monodrone Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Just a poll then I guess. It would and should not fly, is my answer. The days of ticker-taping 60's tech are over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 Just a poll then I guess. It would and should not fly, is my answer. The days of ticker-taping 60's tech are over. The programme showed the stats, that it used 2 gallons/sec. A 3 hour flight comes to £1500 per person (of 100 (approx and providing full plane), or £3000 return just in fuel. They did charge £6k for that journey. When they compared the luxury jets at £34k return, it blows C out of the water. 14 peoples, £2500 each and luxury travel rather than cramped travel. I'm now satisfied that C was like man on moon, a great achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvp82 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 It wasn't really the Air France Concorde crash that killed off the aircraft. The Concorde was for a time a huge cash cow for BA, ( can't comment on how it performed for AF ) flying between 2 of the worlds major business cities, London & NYC. What other aircraft could fly an executive from London at 10.30am and arrive in NYC for 9.20am, ready to do a days business. For that reason the morning Heathrow to NYC Concorde flight was more popular than the returns from NYC to Heathrow. What really killed the aircraft off was it started to become a major PITA maintenance wise, it was thirsty as hell. I'm sure i read somewhere The Concorde used around 400 gallons of fuel just to taxi to the runway from the terminal at Heathrow and with fuel prices on the increase operating costs sky rocketed and in the end Airbus washed their hands with the aircraft and without the support of Airbus the aircraft was as good as dead for BA & AF. The Air France crash didn't ultimately kill off The Concorde, although the cost of the upgrades needed to get it airworthy again didn't help, but even if the crash had not taken place the aircraft still would not be flying in the skies today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 A lot of Concorde's frequent fliers died on 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvp82 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 A lot of Concorde's frequent fliers died on 9/11. Quite right, I remember watching a documentary that stated 40 of the most frequent Concorde flyers died on 9/11. Which would have had a huge short term impact on revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Not sure it was worth the money to knock around 5 hours off a flight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 difference was 4 hours, not 5 hours. it's not as if London to New York is an especially long flight anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Simple question. Did the crash put the last nail in the coffin? Or would Concorde still be flying? If the crash was the last nail in the coffin, it took about 3 years to take effect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Simple question. Did the crash put the last nail in the coffin? Or would Concorde still be flying? I think if it hadn't crashed it would've run out of petrol by now to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choogling Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Yet another stupid poll this forum is getting worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.