Red pill me on the Concorde

red pill me on the Concorde

how come they stopped using them after one air France crash but recently like three air France air busses crashed and no one cared?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=J_LrCMy5jr4
youtu.be/YeEB2Lxbfa4
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

it started to cost more to fly them than profit was bringing in

It became too expensive and out-dated.

then why not charge more for flights and generally fly less

I suspect people would like to pay more but fly the same distance in half the time..

NIMBY faggots

the planes we fly today have like the same technology as planes from 50 years ago

the ones in service got old and nobody was building more

sad that its gone supersonic is the only way to fly

t. old fuck who actually flew on it from NY to Paris once for work

eh... that depends on how you look at it I guess. By the time the retired the concord, it had analog controls while most airliners had digital ones...

You could only fly on it if you were pretty damn wealthy.

High Maintenance Costs + High Ticket Costs + Low Seat Count. It was harder to recoup any losses because of how niche and expensive the service was.

Except they wouldn't, hence why the Concorde was a failure

It never was profitable. Even at $10,000 a ticket. Also the fleet was aging, Noise regs limited it to specific airports.

Turns out sports cars don't make very good buses.

Couple of reasons, maintenance and costs were a large driving factor. Another big thing is that supersonic flight makes annoying sounds for people on the ground which is uncool.

I've read there are some companies experimenting to create a new supersonic passenger aircraft but I don't know who is doing it.

This implied a total overhaul of that prestigious plane. On a side note. For such a prestigious plane to live up to its name, they always had to have one on stand-by. She simply became too expensive.

couldnt fly it over anywhere populated because of the sonic boom, limiting its use to just transatlantic flights. Didn't generate enough money to justify its existence with such a limited market.

case closed :(

i still use analog controls to finger your mom

Besides economic reasons (no profit to be made) the Concorde was a new and scary project, like the evil assault weapon of aeroengineering. So better ban it for the bad feels it causes to the normies.

>Finger
>Analog

But technically a finger is a digit so technically you are digitally doing it..

AMERICAN LOBBYING AMERICAN LOBBYING AMERICAN LOBBYING SUCCESS BREEDS JEALOUSY BOEING SHILL GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Mention my mom one more time.

>Noise regs limited it to specific airports.

Only in burgerland, how surprising...

Best fucking plane ever. A symbol of what the British and French can do if they put aside their fighting.

Did you know you could visibly see the plane stretch once it reached up to speed?

Commercial failure, unkeep too expensive, percieved as dangerous, supersonic flight regulation, lack of interest.
They sold the fleet for a mere 1 pound because no one wanted such burden.

Boeing is a better aircraft company than anything made by the Français aka the Francrap

It didn't amount to shit.

Sitting in one was rather a cramped situation.

European airports have noise regs too.

Also, considering the Concorde had the passenger capacity about the same as a modern regional jet, it was pretty hard to make it economical.

Got it in one.

Boeing isn't that good man.

Homosexuals with sensitive ears banned them from most airports.

You can fuck right off with your gay little Rolls-Royce fag engines. You're literally the reason the Russians have jets at all

Statistics my friends....50 concordes aging fast,
2 crashes...... 1000 airbus. 2 crashes. Which one is more expensive ??

Boeing did make the right call in shit canning the SST, they calculated it would never make money. Airlines are not about glamour, they are about profit.

>US banned supersonic flight over land
>Brit/Frenchie governments poured too much € into it for it to be profitable
>Flight engineer
>$10,000 tickets
>Advances in subsonic tech

All of the above helped it fail. I would love to see a real company take the concept and run with it.

insanely inefficient, insane maintaining costs, loud as fuck (seen it once starting at the munich airport), old as fuck, supersonic mostly only over the atlantic, etc.

maybe in the far future they will build a new one, but i highly doubt it that this will happen in the next 20 years. Mach 0,99 is the way to go atm.

Your hot, juicy, Thicc mom

Also it flew faster then sound, and thus the muricans banned it to fly over their heads.
And since over Pacific flights were one of the main incomes for the Concorde it was fucked badly by that.

RR engines are used on boeings too

Dude it's EU, they just don't get engineers to keep it running anymore. Also economically nonviable.

1/10

Also the tehnology in it was getting old.

BA wanted to keep it in 2003, but Airbus wanted to put up the costs to keep the aircraft certificated (And thus legal to fly) and Air France would be losing money if it was paying those costs, so to save face the two agreed to retire them.

Passenger numbers had also declined somewhat and fuel prices were a factor. More rich people got private jets since 9/11 and the need to travel around the world really quickly was waning as the internet got more popular.

We know.

>European airports have noise regs too.
...regs that allowed the Concorde to operate.
It's a well known fact that american protectionism tried to kill the Concorde from the beginning just because of pride.

The only reason it was retired was because of the world tendencies to become a low cost shithole, making it too expensive to operate. Not the other US propaganda bullshits written in this thread.

If you've ever lived near an airbase where they do occasionally go supersonic, you know why its banned.

youtube.com/watch?v=J_LrCMy5jr4

>Ticket price
>Inability to update fleet
>Noise
>Fuel Consumption

It was a neat idea, but it just wasn't what everyone wanted in the end.

