![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. Would BA or AF have been even allowed rights to operate Pacific routes though? Graham |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 27th 05 07:50 PM |
Unused plans question | Doc Font | Home Built | 0 | December 8th 04 09:16 PM |
Fly Baby Plans Off the Market | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 9 | June 6th 04 02:45 PM |
Modifying Vision plans for retractable gear... | Chris | Home Built | 1 | February 27th 04 09:23 PM |
Here's a silly question regarding plans | David Hill | Home Built | 21 | October 8th 03 04:17 AM |