The future of Long Haul - Opinions?.

[nkped 1,208]

And it was a disaster from the pollution it churned out,I seem to remember the main complaint was the noise on take off.I read the Guardian so my complaint was about the environmental impact, not because I could not afford the price of a ticket you understand.

Apparently it took off in afterburner, which would have been extremely noisy and as impressive as hell at night.

[MrMango 671]

Apparently it took off in afterburner, which would have been extremely noisy and as impressive as hell at night.

I did not know it was equipped with an afterburner. When I flew in it is was like a fighter jet - They went down the runway, and the next thing you know, the nose is pointed almost straight up and you were pinned to the back of your seat from the accelaration.

[yselmike 393]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/jul/21/concorde-was-the-flying-brexit-a-different-era-but-the-same-mistakes

[yselmike 393]

theres a podcast on the page i will listen later....when i stop laughing.

[Goldpanner 399]

Once Concorde lifted off it went onto afterburners, hence the incredible sensation of being pushed back into your seats.

And for the unwashed bad toothed yanks? yes I flew it quite a few times. I got my tickets paid by the band managers so it cost me nothing as it was a good tax write off.

 

It was the US Authorities and Boeing jealousy that killed Concorde. No one else. The evidence is easily available but I doubt you yank fan boys want to believe it.

Do I care? Do I fuck.

[MrMango 671]

Once Concorde lifted off it went onto afterburners, hence the incredible sensation of being pushed back into your seats.

And for the unwashed bad toothed yanks? yes I flew it quite a few times. I got my tickets paid by the band managers so it cost me nothing as it was a good tax write off.

 

It was the US Authorities and Boeing jealousy that killed Concorde. No one else. The evidence is easily available but I doubt you yank fan boys want to believe it.

Do I care? Do I fuck.

Why cannot you face reality? Concorde killed Concorde. It was a tiny ship and my head almost hit the ceiling when I boarded, It burned a huge amount of fuel so it had no legs.

 

There was a reason it never flew scheduled routes other than London, Paris and new York Washington as that was the ONLY one that made economic sense.

 

Boeing had nothing to do with that

[4wheels 119]

Why cannot you face reality? Concorde killed Concorde. It was a tiny ship and my head almost hit the ceiling when I boarded, It burned a huge amount of fuel so it had no legs.

 

There was a reason it never flew scheduled routes other than London, Paris and new York Washington as that was the ONLY one that made economic sense.

 

Boeing had nothing to do with that

 

Items overlooked by the Concorde fanboy. It carried a very limited number of passengers. Operating costs were through the roof. Touch the sidewalls-warm to the touch. US authorities and Boeing had nothing to do with it. Who paid for your ticket is irrelevant. I paid for mine.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Why cannot you face reality? Concorde killed Concorde. It was a tiny ship and my head almost hit the ceiling when I boarded, It burned a huge amount of fuel so it had no legs.

 

There was a reason it never flew scheduled routes other than London, Paris and new York Washington as that was the ONLY one that made economic sense.

 

Boeing had nothing to do with that

 

 

 

Items overlooked by the Concorde fanboy. It carried a very limited number of passengers. Operating costs were through the roof. Touch the sidewalls-warm to the touch. US authorities and Boeing had nothing to do with it. Who paid for your ticket is irrelevant. I paid for mine.

 

It's no surprise Boeing fanboys jump to the defence of Boeing!!!!

[MrMango 671]

 

 

 

It's no surprise Boeing fanboys jump to the defence of Boeing!!!!

I am not defending anybody. All I did is post facts why it failed, and it had nothing to do with Boeing.

[jacko 8,815]

I am not defending anybody. All I did is post facts why it failed, and it had nothing to do with Boeing.

The fact is Concorde was not permitted to land in US airports for 3 years, while it was already servicing Bahrain and Rio. The sonic boom and noise were cited as reasons although the sonic boom (triple) from The Space Shuttle, was tolerated, and the fact Concorde was allowed to land in NYC later although it was not any quieter. I don't believe any blame can be laid at Boeings doors, after all they had their own supersonic project

Edited July 29, 2017 by jacko
sp

[MrMango 671]

The fact is Concorde was not permitted to land in US airports for 3 years, while it was already servicing Bahrain and Rio. The sonic boom and noise where cited as reasons although the sonic boom (triple) from The Space Shuttle, was tolerated, and the fact Concorde was allowed to land in NYC later although it was not any quieter. I don't believe any blame can be laid at Boeings doors, after all they had their own supersonic project

Really? Can you give me a source for that? As I remember JFK was a initial destination for it.

 

And the space shuttle boom is not relevant, as military and other government airplanes are exempt from any booms.

