Concorde to be Grounded

Goonie writes "This BBC article reports that Concorde flights are to come to an end in October. It may be a noisy and costly anachronism, but it's sad to see the end of perhaps the coolest commercial plane ever to fly." The financial wires carried a story the other day showing how much jet fuel demand has dropped recently.

Comments

Shame

[mejh]

Damn. Considering it came out in 1977, and nothing has come out to replace it yet.

Shame.

Re:Shame

[Nighttime]

Boeing have a rather nice alternative ready for production. It's another delta-wing that looks as cool as concorde, and is rated for mach 0.95. It is almost as fast as concorde, but much cheaper to run.

Almost as fast as Concorde? Concorde does Mach 2.2

Re:Shame

[Zocalo]

is rated for mach 0.95. It is almost as fast as concorde

Concorde is capable of at least mach 2.2 and routinely cruises at that speed on trans-atlantic flights, I'd hardly call mach 0.95 "almost as fast" as mach 2.2. More significant to me is that "mass" commercial supersonic travel is coming to an end, albeit for now at least, unless the copied Russian version is still flying.

Still, at least the plane should find itself with a major entry in the history of aviation as the first supersonic passenger plane.

It's a 30 year old design

[wiredog]

Unlike the 737 and 747, which have been continuously upgraded, it's essentially unchanged. Almost as outdated as the 707.

Re:It's a 30 year old design

[Organic_Info]

Yeah but it's a testament to good design that it has lasted this long and not been replaced (economic factors withstanding).

Essentially the design has fullfilled its function for a loooooong time. Imagine the improvements that can be made.

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk) has some good info.

Re:It's a 30 year old design

[Zocalo]

And what's age of design got to do with anything? Take the the B52 bomber, that first flew in 1955, twenty years before Concorde, and is expected to remain in service for perhaps another thirty years. That's an active service life of nearly seventy years! Sometimes you just hit on a design that gets almost everything so right the cost of replacing it just doesn't justify the benefits that would be gained.

I live......

[boogy nightmare]

I live in Bristol in the UK which is considered the home of concorde at the airport called Filton.

There is nothing better than watching concorde coming home on those special occasions when it is taken off normal flying patterns, they close the road and it flies right over your head, amazing.

The only thing that comes close is being sat in my garden watching filton airport as the spitfire fly's around doing stunts that would put modern planes to shame..

sigh..

nostalgia-tastic

Re:I live......

[boogy nightmare]

For a nice piece of nostaligia

check this

http://www.concordesst.com/history/building/buil di ngfilton.html

bearing in mind directly opposite are the rolls royce factories where plane engines are made :)

S

Long time to wait

[Organic_Info]

for a replacement. Developing Concord took two government backed companies 13 years (1963-1976?) to develop and put into service.

The process nearly bankrupt both companies and were heavilly bailed out by their respective governments (UK and France). As such I can't see a replacement happening for a long long time. There will have to be some serious incentive (money) for a replacement to be comissioned - until then its a case of what we have will do...

.

Where are the Concorde replacements?

[operagost]

It's truly sad that the industry cannot come up with a better supersonic (or even near-Mach) commercial aircraft. Instead, they seem to be obsessed with cranking out either bigger, more luxurious craft, or sardine cans like the 757 where as many people are crammed in as possible without enough overhead space for your carry-on. To me, the best flight is the one I can get off as soon as possible. If I wanted to take my time and enjoy the trip, I'd take the train. Coupling these slow air barges with the ever lengthening delays and poor customer service is the reason why the big carriers are losing business to Southwest. Southwest has the best rates and they don't pretend to coddle you, or offer more comfortable seats and preferential treatment for outrageous prices.

Re:Where are the Concorde replacements?

[Sycraft-fu]

Actually, we now may be able to. One of the problems the concorde suffers from is that the only way, at the time, to go supersonic was to use jet engines that function basically like afterburners on military jets. Those are really noisy and really expensive in terms of fuel economy. Well the new US fighter jet, the F/A 22 is the first plane ever with engines that can go supersonic using turbofans. That engine technology applied to commercial jets could lead to more economical and less noisy SSTs.

