Yes, over the next 24 hours, arguably, our greatest achievement since we took to the skies; The worlds most advanced and greatest aircraft "Concorde" will fly into London for the last time today.

Supersonic flight coming to an end.

3 Concordes will fly in formation full of lucky passengers before landing at around 4pm local time. Unless a replacement is created it has to be a technological step backwards. Since the dark ages, the human race has not taken many technological steps backwards but this could be one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3209441.stm

Historically, the human race does not take steps back in technology for very long.

SUPERSONIC VACUUM: HEIR TO CONCORDE YEARS AWAY

• BUILDING the next generation of supersonic passenger jets will take big money and risks. The extreme altitude, heat and speed the planes operate at takes exceptional engineering.

• Funding for Nasa's High-Speed Research Programme was cut in 1999. The High-Speed Civil Transport would have flown 300 passengers at more than twice the speed of sound. It was designed to cross the Pacific or Atlantic in less than half the time of modern jets, and at a ticket price about 20 per cent more than slower flights.

• A model of Boeing's Sonic Cruiser was unveiled on March 29, 2001. The US aircraft builder expects the aeroplane to carry up to 250 passengers, with a longer range than the Concorde, at around the speed of sound - about 15 to 20 per cent faster than what currently is possible. It is likely to be the next supersonic jet to go into production.

• Japan's National Aerospace Laboratory has built and tested scaled-down models of supersonic jets powered by rocket and jet.

• Russia has a supersonic plane which so closely resembles the Concord it is nick-named the Concordski. An updated version of the mothballed Tupelov Tu-144 is due in the air inside the next decade.

I don't really consider this a step backward for mankind.
The Concord was a dangerous, elitist mode of transportation that should have been shut down long before a whole plane full of people had to die.
I am not trying to start a flame here but I really never saw the purpose of the Concord other than to let the rich separate themselves from the middle class.

Supersonic flight coming to an end. Uh... no, supersonic flight will remain very common. It's much more common than it was when the Concorde was developed 30-some years ago. Supersonic passenger flight is going from being available only to a very small number of people to being available to an even smaller number of people.

Aircraft technology has continued to advance since that plane first flew, and will continue to do so. Most likely the next supersonic passenger plane will be much more economical both to operate and to travel on. Retirement of a three decades old aircraft isn't a step backwards.

With regards to other global projects, they are yet to be realised, need airlines to buy a plane like that, which there aren't many of; hmm Emirates might do it. You have to understand the tech that went into that thing, fighter pilots have a much less comfertable time than anyone on a Concorde.

I don't really consider this a step backward for mankind.
The Concord was a dangerous, elitist mode of transportation that should have been shut down long before a whole plane full of people had to die.
I am not trying to start a flame here but I really never saw the purpose of the Concord other than to let the rich separate themselves from the middle class.

It's not normally the middle classes who moan over here over things like that, its normally the working class, hmm.

With respect, from my side of the fence and pond, that is a load of rubbish. The concorde is not dangerous, one crash in France and you come out with that line. It has been flying for nigh on 3 decades. It is a marval and a symbol of good in the human race. It has been stopped as a result of economic factors as well as other external factors. Global economic downturn, post 911, British Airways share price, Ryanair; these things all haven't helped. When it comes to its passengers, costs had to be met, if they are the ones who can afford it, so be it. It has also served other services to the Royal family, Government and others.

The dangers in the world are obstacles to progress and the attitude of those against people who can afford to do something.

I know of people who have cashed in vast amounts of their life savings for a ticket.

When it comes to the, Supersonic line, i meant publicly accessible supersonic flight, which for now, is coming to an end.

As a British expert/celeb Jeremy Clarkson said; we have gone from travelling transatlantic in 3 hours to nearer 8.

Thousands will turn out at Heathrow later today; most will not have travelled on it.

I actually saw a show on how the crash in France happened. It was caused by a piece of metal falling off a Continental Airlines jet, and that strip was run over by the Concorde during takeoff. The result caused large amounts of heat and chunks of rubber to hit the fuel tank.

One concord in 30 years to crash? How many 747's DC9's etc have crashed over the years?

Seems to me like they have a pretty good safety record.

Originally posted by blue27
I don't really consider this a step backward for mankind.
The Concord was a dangerous, elitist mode of transportation that should have been shut down long before a whole plane full of people had to die.
I am not trying to start a flame here but I really never saw the purpose of the Concord other than to let the rich separate themselves from the middle class.
I second that...