 

 

And I do not remember ANY scheduled flights from the continent to Rio.

[Brown1950 67]

Really? Can you give me a source for that? As I remember JFK was a initial destination for it.

 

And the space shuttle boom is not relevant, as military and other government airplanes are exempt from any booms.

 

 

And I do not remember ANY scheduled flights from the continent to Rio.

BA Scheduled Services

Air France Scheduled Services

London - New York daily

BA 001 : 10:30 - 09:25

BA 002 : 08:30 - 17:25

BA 003 : 19:30 - 18:25 (pre-accident)

BA 004 : 13:30 - 22:25 (pre-accident)

Barbados (non stop) once weekly (or more) during winter season and August.

BA273/2

Historical scheduled services:

Bahrain thrice weekly

Dallas Fort Worth (via Braniff) thrice weekly

Miami (via Washington) thrice weekly

Singapore (via Babrain) thrice weekly

Toronto various schedules over summer months

Washington Dulles thrice weekly

Paris - New York,

AF002 10:30 - 08:25

Five days per week

New York - Paris

AF001 08:00 - 17:45

five days per week

Historical Scheduled Services:

Caracas (via Santa Maria)

Mexico (via Washington)

Rio de Janeiro (via Dakar)

Washington Dulles

[MrMango 671]

 

BA Scheduled Services

Air France Scheduled Services

London - New York daily

BA 001 : 10:30 - 09:25

BA 002 : 08:30 - 17:25

BA 003 : 19:30 - 18:25 (pre-accident)

BA 004 : 13:30 - 22:25 (pre-accident)

Barbados (non stop) once weekly (or more) during winter season and August.

BA273/2

Historical scheduled services:

Bahrain thrice weekly

Dallas Fort Worth (via Braniff) thrice weekly

Miami (via Washington) thrice weekly

Singapore (via Babrain) thrice weekly

Toronto various schedules over summer months

Washington Dulles thrice weekly

Paris - New York,

AF002 10:30 - 08:25

Five days per week

New York - Paris

AF001 08:00 - 17:45

five days per week

Historical Scheduled Services:

Caracas (via Santa Maria)

Mexico (via Washington)

Rio de Janeiro (via Dakar)

Washington Dulles

 

Ok, but exactly what is a "historical scheduled service?

 

To my knowledge, they NEVER had regular service on the Caracas, Mexico City, Rio routes.

 

And of course, other than the Mexico route, they had nothing to do with the US.

 

 

BTW, I did fly Braniff to Dallas on the bird a few times....

[jacko 8,815]

Really? Can you give me a source for that? As I remember JFK was a initial destination for it.

 

And the space shuttle boom is not relevant, as military and other government airplanes are exempt from any booms.

 

 

And I do not remember ANY scheduled flights from the continent to Rio.

Yes, here.....http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/topic/67583-the-future-of-long-haul-opinions/?p=1189179

Edited July 29, 2017 by jacko

[4wheels 119]

 

 

 

It's no surprise Boeing fanboys jump to the defence of Boeing!!!!

 

I certainly haven't jumped to Boeing's defenSe. Boeing had nothing to do with Concorde's failure to get along and make money.It was one of your boys who said Boeing was responsible.

[4wheels 119]

The fact is Concorde was not permitted to land in US airports for 3 years, while it was already servicing Bahrain and Rio. The sonic boom and noise were cited as reasons although the sonic boom (triple) from The Space Shuttle, was tolerated, and the fact Concorde was allowed to land in NYC later although it was not any quieter. I don't believe any blame can be laid at Boeings doors, after all they had their own supersonic project

 

I lived within 60 miles of where the Shuttle landed and we rarely heard a sonic boom. I lived within 5 miles of Dulles and I can't remember a boom but that was decades ago. Regarding frequency,it was what,once a year for the Shuttle? The Concorde was daily at JFK and other airports.

[Brown1950 67]

Ok, but exactly what is a "historical scheduled service?

 

To my knowledge, they NEVER had regular service on the Caracas, Mexico City, Rio routes.

 

And of course, other than the Mexico route, they had nothing to do with the US.

 

 

BTW, I did fly Braniff to Dallas on the bird a few times....

Air France began Concorde service on 21 January 1976 with service from to Rio de Janeiro, with a technical stop at Dakar. (British Airways began Concorde service the same day, flying from London to Bahrain.) Several months later, on 10 April 1976, Air France added Concorde service to Caracas via Santa Maria in the Azores.

The United States initially banned Concorde, but U.S. Secretary of Transportation William Coleman gave permission for Concorde to serve Washington Dulles International Airport and service commenced on 24 May 1976. Service to New York was delayed even longer due to a ban by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which was overturned after length legal battles allowing Concorde flights to JFK to start on 22 November 1977.

