Originally Posted by Globaliser
PAR-NYC was more expensive to operate than LON-NYC, if for no other reason than that it's a longer route -
That, and because AF's fleet received such little overall usage vis-a-vis BA's
Originally Posted by Globaliser
hence Concorde was much more often load limited on PAR-NYC to the extent that some (8?) seats were ultimately removed from the AF aircraft.
Concorde usually didnt have much problem negotiating CDG-JFK/IAD... until post-accident. The added weight of the Kevlar/Viton/Re-inforcements were the catalyst for the seat reduction.
BA installed seats with a net weight loss of over 400lbs. That, combined with the 200mi shorter distance allowed them to maintain a 100seat configuration
Originally Posted by Globaliser
And in addition, the ultra-premium market was always much smaller in Paris than in London.
C'est vrai
Originally Posted by Globaliser
as the residual maintenance costs were then high enough to make it uneconomic for BA to continue on their own.
Combine that, with the failed "
Concorde Alliance" attempt.... and you have the bane of the great white dream