Flying subsonic requires you to be at the airport 60-90mins before the flight too (though i know some airports have that as low as 45mins).
Still a considerable reduction to the "in the air" time.
Flying subsonic requires you to be at the airport 60-90mins before the flight too (though i know some airports have that as low as 45mins).
Still a considerable reduction to the "in the air" time.
When the Concorde was flying, my dad was flying first class from JFK to Europe on a regular basis. He told me that at one point he got upgraded to a Concorde flight which was normally something like a 30% premium over first class at a time when tickets tended to cost more than today. (So probably something equivalent to maybe a $10K ticket today.)
He told me that it was a cool experience once. But now, rather than having a relaxed first class meal on an overnight flight [EDITED: He may have taken daytime flights], he was getting into London in the middle of rush hour. He could probably have flown the Concorde had he wanted to but didn't have any real interest in taking it again.
And, today, with modern lie-flat business class and entertainment systems, there's even less reason to fly supersonic IMO, unless you're a CEO, lawyer, investment banker etc. flying from NY to London to have lunch with someone, seal some deal, and be back home for dinner.
He told me that it was a cool experience once. But now, rather than having a relaxed first class meal on an overnight flight [EDITED: He may have taken daytime flights], he was getting into London in the middle of rush hour. He could probably have flown the Concorde had he wanted to but didn't have any real interest in taking it again.
And, today, with modern lie-flat business class and entertainment systems, there's even less reason to fly supersonic IMO, unless you're a CEO, lawyer, investment banker etc. flying from NY to London to have lunch with someone, seal some deal, and be back home for dinner.
Dad got to fly it once too. Air France was about to go on strike at any moment and the agent at CDG looked at the clock, looked at dad, looked back at the clock, and changed the ticket to Concorde.
He said it was an amazing experience. But he'd never pay for a ticket himself, and the company was pretty tight with expense money, so they weren't going to do it either.
He said it was an amazing experience. But he'd never pay for a ticket himself, and the company was pretty tight with expense money, so they weren't going to do it either.
On the eastward leg, I guess it’s a difference of sleeping on a lie-flat seat vs. sleeping at home (unless you get one of the few daytime flights).
But if you arrive in the morning in London, isn’t that rush-hour too?
But if you arrive in the morning in London, isn’t that rush-hour too?
Possibly. This was a long time ago and I have no idea what specific flights he tended to take. Maybe it was a daytime flight. (When I'm going to London these days, I tend to take a daytime flight if possible even though it means getting up at some truly god-awful hour in the morning. I'm too old to take red-eyes unless I have absolutely no choice. And then I try to upgrade.)
The same argument would suggest that spacious and luxurious ocean liners would be much preferable to flying across the ocean in a cramped tube. Sure flying is a cool experience but unless you're a CEO, lawyer, investment banker, etc do you really need to be in London by tomorrow morning?
If you only have a week of leave to take, going from Paris to New York by liner means you'd need to arrive and immediately hop on a ship back. If you're quick, you might just have time to get a bagel with schmear and almost run over.
To me, there's a significant difference between a trip where you can get up at home early in the morning but get to bed in your hotel late the same evening, and one that is even a few hours longer. There is a much less significant difference between that and one a few hours shorter - if i arrive in the early evening, i'm still not going to do much with the day. The next significant difference is when a trip is short enough to do the outbound and return legs in one day, and still have a useful stay. Concorde wasn't quite fast enough to that.
To me, there's a significant difference between a trip where you can get up at home early in the morning but get to bed in your hotel late the same evening, and one that is even a few hours longer. There is a much less significant difference between that and one a few hours shorter - if i arrive in the early evening, i'm still not going to do much with the day. The next significant difference is when a trip is short enough to do the outbound and return legs in one day, and still have a useful stay. Concorde wasn't quite fast enough to that.
If ocean liners cost significantly less than flight and only took twice as long I think they would be quite popular indeed. However the real trade-off is not comparable to Concorde.
