Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jimtoberfest t1_iqt9uom wrote

Reply to comment by SaintLouisduHaHa in [OC] Supersonic Inefficiency: Why the Concorde Was Decommissioned by haboo213

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