Concorde in trouble again!

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

my point exactly

rabie :9

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-07-02 AT 07:19 AM (GMT)]Rabie

You’d have to remember that the cost for a Concorde flight to Sydney would probably be three or four times that of the London-New York flight, if not more. Then you have to fill the aircraft to ensure the viabilility of the service. I don’t think there would be too many people prepared or able to stump up that sort of money, which means the flights would probably not be economic.

I think, if it was ever going to happen, it would have happened by now. Remember there is also still the noise issue at Aus airports.

Wombat

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

it all boils down to price vs time

on london to new york there are sufficent people willing to pay to spend 3.5 hours on a plane as opposed to 6+.

now london to sydney if you could do it quick enough, would produce savings but would there be the people willing to pay the extra to get there wuicker – ie is there the same kind of business flights to oz?

rabie :9

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-07-02 AT 07:39 AM (GMT)]Kabir

From what I can remember of the Concorde’s operating costs, they are so high because of the comparatively small passenger load and the very high fuel consumption of the Bristol Olympus engines. The price of a ticket from the UK to the USA is much higher than a corresponding 747 flight, with the only real benefit being a much faster journey. To fly from the UK to Aus by Concorde would be prohibitively expensive.

Like I said, I don’t know how much fuel adds to the cost of a ticket, but it must be pretty substantial. Economy air fares from Sydney to the UK range from about $1,500 to $2,200 return, depending on the season. That’s about $800 – $1,200 US, or 600 to 880 pounds stg. If the fuel cost could be reduced to one fifth or one sixth its current rate, and fuel were to account for say 35% of the air fare, the reduction would be in the vicinity of 84% per trip per fare. I imagine that such huge reductions would never pass on fully to the consumer, but even if they passed on 50% of the savings, air travel would be much cheaper.

It is an interesting thread. I have thought about it for a long time, but have been hesitant to put it forward because it sounds a lot like kid’s stuff, but I know it will happen one day.

Regards

Wombat

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

it was indded the A342, wiyhout pax and seats although without any extra fuel in this available space, and the Concordes max. range is 6580 km. I agree about the cost of fuel part Wombat, and you have a interesting draw in your mind mate. Contenental posted a $35m second quarter loss and 40% of that due to higher fuel prices after Sept. 11 and not enough passengers. Here in India the fuel price is three times that is in USA, thats why you dont hear “low-cost airline” here in India.

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

I read about the sonic cruiser a few months ago and it made me think of “my” project. Similar concept, but not as fast. I think the cruiser was about the same size in terms of passenger load, but was not much faster than conventional aircraft. I think Boeing had the idea that supersonic travel wasn’t worth the trouble or cost.

I think the cruiser is the way thing will go until aircraft like I described yesterday become a reality. The 747 has to be nearing the end of its production life – it first entered service around 1968 or ’70, didn’t it?

Regarding the range of the Concorde, I’m not sure what it is, but from what little I do know, it was insufficient to cope with trips like Sydney to London without a number of stops. Landings/take offs are one part of international flight which passengers seldom enjoy and to offer a flight at supersonic speed is less appealing if you know you are going to face at least three landings. Another point is that the Concorde is getting old too, it first flew around 1968 as well, didn’t it? As I pointed out in my first post, the noise level exceeds that allowed at Sydney, and probably other Aussie airports as well, so it’s pretty well a dead duck as far as flights to this country are concerned.

Another advantage to my project which I forgot to add to my original post would have been the dramatic reduction in operating costs arising from the need to refuel only occurring every six to eight flights, so the cost of international travel could also be dramatically reduced.

Imagine being the first international airline to operate aircraft like I described. I have evolved the idea further, with an obvious “pro-Australian” flavour, whereby Qantas was the first and only operator for about the first 12 months, giving it an enormous advantage over its competitors. Sydney to London – 7-8 hours, non stop. Travel above all normal weather patterns, so no thermals, storms or air turbulence to worry about (they scared the s..t out of me when I flew to London a couple of years ago), and tickets costing up to 50% less than other airlines. I don’t know how much the cost of fuel accounts for as a percentage of a single airline ticket, but I’ll bet it is substantial.

I feel sure that development of the sythetic isotopes is the key to the aircraft of the future. I have thought out the manner in which the isotopes would be brought into operation and the basic principle of the engine itself. Believe me, it’s not rocket science – it’s just the fuel itself that presents the problem. The rest of the engine would follow pretty closely on existing jet engine principles. I am absolutely certain that the day of the oil-based fuel for aviation is close to dead, as the cost and availability of oil becomes increasingly expensive and restricted. Too much of the world’s oil reserves are in the hands of unstable or unreliable nations, or those who will look after themselves first at the expense of those nations less fortunate. Nuclear power, at this stage, cannot be safely or practically applied to aviation and I doubt that it ever will. Whatever fuel eventually is used, it has not been developed yet.

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

Bhoy, you’re right about there being no pax, however I believe it was an A340-200, not a -600. As far as AKL-LHR goes Wombat, AirNewZealand uses LAX as a stop on their service, not BKK or SIN like everybody else does, because not only do they have a mini-hub there, but it’s much shorter. Flying eastbound, AKL-LAX is roughly 11 hours, LAX-LHR 9.5-10 hours. add about 1 hour to each of those segments on the westbound sectors. Still a long journey nonetheless, flying from anywhere in the South Pacific to Europe. I’ve heard stories about how it ‘used’ to be in the 60’s flying on 707’s. We’re talking about 3-6 stops, depending on the airline.

GD1

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

Nice idea Wombat.