Ocean liners did cost significantly less than airliners in the beginning. A transatlantic ocean liner ticket in 1950 cost about $1200 in 2020 dollars while a one way flight to europe in 1950 cost around $3000 2020 dollars.
Taking a 5 day longer trip to save $1800 is equivalent to getting paid $360 per day. If your salary is less than $90,000 per year, you'd be better off taking the ocean liner.
Taking a 5 day longer trip to save $1800 is equivalent to getting paid $360 per day. If your salary is less than $90,000 per year, you'd be better off taking the ocean liner.
And in the 1950s--at least before the very end of the decade--you're talking prop planes likely with fueling stops in Gander and/or Shannon. So transatlantic air travel was probably not the most comfortable experience.
well, people in Russia do take long train rides like even from Moscow to Vladivostok - 7 days - instead of air. And 2-3 days train rides are nothing exceptional. When you have more time than money...
We generally don't, most of the passengers on these trains only go part of the route. Train trips taking 2-3 days (like Moscow to Urals) used to be more common, but flying has become cheaper years ago.
I think it's the opposite. If I'm a regular "grunt" employee being sent to say Canada for a conference, you can be 10000% certain I will refuse to go if it involves spending weeks on a ship somewhere. I have a family and life outside of work, having to take two 8-hour long flights just to be somewhere for work is hardly acceptable as it is. I'd be far more keen to go if the travel time didn't require adding another day on each side of the trip.
In some countries, the law or standard practise is to pay or give time off in lieu of pay for travelling. An 8 hour weekend flight means a day off when you're back.
My previous contract had these terms, although I rarely claimed all the time off to which I was entitled. It seemed a bit ridiculous when I'd already bent the travel rules as far as they could go, in order to take a holiday abroad after most trips.
https://www.peninsulagrouplimited.com/guides/travelling-for-...
My previous contract had these terms, although I rarely claimed all the time off to which I was entitled. It seemed a bit ridiculous when I'd already bent the travel rules as far as they could go, in order to take a holiday abroad after most trips.
https://www.peninsulagrouplimited.com/guides/travelling-for-...
In the US, for better or worse, this sort of thing is usually pretty much agreed to informally with one's manager for salaried (exempt) employees. Formal contractual agreements are probably much more a Europe thing. To be honest, I've always been fine. I've taken time off around business trips and I've taken what time off in the system that's seemed reasonable. I've admittedly rarely been in a system where time-tracking was formal because of client billing--and even in that case I was still salaried so it didn't matter.
There's a big difference between saving a few hours and saving a few days. The ship will likely also be quite a bit more money and have a very limited set of departures. And somehow I doubt very many companies are going to give you that time off and pay for your trans-Atlantic trip on the Queen Mary 2. I doubt most companies would be big on you taking a trans-continental train trip in the US for business either. (Though I've taken overnight trains in Europe.)
The queen mary 2 is expensive today because it is nothing but a luxury tourist trip. Back in 1950 when there was serious ocean liner travel, an ocean liner ticket was much less than a transatlantic flight. Trains were also substantially cheaper. It is only absurd today to travel long range by ship or by train because people overwhelmingly paid a premium for faster travel to the point that the market for the other methods collapsed.
I suspect that it's mostly that air travel has gotten a lot cheaper relative to other modes of travel. It's true that you can't really travel "in the back of the bus" in an ocean liner any longer but I doubt if roughly equivalent first class tickets and dining are all that more expensive today. (Although I haven't done the calculations.)
Even today, when there is essentially no utilitarian travel by ocean liner, a transatlantic crossing in a balcony room on the QM2 is $800. An economy flight from new york to paris on Air France is $849. First class is $9,262.
That sounds more like what I'd pay for a round-trip economy ticket to Europe and there are probably going to be other costs for lodging etc. associated with the ship. But, fair enough, like (sometimes) long distance train, air isn't necessarily hugely cheaper.
(And, yes, business or first class that you actually pay directly out of pocket for is priced like a luxury good. Of course, you can pay a lot more for the cabin too.)
