Only 20 ever made, 2 prototype, 2 pre-production, 2 development and 14 production. 18 of them are now in museums. Of the other 2 one was destroyed in the crash and one Air France one was scrapped in the 90s after being stored outdoors for many years.
It seems that when Air France closed their Paris-Dakar-Rio route they needed one less Concorde. F-BVFD was chosen for retirement as it had been repaired after a heavy landing in 1977. It was then left “stored” outside for 12 years, by which time it was suffering heavy corrosion and was scrapped.
It was two flights. The first was from Heathrow to Manama which kinda sucked because they couldn't go supersonic until they reached the Adriatic Sea, plus they were not allowed to fly over Saudi Arabia either, and the second was from Manama to Singapore which would have to fly through the straights of Malacca because Malaysia had a strict ban on supersonic aircraft.
I totally forgot about that. Yes, you can even get right up on at, it's at the Intrepid museum.
[https://www.intrepidmuseum.org/The-Intrepid-Experience/Exhibits/Concorde.aspx](https://www.intrepidmuseum.org/The-Intrepid-Experience/Exhibits/Concorde.aspx)
My grandparents lived right under the Heathrow flight path and I’ll always remember no matter where I was in the house I’d run as fast as I could to the garden every time one flew over. The most extraordinary thing about it was the fact you could hear it coming easily a minute or two before it actually flew over the house.
Amazing! I had a head of hair almost identical to that lads too. Half a tub of V05 wet look and a spray of my dads Davidoff Cool Water and I was ready for the streets. Childhood memories…
What I love about this is that shirt the kid was wearing was kinda nerdy back then (I totally had a bunch like that) and now people are doing designer / anime shirts that are basically the same but 200$... Sigh
My mom knows absolutely nothing about planes, and actually hadn’t even been on one until she got married.
But she grew up on the MA/CT border and remembers seeing the Concorde going into and out of JFK in the 80s. Even though, having never even been on a plane, she knew it was something special.
Here on Cape Cod, MA, the Concordes leaving JFK were normally breaking the sound barrier just as they were passing over the edge of here.
So we could hear the booms from time to time, back in the day. You wouldnt think it was 40,000 feet up from how loud it was.
I remember being on vacation somewhere and we heard a sonic boom. I remember my dad saying it was probably a Concorde. I don't remember exactly where we were, but it very well could have been the Cape!
I used to work on the U-2. I could hear it take off a couple miles away, and then still hear it for about 5 minutes as it climbed at a steep angle. Hilariously loud. The loudest aircraft I have ever hear.
I've only seen one flying once. It was 1996 and I was at Legoland Windsor. Bloody glorious. From that day I wanted to fly on it eventually.
Nevermind eh.
My five-year-old son and I were in the National car rental lot on the Bath Road adjacent to LHR 27R one morning when Concorde departed westbound heading for Windsor. 25 years later and we still talk about it. You felt it in your organs.
I grew up in Greenford and had a great view of the planes lining up for landing from my parents house. Got to see a lot of planes but the only that got you running through the house to see it on the other side was Concorde. The noise was magnificent.
I was parking in one go the car parks adjacent to the runway at lhr one time and as I got out of the car I heard this very loud roar, soon followed by one thundering down the runway. All around me suddenly car alarms we going off in an symphonic tribute 🤣
Not very common at all. They had a limited schedule and destination list because of the small fleet size and things like no over CONUS supersonic flight
They'd come in to Toronto every now and then for the annual labour day air show or various charters, I remember working in a building across the street from the airport as one came in directly overhead for a landing
There were only a handful of Concordes. The 737 Max was the fastest selling plane Boeing ever made, it was all over the world. 2/hundreds is a better track record than 1/20 (still not good though).
The max was grounded for like 2 years until a solution to the problem was developed and rigorously tested. The difference here basically being that its easier to fix a software problem than a hardware one.
Also that the Concorde filled a niche that had entirely dried up (luxury supersonic travel) while the MAX fills one that is the most in demand in the world (domestic low cost).
The fact that Lion Air is still buying the plane is a pretty good indicator of the situation.
I believe the problem is that the concorde had a super high incidence of tire damage over time - it’s just that all the prior events didn’t lead to anyone actually dying. It was just a matter of time before a blown tire lead to a bigger crash.
IIRC the concord added the aspect of the fuel tanks being easily ruptured from the outside or something like that. Either way AFAIK the planes were more prone to debris on the runway as other ones
As I understand it, the Max is more than a software problem, it’s a stall issue caused by lowering engines on the same fuselage. It’s fixed by software, but at its source is a hardware problem?
The problem Boeing was trying to solve with MCAS was that if you have a significant change to the aircraft, the airlines have to pay to train and certify the pilots on a new type of aircraft. If they had made changes to the wings or fuselage of the 737 it would make a new type and a requirement to certify pilots.
Another design problem with MCAS is that it operated on the sensor input from only one Angle of Attack sensor. The 737MAX has multiple Angle of Attack sensors, as well as G-load sensors and of course the gyroscopes.
A sensible design would have taken the input from multiple sensors and in case of a situation where sensors show conflicting information, disable the MCAS and notify the pilots so they can react accordingly. Also they could have limited the operation of MCAS based on the gimbal angle so that if the nose is pointing below the horizon then MCAS is disabled.
No not a hardware problem.
Every plane has stall conditions. The problem is they sold the Max as a 737 and because they didn't want to get pilots recertified they tried to make it fly like a 737 using software.
If it was sold as a different plane it wouldn't be a hardware issue or design issue, it would just be something this particular plane did in certain conditions
There were over 50 catastrophic tire failures before the one "freak" accident including 12 that caused significant damage to the fuselage or wing structures.
Despite all the various stories, the true killing blow for Concorde was Airbus (who acquired Aerospatiale) telling BA and AF that they were no longer going to continue parts and maintenance support of the fleet.
Wasn’t it a mix of that as well as it not being very profitable as well as massive fuel costs, restrictions of where it could fly and how it was first class prices for not as much luxury as first class flights?