I DONT second that.
This is sad news really :(


It was a tech marvel, I saw a show about it too...

Fighter planes can't keep up with it for more then a few minutes, you can see the sun rise twice... its a damn shame.

And it is quite safe, in fact, its more safe then most planes.

Like amish_geek said, they have a pretty good safety record.


The Concord was a dangerous, elitist mode of transportation that should have been shut down long before a whole plane full of people had to die.

I am not trying to start a flame here but I really never saw the purpose of the Concord other than to let the rich separate themselves from the middle class.

Actually, it crashed in france but it was empty... I don't remember how many people did get hurt since it crashed over the city I think...

I'm not going to flame you ;)

There is a purpose here.
For a lot of people its important to travel that fast.

It does cost more to fly on it, but how exactly "are the rich separating themselves from the less rich?"

Its just a really fast plane. quite usefull. don't be so bitter blue.

I don't see you saying this about ferrari cars...

Originally posted by blue27
I don't really consider this a step backward for mankind.
The Concord was a dangerous, elitist mode of transportation that should have been shut down long before a whole plane full of people had to die.
I am not trying to start a flame here but I really never saw the purpose of the Concord other than to let the rich separate themselves from the middle class.

So because one of them crashed it should have been shut down? So than all the other airlines should be shut down.

It was ahead of it's time.. that's all.

Concorde was one of a kind, quite sad to see it go ...
Personally I think it is a huge step back and that could well be caused due to advancement in IT allowing us to communicate and have meetings without having to be their physically...

I actually saw the last flight from Manchester for the Concorde two nights ago, it flew right over our office...

it is very sad that concorde is being left to crumble after today

just think about this:

if every plane was taken off of duty when one of the models had a crash, we would be stuck in our own contrys


it is very very sad

:(

Originally posted by blue27
I don't really consider this a step backward for mankind.
The Concord was a dangerous, elitist mode of transportation that should have been shut down long before a whole plane full of people had to die.
I am not trying to start a flame here but I really never saw the purpose of the Concord other than to let the rich separate themselves from the middle class. Wrong. It's one of the safest planes ever in commercial service.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

The only crash in it's commercial service history was caused by airfield debris.

As to the elitest comments, well try turning that negative energy into something productive and perhaps you can some day join the ranks. Envy can either depress or motivate you.

The concorde is not dangerous, one crash in France and you come out with that line. It has been flying for nigh on 3 decades

One concord in 30 years to crash? How many 747's DC9's etc have crashed over the years?

So because one of them crashed it should have been shut down? So than all the other airlines should be shut down.

if every plane was taken off of duty when one of the models had a crash, we would be stuck in our own contrys


Once again, I'm not here to flame but you people really should read up on the history of the Concord. There have been many "incidents" and close calls over the years, many of which were swept under the carpet.
If you compare the rate of accidents and the number of deaths from the Concord you have to at least compare the number of flights and passengers carried to the planes you are using for comparison.
It's hardly accurate to compare the statistics of the 747 of which there are thousands in the air with the Concord of which there are only a few.

Actually, it crashed in france but it was empty... I don't remember how many people did get hurt since it crashed over the city I think...

Once again, time to do a little research before responding.


"ABCNEWS
July 25 — An Air France Concorde jet crashed near Paris today shortly after taking off from Charles de Gaulle airport. According to the French Interior Ministry, all 109 people on board were killed. The plane hit a hotel and restaurant before crashing into the ground."

how many incidents happened with other jets....?

The reason concorde carashed was debris on the runway, not due to mechanical failure...

It is so so sad that this amazing bit of machinery is being grounded.
I just awaite for the time that 747's, 767's and 777's are grounded and the workd will suddenly become a much bigger place

:P

Originally posted by blue27



Once again, time to do a little research before responding.


"ABCNEWS
July 25 — An Air France Concorde jet crashed near Paris today shortly after taking off from Charles de Gaulle airport. According to the French Interior Ministry, all 109 people on board were killed. The plane hit a hotel and restaurant before crashing into the ground."


I did say that I don't really remember...
I think I was thinking about, when there was an airplaine show and the concord was first shown, and there was a russian plane that was just like it and it crashed? something like that...


Fine, the concord is not super safe.

Elitist mode of transportation...

never saw the purpose of the Concord other than to let the rich separate themselves from the middle class.

?

Explain why you think this...