(And, yes, business or first class that you actually pay directly out of pocket for is priced like a luxury good. Of course, you can pay a lot more for the cabin too.)
> quite a bit more money
You can get a taste of this when you look at the cost of long distance rail— for example, a trip like The Canadian (four days in total), which VIA understandably sells as a cruise ship type experience rather than practical travel:
https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/ro...
Obviously some of the cost difference is just the massive economy of scale enjoyed by airlines, but at the end of the day there are certain fixed costs associated with being in their care for such a long period of time. Even with a cheap ticket where you don't get a sleeper bed and have to buy/pack your own food, they still have to staff the train that whole time.
You can get a taste of this when you look at the cost of long distance rail— for example, a trip like The Canadian (four days in total), which VIA understandably sells as a cruise ship type experience rather than practical travel:
https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/ro...
Obviously some of the cost difference is just the massive economy of scale enjoyed by airlines, but at the end of the day there are certain fixed costs associated with being in their care for such a long period of time. Even with a cheap ticket where you don't get a sleeper bed and have to buy/pack your own food, they still have to staff the train that whole time.
The last time I needed to go to Chicago (from Boston), just for kicks I looked at taking a sleeper train. There was really no way I could justify either the time or the money for a business trip.
I did take the overnight from London to Edinburgh a year or two ago. It was actually pretty convenient but it still almost certainly cost more than flying.
I did take the overnight from London to Edinburgh a year or two ago. It was actually pretty convenient but it still almost certainly cost more than flying.
> somehow I doubt very many companies are going to give you that time off and pay for your trans-Atlantic trip on the Queen Mary 2.
Honestly, I'd guess that depends on your job function, whether you can work effectively remotely, and the cost of the ticket.
As a remote employee, I can totally see justifying it to my employer. It wouldn't be typical, but if it costs about the same and the trip there and back would involve me getting as much or more done than I normally would... I'd definitely pitch the idea, and don't see any reason why it would be out of the question.
In fact, I'm making a mental note to investigate the cost when/if I need to attend a conference or something in Europe.
Honestly, I'd guess that depends on your job function, whether you can work effectively remotely, and the cost of the ticket.
As a remote employee, I can totally see justifying it to my employer. It wouldn't be typical, but if it costs about the same and the trip there and back would involve me getting as much or more done than I normally would... I'd definitely pitch the idea, and don't see any reason why it would be out of the question.
In fact, I'm making a mental note to investigate the cost when/if I need to attend a conference or something in Europe.
Of course, who knows if the option will even exist any longer. Costs cover quite a range but they're probably more than a business class ticket and there are relatively few straight ocean crossings (vs. longer cruises).
> And, today, with modern lie-flat business class and entertainment systems,
AND teleconferencing. Having a team, and not just CEO/lawyer/ibanker/etc, in NY working with a team in London is far easier today, compared to before the era of cheap video conferencing. Still too far from the real thing, but jetting over to the Atlantic for a quick conversation to clear something up, and coming right back isn't as necessary as it once was.
AND teleconferencing. Having a team, and not just CEO/lawyer/ibanker/etc, in NY working with a team in London is far easier today, compared to before the era of cheap video conferencing. Still too far from the real thing, but jetting over to the Atlantic for a quick conversation to clear something up, and coming right back isn't as necessary as it once was.
And also presumably handling physical documents and such.
Coming out of the current situation I certainly hope that travel gets back to some semblance of normal. But I do expect that we'll probably collectively decide that some of the in-person ritual can be cut back on.
Coming out of the current situation I certainly hope that travel gets back to some semblance of normal. But I do expect that we'll probably collectively decide that some of the in-person ritual can be cut back on.
I remember people flying out to NY on Concorde from the UK (left at about 11am?), getting in almost a whole day of business, and then flying back 'slowly' on a 747 overnight. Was still expensive though!
Boarding closes somewhere between 30-15mins before the flight, if you travel without luggage I’m pretty sure it should be possible to be at the airport around 45 mins before the flight and still make it, especially in an all business class configuration with fast track.
