What are Boeing's plans?

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:14:16 -0400, Peter Stickney wrote:

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 then you have far more people to haul from Europe to the USA and back
than to and from Honolulu.

#m
--
The more one is absorbed in fighting Evil,
the less one is tempted to place the Good
in question. (J.P. Sartre)

Pooh Bear wrote:

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

It looks to me that BA lose money twice:

1) the Concorde was never profitable
2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

--
Fritz

"Fritz" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear wrote:

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

It looks to me that BA lose money twice:

1) the Concorde was never profitable

BA made money from Concorde since they were practically
given the aircraft free, the taxpayer footed the development bill.

2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

Perhaps but prior to the 1970's oil price hike most people thought
supersonic was the way to go, including Boeing who had
their own SST project.

Keith

Fritz wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

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

It looks to me that BA lose money twice:

1) the Concorde was never profitable

On the terms that they ( BA ) acquuired the aircraft - it was indeed
profitable.

BOAC probably lost money on Concorde operations but when BA was formed by
combining BOAC and BEA it was expected to be commercially viable and negotiated
a 'deal' on the price it paid for Concorde.


2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

That's not an issue for BA as an operator. BA made money from 747 ops too.

Of course there is now a 'super-jumbo' on its way that's European, that would
likely never have seen the light of day had it not been for the spin-off
collaboration that created Airbus, following Concorde's development.


Graham