Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

The Concorde shouldn't have been cancelled.

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 9:49:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It was the only supersonic jet to have carried passengers. It also cut the travel time to travel across the atlantic. What do you guys think? I might want to debate this topic.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 9:53:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 9:49:47 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
It was the only supersonic jet to have carried passengers. It also cut the travel time to travel across the atlantic. What do you guys think? I might want to debate this topic.

It was losing money. Why shouldn't British Airways and Air France have cancelled it if British Airways and Air France were taking a loss building and maintaining them?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 10:08:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
They should have considered it a long term investment to advance technology. The government should have subsidized them better. Having SuperSonic passenger aircraft will lead scientists to a better understanding of how they work and to better tackle the challenges that they face. We, as a society would by now have had many different supersonic jets from different companies if the concorde hadn't been cancelled.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 10:21:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 10:08:15 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
They should have considered it a long term investment to advance technology. The government should have subsidized them better. Having SuperSonic passenger aircraft will lead scientists to a better understanding of how they work and to better tackle the challenges that they face. We, as a society would by now have had many different supersonic jets from different companies if the concorde hadn't been cancelled.

And you "strongly believe in a free market economy" huh?

Companies should not be subsidized by taxes for running mismanaged and failed projects. The reason the Concord lost money was because nobody cared to fly on the Concord, it didn't tickle anyone's fancy.

We already have supersonic planes, and the Concord is proof that there is no demand for such planes that carry passengers. The government would have just been throwing money at a plane that would have been collecting cobwebs.

The Concord could successfully carry passengers at supersonic speeds, it's already been accomplished. The reason there are no such planes now is because people don't care to pay the higher ticket price and companies know that they will simply be projects that cause them losses, not because the Concord being cancelled causing some sort of "Dark Age" in supersonic technology.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 10:33:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 10:21:14 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/31/2011 10:08:15 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
They should have considered it a long term investment to advance technology. The government should have subsidized them better. Having SuperSonic passenger aircraft will lead scientists to a better understanding of how they work and to better tackle the challenges that they face. We, as a society would by now have had many different supersonic jets from different companies if the concorde hadn't been cancelled.

And you "strongly believe in a free market economy" huh?

Companies should not be subsidized by taxes for running mismanaged and failed projects. The reason the Concord lost money was because nobody cared to fly on the Concord, it didn't tickle anyone's fancy.

We already have supersonic planes, and the Concord is proof that there is no demand for such planes that carry passengers. The government would have just been throwing money at a plane that would have been collecting cobwebs.

The Concord could successfully carry passengers at supersonic speeds, it's already been accomplished. The reason there are no such planes now is because people don't care to pay the higher ticket price and companies know that they will simply be projects that cause them losses, not because the Concord being cancelled causing some sort of "Dark Age" in supersonic technology.

Yes, I believe in a free market economy, but in this case, it was clear that the airlines needed help. The reason people would fly on the Concorde is not because it "tickles their fancy" but because they need to get someplace quickly. There is a segment of the population (the sort of people that buy supercars) that would not only like to travel but might need to travel on the Concorde for business purposes.

The airlines have taken a big step in introducing SuperSonic Jets and they should have at least created other SuperSonic Jets to take this concept forward. Also, why do you think it was mismanaged?
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 10:42:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 10:33:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Yes, I believe in a free market economy, but in this case, it was clear that the airlines needed help.

At the expense of the taxpayer? It was a losing program, Air France and Brit Airways had enough money to fund the project, and it flopped.

The reason people would fly on the Concorde is not because it "tickles their fancy" but because they need to get someplace quickly.

And getting someplace quicker for a higher ticket price did not tickle the fancy of enough people to justify the cost of building and maintaining Concord airplanes

There is a segment of the population (the sort of people that buy supercars) that would not only like to travel but might need to travel on the Concorde for business purposes.

There aren't enough of such people to justify the cost to the airline business, hence the airline business does not produce such planes. I guarantee you that if there was a good reason to believe that supersonic passenger jets would make a profit then private airlines would invest in them.

The airlines have taken a big step in introducing SuperSonic Jets and they should have at least created other SuperSonic Jets to take this concept forward. Also, why do you think it was mismanaged?

I said that companies should not be subsidized for mismanaged and losing projects. The only people that should be responsible for Delta or Southwest are Delta and Southwest, not the U.S. govt.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 12:53:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Cost was a major problem, however there was another problem, with the sonic boom. Because of the sonic boom, the planes were not allowed to fly supersonic over populated areas. That rules out many important routes like New York to Los Angeles. It meant that flights from London to oil rich countries in the Middle East had to be awkwardly routed to stay over water, losing some of the time savings. Boeing had a design to compete with the Concorde, but decided the economics were unfavorable.

One solution to the sonic boom problem is to go to hypersonic speeds. The shock wave from a hypersonic aircraft is so nearly parallel to the ground that it dissipates before reaching the surface. Still a cost problem with that.