Concorde or SST?

Question

Can anyone tell me the approximate price for a RT from NYC to Paris CDG? My only regret is that I never got to fly in one. I remember landing at CDG not long after "the" crash and it was a long pattern of charred ground. That must have been horrible. Weren't all of the seats considered First Class? Thanks for any info!

Answer 1

.The Concorde project was one of the biggest debacles of all time. A debacle is an event or enterprise that ends disastrously

.

When the Concorde was flying it was definitely only for the rich and famous. When a round trip transatlantic flight from NY to Paris cost $1000.00 on a regular plane like a 747 that same trip flying on the Concorde cost roughly $7000.00 one way. That's $14,000.00 round trip. The cabin only seated about 100 people and the seats although made of leather were not much different than a coach seat on 747. The meals were five star but at those prices they had better have been. Speed and speed only  was it's advantage because the trip time was half that of a 747.

.

The Concorde should never have been built. England and France discovered that they were both working on similar designs for a supersonic transport and because of the high cost of research and development of the design they decided to join forces and split the cost. A contract was signed. Not widely known at the time there was a clause in that contract that said that if before production began either party decided to cancel the project that party was going to have to pay all costs of the program up to that time. When it became apparent that not a single aircraft would be sold (mostly because of the 73 oil embargo and the jump in the price of fuel) neither party wanted to admit that this aircraft had no future.  Instead they went ahead and poured $12 billion into the building of 16 operational aircraft hoping for future sales that never materialized.

.

Back then the English government owned a controlling interest in British Airways and the republic of France owned Air France. These two airlines were in effect "given" these SSTs to operate and subsidized their operation for years.

Both countries eventually wrote off the entire project as a bad investment. The tax dollars of the people of United Kingdom and France bought these aircraft but very few of them could ever afford to fly on them.

Answer 2

The first reply is correct as far as it goes but I can add this:

The US government actively lobbied on SST restrictions after the Boeing 2707 project was cancelled, and it was a rivalry thing: the US could not produce an SST (for a number of reasons, including cost/economics), so national pride dictated that no-one else was to have easy SST access to the US.  The B-2707 also suffered from the "as big as Texas" American mentality where theirs had to be bigger and faster than the opposition.  

Even without the US political shennanigans, the Concorde was doomed because of it's limited size, poor operating economics and limited range.

The Soviet equivalent, the Tu-144 was a similar disaster, though it first flew shortly before Concorde, and it's last flights were, ironically. with NASA, some time after Concorde was permanently grounded.

Like you, I wish I had the chance and dosh to fly in one just once.  Concorde was possibly the most successful flying disaster: operating well for 25 years (until Paris), technologically advanced for it's time, and a cultural icon, despite it's vast short-comings.