However, there is still the problem of the shockwave made by exceeding the sound barrier. IT requires a different design of aircraft and it still makes lots of noise. Even if a new SST crops up (not happening soon what with the decrease in air travel), it will probably be for over seas stuff only.

Re:Where are the Concorde replacements?

[MtViewGuy]

I think there are these issues that hindered Concorde operations:

1. The plane is very noisy due to its engine design.

2. The plane only seats 100 passengers, so its fuel efficiency is very poor.

3. The plane's range is barely enough for a transatlantic crossing from New York to Paris or London.

However, today's aerospace technology is MUCH further advanced than the 1960's when the Concorde was being developed. During the late 1990's, NASA and Boeing did a major research study for a High-Speed Transport (HST). They concluded it was technically feasible using modern aerospace materials for a SST seating up to 300 passengers to fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo non-stop at Mach 2.0 yet meet today's strict rules for jet engine noise and exhaust emissions; the only reason why Boeing didn't turn it into a real airliner project was its US$18 billion cost in 1998 dollars.

I believe that with the retirement of Concorde it could be the impetus for Boeing to revive HST and team up with EADS/Airbus Industrie and/or the Russian aerospace industry to build such a plane. Unlike Concorde, HST's much longer range, much higher passenger capacity and quieter engines means HST could fly many more transoceanic routes profitably yet be acceptable to environmental-conscious airports around the world. Imagine flying Los Angeles to Sydney or New York City to Johannesburg in half the time it takes now even with one fuel stop; imagine Paris to Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo to Sydney, or Johannesburg to Singapore non-stop in 40 to 50 percent less time than it takes now.

I personally believe such a plane are already on the request lists for the major airlines after 2012.

Like luxury liners, their time has run out

[upstateguy]

Concorde really was a status symbol for it's 30 years, just like sailing on the QE2 used to be also.

But with a few accidents, a lack of cache and the fact that it has *always* been a money looser, it's an environmental mess, and BA and AirFrance not wanting to get dragged deeper into debt, the time to retire them has come.

The fabulously wealthy who could easily plunk down the $15k per ticket are now buying or renting Gulfstreams. It's more a thing for tourists and the CEO's.

Still, it's a beautiful plane. Still remember looking out at the AirFrance Concordes at JFK airport with the view of lower Manhattan behind them across the river (now when you see both like that, it's more poignant that exhilerating).

On the lighter side, on the UK show "Absolutely Fabulous" when Edina is ticked off that there is only 1 class of service on Concorde, "I'll pay extra for that curtain!"

Re:Like luxury liners, their time has run out

[FallLine]

That's a bit of an oversimplification. My parents and number of people people I know take the Concorde a couple times a year between JFK and LHR for business trips. The price is around 10k-15k, but it's not so bad when you compare it to the prices that business travelers pay for the same trip (or even domestic trips) on standard jets [most people just aren't very aware of how much more business travelers typically have to pay]. There is a world of difference between flying on the Concorde (~3.5 hours and excellent service) and flying on a normal jet for easily 4 hours more with generally poor service. It makes a huge difference in the day of the traveler; it lets the traveler get a lot business done on the same day (a claim that can not be made for the alternative). The time savings are hard to place a value on, but I can tell you that for many very busy people is it very much worth it.

Corporate and private jets do have some advantages over commercial jets for the same trips, but they generally cost much more per flight when you average it out and cash layouts are HUGE. You're mistaken to assume that anyone that can afford to pay for the Concorde can or would fly private/corporate jet. I'll confess that my parents are "wealthy" and are CEOs (though not the sort you're probably envisioning), but they would probably _never_ buy a jet (even in one of these newer arrangements) and their companies could never justify that sort of expenditure. Much the same goes for the other people I know. Gulfstreams are also no where near as fast for that sort of trip. It's really an apples and oranges comparison.