On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York).
I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable.
On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York).
I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable.
> Boarding closes somewhere between 30-15mins before the flight, if you travel without luggage I’m pretty sure it should be possible to be at the airport around 45 mins before the flight and still make it, especially in an all business class configuration with fast track.
Given the cost premium associated with the Concorde, I seriously doubt if it were flying today passengers would be going through the "regular" TSA lines. The airline would certainly pay for a separate line just for SST passengers with a much shorter delay, and would likely shorten the time between ending boarding and being in the air as much as possible.
Most travelers on an SST wouldn't have checked baggage - the whole point is to get there and back as quickly as possible, after all. It really should be a matter of "arrive, go directly through security, board, and depart".
Regional airlines have much this type of experience today. I can fly from my home town of Harrison, AR to Memphis, TN on Southern Airways for $98 round trip. That's departing Sunday evening and returning Wednesday afternoon. There is no TSA in HRO, and that airline has its own terminal that bypasses TSA in MEM. You can easily arrive ten or fifteen minutes before your flight boards, with checked baggage, and comfortably make it. This is something of a special case - FedEx corporate is in Memphis and Harrison is the general office for one of its subsidiaries, FedEx Freight, so there is probably enough business travel to keep daily service profitable. I believe FedEx also keeps a small number of company cars at the Memphis terminal for employee use. For the airline, Harrison is one of two fuel stops between Dallas and Memphis, so any business they're able to pick up is gravy. It also means that a single person can fly from my small town to Dallas and back on short notice for about the same cost as driving.
Given that domestic regional airlines can offer such fast service today, I don't see why a well-funded premium international route couldn't do the same. It just doesn't make sense to when travel time isn't the selling point.
> On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York).
My last international flight was from Virginia to Montreal, and customs on both legs was relatively painless. A previous flight on that route had my group pulled aside going into Canada by customs due to some confusion over the boxes of conference swag we had with us, but even that only took fifteen minutes or so to work out. We shipped it next time.
> I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable.
Yep - while the change in business culture was likely the biggest reason for the demise of transatlantic SST service, the fact that time in the air is just not a big part of overall time spent traveling for most people is why they couldn't shift their market focus.
Given the cost premium associated with the Concorde, I seriously doubt if it were flying today passengers would be going through the "regular" TSA lines. The airline would certainly pay for a separate line just for SST passengers with a much shorter delay, and would likely shorten the time between ending boarding and being in the air as much as possible.
Most travelers on an SST wouldn't have checked baggage - the whole point is to get there and back as quickly as possible, after all. It really should be a matter of "arrive, go directly through security, board, and depart".
Regional airlines have much this type of experience today. I can fly from my home town of Harrison, AR to Memphis, TN on Southern Airways for $98 round trip. That's departing Sunday evening and returning Wednesday afternoon. There is no TSA in HRO, and that airline has its own terminal that bypasses TSA in MEM. You can easily arrive ten or fifteen minutes before your flight boards, with checked baggage, and comfortably make it. This is something of a special case - FedEx corporate is in Memphis and Harrison is the general office for one of its subsidiaries, FedEx Freight, so there is probably enough business travel to keep daily service profitable. I believe FedEx also keeps a small number of company cars at the Memphis terminal for employee use. For the airline, Harrison is one of two fuel stops between Dallas and Memphis, so any business they're able to pick up is gravy. It also means that a single person can fly from my small town to Dallas and back on short notice for about the same cost as driving.
Given that domestic regional airlines can offer such fast service today, I don't see why a well-funded premium international route couldn't do the same. It just doesn't make sense to when travel time isn't the selling point.
> On my last flight between New York and Paris passport control and security didn’t take more than 5 minutes on a European passport (both in Paris and New York).
My last international flight was from Virginia to Montreal, and customs on both legs was relatively painless. A previous flight on that route had my group pulled aside going into Canada by customs due to some confusion over the boxes of conference swag we had with us, but even that only took fifteen minutes or so to work out. We shipped it next time.