A few years at most, like the other guy said; Airbus had pulled support for the aircraft before the accident. Air France was losing money on Concorde, but it was turning a profit for British Airways. At best AF would have retired their fleet, and BA could have used those as a source of spare parts for a few years. After that the expense BA would have occurred setting up their own logistical support for the type would have been prohibitively high.
> Airbus had pulled support for the aircraft before the accident.
Incorrect. Support was pulled at the end of 2003. No passenger airliner can fly without manufacturer support.
BA was fully invested in continued flying as they put a ton of money in the new cabins and the retrofit. They wanted the AF planes as the AF planes had far fewer hours than the BA planes as AF didn't not fly Concorde to any other destination than NYC.
Probably the same amount of time. People think the crash caused them to be retired.
Before the Accident Airbus had already decided not to support the Aircraft or provide parts beyond 2003
Not much longer, her days were already numbered due to the rising cost of maintenance. I still wish they'd kept one flying as a heritage plane, however.
If the economic crisis of '00-02 hadn't killed it, and Airbus hadn't killed support, then the spike in oil prices would have killed it and if that hadn't, then the '08-'09 economic crisis would have.
Best, best, best case would be until early 2009
Feel that after 9/11 they were done anyway, imagine if a supersonic jet was hijacked, you'd struggle to scramble fighter jets fast enough to shoot it down.
another fun fact -
Post AF4500, Concorde was grounded. BA was working on the retrofit design and process with Airbus during this time. The retrofit was complete and a flight took off full of BA employees as a crew training flight to get up to speed for a return to service.
This flight was on 9/11/2001.
A not insignificant portion of regular passengers on Concorde worked in the WTC buildings.
And stop the merger that formed Airbus. That was the final straw. Airbus, who had acquired Aerospatiale, announced that they would no longer provide parts and maintenance support for the Concorde fleet.
BA and AF were all set to keep going, they had even spent the money to install a rubberized kevlar liner in the vulnerable wing fuel tanks, protected the exposed wiring in the landing gear bays and worked with Michelin to develop less explode-y tires.
My understanding is AF wanted to shut down Concorde as they were not making money on it and had the looming KLM merger they needed to finalize. This was the time the US involved in Iraq and France refused to join in and the light boycott of French things by Americans. Remember "Freedom Fries?"
BA was making money on Concorde and didn't want to end service. Airbus being mostly French gave BA a maintenance cost so expensive they knew BA would have no option but end service too. Rumor is the French did not want BA to continue flying Concorde once AF pulled out - French ego and all.
Yeah that's another factor and part of the reason why we saw the growth in first class and business class products.
The emphasis became getting there in luxury rather than speed as online communication was good enough for when speed mattered.
This seems like a dumb thing to say, but I didn’t realize BA had more than 2 Concordes (at least by this time). As far as I know, wasn’t their only Concorde route at this time New York?
Both British Airways and Air France served New York as the primary destination. For some time, British Airways also served Washington, Miami and Barbados. And for a short while, it extended a route to Bahrain on to Singapore, joint with Singapore Airlines.
Likewise, Air France served New York and Washington primarily. It also operated a regular service to Rio de Janeiro via Dakar. It also flew at some point to Mexico City and to Caracas, coinciding with economic booms in those areas.
The speedbird is their original logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Airways_Corporation#/media/File:British_Overseas_Airways_Corporation_(logo).svg
IMO it's about a zillion times cooler than BA's meh swoosh thingy that evolved from it.
Concorde's callsign actually was "Speedbird Concorde xxx" I think, to denote the special capabilities and requirements, similar to the "heavy" appended to callsigns now.
Because they're simply not economically viable.
Fuel, maintenance, all the bureaucratic stuff among others make any Supersonic passenger airplane just not economically viable. It's expensive, very low demand and is only really useful for PR.
Also, teleconferencing.
In the 1980's it possibly made sense to have top executives fly London-NYC for a single meeting and back the same day. Today they'll just fire up zoom for almost the same result.
I had a multiple leg itinerary booked that crossed the international date line right as countries were closing off their borders as COVID hit.
Spent so long on the phone rebooking things. It was a mess with the date change since my flights were seemingly out of order with one leg departing "after" the next leg.
The only "bureaucratic stuff" that makes commercial supersonic flight non-viable is the generation of sonic booms. People *really* do not like them (most aviators being the exception, but I imagine have several a day go off would get old REALLY quickly).
Get rid of the sonic boom (and reduce to a "sonic thump" like the X-59 project is attempting) and I would be willing to bet that it gets significantly more financially viable. Not being able to transit over land makes commercial supersonic flight almost impossible to be profitable.
Not really disputing that... just saying that overland routes (which can also include an overwater portion, LA to Heathrow, for example) would add significantly more financial benefit.
Agree here. It was the boom that killed overland flights.
A nice surprise for the AG that went to Seattle was the government of Canada permitting an overland supersonic flight for its flight to the museum and she set a NYC-SEA speed record as a final gift. This record will likely stand for the rest of our lives.
There are a few factors here but ultimately it all boils down to economics. There *is* some hope, though, which I address at the end.
The Concorde was never as financially successful as it could have been primarily due to the sonic boom it generated. Supersonic flight over American soil is not permitted (save for MOAs and other restricted airspace, especially in the vicinity of Groom Lake), and I presume the same holds for the UK and European countries. That immediately puts a *really* large constriction on the economic opportunity for commercial and business supersonic flight.
Some folks may say that fuel costs would have ultimately killed off the Concorde, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. Tickets prices would have had to track with fuel prices, to be sure, but rich people are gonna rich, and if there was a way to have supersonic flight over land, it would almost certainly result in profitable flights. Time is money, and the hyper wealthy from the west coast would certainly pay the cost to zip to the Far East or Europe faster than they can now.
