This got me thinking

[Concorde Speedbird]

There were some claims that BA got the last one for a pound, but although they got them farely well off, they paid more than £155 million for the fleet and overall invested more than £1 billion to the fleet, so it was still impressive that they could overcome the running costs to get a profit.

CS

[Turbycat]

The problem I have is how much the cost of Concorde was subsidised by the tax payer. As far as I can see BA never paid a fair price for the planes they got. They were always going to operate them at an advantage.

As far as the technology goes it was pretty much what was being developed at the time. Fly by wire was the new thing but not specifically developed for Concorde. Materials technology had been around for a while just waiting for someone to put it in a non military application. It was a great amalgamation of existing technologies. All in all it was a last hurrah of a failing european avaition industry. The plane itself, as beautiful as she was , was always destined for a closed market.

Andy

[Concorde Speedbird]

It's worth noting the intake system, which was simply incredible and one of the most complex piece of technology. All round she was a high quality and thought about aircraft, the RR58 Aluminium compound used had never been used for an airframe structure before (I think it was used for RR Merlin cylinders before). One good fact is that the engineering effort required to build just the forward fuselage section complete with systems was the equivalent to that required to build a complete BAC One Eleven! Carbon brakes ought to be noted too, first developed for Concorde and now used throughout.

In the 60's the market looked good, but then due to many factors the market closed up which is very sad.

CS

[weasel]

Hello Concordespeedbird.
Turbycat is right the concorde saga was a big con to the tax payers they kept building the craft and would not pull the pin on the build progress due to embarrassment for the country.
Concorde was a fine craft but very uneconomical, Well named concorde the CON

My moan for the day british tax payer Weaz........

[Concorde Speedbird]

I don't think she was a con. Look at that reception in 2003 proves that the British public are incredibly proud of the aircraft, and it did what it was designed to do. Forever people complain about things such as the cancellation of the TSR2 project, but the opposite for other things. And it could have been so much worse, surely we should be proud of such a phenomenal achievement? And it was the start up for Airbus.

CS

[PatMc]

CSB, I'm not being harsh, just realistic.

Concorde's prime purpose, like any commercial enterprise, was to make a profit from it's operations. It didn't. The reason that the declarations of interest from airlines, other than Air France & BA, was because they all recognised that it wasn't viable.

The technology advances it made were critical to it's own unique performance envelope, any that have been taken up since would certainly have been developed without Concorde. That's not to take away anything from the achievements of the design, research, development people & engineers. They did what was asked of them, it's just that they were set the wrong goals.

Fly by wire was around long before Concorde & the Avro Arrow it was an existing technology that the design teams happened to use.
BA bought the fleet of Concordes for £16.5 million + the first year's profit, not £155 million.
If you care to do a bit of research you'll find that BA Concordes averaged something like 50% passenger capacity over it's operational service.
Sorry but a few anecdotes from BA people regarding the 25% profit doesn't make it fact.

 

 

Edited By PatMc on 04/02/2013 23:06:07

[Concorde Speedbird]

BA may have bought each aircraft for 16.5 million, but definately not the whole fleet. Remeber in the 80's BA bought their fleet outright.

BA averaged more than 50% for sure, as soon as the marketing team headed by Brian Walpole got into action they operated the aircraft at a good profit from then on. All books and DVDs clarify this. And Concorde only needed 50-60% to break even such were the ticket prices, and the charters were money makers too. So I've no idea where that statistic has come from.

The reason airlines didn't buy the lane was because of the oil crisis, bad marketing and the TU144 problems.

Remember also, Concorde was such a prestigious aircraft that it boosted sales for BA on the whole, evident by the large amount of advertising using the aircraft. She is a phenominal aircraft that has influenced the whole airliner industry, unmatched and unique, and something for this country and France to be proud of since there is little else out there that we an be. There isn't any point in looking at problems, no aircraft is perfect, and at the end of the day she flew for 27 years faster than a rifle bullet carrying passengers in absolute comfort and making money on the way, hardly a failure.

CS

[PatMc]

CSB, you're right about the whole fleet purchase price it was £155m, nevertheless that was still a give away when compared with the gross cost of the aircraft to that date.

Total seating capacity = 92 - 120 or 128 at high capacity - source Wiki

Total number of customers that flew in Concorde = 2.5m (Presumably BA customers but not specified)
Number of BA flights = just under 50,000 - Source

By my maths that between 54% & 42% average capacity.

 

 

Edited By PatMc on 05/02/2013 00:14:31

[Simon Chaddock]

CS

I admire your enthusiasm but Concorde did not recoup any of the cost of its development. Even this pro Concorde site shows it did not. Its depends on how you judge what is a success or failure.

Concorde indeed influenced the governments and civil airline industries - not to do the same sort of thing again.

I am too old to end up paying much of the £32.7 billion for HS2 to the north but the estimated cost is rising and the financial justification relies heavily on a 'social benefit' calculation and all to lop a chunk off the travel time.

This project has a very familiar ring about it.

[Phil 9]

Anybody that does not think Concorde was the best aircraft ever built needs new glasses

[Craig Carr]

Hello CSB,

I understand the same as you that "at one point" it did make a profit.

But recognition needs to be made of all the costs from initial research, to development, to operation.

Factoring in all the overall historical costs of Concorde it was, sadly, a loss maker.

What you cant take away though is that it was, and remains, a beautiful aircraft.

Craig

[Myron Beaumont]

Simon

You pipped me to the post mentioning HS2 .I for one don't ever want to travel at that speed on two vulnerable strips of metal knowing the cock ups made by recent parts on the systems.Then again,I don't like London & certainly wouldn't want to go to Birmingham 20 minutes faster than now .Anyway'by the time it is ever finished at twice the cost then other countries will have Japanese type Bullet trains that fly a few inches above the ground .We might possibly end up with something slightly better than the TGV that's been running on time for many years now (if we're lucky)

Keep up the good work CS .Glad someone is truly proud to be British even we've lost out in so many fields with our expertise and innovativeness .I feel myself getting all "political" so it's time to stop.

Myron -grumpy 'cos the goats have eaten my side flashers on my campervan and demolished the waste drain pipe underneath