Only occasionally, since we need to throw you inferior limeys a bone every now and then. Superior General Electric engines are preferred

It's fine, just needs some paint.

They don't want civilians flying that high, in case they see the dome.

>power goes down
>Satellite lost
>Poor signal
>EMP happening
Fugg :DD
Analog is better.

It did spawn the most hilariously bad movie of all time: "The Concorde: Airport '79." Remember the scene where George Kennedy slid open the cockpit window (at mach 2!!!) and shot an incoming missile out of the sky with a flare gun (even more !!!)....that's like the kind of gag you'd expect from "Airplane."

Or when you want our technology because you're too dimwitted to come up with it yourself.

Living near an airbase is fucking shit if they break the sound barrier often. Airports are loud enough as it is

Oh how I wish that was true.

Airplanes used to be very diverse as they had a lot of solutions to different problems of the day. So you'd see a nice diverse fleet of 707s, VC-10s, DC-9s, 727s and 737s buzzing about. Later you'd also get 747s, Concordes, DC-10s and L1011s. They had very diverse appearances and shapes. Some like the British Trident had quirks like a nose-wheel off to one side because they needed extra space for a landing computer.

Now most aircraft designs operated fall into "Two high-bypass jet engines mounted on the wings, conventional shaped tail."

That's a nacelle failure though, not an engine failure.

>It never was profitable.
Yes it was. BA turned a profit over the lifetime of Concorde. How they did it was actually quite funny:
>Find the rich people
>Ask how much they thought Concorde tickets were costing them (as secretaries booked the flights, not them)
>Make the price what rich people thought it was, instead of what BA initially thought was a fair price
>?????
>Understand why Concorde had such a large nose.

Unless you mean recouping development costs, as opposed to profitable for individual airlines.

>wanting British technology
Limey tech isn't very good. Your cars, even Bentley, are less reliable than an Audi but about as powerful and nimble as a minivan

because maintenance and general keep costs would mount without returns
concorde was an airline for the corporate rich and it was essentially killed by video conferencing

>At Mach 2, they can't hear you scream....

Another guy who buy a house next to an airbase annoyed by the engine noise

>Understand why Concorde had such a large nose.

You know Bentley and Audi are both owned by VW now right?

So can we rip up that technology pact that you insist on keeping? Good.

People memed far too much about it on takeoff and landing as well, conflating the sonic boom with the noise of engines at subsonic flight.
(i.e. during the 70s people whined about how it was so loud on landing, when in actuality it was quieter than the President's Boeing 707.)

Which is another thing, IIRC it was designed to be fuel-efficient compared to the earliest 707s when first designed, and in that measure succeeded, but later model 707s, smaller jets of similar capacity like the early 737s and DC-9s, and especially the new widebodied jets like the 747 and DC-10 made it look ridiculously inefficient by comparison.

You wouldn't hear Concorde breaking the sound barrier from an airport. By the mid-2000s it was loud by the standards of jets still operated, but in the 80s and even into the 90s it wasn't too bad.

Globalism can't abide interesting inefficiency

You know what worse? Fucking after burners you dumb cunt I hate hearing these fucking jets fly over and when they slow the fuck down it makes my entire fucking house shake fucking hate living here. I have to stop talking on my phone as these fuckers pass and my car alarm keeps going off. I hate living in Virginia beach niggers, jets, military families, more niggers, and tourists.

>US propaganda bullshits again

The sound barrier was broken at high altitudes and far away from the airports.
And nobody is supposed to live a comfy life near an aibase.

I go to school near an airbase, actually. And it's only this semester that I'm actually living near it

Do you spend sundays standing at the end of runways with a pair of binoculars?

Nothing that duct tape can't fix.

>tfw you'll never fly at mach 2, eating fancy food and drinking champagne

What is this "technology pact" you're babbling about, lobsterback? Another delusion you dreamed up while getting high in your Glasgow meth den?

I sit on the end of the runaway with this though..

What I like is that "The Concorde Affair"/"Concorde Affaire '79" (a sort of Italian mockbuster of Airport '79) is a far more enjoyable movie dealing with a conspiracy by US airline executives who face massive losses if Concorde is successful, as a reporter heads to the Antilles to investigate a Concorde crash.

youtu.be/YeEB2Lxbfa4
forgot vid

That's illegal here

They fly so high, people were starting to figure out the earth is flat.

the blades could have been critically damaged by debris. if i was the guy with the camera i'd worry myself to death about fissures or broken bearings.

fuel is expensive and nobody 100% NEEDS to get to New York that quickly when the Internet exists.

the most efficient aircraft engines don't work at supersonic speeds

Would consider it if I lived anywhere interesting/busy.

It's just very boring to see everything homogenized, and to know that it has been and will probably always be going forward.

>a conspiracy by US airline executives who face massive losses if Concorde is successful

Less or more the truth.

>profits were negative
>cramped, thin, uncomfortable fuselage that bent as it flew
>got loud as fuck


It was a supersonic passenger airliner that absolutely sucked at being a passenger airliner.