"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Pooh Bear writes:

wrote:

One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow
the
hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.

BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of
years -
hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the
Paris
crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced
passenger
numbers by the time it was back in service.

The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.

Agreed, but that wasn't their problem.

It was a political decision by the British and French governments to
design and build
the plane.

Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would
buy them
after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'.


As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and
performance airframe.

Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use.

The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.

Uhuh.


Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially
if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic
speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy
at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it
was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on
the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England,
Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a
divert airfield.

It worked !


To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case)
ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300
miles. (IIRC, the California-Honolulu leg is the longest single
stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the
Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much
bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th
epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more
expensive proposition.

And, it should also be pointed out, never flew.

John