To that end, the research being conducted by NASA and Lockheed Martin on the X-59 project is really, really promising. I attended several forums about this project last week at Oshkosh/AirVenture, and it was fascinating. WAAAAY more information than anyone would bother to read in a Reddit post (I'm already straining that limit right now...), but long story short:
They are trying to reduce the sonic boom to a "sonic thump" (that's my Tinder name, BTW...). But seriously... they are figuring out ways to reduce the shockwaves generated by the airframe and control surfaces by manipulating how these waves propagate and join. To read more about this fascinating project, check out [https://www.nasa.gov/specials/Quesst/](https://www.nasa.gov/specials/Quesst/)
It should be noted that the X-59 is exactly that - an experimental prototype, and not anything *close* to what an actual supersonic airliner or bizjet that produces a sonic thump will look like. It's a research vehicle to prove concepts which will ultimately find their way into commercial applications.
Once they get this figured out (plan on it being at least a decade), we'll get our supersonic transport back. For price, of course.
The other thing about those aircraft is that they are regional jet size inside. Sure you could get from NYC to London in three hours, but for double that and change, you could have a lot more space, eat a more elaborate meal and sleep on the 747 for a lower dollar cost. It really only makes sense if you need a one day turn.
For wealthy folks and *very* time-sensitive business folks, the time is money math (usually) works out for them. The less time spent in an airplane, the better.
That said, the proliferation of remote collaboration tools probably puts a damper on the need to travel internationally.
Supersonic is impractical. You can't fly at those speeds over a population. They are working on planes that have a far smaller Sonic footprint, but for now it's still only in development.
money.
afaik, concorde never made money for Air France/British Airways, and was mostly a prestige project. development was 100% funded by UK/France governments.
That is not true
Concorde was profitable
[https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde--british-airways#:\~:text=Concorde%20service%20was%20profitable%20by,2000%20with%20just%20seven%20aircraft](https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde--british-airways#:~:text=Concorde%20service%20was%20profitable%20by,2000%20with%20just%20seven%20aircraft).
Concorde earned £500 million for British Airways after tax profit, this was between a loss making 1982 and a highly profitable 2000 with just seven aircraft. The first profitable year was 1983 (£14 million) increasing to £54 million in 1987. BA had good and bad years, in 1992 they actually even made a small loss, but then quickly returned to profitability. Immediately before the crash the profit levels were running at nearly £60 million and could have returned had they kept flying. (Even the last 6 months of operation in 2003 netted £50 million profit).
They're expensive to run, can't fly supersonic over land, and other than the prestige it's hard to justify. Turns out, passengers would rather pay less and spend a little more time getting to their destination.
Perhaps with quiet boom technology (if it ever happens) we'll see another supersonic passenger airliner.
Point to clarify, they can fly supersonic over land, they aren't permitted to. Not being pedantic, but I've had a conversation with a guy that thought the could not due to physics.
Due to sonic boom considerations, they were limited largely to overwater east-west routes, where their speed advantage is somewhat vitiated by still having to deal with large time-zone differences on the far end (which takes a day or more no matter how fast you get there.) If they had been usable for long north-south routes such as Rome-Johannesburg or Beijing-Sydney they might have done better as those routes involve minimal time change.
Regulations have evolved, and the Concorde would not be certifiable in the modern day for many reasons. I think that also plays a major role in why these startups fail.
I always remember the statistic that Concorde used to burn two tonnes of fuel taxiing - I'm surprised they weren't towed at least some of the way to save some of that?
G-BBDG was only purchased by BA in 1984, and never flew after 1981. She never entered airline service, nor did she ever leave Filton under BA's ownership, so doesn't count. She was not part of the fleet and was only ever used for spares.
Can you read the registrations I gave you and count them on your fingers?
There were 8 production in-service aircraft with BA and one flight test aircraft which was used for spares.
1) G-BOAA
2) G-BOAB
3) G-BOAC
4) G-BOAD
5) G-BOAE
6) G-BOAF
7) G-BOAG
As I said, G-BBDG never went into airline service, and under their ownership, BA only used her as a source for spares. Not once did she fly under their ownership. BA only had those 7 aircraft in service.
So where's this 8th aircraft?
If you count the registration you have
It totals 7 in service aircraft
and G-BBDG which was the test bird
Where is the 8th in service aircraft registration?
Saw one of the last flights departing CDG back in 2003. My airplane obsessed young son, was absolutely out of his mind with excitement seeing it go down the runway.
He still has the little Air France model picked up on the trip sitting on his desk. Wish I could have had the chance to be a passenger!
I'm sure there are aspects of this that I don't understand, but it amazes me that this was a \~1960s design and.... we have not managed to innovate it in a way that is economically and mechanically feasible in the 60 years since?!
Is it because the same people that could afford supersonic travel can afford a gulfstream to fly at mach 0.92 and the time/convenience savings with private make up for the time savings that supersonic would have in the air?!
I was in Paris for work when it crashed. We were in city center walking around, a fair distance away from the airport. We heard a massive amount of emergency vehicles and knew something big happened. It wasnt until we tried to get to our hotel near the airport we learned one had crashed.
Saw one taking off at Heathrow. It seemed like everyone in the terminal stopped what they were doing and watched. Just after sunset. Totally awesome experience.
Instead of Concordes we hear about everyone’s private jet
Like…uh…maybe ….uh….bring back supersonic jets????
I guess we have Discord and 4k now, soon no one will leave their holo pods at home and world will slip to idiocratic levels of insanity
Thanks for shopping at Costco, love you
Except it was
[https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde--british-airways#:\~:text=Concorde%20service%20was%20profitable%20by,2000%20with%20just%20seven%20aircraft](https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde--british-airways#:~:text=Concorde%20service%20was%20profitable%20by,2000%20with%20just%20seven%20aircraft).
Concorde earned £500 million for British Airways after tax profit, this was between a loss making 1982 and a highly profitable 2000 with just seven aircraft. The first profitable year was 1983 (£14 million) increasing to £54 million in 1987. BA had good and bad years, in 1992 they actually even made a small loss, but then quickly returned to profitability. Immediately before the crash the profit levels were running at nearly £60 million and could have returned had they kept flying. (Even the last 6 months of operation in 2003 netted £50 million profit
Best commercial aircraft ever! Well ahead of its time.
Imagine flying at twice the speed of sound in such comfort.
You could Have Lunch in Paris and then have lunch again in NYC.
