|
   |
Accueil >> Forum >> Concorde Forum Aviation civile
Concorde
Retour à l'index du forum - Poster un message à cette discussion
| |
Message de Werkur737 - Envoyé le 27 Nov 6:18 |
|
| |
Completed 4 years Concorde left the skies behind, the last flight.
I would like to know your thoughts why this beautiful, a jewel, stop flights.
Please consider that the oil price today is USD 98.00, the highest prices is long and will not down soon, and if the launch of project today, Emirates, Eithad and Qatar could operate this plane. I don't think the oil rates in the past terminated the large operations of Concorde (LH, BA, AF, AZ, Pan Am and TWA).
After your considerations i will left mine, don't want drive your opinions.
AIRFLEETS.NET STAFF
PHOTO SCREENER
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de EI-DUB - Envoyé le 27 Nov 10:37 |
|
| |
Apart from Concorde getting quite old, and not as economic as other aircraft another large problem was that after 9/11 the section of the market they relied on was hit the hardest as commerce in the states declined in the aftermath of the attacks.
It is an interesting event in history, as Jeremy Clarkson( a journalist/TV presenter in the UK) said that it must have been one of the first times in history that science/ the way we traveled REGRESSED, as no alternative replaced Concorde, and we were left only with subsonic passenger travel.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 27 Nov 12:27 |
|
| |
I hv explained/discussed this issue a few times before in diff threads on this forum so here U go again:
1. If the bird is still flying today, it'd be over 30 yrs old. Many other airliners built AFTER the Concorde hv long been retired. Why do U think we almost never see 25yrs or older normal sub-sonic pax jet doing scheduled flights? More intensive maintenance + frequent mechanical failure delay can cost airlines a huge fortune.....Just imagine if we're talking about a much more sophisticated supersonic one.
2. Airbus can no longer afford to keep producing parts designed in the 60's to support the tiny # of Concordes. Also, many who hv the experience to provide tech support were retired long time ago or....moved up into the sky permanently.
3. I completely disagree that THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE REPLACEMENT. Around the time it retired and right after 9/11, Boeing did officially offered a near-alternative(Max speed: Mach 0.98) - SonicCruiser concept and its tech - to the mkt/airlines.
4. I completely don't buy the notion about IF LAUNCH SUCH PROJECT TODAY, XXXX AIRLINES COULD OPERATE SUCH PLANE. In the consultation process, almost all airlines FORCED Boeing to abandon SonicCruiser and use the tech to focus on efficiency, NOT speed, hence the 7E7 concept which later became 787. Of course, airlines don't risk bad PR by advertising or promoting why they're against a near-supersonic plane. Therefore, the uninformed general public(May be Clarkson too) innocently believe there was no replacement plan for the Concorde on the table.
5. Concorde is the fastest airliner ever developed. It's also the worst ever developed in terms of fuel efficiency. When oil was cheap, a few ultra-premium pax can still afford Concorde fare. For oil @ today's prices, Concorde fare will hv increased to a level where it's cheaper for these ultra-premium pax to charter a private jet and enjoy comfort, convenience & time+location flexibility that are infinitely superior to a cramped seat in a Concorde.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de EI-DUB - Envoyé le 27 Nov 13:04 |
|
| |
what i meant by quoting clarkson was indeed correct, we have regressed as there has been no replacement for it, only possible vague concepts. It is now impossible to fly as a paying passenger supersonic from LHR-JFK for example!
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 28 Nov 14:49 |
|
| |
EI-DUB:
Yes, it's now impossible to fly supersonic JFK-LHR. And true, SonicCruiser can only be described as a proposed concept @ best. However was it really that vague?
Almost all of the key tech required were in place back in 2002. In fact, most of them such as CFRP, bleedless system, avionics, engines, etc. now found home in the 787 program today. I'd venture to say that if Boeing had received enough support fm customers back in 02, the 787 we see now won't be a 767 look-alike but something completely diff and vaguely resemble the profile of the Concorde.
The irony & truth is that paying pax killed near-supersonic travel indirectly via the airlines who, based on pax priorities/value, decide what type of airliner to order. If we've regressed in speed, it has very little to do with Boeing or even the airlines. We, paying pax as a group, quietly but overwhemingly made that choice.
For a revolutionary new type of transport to succeed, history told us that it has to deliver tremendous value over & above the existing alternative - a paradigm shift(Pardon my cliche). Concorde was a great achievement but it was only a half-shift in this regard due to poor efficiency. 707 killed all long-range piston-prop airliners because it can move about the same # of pax in less than half the time - It was value fm a speed advantage. 747 quickly replaced 707 because it moves more than double # of pax at the same speed @ similar cost - It was value fm a capacity advantage. Imagine a supersonic transport doing the same job as a 787 at similar cost but cruising just above the atmosphere(No sonic boom problem) with double the speed(Mach 1.7) or faster....significant value fm a speed advantage again just like the 707 - Effectively moves the same # of pax as an A380 in the same time period. Such tech doesn't exist today but in 10-15 yrs(Shorter than the time we progressed fm piston-prop liner to 707), I believe it will.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de speedbird9468 - Envoyé le 29 Nov 0:01 |
|
| |
we have walked on the moon (or have we cause its never been done again) we have had the concorde and the Russian alternative. So why the hell hasn't something been done to replace these birds or go moonwalking again ( ooops sorry Michal Jackson sung that.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 29 Nov 12:04 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 29 Nov 12:09 |
|
| |
Also, airlines are not blind. They see the rise of LCCs(The type of customers who will never buy & operate any costly supersonic transport) in the mkt like a tidal wave. Who do U think cause the rise of the LCCs and exactly why are they so successful?
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de EI-DUB - Envoyé le 29 Nov 12:23 |
|
| |
I think it boils down quite simply, Concorde suited the airline models at the time of its creation, high prices and luxury, the industry has advanced and the modern climate doesn't suit such a bird any longer, as airlines go for cheaper fares and filling planes.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de SJR - Envoyé le 29 Nov 13:14 |
|
| |
The only way to make a supersonic pax aircraft feasible now would be if they found a new way to power it that didnt use fuel. Lets face it that probably wont happen for quite some time. Maybe not even in our lifetimes.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster un message à cette discussion
|
|
Les messages doivent uniquement être rédigés en anglais. Tout message écrit dans une autre langue sera supprimé.
Les messages ne doivent concerner que des sujets liés à l'aviation civile et ne doivent contenir aucune publicité. Votre IP est conservée.
Les balises de format de texte pouvant être utilisées sont
[B]Votre texte[/B] : Texte en gras
[I]Votre texte[/I] : Texte en italique
[U]Votre texte[/U] : Texte souligné
[S]Votre texte[/S] : Texte barré
Pour inclure une photo Airfleets.net dans votre message, utilisez la synthaxe [P]Numéro de la photo[/P] |
|