(This is a discussion, I'm not flaming)

main aircraft in service, numbers:

Boeing 737-300 985
Airbus A320 960
Boeing 757 813
Boeing 737-200 479
Boeing 737-400 464
Boeing 767 422
Boeing 747 405
McD D DC9 308
Boeing 727 270

I think the Russian versions always had problems. It wasn't the same plane though, even if a good portion of it's engineering was stolen from the French engineers that designed the real Concorde.

Originally posted by websterworld
I did say that I don't really remember...
I think I was thinking about, when there was an airplaine show and the concord was first shown, and there was a russian plane that was just like it and it crashed? something like that...


Fine, the concord is not super safe.



?

Explain why you think this...

(This is a discussion, I'm not flaming)
off the top of my head the russian concorde has "design" problems

If we stopped everything that was dangerous, as our world is now coming to this, then we are going to be stuck on our arses breathing tanks of oxygen.

its a terrible waste

Originally posted by DizixCom
I think the Russian versions always had problems. It wasn't the same plane though, even if a good portion of it's engineering was stolen from the French engineers that designed the real Concorde.

and british remember!

:D

Originally posted by blue27
I don't really consider this a step backward for mankind.
The Concord was a dangerous, elitist mode of transportation that should have been shut down long before a whole plane full of people had to die.
I am not trying to start a flame here but I really never saw the purpose of the Concord other than to let the rich separate themselves from the middle class.

concord is no more dangerous than any other aircraft out there, and i challenge you to come up with the facts that support your stance.........

Yes, sorry, can't forget the British!

Some day perhaps we'll actually see commercial hypersonic flight. I look forward to it. Just reading about it is good enough for me, but I want to see it become a reality.

"Explain why you think this...

(This is a discussion, I'm not flaming)"

Don't worry, I don't consider it flaming.

The reason I say it is elitist is because a ticket from London to New York can cost as much as $10,000. That is far out of the range of the average worker.

Originally posted by phill2003
concord is no more dangerous than any other aircraft out there, and i challenge you to come up with the facts that support your stance......... Here are some facts that don't support his stance: http://www.concordesst.com/accident/past.html

Seems there were usual mechanical and maintenance issues, all handled as they should have been.

all of those incidents listed are pre-frace crash

Exactly, there is not a single entry that indicates the planes are inherently unsafe. It goes to support the idea that they are indeed among the safest.

sorry, i wasnt complaining there, i was pointing it out

good luck to virgin and richard branson, i wish him all the best

For once and for all, the cause of the crash near Paris was caused by external factors. The runway wan't swept fully.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1452845.stm

If somebody has worked hard and are good at what they do, they shouldn't be stopped from flying on top of the line and advanced transport. The cost is what it needs to be; i'm sure if the American airlines hadn't given it the cold shoulder, after the US supersonic program failed, that prices would be less.

Elitist, i'd call it determination, ease and pride.

I've been on a Concorde on the ground at Duxford in England, if i had had a job 5 years earlier, i'm sure i would have flown on it. It's all about where someone wants to spend their money.

Concorde, a symbol, a triumph and now a step back, maube BAE will build a new one.

RULE BRITANNIA

Originally posted by dwscomputers
good luck to virgin and richard branson, i wish him all the best
I heard from his interview he is really interested in getting BAE support for maintenance for the Concord.

Richard stated he was inspired by Concord and that is why he started Virgin Airlines... He would hate to see it go..

I am pretty sure he has something on the line...
Just hope it comes through.

yep i saw that interview as well

also, we must remember that the big US airlines are given government funding, giving them an unfair advantage over other airlines like BA, who in turn (with the 9/11 downfall in traffic) have had to make cuts in jobs/flights/planes to make ends meet!

I'm not going to get into the middle of all the various issues surrounding the Concorde's retirement, but I will say that this place was unique, and very much special. It must have been a truly memorable experience for those that had the opportunity to fly the Concorde, and one that will most likely never be forgotten.

Always has it been a dream of mine to fly aboard this plane, and so I am saddened by the fact that there is little chance of it ever flying again.

If somebody has worked hard and are good at what they do, they shouldn't be stopped from flying on top of the line and advanced transport. The cost is what it needs to be The cost is less than what it needs to be, which is the main reason Concorde flights are stopping -- they can't make money flying it. Much of that is because it's a 30-year old aircraft, much less efficient and with higher maintenance costs than more modern planes.