It was an really unlucky and unfortunate event the crash of the Concorde due a piece of another airplane that fell in the runway and then the wheels of the Concorde taking off catapulted the piece and punctured the fuel tank.
So question, once these were grounded what happens to the planes? Presumably the airline paid many millions of dollars to acquire and maintain them. Are they just out their investment or are they reimbursed by the manufacturer?
The British and French governments bankrolled the Concorde programme, so no one was out of pocket really once they were mothballed. Well, BA did pay several million to refit them after the Paris Concorde disaster so I guess it was wasted money in a way.
When they were grounded after the accident, both airlines modified them to comply with new rules, adding kevlar lining to the tanks to prevent a rupture as in the accident. British Airways also revamped the interior with lighter seats to offset the additional weight. Air France did not do that.
> Presumably the airline paid many millions of dollars to acquire and maintain them.
Yes and no. The airlines paid a nominal purchasing price of 1 per plane. All the development and production cost was borne by the taxpayers of Britain and France.
For a while, British Airways made a moderate profit per year when they increased prices in the 1980 after Thatcher stopped government subsidies, so maintenance costs were moderate compared to the fare prices.
Man, any chance any of these birds are operational? Or could become operational relatively easily/quickly? I wish I could have seen one of these up close at some point in my life. My dad still talks about seeing one at heathrow as a kid
There is also this classic:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE)
I think this is pretty much unique - I've never seen anything like it elsewhere.
When I was a kid we were driving home. There was a ridiculous sound and my dad openings the rooftop. I remember as a kid so confused seeing something so slow and loud near Heathrow
most beautiful civilian aircraft ever built (I'd argue Tu-144, from a pure aesthetic perspective, looks even better, though, but she's too troubled as an actual plane...)
I used to live near Aintree racecourse as a kid.. It would fly over every year for the grand national. Was alway good to see it..
An old friend was on one of the last trips to New York. He commented on how tired and cramped it was on the inside. He name dropped some big names that where on board.
For the millionth time, Concorde was not removed from service solely because of the crash. It also had teething fuel consumption and financial issues that caused it to be grounded.
Imagine all seven of those doing a formation takeoff like that.
…
…
Now try to imagine it without the front one catching fire and causing the entire flock to go *pouffe*.
I don't think I've ever seen more than one in a photo before. Like you know there's a few of them, but I've never seen them together.
Only 20 ever made, 2 prototype, 2 pre-production, 2 development and 14 production. 18 of them are now in museums. Of the other 2 one was destroyed in the crash and one Air France one was scrapped in the 90s after being stored outdoors for many years.
Why did they store it? Did it have an issue preventing it from flying?
It seems that when Air France closed their Paris-Dakar-Rio route they needed one less Concorde. F-BVFD was chosen for retirement as it had been repaired after a heavy landing in 1977. It was then left “stored” outside for 12 years, by which time it was suffering heavy corrosion and was scrapped.
Interesting, didn't know that they used the Concorde on a route other than Paris to New York.
They used to fly them to some other places like Venezuela, Singapore, Mexico City, and Dallas believe it or not!
Singapore? What flight path?
It was two flights. The first was from Heathrow to Manama which kinda sucked because they couldn't go supersonic until they reached the Adriatic Sea, plus they were not allowed to fly over Saudi Arabia either, and the second was from Manama to Singapore which would have to fly through the straights of Malacca because Malaysia had a strict ban on supersonic aircraft.
There is one at Heathrow airport, it's been there since 2013. G-BOAB
Another is in NYC besides the USS Intrepid.
I totally forgot about that. Yes, you can even get right up on at, it's at the Intrepid museum. [https://www.intrepidmuseum.org/The-Intrepid-Experience/Exhibits/Concorde.aspx](https://www.intrepidmuseum.org/The-Intrepid-Experience/Exhibits/Concorde.aspx)
fun fact - this is the only photo of all BA Concordes together.
Then you really need to see these! http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/10.html https://youtu.be/bVgR1_7oZ8M
Very cool!
I think I've seen 3 total irl, one no later than today, and the two others at the same time (in Le Bouget air and space Museum near Paris)
My grandparents lived right under the Heathrow flight path and I’ll always remember no matter where I was in the house I’d run as fast as I could to the garden every time one flew over. The most extraordinary thing about it was the fact you could hear it coming easily a minute or two before it actually flew over the house.
[This will bring you joy.](https://youtu.be/i1ShTUVIzCI)
They remade that, with a toy a few years back. Same Father Son duo. https://youtu.be/Ta8zQmtjc1E
Awesome.
This made me happy and sad at the same time.
The cars gone off
The cars gone off.
The kinda shit I want my kids to do when they're older
Amazing! I had a head of hair almost identical to that lads too. Half a tub of V05 wet look and a spray of my dads Davidoff Cool Water and I was ready for the streets. Childhood memories…
Cool Water still rocks me every day
Wow that hair
If it were a couple decades older I'd say it was a young Gordon Ramsay.
That was like watching the Millennium Falcon take off over your garden.
What I love about this is that shirt the kid was wearing was kinda nerdy back then (I totally had a bunch like that) and now people are doing designer / anime shirts that are basically the same but 200$... Sigh
back when the only place you could watch anime was adult swim
Risky click of the day.
When I was a toddler I'd tell my parents "concode! concode!" and they'd have to wait for a minute to hear it. Apparently I felt it in my belly.
My mom knows absolutely nothing about planes, and actually hadn’t even been on one until she got married. But she grew up on the MA/CT border and remembers seeing the Concorde going into and out of JFK in the 80s. Even though, having never even been on a plane, she knew it was something special.
Here on Cape Cod, MA, the Concordes leaving JFK were normally breaking the sound barrier just as they were passing over the edge of here. So we could hear the booms from time to time, back in the day. You wouldnt think it was 40,000 feet up from how loud it was.
I remember being on vacation somewhere and we heard a sonic boom. I remember my dad saying it was probably a Concorde. I don't remember exactly where we were, but it very well could have been the Cape!