> I think the bigger problem is the time you lose and uncertainty (immigration and traffic) door to door in these big cities, which limits the use-cases and might make an overnight flight or a direct connection from a general aviation airports preferable.
Yep - while the change in business culture was likely the biggest reason for the demise of transatlantic SST service, the fact that time in the air is just not a big part of overall time spent traveling for most people is why they couldn't shift their market focus.
How does HRO have no TSA?
I flew out of Merced airport a few years ago, on one of four half-full 20-seater flights departing that day. There was one airport or airline employee, who checked me in, took my luggage and then went outside to refuel the plane. For that complement there were six TSA agents in perfectly pressed blue shirts - and I expect six more on the other shift.
I flew out of Merced airport a few years ago, on one of four half-full 20-seater flights departing that day. There was one airport or airline employee, who checked me in, took my luggage and then went outside to refuel the plane. For that complement there were six TSA agents in perfectly pressed blue shirts - and I expect six more on the other shift.
Beats me. It’s been a couple of years since I flew from there, but they had a “secure area” and a metal detector, but no one was ever manning it.
In fact, the first time I flew from there to Memphis, I checked a handgun in my luggage. They asked me if it was unloaded, put the little slip in the case... and handed it back to me. I handed it off to an employee for stowage when we boarded - but “stowage” in this case means “behind a cargo net at the rear of the plane, accessible from the cabin.
I may stop by there tomorrow just out of curiosity, to see if anything has changed. I seriously doubt it has; it’s still the same airline. They’re tiny planes - I want to say 12 passengers or so.
In fact, the first time I flew from there to Memphis, I checked a handgun in my luggage. They asked me if it was unloaded, put the little slip in the case... and handed it back to me. I handed it off to an employee for stowage when we boarded - but “stowage” in this case means “behind a cargo net at the rear of the plane, accessible from the cabin.
I may stop by there tomorrow just out of curiosity, to see if anything has changed. I seriously doubt it has; it’s still the same airline. They’re tiny planes - I want to say 12 passengers or so.
I’m not sure at that time it was 90+ minutes. It’s not 90+ minutes today if you go business class either
I mean, there certainly is a class of travellers who are absolutely willing to pay extra for time, as proven by BA's direct London to New York flight, that is very unusual in that
1) it's serviced directly from London City airport, which is tiny, but also closest you can get to the city centre by air
2) because of how short that airport is, BA ordered special shortened Airbus A318 that is only made in a full business class configuration(only 32 seats) and it only ever flies on that one route. And even then it's actually too far for its range, so it makes a quick stop in Ireland to refuel before crossing the Atlantic first.
I'm reasonably certain that paying extra for this special flight saves you more than 90 minutes compared to taking a conventional one from Heathrow, no matter which class you'd travel.
1) it's serviced directly from London City airport, which is tiny, but also closest you can get to the city centre by air
2) because of how short that airport is, BA ordered special shortened Airbus A318 that is only made in a full business class configuration(only 32 seats) and it only ever flies on that one route. And even then it's actually too far for its range, so it makes a quick stop in Ireland to refuel before crossing the Atlantic first.
I'm reasonably certain that paying extra for this special flight saves you more than 90 minutes compared to taking a conventional one from Heathrow, no matter which class you'd travel.
> 2) because of how short that airport is, BA ordered special shortened Airbus A318 that is only made in a full business class configuration(only 32 seats) and it only ever flies on that one route. And even then it's actually too far for its range, so it makes a quick stop in Ireland to refuel before crossing the Atlantic first.
It's only too far for its range when flying from an airfield _with a runway the length of City_. From Heathrow it could do the flight non-stop: it just can't take off with so heavy from City.
It's only too far for its range when flying from an airfield _with a runway the length of City_. From Heathrow it could do the flight non-stop: it just can't take off with so heavy from City.
I suppose it would raise a few eyebrows to take off from City and do its refueling stop 20 miles west in Heathrow.
Of course Heathrow is also far busier than Shannon and far more likely to have delays.