The discussion of its safety record relative to that of other models and whether it should be allowed to fly because of that record really aren't germane. Except for the brief period after the crash in Paris, Concorde flights haven't been stopped because of safety concerns. They've stopped because of economic concerns (which of course are contributed to by safety concerns, represented in part in the maintenance costs).also, we must remember that the big US airlines are given government funding, giving them an unfair advantage over other airlines like BA,Many airlines around the world are supported financially, directly or indirectly, by their governments. That's not true at all of British Airways? That'd surprise me. No subsidies? No tax abatements? Doesn't the government still own part of BA? I know they sunk an amazing amount of money into the airline in the few years before privatization, so if it's not true now it certainly was... so was it an "unfair advantage" that helped BA to get their Concorde program going in the first place?

Originally posted by phill2003
concord is no more dangerous than any other aircraft out there, and i challenge you to come up with the facts that support your stance.........

http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/


For once and for all, the cause of the crash near Paris was caused by external factors. The runway wan't swept fully.

Critic, the accident was a result of the aircraft design. Planes often have tire blow outs on take off and landing. It was the design of the concorde that cause the tire debris to rupture the fuel tank. This was a known flaw in the design and it was not addressed until after the accident.

Originally posted by blue27

Critic, the accident was a result of the aircraft design. Planes often have tire blow outs on take off and landing. It was the design of the concorde that cause the tire debris to rupture the fuel tank. This was a known flaw in the design and it was not addressed until after the accident.

When a tire blows-up at over 250mph, you will never know where the debris will end up. It was an unfortunate situation that it ruptured the fuel tank…

Do you have details on where you got the "info" that it was a flaw in the design? I would be very interested to read about it, since you claim they were aware and never fixed it...

i just heard some jank saying its a good thing that concorde has been stopped

in other words, he is probably thinking that since US didnt make it, noone can enjoy it

Originally posted by blue27
Critic, the accident was a result of the aircraft design. Planes often have tire blow outs on take off and landing. It was the design of the concorde that cause the tire debris to rupture the fuel tank. This was a known flaw in the design and it was not addressed until after the accident.

Agreed.
Sure the Concorde was a technological masterpiece but it became simply too costly and dangerous to maintain.
If you take a look at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2781275.stm

12 January: Nose cone malfunctions
27 Nov 02: Part of tail rudder falls off
6 Nov 02: Engine fails, sparking panic
3 Nov 02: Plane turns round after engine failure
30 Oct 02: Speed cut after window cracks spotted
July 02: Turnaround after engine power surge
April 02: Engine failure causes mid-air 'bang'
March 02: Take-off abandoned after computer glitch
Nov 01: Flight aborted over engine reheats

Originally posted by s.h.a.zz.y
When a tire blows-up at over 250mph, you will never know where the debris will end up. It was an unfortunate situation that it ruptured the fuel tank…

Do you have details on where you got the "info" that it was a flaw in the design? I would be very interested to read about it, since you claim they were aware and never fixed it...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/884632.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/concorde000816.html
http://www.safe-skies.com/concorde_crash.htm

These are a few sources. Admittedly they don't mention whether or not the flaw was previously know but it was mentioned during preliminary investigations that the issue had been brought up previous to the accident.

Originally posted by s.h.a.zz.y
When a tire blows-up at over 250mph, you will never know where the debris will end up. But you do know that engines, fuel tanks, and landing gear without enough separation or protection makes that matter. A tire may explode on any plane; the plane's design is a determining factor in how serious a situation that might create. In the Concorde's case, it's a more risky situation than in that of some other aircraft -- and it's made even more so because of the higher takeoff speeds of the Concorde in comparison to other jetliners.Do you have details on where you got the "info" that it was a flaw in the design? If it wasn't a flaw in the design, why did they correct it by retrofitting the planes with Kevlar fuel tank liners at $2 million apiece after the accident?

Originally posted by dwscomputers
i just heard some jank saying its a good thing that concorde has been stopped

in other words, he is probably thinking that since US didnt make it, noone can enjoy it

I have some questions.

What's a jank?

Who is this jank?

How did you come to the conclusion that the comment had anything to to with who made the concorde?

Originally posted by JayC
If it wasn't a flaw in the design, why did they correct it by retrofitting the planes with Kevlar fuel tank liners at $2 million apiece after the accident?

blue27 stated that it was a design flaw which they were aware of and never corrected ... Had those responsible known about the possibility of this happening I very much doubt they would have let it continue without taking appropriate measures as they took when the unfortunate incident happened.. 'Grounding them all'

Nothing is perfect, far from it infact but fixing issues that arise is the only way to make things better.

