<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LondonElite:
BA finally bought themsleves out of the agreement in around 1990. While the price may not have refelcted development costs, it was the best that could be achived.
BTW, Boeing/Lockheed/Douglas etc were all heavily subsidised by US government defence contracting business, so don't give me this British taxpayer malarky. It's just as true of everything Boeing has ever built.
[This message has been edited by LondonElite (edited 10-26-2003).]</font>
1) You summed up, my point precisely. "THE PRICE DID NOT REFLECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS." It was a give away!-- a freebie.
2)As far as the malarky--Is it Boeing or Lockheed's fault that Airbus wasn't/didn't/couldn't get military funding from the Government X? (I don't profess to know the military funding arrangements of Airbus, but, I am extracting from your response that they aren't getting any funding like Boeing/Lockheed)
The fun****ental difference is this: Boeing 747 are routinely sold to other airlines without fear of propriety...BUT the Concorde is NOT. (Let's rememberf that the technology IS 30 years old)
..maybe THAT's what caused the REAL demise of the Concorde..the fact that it was the SONY BETA of the Aviation world--a far superior product that was kept from ever achieving mass market success by it's overzealous controllers. Summed up as "IF I CAN'T HAVE IT, NO ONE SHALL"