She didn't always make piles of money - at the end, the question was more one of how many tens of millions of pounds a year of losses was the BA board prepared to tolerate for keeping the "halo effect" of operating Concorde. And you can't assume that all of the Concorde market would pay any price that BA asked for a Concorde ticket.

So your assumptions that BA could always have charged enough to cover the costs even at today's fuel prices, and that enough people would still buy enough tickets, just wouldn't have been borne out in reality.

As I said before, all of this starts from the hypothetical that Airbus and AF would have been prepared to keep Concorde flying. Even if that had been the case, the economics would not work out. Of course, the other things then intervened to kill the Concorde operation at the time that it actually ceased.

I think a new aircraft capable of supersonic speeds is more likely.

Surely with the advances in technology they can do this cheaper than Concorde -isn't that a 70s aircraft?

Yes, I think I heard that it only became profitable once people realised it was going to be grounded and seat occupancy rates rocketed- and even then never sufficient to recoup the initial public investment.

BA says concorde profitable before retirement

It's a 60s aircraft. Whilst we could undoubtedly build a plane which is cheaper to run, it would still be stifled by the sonic boom.

Unless a way is found to mitigate the effects of the sonic boom, the aircraft will be largely limited in where it can deploy its USP. That, of course, makes it less attractive to airlines, which would make it less profitable as a project, which makes it less likely to be taken on by any large airframer.

Until defence/government research solves a lot of the problems, I don't think any commercial entity will seriously touch it.

If you're referring to concrete in tanks, severed wires or drained hydraulic systems, they're all myths.

The Concorde was nothing like a Mini. More like a W126 560SEL Merc ;)

Cost in £/€/$ couldn't be measured
Act of god would be what you need.




cs

Do people really want speed?
The current aircraft manufactures are expecting the market to want frequency over speed in the future...

Seed is only needed if you want to get between Birmingham and London...by land.

There is afterall a minimum amount of time one needs to rest before their next meeting!

Plus the better in-flight communications get the less need there will be to arrive quickly because people will be more productive en-route.

Unquestionably one of the greatest passenger planes ever built and regrettably killed off by a combination of economics and politics. As much as I'm sure we'd all love to see the magnificent Concorde gracing our skies surely a more cost effective modern solution is out there. Boeing care to have a go, if you do and Airbus doesn't at least your version won't be objected to over flying the US with its sonic boom in tow unlike our Concorde :D

This comes up regularly, google will help you see it's sadly impossible.

Airbus will never allow it and even if they did the cost would amount to building a whole new bird from scratch. They are now, like the space shuttle, just for show.

Concorde was making a LOT of money for BA before the AF crash.

After the crash 2 things really killed profitability, the lack of a second daily flight (which meant that it was impossible to go out and back the same day for a short meeting) and the end of the charter trade.

I think the failure to put on the 2nd daily flight was a mistake but the fuel price is the clincher.

The overall cost will be cheaper if Concorde can be overhaul up to modern aviation standard, like avionics, seats, etc.

FWIW - even B-52 has been overhauled so many times and the U.S. is still using it.

I think the problem is the engine. It is simply not efficient. And there are no alternative except military engines.

There was a third reason and a huge one. It was 9/11 which was just over a year after the AF crash.

Those Olympus 593 engines are incredibly efficient at supersonic speeds.

At the time Concorde ceased operation, I am sure that was efficient.

But now? I don't think so.