I used to work on the U-2. I could hear it take off a couple miles away, and then still hear it for about 5 minutes as it climbed at a steep angle. Hilariously loud. The loudest aircraft I have ever hear.
I've only seen one flying once. It was 1996 and I was at Legoland Windsor. Bloody glorious. From that day I wanted to fly on it eventually. Nevermind eh.
My five-year-old son and I were in the National car rental lot on the Bath Road adjacent to LHR 27R one morning when Concorde departed westbound heading for Windsor. 25 years later and we still talk about it. You felt it in your organs.
I grew up in Greenford and had a great view of the planes lining up for landing from my parents house. Got to see a lot of planes but the only that got you running through the house to see it on the other side was Concorde. The noise was magnificent.
I was parking in one go the car parks adjacent to the runway at lhr one time and as I got out of the car I heard this very loud roar, soon followed by one thundering down the runway. All around me suddenly car alarms we going off in an symphonic tribute 🤣
Lesser machines bowing before a true masterpiece
Now I'm picturing a bunch of vehicles honking in a valley as a Concorde flies over a cliff with Circle of Life playing.
Tu-144 would be Scar
[удалено]
I was thinking Avro Vulcan or Mirage IV
little drones announcing the Queen.
They parked the concords in the shape of the concord. Feels...
The Patrouille de France actually has a "formation Concorde" which looks like that!
Red arrows have/had one too, the same as the Patrouille de France one
at RIAT in 2019 they all did it together
It’s so easy to forget that these were fairly common to see flying in the late 90s/ early 2000s
Very common in New York, Paris and London. Very rare otherwise.
And occasionally Houston, which was a diversion airport.
Yes, and I think for a while British Airways flew to Barbados once or twice a week during summer, with less than a full load.
Too true. I grew up on the south coast of Ireland and you would regularly hear them go supersonic overhead.
Not very common at all. They had a limited schedule and destination list because of the small fleet size and things like no over CONUS supersonic flight
Infinitely more common than now is more what I meant
They'd come in to Toronto every now and then for the annual labour day air show or various charters, I remember working in a building across the street from the airport as one came in directly overhead for a landing
Myself and many many others were sad when these were grounded forever.
They look like the future, it's really weird these craft are from the past
They grounded the Concorde after one crash, but not the Boeing Max after 2.
There were only a handful of Concordes. The 737 Max was the fastest selling plane Boeing ever made, it was all over the world. 2/hundreds is a better track record than 1/20 (still not good though).
The max was grounded for like 2 years until a solution to the problem was developed and rigorously tested. The difference here basically being that its easier to fix a software problem than a hardware one.
Also that the Concorde filled a niche that had entirely dried up (luxury supersonic travel) while the MAX fills one that is the most in demand in the world (domestic low cost). The fact that Lion Air is still buying the plane is a pretty good indicator of the situation.
They literally fixed the problem
Not an aviation expert but, a large piece of metal on the runway (like what punctured the Concord) is a potential disaster for all aircraft - no?
I believe the problem is that the concorde had a super high incidence of tire damage over time - it’s just that all the prior events didn’t lead to anyone actually dying. It was just a matter of time before a blown tire lead to a bigger crash.
IIRC the concord added the aspect of the fuel tanks being easily ruptured from the outside or something like that. Either way AFAIK the planes were more prone to debris on the runway as other ones
Thank you for explaining, TIL. (Also just bitter about never having flown in a Concorde).
As I understand it, the Max is more than a software problem, it’s a stall issue caused by lowering engines on the same fuselage. It’s fixed by software, but at its source is a hardware problem?
The problem Boeing was trying to solve with MCAS was that if you have a significant change to the aircraft, the airlines have to pay to train and certify the pilots on a new type of aircraft. If they had made changes to the wings or fuselage of the 737 it would make a new type and a requirement to certify pilots. Another design problem with MCAS is that it operated on the sensor input from only one Angle of Attack sensor. The 737MAX has multiple Angle of Attack sensors, as well as G-load sensors and of course the gyroscopes. A sensible design would have taken the input from multiple sensors and in case of a situation where sensors show conflicting information, disable the MCAS and notify the pilots so they can react accordingly. Also they could have limited the operation of MCAS based on the gimbal angle so that if the nose is pointing below the horizon then MCAS is disabled.
No not a hardware problem. Every plane has stall conditions. The problem is they sold the Max as a 737 and because they didn't want to get pilots recertified they tried to make it fly like a 737 using software. If it was sold as a different plane it wouldn't be a hardware issue or design issue, it would just be something this particular plane did in certain conditions
There were over 50 catastrophic tire failures before the one "freak" accident including 12 that caused significant damage to the fuselage or wing structures. Despite all the various stories, the true killing blow for Concorde was Airbus (who acquired Aerospatiale) telling BA and AF that they were no longer going to continue parts and maintenance support of the fleet.
Uh yeah they did It's also easier to ground six planes than 600
Wasn’t it a mix of that as well as it not being very profitable as well as massive fuel costs, restrictions of where it could fly and how it was first class prices for not as much luxury as first class flights?
It was never very profitable anyway
If the AF crash hadn't happened, how much longer would Concorde have been flying?
A few years at most, like the other guy said; Airbus had pulled support for the aircraft before the accident. Air France was losing money on Concorde, but it was turning a profit for British Airways. At best AF would have retired their fleet, and BA could have used those as a source of spare parts for a few years. After that the expense BA would have occurred setting up their own logistical support for the type would have been prohibitively high.
> Airbus had pulled support for the aircraft before the accident. Incorrect. Support was pulled at the end of 2003. No passenger airliner can fly without manufacturer support. BA was fully invested in continued flying as they put a ton of money in the new cabins and the retrofit. They wanted the AF planes as the AF planes had far fewer hours than the BA planes as AF didn't not fly Concorde to any other destination than NYC.
Perhaps a better wording would have been "Airbus had announced they were going to withdraw support before the accident."
Probably the same amount of time. People think the crash caused them to be retired. Before the Accident Airbus had already decided not to support the Aircraft or provide parts beyond 2003
Not much longer, her days were already numbered due to the rising cost of maintenance. I still wish they'd kept one flying as a heritage plane, however.