Nonetheless, I won't deny that the Concorde can simply never sell to the mass market. It simply costs too much to operate and most people don't value their time THAT much that often. That still leaves a significant market though, even if it is not you and me. The reason why it's falling apart today is more the result of high overhead/risk and the downturn in the world market--that's not to say though that it can't work--just that it's not lucrative enough today to justify its continued service.

The Mach .95 Alternative

[Latent Heat]

After the Concorde accident, in my Walter Mitty daydreams I wondered if there are enough Convair 990's left. The Convair 990 is kind of a skinny younger brother to the 707, and it was developed to satisfy Howard Hughs' whim to shave 20 minutes transcontinental travel time off his competitors when he was running TWA, but I think only American had them in any numbers. I remember as a kid being taken to drop my dad off for a business trip at O'Hare and seeing gate after gate with either Convair 990's or Lockheed Electras (commercial variant of P3 Orion to you young whippersnappers) in American's "Astroliner" metallic color scheme.

The idea is to take a handful of 990's (enough for daily JFK-Heathrow service), fit them with 4-across leather seats like what Midwest Express does with a DC-9, and run a Concorde-style first-class service with every amenity (free booze and gourmet food). These planes are Mach .95 capable (Whitcomb area-ruled fuselage, "shock pods" on the back of the wings), but since the speed of sound slows down in thinner air, I would fly them at around 20-25,000 feet, pedal-to-the-metal. Yes, this would burn fuel, but a whole lot less than Concorde, and while a 747 would make the trip in 6 hours, Concorde in 3, I think my service could turn in something like 4 hours and 45 minutes. Anyway, it was just an idea.

What's Next?

[ChuckDivine]

The aerospace industry has been dominated by various governments for half a century. We have gone from numerous companies developing practical air travel down to Boeing and Airbus dominating a stagnant market. And, I am told, Boeing doesn't seem to be that healthy.

What's the next thing to stop? Space travel? Possibly. NASA hasn't succeeded in developing a successor to the shuttle. Two attempts (NASP and X-33) have been failures. Young people are starting to avoid the industry -- it has a bad reputation. Dishonesty, abuse and failure seem to be its hallmarks today.

The computer industry has done better. There's still room for innovation and development. Although, one wonders how long that will last with Microsoft dominance.

Change is possible, though. Challenges to Microsoft (think Linux today) aren't going to go away. And these challengers are racking up real successes.

Change is also possible in the more established aerospace industry as well. Three decades ago the U.S. military was in rough shape. People -- both inside and outside the military -- recognized that. Various reforms were implemented -- not the least ending the draft (conscription to Slashdot's readers outside the U.S.). Today the U.S. military, while far from perfect, is a much healthier institution.

Unreplaced

[WebfishUK]

The mothballing of Concorde represents an relatively unusual situation. In terms of flight time Concorde represents the most advanced way to travel. No aircraft built since, not even military, can sustain a mach 2 flight speed for over 3 hours. Yet this aircraft is to be decommissioned. Can anyone think of a parallel situation in the computing field?. Where an outdated technology is made redundant, yet whose performance has not be exceeded.

My experiences on the Concorde

[privacyt]

I flew on the Concorde in Oct '93 from Lonton to New York. It was a recently refurbished British Airways SSC and it was FANTASTIC.

The main thing I noticed in flight was that the curvature of the earth was much more visible due to the much higher cruise altitude. Also, it was a very smooth flight. No turbulence whatsoever.

Concorde is all first class essentially, and the fittings reflected this. Gray leather seats, 2 x 2 arrangement. The bulkhead was lower than in a conventional aircraft.

I was on British Airways. There were 6 cabin crew for only 100 max passengers. The service in the air was impeccable (you get treated like royalty), and they even welcomed visitors to the cockpit. (Not sure if they'd do that today though, since everyone's paranoid about terrorism.)