To say its 27years old and still far superior than any other public aircraft flying until today (before it was grounded); It is a huge success for France and Britain…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/concorde/story/0,7369,348661,00.html


Those who know Concorde's history were immediately reminded of an incident more than 20 years earlier. In 1979 two tyres exploded on an Air France Concorde as it took off from Washington's Dulles airport. Pieces of the wheels' magnesium rims and other debris were sent smashing into the plane's body.

A report by the American National Transport Safety Board, published two years later, revealed that `tyre debris and wheel shrapnel [had] resulted in damage to the No 2 engine, puncture of three fuel tanks, and severance of several hydraulic lines and electrical wires. Additionally, a large hole was torn in the top wing skin which covers the wheel well area.'

Originally posted by s.h.a.zz.y
blue27 stated that it was a design flaw which they were aware of and never corrected ... Had those responsible known about the possibility of this happening I very much doubt they would have let it continue without taking appropriate measures as they took when the unfortunate incident happened.. 'Grounding them all'
In addition to Blue's reference:

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/03/crash.concorde.03/

"British Airways modified its Concordes in 1995; two years after a Concorde tire explosion sent a water deflector -- part of the landing gear -- soaring through a fuel tank. It was the second such time that a burst tire had dislodged a water deflector, documents show.

But Air France said Thursday it opted not to modify the water deflector on its planes, saying the modification would simply ensure the deflector would remain in one piece, and would not prevent it from separating from the aircraft entirely. "

and

"National Transportation Safety Board records show at least four instances in the late 1970s and early 1980s in which Concorde tires exploded on takeoff, sending tire fragments and wheel shrapnel through the planes' fuel tanks and into engine intakes.

In one instance, the damage was discovered only after a passenger noticed a hole in the plane's wing. Fuel was streaming from the plane, which was in flight. "

To say its 27years old and still far superior than any other public aircraft flying until today (before it was grounded); It is a huge success for France and Britain… Without a doubt it was a great achievement, 30-some years ago. It's still faster than any other passenger aircraft, by far. But that doesn't mean that it's "still far superior" in every measure to other present-day passenger aircraft.

The Concorde's time had come. I guess it's understandable to feel pride at this technical achievement three decades ago, but it's time to move on to another proud achievement.

Man cannot/will not ever create anything perfect, ask bill gates.
on other hand, compared to other planes, the concord have a better security record, i remember-when I was a teenager- seeing a program talking about how the DCs was very dangerous- through over 80 flights i made, i never used a DC , i prefer Boing.

What really concerns me is why is concord is being taken down, to recall everyone, most inventions saw the light over some scientist dead bodies, some very safe machines we are using , were very dangerous years back, airplanes for example, many ppl lost their life’s trying to fly with feather .

defaults is not a reason to take something good like that out of business, I’ve worked with firestone/Bridgestone, i think most of US knew about how firestone tires blew up 2 years ago, how many ppl where hurt/die in those crashes? ,did this stop BR/FS ! - They are top sellers over the world.

Originally posted by Web Rhino
defaults is not a reason to take something good like that out of business Again, the end of Concorde flights is not directly related to its safety record. It's an economic decision, brought on by increasing maintenance costs (it's expensive to keep old planes in the air) and declining passenger demand.

Originally posted by Critic
Yes, over the next 24 hours, arguably, our greatest achievement since we took to the skies; The worlds most advanced and greatest aircraft "Concorde" will fly into London for the last time today.

Concorde is not most advanced. Russian TU-144 is.

Compare:

Concorde
Crew 3
Maximum speed 2500 kph
Cruising speed 2150 kph
Cruising altitude 16,765 m

TU-144
Crew 3-4
Maximum speed 2500 kph
Cruising speed 2300 kph
Cruising altitude 20,000 m


Cheers.

TU-144
Nickname: The Konkordski

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Science/Transportation/Aviation/TU-144.asp:D

Originally posted by Artashes
Concorde is not most advanced. Russian TU-144 is.