The next year, on 20 September 1978, Air France extended the Washington route with a twice-weekly tag to México City. The México City service, which sometimes flew from New York rather than Washington, lasted until November 1982. Due to U.S. concerns over sonic booms, these flights were routed offshore except for crossing Florida which was flown at Mach 0.95.

Air France Concorde also flew scheduled service between Washington and Dallas-Fort Worth between 1978 and 1980, but these were Braniff flights with Braniff crews, using aircraft which were leased for the subsonic round-trip.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Brown1950

[MrMango 671]

Yes, here.....http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/topic/67583-the-future-of-long-haul-opinions/?p=1189179

That is your opinion, not a usual reference source.

[MrMango 671]

 

Air France began Concorde service on 21 January 1976 with service from to Rio de Janeiro, with a technical stop at Dakar. (British Airways began Concorde service the same day, flying from London to Bahrain.) Several months later, on 10 April 1976, Air France added Concorde service to Caracas via Santa Maria in the Azores.

The United States initially banned Concorde, but U.S. Secretary of Transportation William Coleman gave permission for Concorde to serve Washington Dulles International Airport and service commenced on 24 May 1976. Service to New York was delayed even longer due to a ban by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which was overturned after length legal battles allowing Concorde flights to JFK to start on 22 November 1977.

The next year, on 20 September 1978, Air France extended the Washington route with a twice-weekly tag to México City. The México City service, which sometimes flew from New York rather than Washington, lasted until November 1982. Due to U.S. concerns over sonic booms, these flights were routed offshore except for crossing Florida which was flown at Mach 0.95.

Air France Concorde also flew scheduled service between Washington and Dallas-Fort Worth between 1978 and 1980, but these were Braniff flights with Braniff crews, using aircraft which were leased for the subsonic round-trip.

 

Thanks for the anonymous source. As I noted, I did take it to Dallas a few times.

 

And the other routs must have been for a short period as they were discounted shortly becase I assume they were not money makers. The delay on the JFK rout was becase the JFK owners refused, and it had nothing to do with the feds.

 

The end result is what I opined, it was a dog of a ship, didn't hold much and had no legs, and the only route that made economic sense was London, Paris to JFK and Dulles.

 

Boeing had nothing to do with that.

[TheFiend 1,181]

The end result is what I opined, it was a dog of a ship, didn't hold much and had no legs, and the only route that made economic sense was London, Paris to JFK and Dulles.

 

 

And that is what it is - your opinion....

[yselmike 393]

Thanks for the anonymous source. As I noted, I did take it to Dallas a few times.

 

And the other routs must have been for a short period as they were discounted shortly becase I assume they were not money makers. The delay on the JFK rout was becase the JFK owners refused, and it had nothing to do with the feds.

 

The end result is what I opined, it was a dog of a ship, didn't hold much and had no legs, and the only route that made economic sense was London, Paris to JFK and Dulles.

 

Boeing had nothing to do with that.

A show pony really,I remember one anti described it as 1950s technology for the 70s/80s or words to that affect,

[4wheels 119]

 

And that is what it is - your opinion....

 

But facts back up his opinion. Not a longhaul aircraft,expensive to maintain and very small passenger capacity.And like I said,not really pleasing inside,unless you liked a late '60s DC-9-15 series. Did I mention gas guzzler?

[ichy2 429]

Maybe the Concord discussion should be culled from this thread as it is topic drift into the past of long haul, not the future.

 

Might I suggest a topic header of:

 

Failed aircraft and opinions why

[jacko 8,815]

 

I lived within 60 miles of where the Shuttle landed and we rarely heard a sonic boom. I lived within 5 miles of Dulles and I can't remember a boom but that was decades ago. Regarding frequency,it was what,once a year for the Shuttle? The Concorde was daily at JFK and other airports.

Perhaps it had to do with the path it took. I certainly heard it whe I was in the Corporate office in Orlando. (We were looking out for it) But it was a pretty rare event. My landings at JFK all seemed to be over the sea, but perhaps a take-off would disturb the rich on Long Island. The point was, Concorde was blocked for 3 years while UK authorities had to go through the courts and the only route where it could make the big bucks (LHR-JFK, ferrying Sting and other rock stars in a hurry) denied to it. Yet ultimately it was accepted with little concession. A false impression perhaps but from the other side of the pond it looked like sour grapes were involved. It was always 'rumoured' the Americans stole the design technology that got around the sonic boom problem some years previously. Oh the old tomahto, tomato arguments.

Edited July 30, 2017 by jacko

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

Dang, can't find it now. I saw a link about a NASA fixed wing supersonic that may be in the future for air travel.