Of course Heathrow is also far busier than Shannon and far more likely to have delays.
Heathrow also doesn't have US preclearance which it relies on to justify the longer flight time due to the stop. (And it would be an utter waste of a slot at Heathrow: why would you use up one of your slots at Heathrow for a refuelling stop when you could instead fly to an airport which isn't slot limited?)
While the stop in Ireland is unfortunate, they at least pre-clear US immigration there. Which is nice to avoid in NYC airports if you don’t have a trusted traveller bypass of some sort.
At least for international travel, luggage is supposed to be checked in one hour prior. I've actually had someone turn me away at 59 minutes because well frankly I think because he could and I wasn't flying business class, so my business or the loss thereof didn't matter. As we both know business and first class travelers have different rules applied or at least the rules relaxed to retain their revenue.
It's likely they'd already given away your seat.
Especially when they can get to the front of the check-in line, exit control line and security.
I never understood the skip-security and skip exit-control line: those are public services.
I never understood the skip-security and skip exit-control line: those are public services.
They're not public services, they're security theater with no real effectiveness. The skip programs are effectively official acknowledgement of that.
I agree they’re theatre, but letting 1st class queue-jump isn’t acknowledgement of that: they’re not skipping the checks themselves, just making the queue longer for everyone else.
Nothing stops a publicly or semi-publicly owned service to have premium tiers.
They don't offer the service for free.
They don't offer the service for free.
Then they should sell it directly to the public.
The only issue with queue-jumping public disservice is that it discourages fixing the problem in the first place.
The only issue with queue-jumping public disservice is that it discourages fixing the problem in the first place.
I think it's a little more complex than that:
* Some low-cost airlines (like EasyJet) are pretty much doing just that, their premium membership give you access to priority lanes without any other significant benefit (since they don't really offer any).
* I don't think anyone wants ticketing to get even more complicated. It's obviously a lot easier and more rewarding for airlines to treat their frequent/business flyers well and make everyone else take the slow lines.
* First and business classes don't fill up the planes, airlines are directly impacted by shitty airports that can't embark/disembark/transfer 80% of their passengers (and luggage) quickly enough. You can't say there's zero incentive to fix the problem.
* Some low-cost airlines (like EasyJet) are pretty much doing just that, their premium membership give you access to priority lanes without any other significant benefit (since they don't really offer any).
* I don't think anyone wants ticketing to get even more complicated. It's obviously a lot easier and more rewarding for airlines to treat their frequent/business flyers well and make everyone else take the slow lines.
* First and business classes don't fill up the planes, airlines are directly impacted by shitty airports that can't embark/disembark/transfer 80% of their passengers (and luggage) quickly enough. You can't say there's zero incentive to fix the problem.
Long distance phone calls getting cheaper and not needing operator assistance certainly didn't help much.
is the site down?
Looks like a page with fluffy clouds and nothing else over here.
The only person I ever met who'd flown on the Concorde was the executive secretary for a startup CEO who had important meetings in Paris. Yes, this was a Dot Com.
I worked for a company that did those sort of things. It was bought by three crooks who then spent a ton of VC money on themselves. Porsches in the carpark and flights to New York on Concorde. Needless to say it didn't last long.
The only other person I know who flew on it was my wife (before we were married).
The only other person I know who flew on it was my wife (before we were married).
My Father has flown on it once. It was after the flights restarted following the Air France crash and prices had been reduced a bit.
The addition of the Pacific routes might have helped.
Those are some long flights. LA to Tokyo or Beijing in half the time, with a quick stop in Hawaii.
Those are some long flights. LA to Tokyo or Beijing in half the time, with a quick stop in Hawaii.
LA to Tokyo would allow for more supersonic flight too. They avoided that over landmass to avoid sonic booms over inhabited areas. Which covers a good chunk of territory if they take the shortest route:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-jfk
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-jfk
I had to stop reading before getting to the end because the cloud animation was too distracting.