Compare:

Concorde
Crew 3
Maximum speed 2500 kph
Cruising speed 2150 kph
Cruising altitude 16,765 m

TU-144
Crew 3-4
Maximum speed 2500 kph
Cruising speed 2300 kph
Cruising altitude 20,000 m I don't see how those numbers demonstrate which is "most advanced." Maximum speed is the same, and cruising altitude is just the altitude at which the aircraft operates most efficiently so one being slightly higer doesn't mean anything. The Tu-144 having a cruising speed 150 kph faster is also pretty meaningless, especially given the lack of precision in the numbers.

In reality there's little question that the Concorde was a more advanced aircraft than the Tu-144.

Originally posted by Artashes
Concorde is not most advanced. Russian TU-144 is.

Compare:

Concorde
Crew 3
Maximum speed 2500 kph
Cruising speed 2150 kph
Cruising altitude 16,765 m

TU-144
Crew 3-4
Maximum speed 2500 kph
Cruising speed 2300 kph
Cruising altitude 20,000 m


Cheers.

Which never flew a member of the public? Had stability issues with the wings?

Crashed at the 1973 Paris Airshow?
ehm NO...

When it comes to the incident on take off at Charles de Gaulle airport, if the runway was swept for debris and cleared as it should have been, the other chain of events would not have occured.

Also to say that, did you know that the longest golf putt in history was more than 5 miles. A passenger on a concorde flight putted the ball from one end of the aisle to the other at Mach 2. Now you can't do that on a 747.

I heard the 3rd and last Concorde over my house today just before 4pm when it was coming into land.

Just some facts..

On a Concorde you can see the curve of the Earth.
On a Concorde you travel faster than the Earths rotation.
On a Concorde you don't need a G suit like a fighter pilot.

A quote from the last 24 hours.

When a BBC reporter was on his way to JFK to see the take off he was asked about the aircraft.

He said >> I've always wanted to drive a Concorde, might make a get one, some day.

LOL

I suppose the next move forward in aviation will be the A380, another partly British op, yey.

Originally posted by JayC
Again, the end of Concorde flights is not directly related to its safety record. It's an economic decision, brought on by increasing maintenance costs (it's expensive to keep old planes in the air) and declining passenger demand.
thats what i meant too, defaults is not the issue here, i also know that it's due too economic decision, but i dont want to go discuss this point anymore since i saw alot of ppl here trying to prove otherwise.
i'm on Concorde side all the way ;)

Originally posted by Critic

I suppose the next move forward in aviation will be the A380, another partly British op, yey.

Richard Branson has other plans ;) you may see it returning, bigger and better....

here we are marveling at the past.
forget the past

the time is to move forward and create more and even grandeur achivements.

27 years we could colonize the moon..

I'm still a little curious to see how many people who responded to this thread were actually in a position to actually fly on the Concorde.
It was certainly a technological marvel in it's day but I stick by my original comment that it is certainly not a backward step for mankind.
If anything it may be a forward step as it may motivate someone, Richard Branson perhaps, to build a better and more affordable high speed transit solution.

I can't see Branson getting his hands on Concorde, BA would want to keep hold of the symbolism and nostalga behind it.

Isn't moon landings more space travel seperate from aviation, but saying that, Mars is on the radar, not the moon.

I'm not suggesting he or anyone else extend the concorde program.
I'm thinking more in terms of something totally new. Something as original and high tech as the Concorde was in it's day.

Branson has got his eyes set on conquering the states with the Virgin brand. Then maybe, but no matter how you look at it, we're going slower for the near future.

According to BBC source and the interview with Richard Branson they have been in talks with BAE over the Concord project with BAE showing great interest...
Only the coming months will tell ...

As for the future, I really doubt we will get anything close to this for another 2-3 decades maybe even in our life-times.

also ...

For 24 years Concorde had a perfect safety record, with services from London's Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle in Paris to New York's JFK.

Before its inaugural flight in 1976, Concorde had 5,000 hours of testing, making it the most vetted aircraft in history. A test pilot sent by the U.S. government said it "could be the safest airplane ever built."

But the July 2000 crash near Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport which killed 113 people was the beginning of the end.

Services were withdrawn until November 2001, but confidence among passengers was never fully restored. And the downturn in the airline industry, which had started before the September 11 attacks, made Concorde an expense its operators could not afford.

Originally posted by s.h.a.zz.y
As for the future, I really doubt we will get anything close to this for another 2-3 decades maybe even in our life-times. No doubt it'll be a while -- because there isn't passenger demand for it. While we can marvel over the idea of supersonic passenger travel, it's not really practical. The fact is that few people are both willing and able to pay $9000 to cut a nine or ten hour trip that can be made for $300 down to under two hours. That's probably even more true today than it was in the 60's when the Concorde was developed, because modern jetliners are more comfortable than they were then.

