What are Boeing's plans?

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
Just dug out a Concorde brochure, written when they still optimistically
hoped to sell many and fly them all around the world.

Pacific routes are included as follows

West Coast of USA; Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San
Diego and Acapulco were all shown as legs to Honolulu. Onward links from
Honolulu were to Tokyo and to Auckland and Sydney via a stop at Nandi.

West Coast USA to Australia in 2 stops - that's all.

If any more Concordes had been made, they would have been the
"B" model. These would have had leading edge devices and other
high lift tricks to lower take-off and lading speed. They also had
more efficient engines. They apparently would have used 30% less
fuel, giving the plane a longer range (I'm not sure I have this absolutely
right, I'm quoting from my memory of reading Brian Trubshaw's
autobiography).

Regarding paying back of the design costs, it may well have happened
if the airlines had taken up the 70+ options they initially specified.

Of course, as has been mentioned, the venture as a whole continues
to pay in the guise of Airbus.

Paul

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