Web site designers please take note: just because you can doesn't mean you should. Animated backgrounds are the <blink> tag of the 21st century.
Web site designers please take note: just because you can doesn't mean you should. Animated backgrounds are the <blink> tag of the 21st century.
"Please don't complain about website formatting, back-button breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be interesting. Exception: when the author is present. Then friendly feedback might be helpful."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
When the site is utterly unreadable (this one is) and fails to render in simplified views (this one does), the heads-up is useful.
Bad guideline.
Bad guideline.
I hear you, but such comments are so common and by and large so offtopic that I think it's probably better to treat them as weeds.
It's funny for me to read you berating 'web designers', presumably as a profession, because I can't think of ever having seen a professionally-designed website deploying an animated background as egregiously as this site here has. I can sort of vaguely recall a few 'subtly animated geometric backgrounds' over the years, but usually in an experimental context.
The site here looks to my eye to be the product of an enthusiast looking to make their own site and present their own voice - which they have every right to do - not a 'web designer' per se trying to be fancy.
The site here looks to my eye to be the product of an enthusiast looking to make their own site and present their own voice - which they have every right to do - not a 'web designer' per se trying to be fancy.
Videos on background are way too common on product pages - you must have seen many.
I genuinely don't recall ever seing any full background videos on product pages. Large embedded videos, sure.
There was tha fad many years ago for having fairly low quality, low contrast greyscale video set under halftone or pixellated filters to make the apparent quality better, but I'd still class that as not-so intrusive. They tended to be on multi media or 'design'-centric sites anyway.
There was tha fad many years ago for having fairly low quality, low contrast greyscale video set under halftone or pixellated filters to make the apparent quality better, but I'd still class that as not-so intrusive. They tended to be on multi media or 'design'-centric sites anyway.
> presumably as a profession
No, I just meant: people who design web sites. Whether the person who designed it got paid for the work is of no concern to me.
And my comment was intended more as venting of steam than well-considered critique.
No, I just meant: people who design web sites. Whether the person who designed it got paid for the work is of no concern to me.
And my comment was intended more as venting of steam than well-considered critique.
It was driving me crazy as well. I actually used Firefox's "picture-in-picture" mode to move the background to a screen in my peripheral vision.
I feel like we should bring back the blink tag each year for a single day.
i cranked the zoom to 160% and the background was no longer visible. didn't help the article much, alas.
I'm always sad when I think about the Concorde. It was such a great plane ahead of its time when it came out. I wish I had the chance to fly on it once.
In the Technical Museum Sinsheim (Germany) you have the Concorde A next to the Tupolev Tu-144 on display. This is quite a spectacular view, and you can enter both and take a look at the inside.
https://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/assets/uploads/images/27/...
https://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/assets/uploads/images/27/...
Coincidentally I went there last sunday. I was surprised about the large amount of dials and gauges in the cockpit.
Something like the Boeing 2707 might have had a better chance of success:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707
Part of the pitch for Concorde was that an SST would have greatly reduced capital costs since it could fly at least twice the number of flights in the same unit of time. It wasn't really fast enough to do this on the routes that it flew, so this benefit wasn't realized.
A Mach 3 airliner (SR-71 class!) is fast enough to realize better capital efficiency, and can do better on fuel consumption than a Mach 2 airliner. Some fuel is spent fighting air resistance, but some is fighting "induced drag" which produces lift. If you spend less time in the air you need less lift, and fuel efficiency improves.
The only problem is that aluminum would melt in a Mach 3 airliner so you need some revolution in materials to make it practical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707
Part of the pitch for Concorde was that an SST would have greatly reduced capital costs since it could fly at least twice the number of flights in the same unit of time. It wasn't really fast enough to do this on the routes that it flew, so this benefit wasn't realized.
A Mach 3 airliner (SR-71 class!) is fast enough to realize better capital efficiency, and can do better on fuel consumption than a Mach 2 airliner. Some fuel is spent fighting air resistance, but some is fighting "induced drag" which produces lift. If you spend less time in the air you need less lift, and fuel efficiency improves.
