Why were the super-sonic aircrafts withdrawn from commercial flights?

Question

I have heard that in the seventies supersonic aircrafts were inducted by certain countries which flied around the globe in a few hours. But they were later withdrawn and grounded but I do not know why. Has anybody any idea?

Answer 1

They grounded them after last flight from Paris to JFK crashed and  it was very costly to maintain them and they were already in service over 25 yrs.

Answer 2

I HAVE ONE MORE POINT OTHER THAN ABOVE ANS.SUPERSONIC PLANES ARE TOO NOISY.WHEN IT FLIES THE SKY CRAPERS WILL BE IN RESONANCE AND CAUSES CRACKS IN THEM.IT MAY LEAD TO ITS COLLAPSE.

Answer 3

The supersonic Concord was a joint venture between England and France. At that time it was the only supersonic commercial aircraft in the world.

It was, technically, the most advanced, fastest and safest commercial airliner ever built. Throughout its brilliant  history, it did not suffer any major accidents or crashes. The only time it crashed in Paris, it stopped flying for good.

These lovely aircraft were withdrawn from commercial flying due to financial reasons. They cost more to run as compared  to their income. Concorde was a prestige issue with nobody interested in  furthering the cause of the aircraft. It suffered a sad fate because neither UK nor France were interested in modernising the concept and creating a more economical prototype.

Answer 4

--Not cost-effective.

Answer 5

I believe you refer to Concorde, a joint British French project.  Both Air France and British Airways flew Concorde.  Due to environmental restrictions, they ended up only flying Paris/NY; London/NY.  Each aircraft only seated about 140 passengers or so; they would need to be filled to capacity on every flight to make any money.  Also, the accommodations were not worth the expense; I walked through one at an airshow-they were constricted and the seats weren't really better than what one could find in any business class.

A crash at Paris in 2003 essentially ended up grounding the entire fleet.  However, long before this it was realized by both airlines that these aircraft were not money makers.

Concorde was originally conceived in the mid 1960s.  At that time, air travel was either for business or for the elite.  You might have heard the term "jet set".  These were young rich folks who flew from hot spot to hot spot around the world.  The designers of Concorde thought this was the future of air travel: folks who would fly supersonic whether for status or need.  Folks who would pay whatever it would cost for the privilege.  Concorde was never cheap: it cost a full-fare first class ticket PLUS a "Concorde surcharge" which amounted to ANOTHER first class ticket.  To keep it flying, both airlines got significant subsidies from their governments.  Essentially the French and British taxpayer was paying for a privileged few to fly London/Paris-NY in 3 hours.

By the time the production aircraft started flying, the financial basis of commercial air travel had changed.  Now it was the business traveller and the "regular person" who made up the vast bulk of ticket sales.  While business travellers had no problem paying for first or business class-no way would they double their fares to arrive a few hours early.

The coach fare passengers would never go for it-happy to spend 8-10 hours airborne for a roundtrip about $700 or so.

By the crash, Concorde was flying routinely with only 1/4 or less of its designed passenger load-losing even more money.  It is my view, and this is somewhat confirmed by the actions of both Air France and British Airways, that the crash was an excuse to write off this white elephant.

Answer 6

They got too old and they were too costly to replace. Airlines can make more money with slower jets that carry more passengers. Simple economics.

Answer 7

The fares to take a Concorde were much higher than regular jets; thus, not as many people could afford to book their flights on these aircraft.  It became a matter of supply and demand; not enough of the latter.

Answer 8

The key word is "commercial".  The SSTs were losing a lot of money with every flight.

Answer 9

They were too dangerous for passengers because of the high Mach levels and they were lousy on fuel.

Answer 10

supersonic aircraFT CAN GO FASTER than the speed of sound but when the plane came in to land the noise level was so high that windows cracked and causing huge losses.

Answer 11

The Concord (supersonic from NYC to London) was not very profitable (or NOT profitable at all).  The one of the plane crashed and the were all grounded till investigation was over.

That was enough to withdraw them from service completely.  You can read more about it here:

http://shurl.org/iFbqn

Good Luck...

Answer 12

In addition to a lot of fuel supersonic planes such as the concorde made too much of noise.Besides such air travel was expensive.When supersonic planes fly the speed past through their own sound thus creating a sonic boom which damage hearing.A concord crashed on to a hotel when it caught fire.It resulted in many casualities thus causng it t be banned from commercial service.

Answer 13

Just plain Too Costly.  To build, To maintain, To refuel, etc...

Answer 14

They were never economical.

Answer 15

those types of engines ie on the concorde required 6-8 hours of maintenence per engine perflight. and the fact that they never made a second generation hurt them, as technology advanced and they didnt.

However, There are business jets that are boarderline Mach 1. ie: the new Cessna Citation, and the Gulfstream 650. beautiful planes.

Answer 16

They used more fuel than subsonic aircraft.

This is because of "wave drag" a type of drag that exists above mach 1, which wastes energy that the engines have to make up for.

Therefore, they cost a lot more money for both the airline and the passengers.

There was also a crash of a supersonic aircraft, but it was caused by a piece of metal cutting into a tire, which exploded and damaged the wing during takeoff. This contributed to the withdrawal as well.