Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jimtoberfest t1_iqt21hd wrote

The chart may be accurate but the conclusion is not and should be removed. Concorde was profitable for both BA and Air France. It was more profitable and in higher demand once retirement was announced. Virgin tried to buy them but for whatever reason was denied.

The real issue was it was getting old and during financial hard times around 2000 and post 9/11 Airbus effectively stopped making replacement parts.

What was needed were new airframes and a successor but that never materialized for a host of reasons in the aviation industry. But clearly there is a market for a new version, especially in the pacific operations zone.

16

SaintLouisduHaHa t1_iqt9f69 wrote

The Concorde was profitable to operate, but that’s at least partially because the airlines did not pay a realistic price for the airframe.

14

jimtoberfest t1_iqt9uom wrote

They didn’t pay development costs but one could largely say that for many airframes including the A380. It’s airframe dev costs were subsidized as well.

In Concordes case it also didn’t get sold to as many customers who initially wanted it or even throughout its life. Not sure if it was British or French govt who limited its sales.

6

SaintLouisduHaHa t1_iqtc3im wrote

They didn't just not pay the development costs, BA bought the program from the UK government for pennies on the dollar (pound, I guess).

2

jimtoberfest t1_iqtfevi wrote

Doesn’t change the fact the plane was profitable. If some company goes bust and I buy their assets at a discount and make a working business model- it’s still profitable.

In this case how realistic was it to think a commercial plane designed and built like a multi national fighter was going to come in on cost and on budget? Has that ever happened in a large scale govt aviation project?

The point was the graph concludes it’s not profitable because of fuel consumption which is not true.

2

SaintLouisduHaHa t1_iqth0uj wrote

Fair, the operations were profitable regardless of how it came to be that way, but that doesn't say much looking forward. If any of the companies claiming to be working on a new SST actually produce and sell one in meaningful quantities, I will eat my hat (right after I buy one).

2

au-smurf t1_iqumyk0 wrote

Several us airlines had orders for Concorde during development. Boeing were also developing a supersonic airliner. Before Concorde‘s maiden flights the US passed laws prohibiting supersonic flight over land, funnily enough around the time that Boeing gave up on their supersonic airliner (but that’s one for the tin foil hat crew). US airlines cancelled their orders because their main routes for the Concorde were going to be between the east and west coasts. I believe that the price per aircraft ballooned as well.

2

dpdxguy t1_iqv8lo9 wrote

>Boeing gave up on their supersonic airliner (but that’s one for the tin foil hat crew)

No foil needed. Development of the Boeing SST was funded in large part by the US government. The government killed the funding so Boeing killed the project.

1

au-smurf t1_iqxvgh6 wrote

Not the cancellation for tin foil hat crew, the laws re flying supersonic over land were passed around the same time.

1

bstrauss3 t1_iqt7ka6 wrote

There isn't even now... one of the new players can't find a manufacturer to make them engines.

1

jimtoberfest t1_iqt8zbk wrote

I’m not sure why Boom was ever going that route honestly with Rolls. I would think they could use F-35 derivative engines potentially.

1

bstrauss3 t1_iqt9xm1 wrote

Apparently nobody wants there business...

1

jimtoberfest t1_iqtesaw wrote

Not sure what RR is doing they have dropped out of a lot of high profile projects recently. Some of which clearly have economic value. They must be streamlining operations or something internally / gearing up for other markets.

2

bstrauss3 t1_iqtg2g9 wrote

Takes a lot of money to build the engines, get them approved by the a/c manufacturer and the FAA, make and sell spare parts, etc.

There is also a power-by-the-hour concept in the industry... so you have to own the hardware to lease it out.

1

jimtoberfest t1_iqtgo41 wrote

Yeah it’s strange because the F-135 from Pratt seems like the beginning of the ideal engine here.

1

banisheduser t1_iquraa2 wrote

I worked for Virgin once and was invited to Richard Branson's home thorugh some sort of event mixing all the Virgin companies.

He said he'd spoken to a pilot for Virgin Atlantic who said it's a shame the Space shuttle things he was building couldn't be pointed at America instead - IE, bring back a version of concorde.

Guess it hasn't materialised as this was nigh on 10 years ago now.

1