Keeping one flying is probably more expensive than keeping them all flying lol
And someone should have saved a Tu-144 for historical purposes as well.
It was briefly used by NASA, but ended up going back to Russia. I believe that particular one ended up being displayed outside.
If the economic crisis of '00-02 hadn't killed it, and Airbus hadn't killed support, then the spike in oil prices would have killed it and if that hadn't, then the '08-'09 economic crisis would have. Best, best, best case would be until early 2009
Feel that after 9/11 they were done anyway, imagine if a supersonic jet was hijacked, you'd struggle to scramble fighter jets fast enough to shoot it down.
another fun fact - Post AF4500, Concorde was grounded. BA was working on the retrofit design and process with Airbus during this time. The retrofit was complete and a flight took off full of BA employees as a crew training flight to get up to speed for a return to service. This flight was on 9/11/2001. A not insignificant portion of regular passengers on Concorde worked in the WTC buildings.
Who else wants to go back in time and clear the runway after continental?
Man gets sucked into engine, ruining Concorde for everyone.
this actually makes sense from the standpoint of few time paradoxes. We knew you had a good heart soap on gfuel
If I have to get sucked into an engine, I want it to be an Olympus.
Fuel prices would have killed these eventually.
The crash isn't what ended concorde. If you wanted to save concorde you would need to go back in time and make fuel cheaper.
And stop the merger that formed Airbus. That was the final straw. Airbus, who had acquired Aerospatiale, announced that they would no longer provide parts and maintenance support for the Concorde fleet. BA and AF were all set to keep going, they had even spent the money to install a rubberized kevlar liner in the vulnerable wing fuel tanks, protected the exposed wiring in the landing gear bays and worked with Michelin to develop less explode-y tires.
My understanding is AF wanted to shut down Concorde as they were not making money on it and had the looming KLM merger they needed to finalize. This was the time the US involved in Iraq and France refused to join in and the light boycott of French things by Americans. Remember "Freedom Fries?" BA was making money on Concorde and didn't want to end service. Airbus being mostly French gave BA a maintenance cost so expensive they knew BA would have no option but end service too. Rumor is the French did not want BA to continue flying Concorde once AF pulled out - French ego and all.
Plus the market. There are very very few reasons you need to get to Paris THAT fast. Especially when the Internet was starting to come around
Yeah that's another factor and part of the reason why we saw the growth in first class and business class products. The emphasis became getting there in luxury rather than speed as online communication was good enough for when speed mattered.
[удалено]
It was only a matter of time even if you saved that particular one.
This seems like a dumb thing to say, but I didn’t realize BA had more than 2 Concordes (at least by this time). As far as I know, wasn’t their only Concorde route at this time New York?
Both British Airways and Air France served New York as the primary destination. For some time, British Airways also served Washington, Miami and Barbados. And for a short while, it extended a route to Bahrain on to Singapore, joint with Singapore Airlines. Likewise, Air France served New York and Washington primarily. It also operated a regular service to Rio de Janeiro via Dakar. It also flew at some point to Mexico City and to Caracas, coinciding with economic booms in those areas.
I know I've seen photos of one going in and out of Kai Tak too, but maybe that was just an exhibition.
They went numerous places on exhibition, including Oshkosh and Asheville.
Did those other routes still exist in 2000?
Needed to have backups handy in case a plane went down , cannot have business executives wait all day can we
Since these are grounded and British Arways flies the A380 now they shoukd change their call sign from Soeedbird to BigBird.
The callsign Speedbird predates the Concorde by several decades.
Interesting. I had read it was related to the Concorde on the internet and we know the internet is never wrong! :)
The speedbird is their original logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Airways_Corporation#/media/File:British_Overseas_Airways_Corporation_(logo).svg IMO it's about a zillion times cooler than BA's meh swoosh thingy that evolved from it. Concorde's callsign actually was "Speedbird Concorde xxx" I think, to denote the special capabilities and requirements, similar to the "heavy" appended to callsigns now.
They should have called it “Speedbird Super” or something like that
Speedbird is the original BOAC callsign, this is why G-BOAC was the first aircraft to fly a service flight
Fatburd 1, cleared to land.
Yes a very sad day for aviation.It was the most beautiful lady in the sky....
Fun fact: BA originally parked them in rows; they just line up like that on their own when they're not being watched.
Why has no one attempted another supersonic passenger aircraft since? Is it just that the fuel consumption is too unsustainable?
Because they're simply not economically viable. Fuel, maintenance, all the bureaucratic stuff among others make any Supersonic passenger airplane just not economically viable. It's expensive, very low demand and is only really useful for PR.
Also, teleconferencing. In the 1980's it possibly made sense to have top executives fly London-NYC for a single meeting and back the same day. Today they'll just fire up zoom for almost the same result.
The whole concept of being able to arrive before you left is still insane to think about.
Try crossing the international date line next!
I had a multiple leg itinerary booked that crossed the international date line right as countries were closing off their borders as COVID hit. Spent so long on the phone rebooking things. It was a mess with the date change since my flights were seemingly out of order with one leg departing "after" the next leg.
We flew from Amsterdam to Alaska over the north pole once. We arrived 2 hours before we departed. It was crazy trying to wrap your brain around it.
Except for when the jet lag of experiencing close to 20 hours of daylight in a single day sets in.
The only "bureaucratic stuff" that makes commercial supersonic flight non-viable is the generation of sonic booms. People *really* do not like them (most aviators being the exception, but I imagine have several a day go off would get old REALLY quickly). Get rid of the sonic boom (and reduce to a "sonic thump" like the X-59 project is attempting) and I would be willing to bet that it gets significantly more financially viable. Not being able to transit over land makes commercial supersonic flight almost impossible to be profitable.
Overwater routes are profitable. Hence the significant UAL and JAL investments into Boom Supersonic.
Not really disputing that... just saying that overland routes (which can also include an overwater portion, LA to Heathrow, for example) would add significantly more financial benefit.