No movie inflight, but there were sterophonic headsets for music. Also, each passenger received a gift, (on this flight it was a 1994 date planner.) The seats are not at all wide; however. the armrests fold flat if there's no one next to you.

But as I said, en flight, you can see the curvature of the Earth. I was amazed.

Like skydiving, flying on the Concorde is something you don't have to do a second time...but once was fantastic.

I know it's expensive and inefficient, but we're going to lose a real treasure when the Concorde stops flying.

One of the most beautiful planes...

[joestar]

It's a tight vision to consider the UK as being the home of the Concorde: Concorde has been created as a cooperating project between France and the UK. It's been a difficult achievement but it was also the biggest recent proof that English people and French people can actually understand each others and do something valuable together (they would certainly benefit from doing the same thing for building Europe in the political area...).

But the first Concorde to fly was in Toulouse, France, with a French pilot which became famous for that. He took off the plane without any issue, did a loop, and grounded sooner than expected because of a heat problem.

There are two interesting things to notice about Concorde, in addition to the fact that it certainly is the most beautiful plane ever built: 1) the cooling system is using the plane's fuel! 2) the onboard computers are really really old design, with tubes instead of transistors!

A Concorde pilot also said that piloting a Concorde was exactly the same feeling as piloting a jet-fighter, that he could do exactly the same things with this plane, with hundreds passengers in the plane!

I'm sad to hear that the Concorde will stop to fly, especially without a similar plane to replace it.

There are great pictures of Concorde on:
http://benoit.rajau.free.fr/concorde.html

Sweet Concorde!

[YAN3D]

Lancelot: Sweet Sweet concord, you will not have died in vain..

Concorde: Im not quite dead sir

The concord : A fair and balanced point of view.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been watching Foxnews and they told me how simple this world is :

France = bad
UK = good

The concord is a french and british invention, so it's hard to decide if it's good or bad.

Help !

ATrollWhoNeedsHelp.

Another dream gone ...

[mactom]

Hmm, it may be sensible from a commercial point of view.

But it is another dream lost.

Why is it, that one flying dream after another is put into museums without a proper "flying dream" replacement. The next dream gone, will probably be the space shuttle.
Next they will make private aviation a crime. And then all sensations of the actual "flying" feeling will be made unavailable. Oh yeah, I know: people dont look up to the sky anymore nowadays. They are afraid of it. Except, when the things in the sky are wearing Air Force markings of the country you are currently living in.
Flying? They want to be transported, not flown.
Concorde gone? Most dont care.
Just continue your miserable lifes without dreams.
Have you ever really gone flying?

The reality is underwhelming

[smallbites]

Two years ago, I was bumped from a cancelled BA business class trip onto a Concorde flight from New York to London. This was just after the Paris crash, when I guess they had to bump people onto the Concorde just to have some warm bodies aboard.

At first I couldn't believe my luck, and was phoning everyone I knew from the Concorde lounge ("Hey, guess where I am...?") but once on the plane, it was a thoroughly unpleasant experience. It was almost empty, but it was still unbearably cramped. If it had been full, it would have felt claustrophobic in the extreme. By the time we were an hour into the trip, my wife and I were both agreeing that even if we were rolling in stupid cash, we'd never, ever fly it again. Give me first or business class any time. Hell, coach would have been more comfortable.

And apart watching an LED display tick up to Mach 2, there is no particular experience of "speed"; you just feel like you're in a cramped, uncomfortable airplane, flying a little higher than normal.

The food and tchotchkes were nice, though.

Re:Shame - how is it "almost" as fast?

[ninkendo84]

Yeah, but its quanti-sonic architecture makes it do more work per mach-cycle, making mach .95 seem more like mach 2.2

"Beautiful Planes": Try the SR-71 Blackbird

[Nova Express]

While the Condorde is indeed an attractive plane, in terms of beauty, I don't think it can hold a candle to the SR-71 Blackbird. And, of course, the Blackbird was (or is, if the redesignated ones in NASA's fleet still fly) much faster...