The only problem is that aluminum would melt in a Mach 3 airliner so you need some revolution in materials to make it practical.
The "only" problem.
How different are the fuel efficiencies per passenger-km for the Concordes (A and B) and modern aircraft?
The concorde was woefully less efficient than modern aircraft but this wasn't because it flew supersonically but instead because it used turbojets. Modern aircraft use turbofans which are far more efficient. The concorde was actually designed to save fuel as supercruise is more efficient than transonic flight for a given engine. Unfortunately turbofans for supersonic flight weren't developed until the late 80s, by which point there was little demand for a new SST.
Based on the trends in at least the US passenger industry, airlines seem to be moving more towards smaller planes and shorter hops. I don't think a new Concorde would have had any impact on that at all. If the airlines wanted a long-range, faster plane, a manufacturer would have come along and built it by now. But like the computer industry, air travel is driven to low-price commodity service, and luxury high performance air travel doesn't fit in that business model.
>more towards smaller planes and shorter hops
Probably more precisely, they're moving towards more direct routes rather than routing almost everything through some specific hubs.
Probably more precisely, they're moving towards more direct routes rather than routing almost everything through some specific hubs.
interesting that the routes they were listing halfway through the article had none that went over the arctic circle like they do today for flights from NYC -> Beijing
Years ago I saw a nice comparison between optical computing and supersonic flight. The gist of it was that they would both only ever be widely used by the military/government. The specific benefits of both are real, but very costly and thus the use tends to be reserved where you absolutely need it.
For the general public, electronic computing and subsonic flight both work fine, are not tremendously expensive and don't require ongoing complex maintainance and engineering.
I would guess this analysis is still mostly true today.
For the general public, electronic computing and subsonic flight both work fine, are not tremendously expensive and don't require ongoing complex maintainance and engineering.
I would guess this analysis is still mostly true today.
To put it a slightly different way: existing technology is such that it is not profitable for them to be deployed at scale. I expect supersonic travel will eventually supplant our existing infrastructure (at least for long routes), but it's just not going to happen while it's multiple times more expensive to operate and has significant downsides like sonic booms over populated areas.
I believe the sonic boom problem has been at least partially solved, but the economics still don't work out. One day, they will. Likewise with optical computing - either ownership costs will fall to the level that they're acceptable for general use or advancements in parallel fields will make it impractical.
I believe the sonic boom problem has been at least partially solved, but the economics still don't work out. One day, they will. Likewise with optical computing - either ownership costs will fall to the level that they're acceptable for general use or advancements in parallel fields will make it impractical.
> but the economics still don't work out. One day, they will.
This sounds like magical thinking to me. Supersonic travel will always be at a huge cost disadvantage to conventional airlines, and for the vast majority of people the benefits are not there.
I'm more curious about optical computing. I didn't realize there were costs in optical computing that make it fundamentally (i.e. at a physics level) more expensive than electronic computing; I thought the issue was mainly just that there was already over a half a century invested in electronic computing. What are the aspects of optical computing that make it inherently more expensive?
This sounds like magical thinking to me. Supersonic travel will always be at a huge cost disadvantage to conventional airlines, and for the vast majority of people the benefits are not there.
I'm more curious about optical computing. I didn't realize there were costs in optical computing that make it fundamentally (i.e. at a physics level) more expensive than electronic computing; I thought the issue was mainly just that there was already over a half a century invested in electronic computing. What are the aspects of optical computing that make it inherently more expensive?
Even with all the technology in the world, the laws of thermodynamics hold. Going faster raises friction losses requiring either a smaller plane or a larger amount of fuel. Either way, the price goes up. SST will never supplant subsonic transport on a large scale level, even accounting for the elimination of sonic booms.
This is largely revisionist history. The reality was that logistics of flying the Concorde (routing, timing, airport services) combined with the experience (speed over comfort) made it expensive and just not that desirable. The plane was conceived in the era of big government bankrolled air travel and doesn't have a role in the reality of flying buses we see today.