Neither Air France nor British Airways ever made a profit flying the Concorde. That's why they both have stopped, and that's why no one ever developed a viable competitor. Sorry, but that's the reason -- it's really not because the combination of French and British engineering was so magical that no one else could do it.

Originally posted by JayC
No doubt it'll be a while -- because there isn't passenger demand for it. While we can marvel over the idea of supersonic passenger travel, it's not really practical. The fact is that few people are both willing and able to pay $9000 to cut a nine or ten hour trip that can be made for $300 down to under two hours. That's probably even more true today than it was in the 60's when the Concorde was developed, because modern jetliners are more comfortable than they were then.

Neither Air France nor British Airways ever made a profit flying the Concorde. That's why they both have stopped, and that's why no one ever developed a viable competitor. Sorry, but that's the reason -- it's really not because the combination of French and British engineering was so magical that no one else could do it.

I would agree with all of the above apart from your last comment.

"it's really not because the combination of French and British engineering was so magical that no one else could do it. "

The USA tried and failed, the Russian tried and failed...
Now the Japanies and Russians and trying once again...

No-one else could do it and hasen't been able todo it until now. Uptil 2000 crash Concorde had an a large part to play in the future of avionics...

R.I.P.
G'night all...

Originally posted by s.h.a.zz.y
The USA tried and failed, the Russian tried and failed... 40 years ago. But if the experience over the intervening decades hadn't shown it not to be a profitable venture, other companies would have worked to develop a competitor. No one has "failed" over the past 20 years and more, because no one has tried. If you can believe that there really was something "magical" in that combination and that, for example, US engineering that developed the space shuttle (and some spectacular supersonic military aircraft) couldn't have developed a supersonic jetliner even after another one was already there to be copied from and improved upon, well... G'night all...... ... pleasant dreams. ;)

I've laid my cards on the table already on most of this so i don't plan on repearting it all but...

Concordes always left full or near enough as faras i know so the demand is there. There were other external financial factors including industrial action etc But yes it was run at a loss but it wasn't always a problem and the case.

Aircraft more comfortable, hmm debatable but maube not here or now.

Originally posted by Critic
Concordes always left full or near enough as faras i know so the demand is there. Not true (always left full -- declining ridership post September 11, 2001 is well-documented), but flawed logic anyway. More demand would have meant more flights, and more efficiency per flight in spreading the entire cost of operating the project across a larger number of flights and tickets.

You have your view which has pretty much been the same since the beginning as well as mine.

You have your sources, i have mine.

I really don't think this is going anywhere; till the A380, the next age of aviation.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/SciTech/WorldNewsTonight/concorde031024-1.html

The passengers sure look like they're excited in the picture :D

Originally posted by JayC
40 years ago. But if the experience over the intervening decades hadn't shown it not to be a profitable venture, other companies would have worked to develop a competitor. No one has "failed" over the past 20 years and more, because no one has tried.

Incorrect ....
NASA had tried uptil 1999 (not even 5 years ago) before there funds were cut. It was "meant" to fly 300 passengers at more than twice the speed of sound.

So there obviously was the market there, else the Japanese and Russians would not be working on it now...

Originally posted by JayC

Neither Air France nor British Airways ever made a profit flying the Concorde. That's why they both have stopped, and that's why no one ever developed a viable competitor. Sorry, but that's the reason -- it's really not because the combination of French and British engineering was so magical that no one else could do it.

British airways actually made around £750 million profit from concorde along with the marketing benefit they got out of it.

A viable competitor was never developed for one reason, the sonic boom which is created prohibits supersonic flight over populated areas which dramatically restricts the the routes and countries which could actually make use of a concorde type plane, which means whoever develops it would be unable to get back the billions in development costs as so few would be sold.

Concorde was a great feat of engineering and even 30 years on is still the best looking passenger plane by a mile, but yeah you are right, others could also of come up with something similar, just like others could of got into space first like the Russians or got a man on the moon like the Americans.

I think it's a shame to see Concorde go. Sadly I never got the opportunity to fly on it.

I also would have no qualms about it's safety - although I wouldn't for any 747, 777 etc too.

I strongly disagree with the elitest comments though. Should we scrap Ferraris because the middle class can't afford to buy them?