Concorde ????

Question

do you think that concorde should be brought back or just to be left in the museum

or do you think boeing or airbus should create a one

Answer 1

i think the old Concorde should be placed at heathrow not stuck in doors or even out side the museum      

i think airbus and Boeing should get together and make a Concorde 2     even though these are rival company's

Answer 2

Concorde was designed for a time in air travel that is long gone; never to return.  In early 60's, when the idea was first discussed, only the "elite" i.e., "jetsetters" really flew routinely from Europe to USA and vice versa.  This particular class of passenger had the disposable income to pay heavily for the privilege, yes and status, of flying 2.0Mach to get to their destinations quickly.

By the time it actually started flying in the mid-70's, the market had radically changed.  The business flyer was the primary user, and while companies were willing to cough up money for First/"Business" class, no way would they pay the equivalent of two full-fare first class tickets to get their reps to work a few hours early.  Certainly the average vacationer was happy to sit in coach, and endure a 8-10 flight.

With this economic reality, it was clear Concorde would never be a money-maker; it was heavily subsidized by the UK and France throughout its career.

In the 21st Century with airlines struggling as they are, the development and operating costs, would be prohibitive for anything other than a technology demonstrator.

Answer 3

They should make it into a stealth version, and make it into a database for the airforce flying over enemies...

Answer 4

Concord never should have been put into service. A financial disaster from the beginning.

Answer 5

The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde supersonic transport (SST) was the more successful of the only two supersonic passenger airliners to have ever operated commercially, the Tupolev Tu-144 being the other.

The development programme was a product of an Anglo-French government treaty, with 20 aircraft built. The costly development phase thus represented a substantial economic loss. Air France and British Airways were subsidised by their governments to buy the aircraft.

First flown in 1969, piloted by Andre Turcat,[2] Concorde service commenced in 1976 and continued for 27 years. It flew regular transatlantic flights from London Heathrow (British Airways) and Paris Charles de Gaulle (Air France) to New York JFK and Washington Dulles, flying these routes at record speeds, in under half the time of other airliners. Concorde also set many other records, including the official FAI "Westbound Around The World" and "Eastbound Around the World" world air speed records.

As a result of the type's only crash on 25 July 2000, world economic effects arising from the 9/11 attacks, and other factors, operations ceased on 24 October 2003. The last "retirement" flight occurred on 26 November that year.[3]

Concorde remains an icon of aviation history, and has acquired an unusual nomenclature for an aircraft. In common usage in the United Kingdom, the type is known as "Concorde" rather than "the Concorde" or "a Concorde".[

Answer 6

Concorde was a tour de force, and was never a practical proposition.  The old ones that are on display have had critical structural members cut and critical parts removed, so that there can be no question of flying one again.

And no manufacturer is ever going to spend any serious money on the idea again.  It didn't work, and could not be made practical.

Sorry about that.

Answer 7

I don't know if it should maybe if its needed again? But Boeing around the 1960s thought up of making the Boeing 2707 which is like a concorde but better and would be the FASTEST commercial jet in the planet taking about 1 hour 30 mins or so to fly from LA to Tokyo.

But they cancelled to project since it cost WAY to much to fund developments! So I personally don't think its needed, speed isn't the best while you fly in luxury like say the A380?