What does the history of the Concorde evidence to you?

[LuisDantas]

The Concorde flew from 1976 to 2003. It had a troubled, expensive history and may have heralded and evidenced quite a few trends and realities.

Concorde: Flight of the Imagination | History Today

What do you think we should learn from its history?

If we collectively could go back in time, what do you think should have been done differently regarding it? And why?

 

[Pastek]

You can see it next to the airport CDG (Paris)

[youtube]Dr5T8POu8vM[/youtube]

I don't know much about it, i just remember there was a crash and i think it wasn't very profitable.

But i remember that i wished to try it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Apparently there was ONE crash in all of its 27 years of history:

Air France Flight 4590 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terrible as that is, I doubt that was a major factor in the decision to discontinue it.

I used to live in Rio de Janeiro, and in fact in Ilha do Governador, back in the 1970s. I saw the Concorde landing fairly often. It was very remarkable by its shape and by the way its head cabin inclined down before landing.

And, of course, it was rather fast.

I think there are a lot of lessons that can be at least argued from it, but I would like to hear from others before proposing my view.

 

[Pastek]

I think there are a lot of lessons that can be at least argued from it, but I would like to hear from others before proposing my view.

Ok sound interesting

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think it's one of the prototypical examples of things which represent a future which never came.

 

[LuisDantas]

One sure gets that sense from the articles around. Concorde was expected to be one of several supersonic passenger airships. It ended up being the only one.

 

[Amechania]

What do you think we should learn from its history?

If we collectively could go back in time, what do you think should have been done differently regarding it? And why?

First that most people are willing to pay ten times the normal cost of an international flight........once. Getting there a little quicker was never worth the price; so high because the vehicle was so costly to fuel and maintain.

It was also really loud and polluting.

The lesson to learn is that economic and environmental considerations should trump any sort of high-tech ******* contest.

 

[Revoltingest]

First that most people are willing to pay ten times the normal cost of an international flight........once. Getting there a little quicker was never worth the price; so high because the vehicle was so costly to fuel and maintain.
It was also really loud and polluting.
The lesson to learn is that economic and environmental considerations should trump any sort of high-tech ******* contest.

Those are the basics...which were overlooked in the "****** contest".
It never had an economic roll to play.

 

[Phil25]

I would love to fly in it.

 

[oldbadger]

Remarkable but unprofitable.
Didn't it rip up the ozone layer more than most other aircraft?
A friend of mine flew to America on it every three months, and told me it was not as comfy as most 1st class seating on larger planes. Eventually he decided to fly on the latter option.

 

[Amechania]

Those are the basics...which were overlooked in the "****** contest".
It never had an economic roll to play.

Another lesson learned: Leave it to the French to lose a contest in which they were the sole remaining competitor.
Really the Concorde was supported because of its PR value: Hi, were France, remember when we mattered? The crash (even though something of a freak accident) destroyed that value.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed, saving face and national pride was a very expensive choice under those circunstances.

Then again, it usually is.

 

[The Barbarian]

I've been in the cabin of one of them. Tiny and cramped. I can't imagine what it must be like sitting for hours in one of those seats.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

1. It ran at a loss: the British ones were subsidised by the airline, the French ones by the government.
2. If I remember correctly, it was largely limited to the trans-Atlantic route, as countries objected to their citizens being annoyed by the bangs of an aircraft they didn't get benefit from and blocked supersonic overflights.
3. The carbon footprint per passenger was huge.

It was a classic case of technology that no-one needed.

 

[oldbadger]

I think it's one of the prototypical examples of things which represent a future which never came.

Yep..... as redundant now as the shuttle....