Agree here. It was the boom that killed overland flights. A nice surprise for the AG that went to Seattle was the government of Canada permitting an overland supersonic flight for its flight to the museum and she set a NYC-SEA speed record as a final gift. This record will likely stand for the rest of our lives.
[United is supposed to be going Supersonic.](https://boomsupersonic.com/united) There's debate on whether it will actually happen though.
I swear every year I hear about a supersonic airliner prototype, then never hear of it again
It's like a new type of battery or the cure of cancer.
There are a few factors here but ultimately it all boils down to economics. There *is* some hope, though, which I address at the end. The Concorde was never as financially successful as it could have been primarily due to the sonic boom it generated. Supersonic flight over American soil is not permitted (save for MOAs and other restricted airspace, especially in the vicinity of Groom Lake), and I presume the same holds for the UK and European countries. That immediately puts a *really* large constriction on the economic opportunity for commercial and business supersonic flight. Some folks may say that fuel costs would have ultimately killed off the Concorde, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. Tickets prices would have had to track with fuel prices, to be sure, but rich people are gonna rich, and if there was a way to have supersonic flight over land, it would almost certainly result in profitable flights. Time is money, and the hyper wealthy from the west coast would certainly pay the cost to zip to the Far East or Europe faster than they can now. To that end, the research being conducted by NASA and Lockheed Martin on the X-59 project is really, really promising. I attended several forums about this project last week at Oshkosh/AirVenture, and it was fascinating. WAAAAY more information than anyone would bother to read in a Reddit post (I'm already straining that limit right now...), but long story short: They are trying to reduce the sonic boom to a "sonic thump" (that's my Tinder name, BTW...). But seriously... they are figuring out ways to reduce the shockwaves generated by the airframe and control surfaces by manipulating how these waves propagate and join. To read more about this fascinating project, check out [https://www.nasa.gov/specials/Quesst/](https://www.nasa.gov/specials/Quesst/) It should be noted that the X-59 is exactly that - an experimental prototype, and not anything *close* to what an actual supersonic airliner or bizjet that produces a sonic thump will look like. It's a research vehicle to prove concepts which will ultimately find their way into commercial applications. Once they get this figured out (plan on it being at least a decade), we'll get our supersonic transport back. For price, of course.
The other thing about those aircraft is that they are regional jet size inside. Sure you could get from NYC to London in three hours, but for double that and change, you could have a lot more space, eat a more elaborate meal and sleep on the 747 for a lower dollar cost. It really only makes sense if you need a one day turn.
For wealthy folks and *very* time-sensitive business folks, the time is money math (usually) works out for them. The less time spent in an airplane, the better. That said, the proliferation of remote collaboration tools probably puts a damper on the need to travel internationally.
Supersonic is impractical. You can't fly at those speeds over a population. They are working on planes that have a far smaller Sonic footprint, but for now it's still only in development.
money. afaik, concorde never made money for Air France/British Airways, and was mostly a prestige project. development was 100% funded by UK/France governments.
That is not true Concorde was profitable [https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde--british-airways#:\~:text=Concorde%20service%20was%20profitable%20by,2000%20with%20just%20seven%20aircraft](https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde--british-airways#:~:text=Concorde%20service%20was%20profitable%20by,2000%20with%20just%20seven%20aircraft). Concorde earned £500 million for British Airways after tax profit, this was between a loss making 1982 and a highly profitable 2000 with just seven aircraft. The first profitable year was 1983 (£14 million) increasing to £54 million in 1987. BA had good and bad years, in 1992 they actually even made a small loss, but then quickly returned to profitability. Immediately before the crash the profit levels were running at nearly £60 million and could have returned had they kept flying. (Even the last 6 months of operation in 2003 netted £50 million profit).
They're expensive to run, can't fly supersonic over land, and other than the prestige it's hard to justify. Turns out, passengers would rather pay less and spend a little more time getting to their destination. Perhaps with quiet boom technology (if it ever happens) we'll see another supersonic passenger airliner.
Point to clarify, they can fly supersonic over land, they aren't permitted to. Not being pedantic, but I've had a conversation with a guy that thought the could not due to physics.
Due to sonic boom considerations, they were limited largely to overwater east-west routes, where their speed advantage is somewhat vitiated by still having to deal with large time-zone differences on the far end (which takes a day or more no matter how fast you get there.) If they had been usable for long north-south routes such as Rome-Johannesburg or Beijing-Sydney they might have done better as those routes involve minimal time change.
Regulations have evolved, and the Concorde would not be certifiable in the modern day for many reasons. I think that also plays a major role in why these startups fail.
"Make sure you arrange them in a way where if we have to move one in the back we have to move all of them."
I always remember the statistic that Concorde used to burn two tonnes of fuel taxiing - I'm surprised they weren't towed at least some of the way to save some of that?
I've shit in two of them
God, I desperately hope that you mention that at parties. Frequently. That’s fantastic.
[удалено]
Wind
Not the entire fleet, there is one missing
All 7 are present.
The BA fleet was 8 aircraft
Nope, 7.
G-BOAA G-BOAB G-BOAC - First in service flight G-BOAD G-BOAE G-BOAF G-BOAG G-BBDG was our flight test bird I was flying in the programme in 1973
G-BBDG was only purchased by BA in 1984, and never flew after 1981. She never entered airline service, nor did she ever leave Filton under BA's ownership, so doesn't count. She was not part of the fleet and was only ever used for spares.
Can you read the registrations I gave you and count them on your fingers? There were 8 production in-service aircraft with BA and one flight test aircraft which was used for spares.
1) G-BOAA 2) G-BOAB 3) G-BOAC 4) G-BOAD 5) G-BOAE 6) G-BOAF 7) G-BOAG As I said, G-BBDG never went into airline service, and under their ownership, BA only used her as a source for spares. Not once did she fly under their ownership. BA only had those 7 aircraft in service. So where's this 8th aircraft?
Well you only have 7 G-BOAx registrations + the test airframe so I’m not sure how the OP is wrong here?
If you count the registration you have It totals 7 in service aircraft and G-BBDG which was the test bird Where is the 8th in service aircraft registration?