Trouble is, not only am I not an engineer…I’m not a scientist either, or a pilot! Sounds OK from my limited point of view though (I studied Chemistry and Physics to A Level, which is 2 years full time from 16 to 18). Way over my head!

Concorde used to fly London to Singapore in the old days. Not sure who many refuelling stops were needed (I think just one, in Bahrain) but SYD or MRL is only one extra hop surely?

What opinion do you have of the Sonic Cruiser project?

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

don’t think there were pax, think it was just to prove the 340-600’s range.

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

Any idea of the flying time? I hadn’t heard of that but it is some achievement. But I’ll bet the pax were bored to blazes – it’s still 20,000+ km.

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

nice post Wombat….. Airbus did Paris-Auckland with a A340 varient i think. It was non-stop.

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

I think the Concorde’s limitations prevented the concept from more general acceptance. Supersonic transport must have a future, because although we talk about the world being a smaller place, it still takes 23 hours travel from Sydney to London via 747, with one intermediate refuelling stop. I imagine that Wellington/Auckland to London would be a couple of hours more – in fact, from New Zealand, you are pretty much exactly half way round the world from the UK and could fly via Honolulu/San Fran/New York I guess. These are big distances for us in the Antipodes, about six times the distance across the Atlantic.

Obviously, the Concorde can’t do that sort of distance on one refuelling stop, and its noise levels are too much to enable it to land at Kingsford Smith – don’t know about other Aussie airports. However, I believe that future development must centre around aircraft capable of carrying about 300-350 pax, Sydney to London, in around 8 hours, with NO refuelling stop. I expect that will happen within 20 years. Cruising speed around 2,500 – 3000 km/h, cruising altitude around 50-65,000 ft, to put it well above normal weather patterns. I will be over 70 years of age by then, but I reckon I will see it in my lifetime.

Power will be provided by two opposing synthetic isotopes producing extreme temperatures through thermal reaction, not fusion. The heat produced will exceed that produced by conventional jets, with atmospheric air drawn, compressed and superheated in the same manner as jet engines. These synthetic fuels will provide the aircraft with exceptional range, in much the same manner as nuclear powered ships. There will be no radioactive reaction, therefore no danger of radiation to humans or the environment. The fuel rods or blocks will cost about the same as one refuel of aviation kerosene, but will last for many flights before needing replacing.

Without the weight of massive fuel tanks, fuel pumps, electronics and computers necessary to monitor fuel systems, there would be no need for balancing of centre of gravity necessary with conventional aircraft as fuel is consumed during flight. The aircraft would be much smaller than a 747, much lighter, require less airfield to take off and land, and would present no danger of fire in flight or during emergency landings. The fuel isotopes would not be flammable, and would be non-radioactive, so again, no radiation dangers.

I know this sounds like science fiction, but I have thought of this engine for many years, and have refined the concept over those years. My problem is I am no engineer and there are bound to be problems which I can’t even imagine (like developing the isotopes).

But I can dream and one day, an aircraft somewhere in this world will be the first to fly with power cells like I have dreamed of.

I just wish it could be an Australian aircraft, designed and built here. I’m sick of us buying every body else’s inventions.

The (dreaming) Wombat

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

Yeah. that’s it.

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

LHR-JFK is actually only 3452 miles one way. Shorter than some people may think. Bhoy, you might have been thinking along the lines of LHR-LAX which is 5456 one way.

GD1

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

without having the exact figures at hand, I think it’s around 5300 in Economy, 10600 in Business and 15900 in First/Concorde.

Basically, you get the actual miles travelled in Economy (most airlines have a minimum of 500 miles for domestic flights, and 1000 for International flights so even eg a flight from LHR to MAN would get 500, while an LHR to CDG flight would get 1000), twice the actual miles flown in Business, and three times the miles flown in First. (I think premium Economy is 1 and a half times the actual miles flown).

However, each Frequent Flyer group has their own rules, so you’d really need to look at a specific airline (I think bmi award 10 points for a domestic flight, 20 for a European, and 50 for a Transatlantic, and it costs 200 for a free domestic flight, or something like that, witzhout an actual mileage count)

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

How many Air miles/points would you get for a standard LHR-JFK flight?
I don’t know anything about them.

Regards

Ben

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

160,000 eh? Not bad. Had United been affiliated with either BA or AF, I could have pulled that off, as I had over 170,000 and 190,000 miles at 2 different times in the last year. As far as BA making a profit from them, it’s understandable. However, The manufacturers lost their asses consiering, they only made like 16 including the prototypes. There was an article in Airways about 6 or 7 years ago listing the 10 biggest busts of aviation history, and the Concorde was in there for the very reason I stated above, along with the Comet and a few others that I don’t remember.

GD1

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

Well, Concorde makes a regular profit for BA. That’s what they always claim, annyway. The price of a ticket, its no wonder.

Besides, it has value as a loss leader. Going off on a tangent, Mercedes don’t maka a fortune on the top of the range cars. Same for BMW. Their mere presence adds cachet and prestige to the rest of the lineup.

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

I see your point and totally agree. Theres been no competitors to Concorde because its so uneconomicable. There must be somthing special (and cheap) about the up and coming cruisers that has made them get on with it. Times change and as well as a/c changing, so does technology and the birth of new and better a/c etc…

Planned new cruisers that will scrape space and depart London and Arrive Singapore within 40 minutes?!!!

Regards

Ben

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

you could always try redeeming your skyteam miles… Air France only want 160’000 miles for a return ticket from Europe/North Africa to JFK on Concorde.

I’m only about 150’000 miles away from a ticket…