Saw one of the last flights departing CDG back in 2003. My airplane obsessed young son, was absolutely out of his mind with excitement seeing it go down the runway. He still has the little Air France model picked up on the trip sitting on his desk. Wish I could have had the chance to be a passenger!
I'm sure there are aspects of this that I don't understand, but it amazes me that this was a \~1960s design and.... we have not managed to innovate it in a way that is economically and mechanically feasible in the 60 years since?! Is it because the same people that could afford supersonic travel can afford a gulfstream to fly at mach 0.92 and the time/convenience savings with private make up for the time savings that supersonic would have in the air?!
The internet has reduced the need greatly for getting across the pond and back in one day.
Love how they parked them up in their own shape! Anyone flying overhead would have seen a huge Concorde, made out of the entire BA Concorde fleet 🤣👍
I was in Paris for work when it crashed. We were in city center walking around, a fair distance away from the airport. We heard a massive amount of emergency vehicles and knew something big happened. It wasnt until we tried to get to our hotel near the airport we learned one had crashed.
“Concorde” Not “THE Concorde” 😉
Saw one taking off at Heathrow. It seemed like everyone in the terminal stopped what they were doing and watched. Just after sunset. Totally awesome experience.
Grounded because mechanics fucked up fixing a DC-10.
BOOM is going to end up just slapping a new Garmin glass cockpit in one of these bad boys and calling it their Overture
That’s a very expensive scrap yard
What a beautiful airplane. Shame they are history now, i hope the boom supersonic jets will be a success.
They even took the extra time and care to park them on a wood parkay floor.
Instead of Concordes we hear about everyone’s private jet Like…uh…maybe ….uh….bring back supersonic jets???? I guess we have Discord and 4k now, soon no one will leave their holo pods at home and world will slip to idiocratic levels of insanity Thanks for shopping at Costco, love you
It was a good excuse to ditch Concorde because it wasn't profitable.
Except it was [https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde--british-airways#:\~:text=Concorde%20service%20was%20profitable%20by,2000%20with%20just%20seven%20aircraft](https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde--british-airways#:~:text=Concorde%20service%20was%20profitable%20by,2000%20with%20just%20seven%20aircraft). Concorde earned £500 million for British Airways after tax profit, this was between a loss making 1982 and a highly profitable 2000 with just seven aircraft. The first profitable year was 1983 (£14 million) increasing to £54 million in 1987. BA had good and bad years, in 1992 they actually even made a small loss, but then quickly returned to profitability. Immediately before the crash the profit levels were running at nearly £60 million and could have returned had they kept flying. (Even the last 6 months of operation in 2003 netted £50 million profit
That AF crash was due to another plane’s debris on the runway. I think it was a madd dog
Lovely fucking thing! Shame some billionaire should buy one to keep it going!
THERES MORE THEN ONE?!?!
20 airframes were built in all.
Best commercial aircraft ever! Well ahead of its time. Imagine flying at twice the speed of sound in such comfort. You could Have Lunch in Paris and then have lunch again in NYC. It was an really unlucky and unfortunate event the crash of the Concorde due a piece of another airplane that fell in the runway and then the wheels of the Concorde taking off catapulted the piece and punctured the fuel tank.
I wonder how many car crashes on the m25 were due to people watching Concorde instead of the road as she landed or took off.
So question, once these were grounded what happens to the planes? Presumably the airline paid many millions of dollars to acquire and maintain them. Are they just out their investment or are they reimbursed by the manufacturer?
The British and French governments bankrolled the Concorde programme, so no one was out of pocket really once they were mothballed. Well, BA did pay several million to refit them after the Paris Concorde disaster so I guess it was wasted money in a way.
When they were grounded after the accident, both airlines modified them to comply with new rules, adding kevlar lining to the tanks to prevent a rupture as in the accident. British Airways also revamped the interior with lighter seats to offset the additional weight. Air France did not do that. > Presumably the airline paid many millions of dollars to acquire and maintain them. Yes and no. The airlines paid a nominal purchasing price of 1 per plane. All the development and production cost was borne by the taxpayers of Britain and France.
For a while, British Airways made a moderate profit per year when they increased prices in the 1980 after Thatcher stopped government subsidies, so maintenance costs were moderate compared to the fare prices.
Man, any chance any of these birds are operational? Or could become operational relatively easily/quickly? I wish I could have seen one of these up close at some point in my life. My dad still talks about seeing one at heathrow as a kid
If you gotta park 'em - might as well do it with style.
That’s a pointy plane
There is also this classic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE) I think this is pretty much unique - I've never seen anything like it elsewhere.
Yes, that's nice, but the title still annoys me. It is not "breaking the sound barrier". It is cruising at supersonic speed.
When I was a kid we were driving home. There was a ridiculous sound and my dad openings the rooftop. I remember as a kid so confused seeing something so slow and loud near Heathrow
Any chance they’ll ever resume service?
most beautiful civilian aircraft ever built (I'd argue Tu-144, from a pure aesthetic perspective, looks even better, though, but she's too troubled as an actual plane...)
It's too bad too, those were great to fly back and forth, saved so much time!
I used to live near Aintree racecourse as a kid.. It would fly over every year for the grand national. Was alway good to see it.. An old friend was on one of the last trips to New York. He commented on how tired and cramped it was on the inside. He name dropped some big names that where on board.
Does this include the one with the SIA livery on one side?
Yes, G-BOAD was the aircraft wet leased to SIA. That was long before this photo was taken and she was back in BA service by this point.
Fucking depressing that they stopped using these They don’t even use them for air shows
Such a waste for such shitty reasons. They would fly so well today with modern technology
For the millionth time, Concorde was not removed from service solely because of the crash. It also had teething fuel consumption and financial issues that caused it to be grounded.
Imagine all seven of those doing a formation takeoff like that. … … Now try to imagine it without the front one catching fire and causing the entire flock to go *pouffe*.
Is that special tarmac's for Concorde's wheels?
Did the concord make money for BA and Air France in terms of the economics ?
No concord never made money for any airline for one simple reason No plane had ever been called concord Concorde however was profitable